Rawls versus Liberalism: Does Rawls Contribute or Subtract from Liberal Philosophy?

The philosophy of liberalism is one with a rich and profound history even before it was first authored by early enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke with manuscripts like the Magna Carta and even the Cyrus Cylinder. Yet, only recently has this philosophy been radically enhanced with the introduction of the revolutionary ideas of John Rawls. Instead of a starting from a state of nature where individuals create states in order to protect their life, liberty and property, Rawls asks what the best society would be, for reasonable people, if they did not know who they were going to become before coming into existence; this conception is otherwise known as the veil of ignorance [hereby known as veil] (31). From this, Rawls constructs what he terms as the society of peoples (3) which is composed of accountable, human rights oriented, democratic states which maintain freedom and equality (24). However, unlike the older, more conventional definition of a state (i.e. Webers’ violent monopoly within a given domain), this new type of state does not have the traditional powers of sovereignty which states are usually assumed to have (25). These new states have been termed peoples as they have moral natures, are united by the common sympathies of their individuals, serve the fundamental needs of their citizens [through an accountable democratic arrangement], and adhere to the law of peoples as outlined by reasonable people behind the veil (23). Yet, Rawls’ theory which uses peoples, rather than individuals or citizens, as the moral actors within society (17) has led some to question Rawls’ liberalism (i.e. why not the laws of individuals?). This essay will analyze these claims and compare Rawls’ ideas with the ideas of liberalism to conclude whether or not the law of peoples and liberal philosophy are indeed compatible. After an assessment of Rawls’ criticisms, a thorough examination of the evolution of liberalism and an analysis on the intentions and implications of Rawls’ theory, this essay will attempt to prove that Rawls’ theory is indeed mutually inclusive and compatible with liberal philosophy as a whole.

Rawls’ utopia does, indeed, limit individualism by justifying the use of force in some cases (26). Although Rawls acknowledges and respects them (36), he explicitly denies the individuality and ultimately marginalizes individuals behind the veil who have different capabilities and styles of reasoning (i.e. those who do not come to Rawls’ conclusion) by labeling them as non-rational, merely ‘decent’ or something analogous. Moreover, a right to independence or self determination, a crucial aspect of individualism and autonomy, is limited to whether the action is deemed to be socially just by those behind the veil (38). However, not only is this type of social justice left undefined, but the only example we are given does not have a historically accurate representation of why their potential succession was unjust (i.e. Rawls’ reasoning for the illegitimacy of the south’s right to succeed was a result of the injustices of slavery but many historians suppose that there were other, more important reasons for the increased interest in succession). In reality, if a group sees itself to be marginalized and is interested in succession, it will definitely have no incentive to ask the polis, or consult those behind the veil, whether their actions would be consistent with social justice; rather, they would find their own justifications and act as they deem fit. Most strikingly, although their nature does not change, the motives of individuals certainly changes once they escape the veil. Thus, it becomes increasingly difficult to answer why individuals would act in accordance with Rawls’ theory especially with the problems stated above [heterogeneous rationalities] or if they gain the power of elected officials. Presumably they are indecent, irrational or unjust but if so, they would not care as that is how their nature (maximize resources, minimize risks), the same nature which compelled them to the social compact behind the veil (7), compels them to operate outside the veil; one cannot homogenize individuals within and outside the veil. Also, even though peoples do not hold the same powers of sovereignty of states, peoples still have the right to limit an individual’s right to mobility/immigration within their territory (39). Furthermore, Rawls’ conceptions view the natural abilities of individuals to be a collective asset [rather than owned by the individual] for which society has the right and duty to utilize but this obviously infringes on the individual liberties of some for various subjective principles of collective justice or social equality. Yet still, we must recognize that the philosophy of liberalism holds equality to be just as important as individualism and accusing Rawls’ theory to be illiberal by only focusing on one aspect would be an incomplete assertion.

Over the last century in the United States, historical events shaped liberalism to include positive rights (i.e. equalities - e.g. job, education, welfare, etc.) to the older, constitutional negative rights (i.e. freedoms - e.g. life, property, speech, etc.). This came with the constitutional reforms of Woodrow Wilson, the economic reforms of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the 60’s reform protests (e.g. sexual/drug revolution, war remonstrations etc.). Wilson’s constitutional reforms were part of a progressive movement away from the 18th century document and onto a living constitution as the fixed nature of the old constitution meant that self-interest was encouraged and rights were also fixed. Roosevelt’s new deal argued that having freedom of speech meant nothing to a starving man. And finally, the 60’s movements were a result of the new freedoms that could be enjoyed as a result of the necessities provided by the state; it was a move away from the traditional responsibilities (i.e. self-reliance) that were needed in order to enjoy freedom in the previous era. Initially, these new rights were meant for individuals but it had become increasingly important to protect people’s identities as it was defined by an individual’s group (e.g. gay and women rights, racial equality, workers etc.) rather than individuals themselves. Thus, liberalism had grown from an individualist philosophy of negative rights and freedoms to a more collectivist ideology and a new type of duty-filled freedom; meaning that, although the freedom to pursue passions had grown as the state could provide for necessities, paying for these new freedoms resulted in a duty with a higher tax burden. These new collective rights were a subset of the older, individual rights and consequently, a new type of liberalism had emerged from the old Lockean conception of liberalism. Rawls’ theory not only fits, but may even legitimize these reforms. Therefore, although it can be understood that the above criticisms against Rawls are those that encompass the older conceptions of liberalism and not liberalism as it stands today, it can also be argued that Rawls’ theory of peoples, which includes the principles of justice – liberty (i.e. an equal right to pursue happiness compatible with the liberty of others) and the difference principles (i.e. social/economic disparities only to the extent that it helps the worst-off in society) (14), beautifully amalgamates the two pillars of liberalism, freedom and equality, formed within a democratic society. As a result, using the notion of peoples rather than individuals/citizens does not jeopardize Rawls’ liberalism; rather, it advances it since there is an inherent progressivism within liberal philosophy itself.

Nevertheless, Rawls still needs to further his commitment to individualism to truly encompass liberal philosophy. In order for individuals to preserve their liberties and be functional members of a liberal society (i.e. ability to participate and run for office), they need to have equal access, meaning that “fair background social conditions” are necessary; this can be maintained through education and “eliminating unjust discrimination” (115). In much the same manner, liberal peoples also have a duty to help, through institutional establishment, what Rawls terms, burdened societies, which do not have the institutional/political capabilities/framework to help themselves (106) as they are fundamentally interested in a liberal conception of justice (33). Yet, in both cases, as long as the disparity is to the advantage of the least favored, there is no duty to lower income gaps (114). Also, the difference principle is excluded from the church and family (158). Thus, just as liberalism is supposedly a politics of liberation, the goal here is to create a society which maintains equal liberties for all.

Conclusively, it is understandable how Rawls would like his readers to be focused on the just distribution, not the denial, of liberties. Moreover, Rawls’ theory conceptualizes the evolution of liberalism in the United States and skillfully tries to find and maintain the equilibrium between the two supposedly divergent notions. Consequently, he not only skillfully amalgamates freedom and equality, but also individualism and collectivism; justifying all the anti-individualist policies above and achieving what is arguably the core motive for liberal philosophy. Ultimately, this amalgamation is a significant complement to liberalism as it in enhances its progressivism and fruition.

All Works Cited From: John, Rawls, The Law of Peoples. New York: Harvard University Press, 2001. Print.

The ideal forms of a man and a woman

Plato describes the forms as the ideas we obtain from our particular real world experiences. There are ideal forms of men, and, on the other side, ideal forms of women, created through our perspectives and inculcated by the media. Yet, the world is filled with the particular versions of these forms, and they vary in degree, in their form of a man and woman.

Ireland votes ´yes´ on the Lisbon Treaty, so will the EU will become a state?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/04/tony-blair-eu-presidency-race

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=318196&version=1&template_id=38&parent_id=20

NOTES

Effectively, the EU will soon have the same definition of a state, but it´s not a state. The EU is getting a central bank, uniform laws and an army... but its not a state.

Maybe its a new type of state, one where you no longer need a distinctive culture or language... no, wait, never mind.

Why don´t the ´Yes´ countries get a second vote?
Best 2 out of 3 for Ireland?

The bailout brought on a jobless recovery!

¨Oct. 1: Stocks Have Worst Day in Three Months¨ - AP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfwwoQr3RW0


¨It's Jobless because it isn't a recovery!¨ - Peter Schiff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg-S0m6_C54

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8nrZthYbNM

Peter gets laughed at, then wins the debate.
I just don´t know if politics is the right path for him.

Justice in Anarchy

The perceived subjectivity of ethics and justice within society complicates contemplations of how justice can be maintained especially in an anarchic world where no single agent has this knowledge. Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher who had grown up in a time of civil war and strife, reasoned that, through the rational consent of self-interested individuals, the burden of bringing order, justice and an objective ethic could be set on the shoulders of a hegemonic violent territorial monopoly (i.e. state). Yet, because state power is limited to its domain, effectively dividing citizens from human beings (Makinda 21), the international order is one where justice is solely defined by states; meaning that the problem of subjectivity can only be solved within a certain sphere and beyond that, supposedly, nothing can be unjust (Hobbes 188). In this essay, we will be examining Hobbes’ state of nature in relation to reality and investigating its implications on the current world order. Subsequently, we will conclude that Hobbes’ state of nature is ultimately a poor design of anarchic behavior as it does not take into account the power of institutional (e.g. NGOs) and individual justice establishment; while, at the same time, trusting other individuals, those who have the power of the state, to do the same. Overall, we will be concluding that, contrary to Hobbes’ analysis, a hegemonic power is not the sole foundation for justice.

It would be wise to consider the inconsistencies of Hobbes’ design before exploring its implications on the current international order. Most obviously, although group self-determination supposedly provides the foundation for the creation and sovereignty of a state (Makinda 30), consent does not exist within this paradigm. Since undermining consensual relations, something which is typically viewed as just – maybe even by Hobbes (Beitz 30), the state violently legitimates itself as the ultimate decider of justice while all external justice is supposedly obsolete; as a result, states have the power to label unjust/amoral, self-interested actions as just, while voices of dissent are either subject to their bureaucracy or silenced. Furthermore, since states are composed of individuals, any claim regarding human behavior is necessarily a claim regarding state behavior. Thus, Hobbes’ negative paradigm of human behavior, which inevitably leads them to war (Beitz 29) (Hobbes 185), should also be applied to state behavior. Consequently, this discredits hopes of justice establishment through diplomacy, diversities in decision making (Makinda 27), state accountability (Makinda 29) or reform since its unjust methodology naturally attracts the most unjust individuals. Also, it is difficult to comprehend why states would not rationally give up their sovereignty onto a higher hegemonic power especially when individuals are expected to do the same. The argument is that states do not need to give up their sovereignty once they create conditions for society to flourish (i.e. industry) (Hobbes 186, 188). However, not only is the extent of ‘necessary power’ for a functioning state completely arbitrary, but also, following Hobbes’ hypothesis, individuals and states always seek to maximize [except one uses a monopoly on violence] thus sovereignty is not given up as a result of self-interest. Through this, we realize that the interacting agents within anarchy are not self-interested autonomous individuals, but rather, self-interested sovereign states with totalizing ambitions for justice (Makinda 30) not through peaceful negotiation but through power calculated diplomacy and violence; contradicting Hobbes’ very rationale for state creation and discrediting attempts to escape from anarchy using states (Beitz 31). Moreover, Hobbes’ anarchy excludes a recurring tit-for-tat situation amongst individuals which undervalues institutional cooperation overtime. As a result, this system tends to further the cause of war and injustice rather than of justice and morality.

Outlining the differences between individual and state methodology, sovereignty, justice and interest can help distinguish between societal/individual and political/international moral skepticism (Beitz 15). The state fallacy is the counter-intuitive reality that law does not breed cooperation, but rather, cooperation breeds’ law. Justice is an emergent phenomenon encompassing the customs, norms and ethics of localities, not a top-down strategy decided by the power wielders. States that recognize this emergent design are more likely to be diplomatic and inclusionary while those that do not are more prone to use violence and be exclusionary. States can, however, use justice as social constructs (Makinda 31) to argue for cultural relativism (Beitz 17), annex existing norms as their own to further their interests and, if there are external criticisms, imply a threat to their sovereignty. For example, lex mercatoria (i.e. merchant law) was an emergent progression by which justice had been executed until states fused it with common law as it increased tax revenue. These assumptions, of the state´s ability to establish justice, have encouraged state building around the world, sometimes resulting in disastrous consequences (e.g. Africa & Middle East). Likewise, monopolies have no incentive to bring about quality and, as a result, states are induced to further the political agendas of those who have its power (e.g. war on drugs, marriage laws, corporate welfare, victimless crimes, religious doctrine, etc.) and, especially in inclusionary states, cloak them as justice. Additionally, state sovereignty and borders provide barriers for states to point fingers at each other’s atrocities while ignoring and committing their own (e.g. USA versus Iran). Globalization provides some hope for justice and cooperation as states may be more incentivized to focus on their economic power while institutions, through intercommunication and diminishing border influence, may be able to ethically contest state sovereignty and authority for action by broadening and deepening perceptions of rights and justice (Makinda 33). States, however, do have the final word and, as we have seen in some past situations, some well-intentioned institutions can be prohibited or constrained (Makinda 21) as competition with the state is not tolerated, while others join the state apparatus, becoming corruptible in nature through monopolization.

In conclusion, it is unreasonable to think that states can establish and maintain justice as they are not only breaking it when they enforce it, but they are always looking after the interest of those who control them (e.g. lobbyists, politicians, majorities), whether or not it is aligned with justice; which is much more dangerous than individual self-interest, as it is incentivized to use, and is inherently, violent. Yet, this does not mean that justice is obsolete; instead it means that we must concentrate our reliance on institutional justice establishment while diminishing our use of violent means to solve our complex social problems. The evolution of justice should not cling on to utopian ideas about state reformation or a one world bureaucracy, but rather, decentralization/localization and autonomous decision making. The problem of subjectivity is complicated and can only be dealt with through philosophic thought, not quick fix solutions or pseudo-answers; as we are not necessarily in a world of all against all but rather, we are in a world of continual interaction and we must make the best of it.

Works Cited
Beitz, Charles R. Political theory and international relations: ‘International Relations as a State of Nature’. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1999. NetLibrary.com. Web.
Hobbes, Thomas, and C. B. MacPherson. Leviathan. New York: Penguin Classics, 1982. Print.
Makinda, Samuel M. Ethics of Global Governance: ‘Contesting Sovereignty’. Ed. Antonio Franceschet, Colorado: Lynne Rienner, 2009. Print.

Age vs Level Grades in School

In every other field, at least up to the end of high school, which class your child is in depends on their level, not their age. In swimming, music, languages, private tutoring classes etc. your child's admittance depends on how well s/he can swim, read, or add not how many times s/he has been around the sun (See http://compellingcontemplations.blogspot.com/2009/07/age-legality-and-state.html). Rather than grouping children with other children who learn differently and at different speeds, children need to be put in an efficient environment where their individual learning needs can be taken care of.

For example, your child can be in classes with level 4 math and level 3 gym students, or classes with level 2 art, level 5 science and level 3 history students(whatever).

Then, there can be different graduation types as well, instead something like a meaningless 'high school' diploma there can be a 'basic knowledge + advanced math' diploma or 'honors in basic knowledge + intermediate music'. Imagine if you had this individualized university-like experience where you could advance whatever knowledge that is necessary while focus on your interests, strengths and/or weaknesses sooner.

Instead, when you are put into classes where someone raises their hand for the third time asking a relatively repetitive question, it may be a perfect learning speed for them but the quality of the learning environment is corrupted as a whole. However, at the same time, that same individual may be much better than you in their field, so if you cannot pass the ball quick enough, the quality of that soccer game is also corrupted. (I like giving classic examples of jocks vs nerds).

Age, Legality and the State

What does a birthday represent? In reality, all a birthday represents is how many times a person has been around the sun or an orbit. Yet, this has nothing to do with the actual age of a person. This is only a measurement by which we try to label maturity, but this is obviously flawed. In reality, people grow, learn, develop, go through puberty and heal at different speeds. It is possible that someone who has been around the sun 16 times could have the same maturity level of someone who has been around the sun 22 times and vice-versa.

The 'legal age' has nothing to do with biology; rather, it is just another easy, fast and arbitrary way for the state to gain control. In all its wisdom, the state claims that age X is the age by which smoking is allowed and age Y is the age by which people can drive... which makes little sense. Moreover, instead of putting kids into grade classes based on level or success rate, as a result of what the state does, kids are clumped into classes where everyone is learning in a way or in a speed they are not accustomed to, instead of learning in their own way at their own pace.

Murray Rothbard also touched up on this in chapter 14 of The Ethics of Liberty (can be found at mises.org). Children have a "right" to succeed from their parents if they are able to do so. Surely, understanding and being capable of succession qualifies for some sort of adulthood. Also, Rothbard tells us that child labor protection takes away the right for children to succeed as they have little choice but to stay in their households, making them vulnerable to abuse - this restriction must be lifted.

Sure, you might ask, is there a better way to measure? I am not a scientist so I can't come up with any methods for actually testing this, but I do know that the authority to draw these lines comes from no where and the lines do not make sense.

An alternative would be to end 'ageism' - just how it makes little sense to make up some sort of group consciousness for race and sex, it makes little sense to have a group consciousness of '16'. Sure, much like race and sex, there are some things we can generalize (e.g. the older you get its harder to have kids when your a woman) but there is no way we can rely on generalizations.

Giving growth an orbital measurement is flawed, and we need to judge all people based on merit and level, not capricious lines.

How did states/religions come about? Why are they still around?

NOTES

The history between the relationships of states and religions are very interesting to me, that is why I have taken upon myself to add this project to my list.

Reason for the creation of states:
At some point in human history, survival required the use of violence. Avoiding predators, catching prey, territorial conflict between groups and mating all required violence to function. Related to mating, the alpha of the group is usually chosen through their ability to beat another in combat. Over time, these hierarchical relationships had gotten increasingly complex - relationships between alpha and non-alpha within groups grew into an alpha/non-alpha relationships between families and alphas learned that they can take over other the groups of other alphas, which helped them gain power and ultimately, security. The elites of these groups then lead their societies against other elites of other societies. This hierarchical structure eventually grew into a state which then went on to take many forms.

Reason for the creation of religion:
An explanation of the unknowns.

Reason for the continued existence of religion and state:
Children raised in households where parental authority is not legitimated rationally but rather through blind allegiance which usually takes the form of a 'moral duty'. This corrupts children which leads them to believe in an omnipotent/moral deity or state.

Realism and War: Anarchy of States versus Anarchy of Individuals

After a history of state warfare, probably the foremost cause of human bloodshed, many are questioning the possibility of a lasting peace among states, giving strength to the political philosophy of realism. The philosophy is one that uses the primal survival instincts of human beings to highlight the significance of anarchy and its consequence of war being an unavoidable reality in international relations. Furthermore, one can easily observe the practical impacts of the realist ideology at work in the real world. Conversely, although through some perspectives realism may be gaining momentum, other philosophical perspectives see it to be a theory which excludes critical factors, lacks consistency and has a self-prophesizing nature. After examining realism and clarifying some criticisms, it will be understood that although realism can explain the nature of state-behavior in its analysis, it leaves out the most crucial aspect of the state, the individual, which is the major weakness of the theory.

Realism starts by trying to find and understand the objective laws, which are rooted in human nature, that govern society (Morgenthau 7). One of the primary goals of a human being is to ensure their own security and survival thus they would transfer their sovereignty onto a state so that safety can be collectively protected. Therefore, states have an ultimate duty to protect their own security. Power is then seen as the rational method by which security can be guaranteed; power can be anything that establishes control over people/nations (Morgenthau 11) and is usually employed through economic, diplomatic and military means (Mearsheimer 13). Much like an individual, the primary role of the state is to continue its existence within a world where there is no rule/contract enforcer, no court and war is likely and possible. States are the most important actors within the world system because they are the only entities which claim to be the moral authority - where one cannot apply universal moral principles to states - while making use of their self-legitimated monopoly on violence within their domains (Morgenthau 12). As a result of this, they are constantly at odds with each other as they all strive to be the ultimate moral authority or hegemon. Although domestic political affairs are important based on leadership qualities, size, location and the capabilities for attaining power, ultimately, it accounts for very little in a state’s behaviour since all states are likely to maximize their power in all situations as they have the same goal of security. Since a state holds the lives of many in its hands, it must try and act efficiently and rationally which means promoting its own self-interest in the face of an anarchic world and, unlike individuals, it loses its right to sacrifice itself for those not within its domain. Acting rationally also means that states need to make evaluative judgments of the position they are in, relative to other states within the world. This means that with every decision a state makes, there is a cost-benefit analysis which calculates the expected utility that will be gained from a choice. It also means that states are put into a situation of a ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ with other states; where, simply put, a state cannot raise its own security/power/arms without threatening and reducing the security of another state. As a result, states are in a constant struggle with one another since they cannot know each others intentions and war is a real and likely possibility. And even though states may occasionally cooperate, at root they have conflicting interests as they are constantly striving to be the hegemon and gain relative power over one another (Mearsheimer). When the five assumptions of political realism are combined, including the fact that states have offensive military capabilities, states do not know each others intentions, states strive to survive, states act in rational and self interested ways and they do this all in an anarchic structure, we may also see the dangers that neo-realism claims the system inherently produces (Mearsheimer 29); in contrast to the human nature aspect that classical realism proposes. Neo-realist and realist thought are not necessarily at odds when it comes to a state’s fear from potential threats, rational self-interest and power maximization but differ in their premises for why they do what they do (i.e. human nature VS system structure). However, the concepts of regional and relative power can be used for both since these are the steps that need to be taken to become the absolute power.

Realists claim that in the real world, politicians may use liberal rhetoric when dealing with each other, when really politicians are using strictly realist philosophy to make their decisions. For example, during the war in Iraq, politicians used moral rhetoric to gain support for the war such as getting rid of a dictator, spreading democracy, enforcing civil rights, freeing the Iraqi people etc. but, within the higher echelons of government, they must have been discussing the economic power Iraq was draining from the United States by selling its oil in Euros rather than US dollars or the military advantage that will be gained with a base in Iraq especially with anti-American sentiment in Iran. There were also realist reasons that were open to the public such as threat of an Iraq holding weapons of mass destruction as it induced fear. Whatever the reasoning behind the plot, a realist would point to what s/he thinks are the real, rational, power maximizing and self-interested reasons as to why a state made the decision it did. Nations gain power through their influence on other nations, by force, by trade or by negotiation, and capabilities, through resource, knowledge and technology. The corruptibility in partnerships is very much a real phenomenon, where even after years of cooperation, interests change. The war in Iraq is also a prime example of a past partner, one which was obedient and cooperative, that started to siphon power away from the United States, working in its own self-interest, but where finally war ensued. Another example would be the ancient city states of Greece. Although always at war with each other, they tended to only band together when there were powerful intruders. The last example is the European Union where even though all the states say that, or at least claim that, they have the same interests, they would rather not give up their own sovereignty.

For a state, power is the ultimate goal and an end in itself. Power does not exclusively refer to the capability to use violence but also monetary and ambassadorial capabilities. One mistaken liberalist argument against realism is that realists pay too much attention to the problem of war and peace and not enough attention to the politics of economics or diplomacy. However, these are obviously issues of power mechanisms that states need and do address in the realist perspective. States have an overwhelming incentive to interfere with the economic situation within their domain as that is where they get their operation funding. The prominent ways a government could take control of an economy within its domain is by monopolizing the monetary system, so it would be easier to tax people and manipulate the money supply, and controlling the interest rates. This will also come in the forms of industry protection, subsidization, tax-cuts, tariffs etc. which always results in a mixed economy. In this way, a government can make sure that its home-grown businesses, the ones that bring home the bacon, are profitable. An economically powerful nation like the United States advocates open border policies while poorer nations that cannot compete obviously do not. Some nations, those that can compete in some sectors but not others interfere only when necessary; the Canadian government allows for freer trade when trading lumber but does not allow for exotic products to come back without a heavy tax (e.g. Persian rugs). Even in simple representations of nations, such as Dale Thomas's “Isle of Ted Simulation,” some countries have incentives to completely cut off trade as it can easily free ride or get benefits without paying. We can also point to the many instances of mercantilism, where firms help governments make money, and neo-mercantilism, where firms and governments help each other, such as the collaboration between the East India Company and England to exploit India’s resources with state protected monopolies and tariffs. Becoming a state-protected monopoly, like the water companies in Chile and Monsanto, is what many firms dream of becoming as they do not need to worry about being competitive, serving quality, or adjusting prices.

The general mixing of economic and military power creates huge incentives for government to make a business out of its military power; this is of course related to what President Dwight Eisenhower famously referred to as the “military-industrial complex”. Nations sell arms to themselves, as in the case within the United States where all parts from the same military vehicle are made by all 50 states so that every state can profit, they sell arms to other nations, as in the case with the Soviet Union after the cold war and Britain selling submarines to Canada, and they sell arms to non-state entities, as in the case with the United States and the Taliban and the countless states that sell arms to the people of Somalia. Some nations are able to hit two birds with one stone just by combining their military and economic goals. By selling old technologies that it itself can deal with, using its newer technology, it can keep up-to-date with newer mechanisms of power holding, make money and increase the potential of a multi-polar system in a distant region that does not need to be dealt with; both make the trade since one state gains absolute power and the other gains a relative power in its region, much like the current situation of the United States and Soviet Union.

Another way states flex their muscle is by using diplomatic means. This could mean having a huge populace of your citizens within another country as in the case with Russia and the former Soviet states. It could also mean recognizing the same interests (e.g. trading with comparative advantage and specialization) and ideals (e.g. democracy) of another nation with your own, signaling intent to cooperate. However, it is obvious that diplomatic power can only rest on a foundation of military power and it influences how much diplomatic power one has, that is, your bargaining power raises when you increase your military might. As a result, nations wouldn’t mind having an inarticulate leader if they had big guns.

Thus, because of the gains made in the relative-power system, the strive for its survival and security and its endless task to be the moral authority and world/regional hegemon, the decision for what a nation would do, when placed in an anarchic prisoner’s dilemma situation, has already been made; the choice is always to protect itself, protect its self-interest, and prolong its own existence even if this means doing the exact opposite for rival states. This is why states, according to realism, will always live in a war of all against all and why war is ultimately inevitable.

The cause of war for the realist comes from the tragedy of anarchy while the cause of war for the liberalist comes from evil and has to do with assumptions about morality. For liberalism, there is a differentiation between good states and bad states, where a good state cooperates, trades, represents its people (or at least the majority) through democracy, and rarely goes to war alone and bad states solve everything using force. Liberalism questions whether self-interest actually connects to power seeking through security and recognizes that the domestic political situation is important in a state’s behavior, such as the changes in Iran’s political and foreign policy after the Islamic revolution in 1979. It also views realist thought as indeterminate since there are many ways to deal with international pressures. In addition, liberals view the formation of cultural norms and morals to have some effect on the actions a state takes; for example the banning and freeing of gay marriage in different parts of the world. These concerns do have some merit but they eventually fall short of doing any long term damage to the theory since realists can argue that to be a rational self-interested state, the state should act as a power maximizer and for safety, everybody should expect states to do this and they can place any definition under the power scheme, including the control of norms (Morgenthau 9). This is why many view realism as being a self-prophesizing theory which is not necessarily an argument against it.

Constructivism criticizes realism by arguing that anarchy is what you make of it. This rings true to an extent as individuals who live in anarchy are not necessarily in a war of all against all. Realism however, is not necessarily saying that it is either but rather, it is saying that it would be best to assume this so as to protect yourself, just in case. Furthermore, constructivists claim that if we have a different outlook on this structure of anarchy (i.e. one of an evolving cooperation and interaction and changing our view from a cost-benefit analysis to one of social appropriateness), it would form in a cooperative manner. In this way, constructivism tries to be self-prophesizing.

Realism does, however, have some very fundamental flaws when it assumes that war is inevitable. First, even if we assume that self-interest is indeed apart of the nature of human beings and what human beings are motivated by, realism does not take into account that rational individuals would like nothing more than to avoid war, negotiate and trade as this is what is in their own self-interest. This is exactly what the foundations of economics rest upon. This process unconsciously creates a collective good as technologies becomes cheaper, more efficient and readily available causing progress, innovation and a better standard of living for all. The primary power that an individual strives to achieve is not military power but economic power since, for an individual, the size of your wallet matters more than the size of your gun. Individuals, unlike collective entities, have a limit to what can kill them (i.e. one bullet is enough) and therefore have a limit to the amount of military (but not economic) security they need, but its much harder for collective entities to die [where several nukes would probably be needed] so their security is almost limitless. In contrast, for a monopoly of force to retain its power in an anarchic world filled with other monopolies of force, it is crucial that it has a reasonable sized gun. While for an individual to retain their power in an anarchic world filled with other individuals, they won’t need any weapon that is too big to carry. War is only inevitable when monopolies on violence are vying for power.

Furthermore, unlike individuals, states are not allowed to sacrifice themselves for the sake of others, making them incredibly resilient to beneficence without self-interest; when Kuwait, a stable nation that had an already established oil extraction scheme, calls for help, the United States comes charging in to save the day but when Darfur, an unstable nation in need of investment, calls for help, the United States only rescues its own citizens. This adds to the notion that only states, not individuals, are prone to war as states are not even capable of beneficence.

Another essential difficulty to realism is the concept of state interests. States are only comprised of individuals and when one speaks of the ‘interests of the state’ one is ultimately talking about the ‘interests of those who call themselves the state’. It is impossible for anyone to claim that they represent the interests of a collective unless all of those individuals have contractually consented; so in a situation where there is no consent within the social contract, the closest one can get to reach a ‘collective interest’ is the interest of the majority. By speaking of state interest in this way, realists assume that a signed social contract manifests itself deep within the confines of human nature, which is more than just assumptive.

Additionally, realists assume that states do not exist and cannot be judged by universal moral laws but they can enforce them. Again, since states are basically groups of individuals, when one says that a state cannot be judged by universal moral laws is to say that one group of individuals get morality type A and the other group of individuals (who call themselves the state) get morality type B. Needless to say, this is one of the very causes of corruption and state tyranny. States solve the problem of violence using a monopoly of violence and solve the problem of theft using a monopoly of theft. It is incomprehensible to think that an objective universal moral reality exists, where states claim the moral authority, but not within the confines of parliament.

In conclusion, realists are right when they view states as violent, war mongering entities but miss the importance of individuals within the system. The ultimate end for a state is security and power, which means having enough influence so that everyone does exactly what they want them to do. Bargaining/diplomatic power is the end to, and economic power is the means to, military power. Throughout this essay, we examined realism, studied the prisoner’s dilemma, observed some practical real world explanations, investigated many forms of power maximizing, outlined some barriers and situations of eventual break downs for state cooperation and analyzed its relation to liberalism, neo-realism and constructivism. We then brought in some criticisms where some could be dismissed while others found themselves to be fundamental problems. Through all this, we have learned that realism explains at least some aspects of state behavior and the inevitability of war but ultimately, war is only the health of the state, not the health of individuals. Although living in a war of all against all may be true in a world filled with monopolies on violence, in a world of individuals, this notion is completely flawed. The problem is our view that we live in a world of states but in reality, we live in a world of individuals. In our current situation, some individuals (those that call themselves the state) live in relative anarchy while others live within the confines of a moral authority. Overall, we have learned that war is only inevitable when monopolies on violence fight to keep, hold and expand their power and their domain where their monopoly is protected.

Works Cited
Mearsheimer, John J. "Anarchy and the Struggle for power." Tragedy of great power politics. New York, N.Y: W.W. Norton, 2003. 1-45.
Morgenthau, Hans J. "Politics Among Nations: Six Principles of Political Realism." International Politics. 1985. 7-14.

Objective Morality, Authority and Humility

Whether or not an objective morality exists, all I know is that I cannot know it for sure and because of this, I can have no authority to force it on others. Since all other human beings are also equally stuck in this predicament, they cannot hold this authority either. To claim that anyone actually has this authority is, therefore, the greatest of all evils.

Thoughts on Iran, the Internet and Contradictions

As more photos and videos of governmental atrocities come through, the more hopeless I feel about the situation. This government is not one that is willing to give up its power. The Shah, in 1979, was a humanitarian compared to this. Now, even those who thought they wanted a revolution hold guns against their fellow human beings. Khamenei's words give me shivers. If it wasn't for the Internet, this 'revolution' would have been crushed days ago. I guess twitter does have its uses, even the news stories are following it and the regime cannot block it.


Repulsive Contradictions
Iranian nationalism is at an all time high. Instead of seeing it as a 'human disaster' they see it as 'a disaster for my people'. Instead of a dictatorship, they want democracy, even though 'democracy' is how they got here in the first place. They hate the Islamic republic but they still yell "Allah-o Akbar!". They do not want external interference but sign UN petitions against the Ayatollah. I'm afraid that nothing worth mentioning will come from this, the most that will happen is that they will replace one slave master with a less oppressive one.

Second Iranian Revolution?

The Iranians are at it again. The only problem is, even if anything does happen, people have different views on how to move forward and this will result in hundreds trying to grab hold of the state apparatus. It is not likely that true freedom will emerge.

Contrary to what the government says...the federal bailout will NOT last

As some of you may know, this bailout is only to buy time. Coincidentally, it also seems to be an investment in worsening the problem. Retain the failed gov't created monopolies!?

Also, if your interested, you should give a little time to this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkks0S4_s4Q

They also censored 2 comments from youtube:

"That election was rigged... Not that it matters now."

Reply to your comment on: MOBILE BULLETIN 0035GMT 13 Jun 09
"What state election isn't rigged?"
MOBILE BULLETIN 0035GMT 13 Jun 09
The latest news from Al Jazeera.
See all comments

Kind of, evil, isn't it?

Well, I'm guessing it will hit late august and then blow up by october.

Destroying the internet free market

Obama wants to keep us safe from the internet... that is... the government wants more control. Of course this is not surprising, but scary nonetheless. The only reason why the internet thrives is because of its non-governmental regulations and open source capabilities.

Intellectuals and Politicians (part 2)

Scientists are usually the first to point out the faults of science. Most of the time its a hit and miss anyway. Einstein's beats newton ends up putting satellites in space... I wonder what hawking will come up with. Humility is what separates the 'pseudo-intellectuals' from those who are genuinely trying to reach truth. There are many stories of scientists who, after years of research, get disproved completely and all they can do is move on.

Politicians have no humility. They can never be disproved. They never accept defeat; instead, all they do is blame each other. They lie, shedding their skin like snakes.

Only buy if you like

This is how torrent sites 'sell' games:

1. Unrar.
2. Burn or mount the image.
3. Install the game. Use the keygen in the /Crack dir on the DVD when
prompted for a serial.
4. Copy over the cracked content from the /Crack dir on the DVD to
installdirGameBin.
5. Play the game. Be sure to have a firewall prevent the launcher and main
game from going online.
6. Support the software developers. If you like this game, BUY IT

Could this be the future of art/media? Pay if/when you like?
Somehow, the de-corporatized free market world which lives within the internets works.

So is the government actually helping the environment?

Today some asian guy (who barely spoke english) came to my door giving me a shower head, a sink faucet top and four energy saving light bulbs to reduce water and energy consumption. So this is where my environmental shipping tax money goes to (they charge consumers an environmental tax for getting things delivered to their house). The light bulbs are great.. but the faucet and shower head didn't fit (government efficiency at work).

All this while subsidizing tar sands. Nice.

The worst part is, some environmentalists don't seem to understand that since saving energy = saving money, I, and most other conscious people, would buy these government handouts anyway. My home is filled with these light bulbs; the handout just postponed my next purchase. Its probably more complicated than that though. The handout means artificial job creation; that is, someone is making money off of this (like that asian guy that came to my house).

Most environmentalists advocate reform, meaning that they want to steal the gun from corporations, instead of revolution, which is just backwards.

On Memory

How you remember is how you view the world. If, for example, you saw something coming at speed X, but you remember it at the faster speed Y, there is both a subjective view and an objective view. One view is the right view. Your existence, however, does not change the speed of something. Also, the existence of speed Y depends on your existence. On the other hand, speed X does not have any dependency, so if you were not to exist, the speed is still X. Therefore speed X is all that really matters.

However, claiming to know X 100% is also a fault as we can never be fully sure. That is why everyone must be subject to some sort of analysis, i.e. the scientific method, rationality and empiricism. Through these methods, one can test the validity of particular hypothesises, but however close we get, we can never be 100% right because there are variables and externalities. Claiming to be the closest to the truth isn't bad, but pretending to be the truth is dangerous and authoritative.

State-Sponsored Capitalism

State-sponsored capitalism is when a government pours money into a certain sector of the economy regardless of the reason (e.g. bailout). It also refers to a monopoly on the monetary system, where there is only one type of currency deemed to be of legal tender within a given domain. In reality, state-sponsored capitalism is not capitalism at all as it dilutes the free market through subsidization and increases centralized control through a monopolistic monetary system.

Reverse-Mercantilism

Mercantilism is an economic system which strives to increase governmental wealth by taxing and regulating government owned corporate entities. Reverse-mercantilism is an economic system which strives to increase corporate wealth and monopoly by subsidizing some corporate entities while regulating, taxing and controlling borders (blocking outsourcing and creating tariffs for all competitors). Usually those within government have some investment within these corporate entities and have a huge incentive to do this which usually ends any prospects of a continuing free market (i.e. a mixed market that leans towards freedom).

Anarchic Governments Paradox

The Anarchic Governments Paradox is the idea that the governments/nations/violent monopolies of the world, exist within their own anarchy - while governments proclaim themselves as the heroes who have defeated the evils of anarchy, they themselves live within it.

Questions: Life Through the Eyes of an Animal

How do animals view their lives?
Humans perceive the world as if there exists an ongoing continuation of time, but is that how other animals also perceive the world?
What about animals without memory?
Could some view the world in short phases, only when there's action?
Well, I will need to think about this one... but facts can only come out of empirical research.

The Randomness of Birth

People fail to recognize the idiocy of nationalism due to the randomness of birth. However, some of these same people still recognize the unfairness of birth as one may be born into a rich family and receive large inheritance while another may be born in a poor family within a poor, war-torn, country. Then we see people like Thomas Pogge proclaim that we have some sort of positive right to help these people.

A) Randomness has the capability of being unfair.
B) If you work for your capital, you can give the product of your labour to anybody, including your children. This can be viewed as 'unfair' or not, but the fact is, there is no obligation to help the world and there is nothing immoral about choosing someone over another to get your pay.

McGill became aware last Friday of a threatening graffiti message

"As you may know, McGill became aware last Friday of a threatening graffiti message written on a bathroom wall... The Montreal police were immediately contacted by McGill Security; they responded rapidly and are continuing to investigate and collaborate closely with us. We and the Montreal police are taking this situation seriously... heightened our security... ."

I have no idea what the message said..."Rich Bitch Mcgill Doomsday" according to my friend... so I cannot assume the precise 'level' of threat. However, I do know that searching peoples bags is crossing the line...

"In addition to an increased Security presence on both campuses, you may notice signs indicating that bags and backpacks may be subject to search. This step is part of our increased security measures and we thank you for your co-operation in this regard. Nonetheless, we believe there is no imminent danger to the McGill community."

Doomsday may just be the guys name... I'm pretty sure that's how graffiti writers work.... although his shyt was wahck.
Doomsday may have referred to 'exam period' ?
I don't know, that's all I can think of.

Or...
Doomsday could mean some sort of... 'terrorist attack'...

Walk-through metal detectors are cool, and aren't a hassle.
Too expensive? Rent. I'm sure we will find good deals..

And who was the TARGET?
McGill Students?
Does that mean he is, or is not a McGill student?
Probably not... as when people join a particular group, they tend to stick to that group.
See, (google it): "The tree of experience in the forest of information: Overweighing experienced relative to observed information."

So the chances are he is an outsider, then why are we harassing our own students?

If he is a McGill student, on the other hand, he probably wouldn't know what to do with himself. Exams are gonna be full of cops.
He is now most likely aware that he must get rid of all evidence and will do his best to blend in with the crowd. Chances of getting him are low.

If he is from outside the school, it is not only more likely to be a threat, he will probably do it depending on how 'good' he is. Whether he will continue with his word or not is also up to how bad of a gambler he is... how desperate he is.

Chances of an actual threat, however, are ultimately low. I say invest in some [subtle] metal detectors and move on.
My hunch is that, the kid is probably outside of 'New Rez' and he was just trying to diss them (Or She?).
See, intuition does have its place (Read Essay Below).

Well, in any case, i don't really care whether the government and their cops get their man. McGill police on the other hand...

EDIT: April 18: Looks like It was not the doomsday thing. I will try to find out what it was soon.

The Bridge Between: Finding the Link Between Reason and Intuition

In this essay, we will be exploring the relationships between rationality and intuition, comparing their portrayal of ethical truths while pointing out their values and weaknesses. Rationality or reason is a logical justification or a valid explanation of some sort of phenomenon. Intuition, on the other hand, is something that is spontaneously derived at or prompted by a natural tendency without requiring a conscious thought. If the world had only one colour, orange, and if we were to sympathise with or become that colour, we would intuitively view ourselves as being a mixture of red and yellow (Bergson 186). Practically, we can think of intuition as the feeling a sailor gets when there is an oncoming storm or the senses a hunter uses to determine where the deer are roaming in the wilderness. One can use their faculty of reason or their faculty of intuition to establish what is right and wrong within a given moral scenario; we can use our intuition to identify that killing an innocent person is wrong and we can use our reason to come up with a [Kantian] method which says that dishonesty is wrong because it ceases to uphold the institution of language which relies on truth. Through intuition, we use moral truths to help us solve practical problems while, through reason, we solve practical problems to help us find moral truths (Korsgaard 9) and this is where the divide in methodology becomes apparent. Here I will attempt to show that first, the relationship between reason and intuition is not necessarily a dichotomy and that second, although the malleability of intuition is precarious and its lack of universality is untrustworthy when compared to reason, it existence is useful to fill the gaps that reason ultimately cannot cover; only by a mutual cooperation between intuition and reason can we ever hope to achieve any moral truths.
Before we begin our deliberation, it would be best to outline the matter in which reason and intuition are not necessarily at odds. We can witness how human beings do not morally blame those who lack a ‘fully functional faculty of reason’ (hereby known as F.R.) - (e.g. the elderly, the mentally disabled, children, animals etc.). If one cannot reason, one cannot come up with rational procedures for solving practical moral problems. Therefore, moral blame cannot be assigned to those who are incapable of reasoning (e.g. we do not prosecute children and adults in the same court). Furthermore, nobody expects a person who is lacking a F.R. to have the right intuitions when facing a practical moral problem (e.g. where one expects a person with a F.R. to intuitively want to save a child from drowning in a small pool in front of them by simply picking them up, one does not expect a person who lacks a F.R. - e.g. mentally disabled, elderly, etc. - to have this same intuition), meaning that individuals who lack having a F.R. also lack having a fully functional faculty of intuition (hereby known as F.I.). This points to the notion that intuition and reason are not really mutually exclusive and that their conflict is not necessarily a dichotomy. This also helps answer why there is a common likelihood for intuition and reason to agree in so many cases and how two people may arrive at the same conclusion when one believes he has done it intuitively while the other believes he has done it rationally. To further the explanation of the above claim, we can observe that the quality of the faculties of reason and intuition are a matter of degree, just as it is with moral blameworthiness (e.g. we assign a higher degree of moral blame on a 10 year old then a 5 year old). Many factors can vary these degrees including the developing phases of human growth, the severity of a mental disability and even the progression of an animal’s evolution.
Not only does moral advancement happen throughout human history, but it happens through the history of all creatures, just as there is a biological evolutionary advancement. Empirical evidence shows actions of supposed intuitive ‘moral behaviours’ from all sorts of animals including monkeys, dolphins, buffalos, hippos and dogs - even towards animals of different species. These are animals who may be viewed as having the capability of reaching the last step of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, striving for some sort of self-actualization. Take for instance the monkey protest: when a monkey finds out that another monkey has been given a higher share of a reward for the same amount of work, the monkey protests by going on strike and not continuing his work or doing something else (Brosnan). It is unlikely that the monkey is actually reasoning out some moral notion of equality, rather it is more probable that it is just recognizing the intrinsic wrongness of inequality within that given situation. These intuitive moral behaviours have most likely formed out of an animals primal survival instincts. Human beings not only recognize the unfairness of the situation as monkeys do but also try to build some sort of theory or justification around it so that their community can be steered towards trying to avoid further situations of unfairness because nobody likes being in that position. Comparing the differences between the mental capabilities of human beings and monkeys with their potentiality for intuitive or rationalized morality indicates that reason may be an evolutionary extension or expansion upon intuition instead of something that has been formed independently.
So far, having disassembled the dichotomy and having shown that reason and intuition are more likely to be mutual inclusive than at odds, we are now in a much better position to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each method.
The main power of intuition is triggered by forces of emotion. When one witnesses a brutal murder or rape, the sympathy that is felt for the victim creates a moral sentiment which labels that action as being ‘wrong’. This labelling process requires no method of reasoning, rather, it is powered by our emotional faculties. The significance of reason is then devalued since it is not necessarily needed to make moral judgments (Hume 84).
Here we are left with the problem of trying to prove and regain the significance of reason; for this, it would seem necessary to integrate facts and values, otherwise known as deriving an ought from an is. The supposition is that, if we were to look at the real world, we would find nothing that tells us how we ought to act (e.g. a rock that is falling down a cliff does not have a destination in which it ‘ought’ to land) - (Hume 1.1.27). However, we can see that values are only important to living things (i.e. dead people do not have any values) meaning that value only exists because life exists. To keep these values, living things ought to try to survive and this need for survival also becomes of value (Rand 923). If one does not have any values, one is only capable of feeling pain (e.g. if one does not value survival, one may not value food meaning that they can only starve to death). Morality then, comes out of the value one has to survive and can be in the form of intuition or reason; just as the monkey who would rather do something else than work for unequal pay because her work is less valued (explained above). Through evolution, human beings have developed and expanded their faculty of intuition with a faculty of reason, which is more precise, universal and more objective, to help assist them with survival while other animals have found other ways to help them survive and keep hold of their values (i.e. intuition and reason are faculties which help us survive and survival is necessary for the existence of value). Much like intuition and reason, facts and values may also be mutually inclusive.
Another positive feature of Intuition is its ability to, if someone was to somehow justify the permissibility of an immoral act (e.g. rape) through reason, immediately disagree and stump the new proposal from reason. However there are cases where reason has the ability to change intuitive notions. For example, before Columbus sailed to the new world, it was intuitively true that the world was flat. Yet, through the reasoning developed by the ancient worlds, intuition changed from a flat earth to an earth that is shaped more like the moon. A more modern example can be extracted out of the field of economics. In economics, various actions that are deemed to be right are necessarily counter-intuitive - but only counter-intuitive for those who have not studied economics. Even basic capitalistic ideals are counter-intuitive such as the efficiency of a spontaneous and decentralized order.
Now I would like to address the risk involved when using intuition to come up with moral judgments. The biggest problem intuition has to face is itself; two people can have two different views on what is intuitively correct. Also, intuitions are likely to change depending on certain circumstances. In the trolley case, where one must decide to save five people by killing one, people have different conclusions as to what actions they would take depending on various factors (e.g. whether they are actively doing it - flicking a switch versus pushing someone in the way of the trolley) even when these factors do not alter the result. Through this, we have recognized that human beings have different reasons and intuitions on what they should value (e.g. consequences, intentions, etc.). Another example is the case of abortion, where one person may intuitively think that killing an innocent person is wrong and the other may intuitively think that taking away a person’s right to choose is wrong - this is an argument that may arise from the different intuitions people have on what a person actually is. Furthermore, it is normal for intuitions to change depending on emotion. One study shows that people are more likely to cheat and steal when someone from their own group cheats and steals and people are less likely to cheat and steal when someone in another group cheats and steals. Intuitions actually change depending on ‘group think’ pointing to the notion that intuitions are culturally/collectively relative. In the same study, it was found that it is more likely for more people to cheat a little rather than for some people to cheat a lot. The theory is that people like to think of themselves as being ‘good’ so if someone from their own group does something wrong, they are more inclined to do it because they recognize that person as being apart of them (and vice versa when they are not apart of their group). In the same way, stealing a lot is viewed to be ‘bad’ while stealing a little is viewed to be trivial so more people are inclined to do trivial bad actions so they would not think of themselves as being ‘bad’ (Ariely). This is why intuitions of good and bad vary depending on their feelings at the time. As a result, we can see that conflicting moralities for certain dilemmas cannot be solved using intuition alone as they rely solely on emotional experience; alternatively, rationality has a much better method to resolve disputes and relativity, using an objective method of science and logic. In fact, it makes intuitive sense for us to use rationality to debate controversial issues rather than use arguments from intuition or emotion as there is no way to prove one person’s emotion to be ‘more right‘ than another. We intuitively want to find a true answer (an answer where there can be no dispute) so our intuition actually tells us to use reason. Only rationality can bring us closer to truth as what it tries to find is testable, evident and universal. Truth, whether or not it exists, becomes increasingly valuable, as there are less controversies to debate, the closer we get to it. An act should be deemed right because of the right reasons - as their validity can be debated - not because of some preconceived intuitions of what the property of rightness holds (Korsgaard 3).
Reason, however, cannot contest intuition on all fronts. Although reason is more trustworthy than intuition, we cannot assume that reason is always the right answer (i.e. it has its limits and truth may not always be reachable). Ultimately, even if our feelings come from some sort of evolutionary survival instinct, passions are what constitute our moral behaviour. Take for instance the feeling of moral resentment; if a mentally disabled person who had seemingly no will of her own was to kill someone I love, it would not make sense for me to assign any moral blame (whether through reason or intuition) but I would probably still have intuitive feelings of moral resentment (Strawson). This feeling of resentment highlights the immorality of the actions committed regardless of their intentions which gives us a much fuller view of ethical theory; if this feeling did not exist, it would diminish the significance of striving for morality as a whole. Intuition may be subjective and untrustworthy but without it we would not be able to steer our reason in the right directions. If our faculty of reason told us to declare war, our intuitions could still recognize the immorality of the situation; however, declaring a war based on intuition alone is obviously dangerous and even counter-intuitive. This sets up the notion that the more significant our actions are (however significance is defined -more people involved, how long it lasts etc.), the more we are inclined to use reason to justify our actions, yet, at the same time, intuitions have some sort of innate power to overrule the findings of reason. A good analogy would be that of a courtroom within the mind, where if lawyers were to be represented as reasons, who debate for moral truth, while the judge can be represented as our intuition, who gives the final verdict on a moral action. A good lawyer can sometimes change the judges mind (as with economic theory or the flat earth mentioned above) which sets the precedent for any future court cases (i.e. moral cases) but the judge always has the power to overrule decisions (as with moral resentment and attempts to justify immoralities with reason - war). In addition, reason is much slower method when compared to Intuition, which helps in cases of emergency where there is no time to think (e.g. nobody stops to think whether it is moral to save a drowning child in front of them, they just act immediately through intuition).
In conclusion, it is not useful to use reason and intuition exclusively to help us come up with practical moral answers; both these faculties exist within us so that we may use them to deal with the world. Where one faculty may have a limited explanation, the other faculty can fill the void; when we cannot find valid reasons, we will use our intuitions while when our intuitions disagree, we find the answer through rational debate. These two faculties have been created, through evolution, to assist us in our never-ending endeavour to retain our values and strive for survival. It is just as dangerous to use reason alone, where one can come up with an excellent argument to prove an immoral action as moral, as it is to use intuition alone, where our intuitions can lead us to act inconsistently or irrationally. Throughout this essay, we have gone through the relationships between reason and intuition, compared and contrasted their methods and came up with the conclusion that these two faculties must both be used at their full capabilities to have any hope in finding moral truth.

Works Cited
Ariely, Dan, George Loewenstein, Niklas Karlsson, and Uri Simonsohn. "The tree of experience in the forest of information: Overweighing experienced relative to observed information."
Bergson, Henri. The Creative Mind An Introduction to Metaphysics. New York: Replica Books, 1999.
Brosnan, Sarah F., and Frans B.M. De Waal. "Monkeys Reject Unequal Pay." Nature (2003). .
Hume, David. Treatise of Human Nature. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1984.
Korsgaard, Chris. "Normativity, Necessity, and the Synthetic a priori: A Response to Derek Parfit." Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. .
Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged. New York: Plume, 1999.
Strawson, P. F. "Freedom and Resentment."

8 Person Monopoly

I was playing monopoly with 7 people... we soon found out how hard it was to gain any sort of monopoly, even when one of us held 7 properties.

We were going to create cartels... but we disbanded instead.

Solving the problem with the problem

Religion is to solve ignorance with ignorance.
Statism is to solve violence with violence.

Rejecting Science

To reject science is to reject skepticism.
That is, it is to be skeptical of skepticism.

Intellectuals and Politicians

the only people i dont like to be around are people who think they know better than other people. intellectuals.

university is full of them. because of these thoughts, some come to think that they have the authority over other peoples lives. these people usually grow up to be politicians.

even doctors let their patients decide what choices to make, after a simplified explanation.

i twinge when i hear them debate.

Peace, War, Pacifism & Violence

Peace and war are not at ends as most people think. They are lumped together, they are two sides of the same coin, they are the yin and yang of society.

Political pacifists are hypocrites. They advocate non-violence but turn around and give your slave owners wages and pay for your 'protection' with your own money.
They free themselves of violence.

Individuals need to control their own violence.

Pacifism is not the answer, it only leads you to delegate your capability to use violence onto someone else.

Hobbes explains, we engage in the creation of a type of social contract in order to survive. As we are trying to avoid the state of war, we group together to keep us safe. Yet, nations are surviving within a state of nature, a state of anarchy. They are always subject to the same state of war, and they, although not perfectly, manage to settle there affairs... well, as best as ever-growing monopolizers can.

The Humility of Knowing Your Limits

While John Stewart spent his time destroying Jim Cramer, on March 11th, Stephen Colbert miserably tried to do the same with Ayn Rand. In the first segment of his show, he attacked Ayn Rand on the grounds of her endorsement of selfishness, failing to mention 'rational self-interest;' the phrase of less emotional attachment. He calls it the 'conservative bible' and, in the description box beside him, 'preachy and can be used to justify anything.'

"Just another example of the little guy trying to keep the man down."
- Stephen Colbert

However, in his second segment, Colbert fails to see the inconsistency of his attack on Rand which shines through his liberalism. First, he calls out Howard Fineman's book, The Thirteen American Arguments, on its real purpose, to 'make some scratch' rather than 'to say that there's history in the headlines and headlines in history.' He then calls him a member of the media elite and asks him,

"Isn't one of the big American arguments, is why do guys like you get to decide what the arguments are, for people like us?"
- Stephen Colbert

Fineman agrees with him and backs himself up by listing his credentials. They both go on to attack Rand by talking about the limits of individualism.

"Everybody can't live on the island that Ayn Rand was talking about."
- Howard Fineman

Colbert is then enlightened by his conclusion that, within a debate, while there is a possibility for his opponent to be wrong, there is a possibility that he himself may be wrong as well. Yet, this humility is the same conclusion that Ayn Rand's philosophy and libertarian philosophy in general, leads to. Just as Hayek argues, this is the humility of knowing in ones own limit to knowledge (i.e. understanding the impossibility of omniscience); a truth which modern states seem to ignore when they strive for divinity. This is the same divinity that gives the government the 'moral power' to use violence (Walter Benjamin). The progression of collective knowledge is more productive in the hands of individuals who hold within them, the freedom of association.

If we acknowledge this limitation while striving for morality, it would not make sense to force our morality on others (i.e. other than specific cases such as self-defense).

The simple fact is that, even in Colbert's field, the government subsidizes the mainstream media. This has huge impacts. The population is subdued to obey, take sides and vote. Government created oligarchies inform the nation by telling people like Colbert what to do.

Then we see Colbert attacking a philosopher who has pointed out the very chains he complains about.

On Anarchy

If anarchy does indeed incur, those who believe in socialism will do so of their own accord. Of course, you cannot force people to do the same as there will be defensive resistance. If one believes in the success of socialism (or communism, and the like), one would then too need to believe that this system would work through voluntary measures. Voluntary groups, communes/insurance companies etc., would take over and one would choose their own services without necessarily having to move.

The Importance of Owning Violence

Republicans, conservatives, statist-libertarians, etc. all ramble on about personal responsibility. However, this includes owning your own violence, taking power over your own destruction and harnessing this capability instead of creating a collective, omnipotent, 'unfightable' power. There is no personal responsibility in creating a state, it is a collective responsibility.

When individuals are given this collective power and responsibility (Stan Lee, with great power comes great responsibility), they become power hungry psychopaths who think they hold the moral authority of society in their hands. Human beings are nothing but animals, and when these people have this power, they become the artificial alpha (fe)males of society and they are threatened by anyone who would challenge this position. Whats worse, the evil of the state only attracts evil to work for it. Only those that are willing to point guns will actually do it and these are our beloved police and politicians... of course, others may be willing to point the gun as well but what separates the 'bad' from the 'evil' is that, one of them claims the moral authority while being a blatant hypocrite. This is why I love the movie Fight Club as it separates the evil from the, more or less, bad or even, amoral.

While the Financial Crisis Worsens...

..., the UN focuses on more important matters.
Since we really don't want to hurt the feelings of muslims, we need to limit free speech... especially because we know what happened the last few times their feelings got hurt, people died.

Ludicrous and pointless. The student run government at my university does more than the overpaid thieves in the UN. No pants Friday at McGill makes more sense than this.

Not a bad job if your a diplomat though, at least your immune to laws as long as your living outside of your country. And you move every four years! Miami, Puerto Plata, Cancun, Rio... then retire in Canada! All while living off of other peoples hard earned cash, that is the real gangsta lifestyle.

Enforcing Will

When you tell people what to do, at the point of a gun, blood will follow... especially when these people don't consider themselves citizens of your country. Unfortunately, this is how states function and it would be nothing less than utopian to expect an end to these atrocities. Whether its arming dictators, establishing coups, preparing for war or even trivial matters like putting potheads in jail, there will always be resistance. In your life, if you want people to listen to you, or if you want people to do as you tell them to, you negotiate, you trade, you enlighten, you interact. You do NOT put a gun up to their heads. Why wouldn't these same policies work within collectivity? We use reason at the individual level, we should not be using guns at the collective one.

Violence against the state

I consider violence against the state (i.e. police, politicians) as self defense. However, I do not advocate using violence for revolution. Gandhi had it right.

Killing politicians is not the answer, stopping the electoral process is. For every politician killed, another one is elected.

Other than non-violence, how a revolution may/should be carried out is beyond me... for now. I will need to get back to this subject later, but for now, I must work on my review of Hedonism.

Rationalism, High Modernism And the State

Throughout history, there have always existed many individuals claiming to know what progress is and how to achieve it. Some of these individuals claim more than just intellectual insight, i.e. intellectual superiority, and along with a belief that it is possible to succeed in the reordering of society and nature, they justify and control the powers of the state and use it to create something that is supposedly dedicated to human advancement. With the help of the best available scientist, engineers, technicians and architects, they centralize planning to create the best society possible, according to them. In some sense, these social engineers or economic planners are the creators of what James C. Scott calls, the high modernist state, where technocratic and authoritarian principles are implemented to achieve progress. “Political rationalists” are what Oakeshott, in Rationalism in Politics, calls them. The high modernist approach has bettered many factors of society including health and safety, but there are hardly any positive long term effects. This is because, at its very core, it is impossible for the state to have all the information necessary to truly be able to function so it ends up simplifying the world when trying to understand it. In addition, while the government continually grows, vast numbers of people who have been hired by the state seemingly turn into parts of a machine made only to produce utility. For these reasons, states should not be used to achieve the ends of the high modernist philosophy.

On some utilitarian grounds, the high modernist state may seem to be achieving many positive outcomes. In his book, Seeing like a State, Scott explains how roads were named before states took it upon themselves to name them and how it helped benefit society when it translated this vernacular knowledge into official knowledge. In certain towns, a road’s name would always describe its destination but that created multiple names for the same road, depending on where you’re coming from. If remained unchanged, this would have led to many problems and confusions for tourists, for police and for people stuck in car accidents on a road with many names. The state, in its infinite wisdom, gives an official name/number to these roads so that there would be no confusion between road names. This, along with the state initiative to create and legalize surnames, helped organize society and individual identities so that it would be a lot easier to find, protect and tax citizens. Louis Napoleon’s reconstruction of Paris is another example of a transition into high modernism. He provided efficient roads, decent sewage, relatively clean water, gas lighting etc. but most importantly, especially after the revolutions of 1789, 1830 and 1848, he formed Paris so that it would have increased security from revolutionaries. Roads and train tracks were made to go directly to the heart of the city from the barracks’ while many squares, where revolutionaries would usually meet, had been torn down. All done in the name of safety, health and efficiency, he was able to justify the protections set for the state.

However, one should be skeptical of any positive outcomes achieved through political rationalism as any claim to have enough intellect to govern is also an impossible claim of being able to attain it. States cannot efficiently allocate resource, land, labor etc. as the worldwide economy is constantly changing; nobody can know what is happening in every local economy in the world. Those involved in the economy, unlike the central planner, can do the right thing in relative ignorance and are not subject to an unattainable obligation of reaching omniscience. People, being capable of solving problems that they don‘t understand, may be blinded from even recognizing a market structure or its effectiveness (Hayek). In effect, the central planner, regardless of his intellect, is still lacking in attaining all the necessary knowledge which, in turn, forces him to create a simplified version of reality. Simplifications are sometimes useful (e.g. maps, mathematics, etc.) but when one has access to the violent monopoly of the state and tries to shape society according to a simplified map, there is a tendency to simplify reality as well. Also, the nature of the state skews knowledge when it simplifies the world. The state only concerns itself with aspects of social life that it deems to be of official or of utilitarian interest. Facts attained are always static, egalitarian and written documents (i.e. verbal or numerical). Also, to be able to make collective assessments, officials find themselves needing to group individuals. Scott gives the example of scientific forestry which had devastated forests and profits when it tried to turn the forest into an efficient lumber producer. Clear cutting and only planting efficient lumber trees not only ruined the soil capital that had been created by the mixed forest which were needed for regeneration, but also eliminated many other resources and animals such as fodder, nuts & berries, medicinal plants, animals, etc. This problem arises from an inability to collect all the necessary knowledge while, at the same time, simplifying the very knowledge available. Cities, much like these forest, can be either planned or created through thousands of individual activities and people going about their regular business. Also, by promising their followers that, if they follow their path, they too can gain superiority in knowledge and understanding, the political rationalists gain the will of the majority as well; which becomes increasingly helpful when trying to implement their philosophy within a democratic state.

Political rationalists are also fully aware of all those who also claim rationality but are disagreeing with them, yet in their valiant effort, they still bring it on themselves to force all those within a certain domain to do as they say and of course, not as they do (e.g. create laws against violence using violence). In contrast, economic rationalism, opposes using the state to achieve desired ends as it humbly admits that it cannot attain the knowledge necessary to be able to fully function properly; for it to dump any negative consequences it causes on society would be unjust. Although both public and private institutions have the capability to standardize cultural diversity, one is essentially coercive cultural homogenization while the other is pluralistic, syncretistic and evolutionary assimilation.

Oakeshott explains rationalism as a balance of a politics of perfection and a politics of uniformity and categorizes it as using technical knowledge, that which can be learned through formulas, books and being able to learn how to learn, rather than practical knowledge, that which can be learned through continual practice. To them, perfection is indeed uniform and they strive so that all of mankind, or at least the ones within their domain, reach it, whether they like it or not. Using violence against their own people, all to reach their own views of perfection, dehumanizes them. The reality is, especially when states have differences among themselves, expansion will become the primary purpose for the state. Since it has no problem using violence against its own citizens, it definitely should not have any problems with minorities and those outside their state. So all who disagree must either be assimilated or be destroyed. However, even high modernist states recognize that violence is inefficient when it comes to profit so, as Scott portrays it, the creation of institutions to help with the constant exploitation of other countries, like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization, was only natural. To be more efficient in turning humans into nothing but parts of a machine made solely for utility maximization, the high modernist state needs to socially engineer their lives through public education, public healthcare, state imposed correctional facilities, a unitary monetary system, a federal bank and of course, a military to impose it all. The three institutions listed above help western countries gain control over all these factors in countries they do not have direct power over. Brasilia would be a good example of a working high modernist state that had been built from scratch. Instead of representing the country’s history, people and culture, Brasilia was built for an abstract citizen living an abstract idea of what a great internationalist city should be. There are no street festivals, no crowds and no landmarks; just big empty squares and architectural repetitions which help emphasize collective uniformity and devalue individual heroism. Foucault, in Discipline and Punish, explains that high modernist states, like Brasilia, are made so that we all act like slaves, even when there is no master. It has the ability to subject its citizens into submission and control, making them become part of this modernity by giving them schedules and timetables for everyday life. Brasilia had been made into a machine where the state holds the vast majority of employment opportunities, narrowing choice and standardizing pay. Also, in its quest for complete transparency, the state strives to minimize the number of languages spoken, extinguishing the histories of past cultures. Doctors actually ended up treating a clinical condition called Brasilitis; a depression caused by living a home and work lifestyle within a socially deprived environment. Society exposes its weakness in its inability to resist, succumbing to high modernism.

Accordingly, it is impossible for high modernist states to run properly as they can never achieve the knowledge necessary for governance. Much like centrally planned forests, high modernist states create many economic and social issues that are not necessarily recognized at first but which ultimately dispossess citizens of their humanity. It may be fine to build a city that preserves health and safety, but when this is done without using the leviathan, there is no fear of depression caused by social and cultural deprivation.


Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish : The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage, 1995.

Hayek, “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” The American Economic Review, Vol. 35, No. 4. (Sep., 1945), pp. 519-530. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002- 8282%28194509%2935%3A4%3C519%3ATUOKIS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1

Oakeshott, Michael, and Timothy Fuller. Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays. Danbury: Liberty Fund, Incorporated, 1991.

Scott, James C. Seeing Like a State : How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New York: Yale UP, 1999.

ACTIVISM, trivial ideological debates and what unites us

My rant on anti-state.com forums:

I joined this website today because im sick of the state of the world. We need to start moving but we are stuck in our ideological wars over what type of anarchism is the right type. I used to think of myself as an anarcho-capitalist, but FUCK IT. Left, Right, it does not matter, the main point of anarchy is "DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO." Taxation is theft and all anarchists agree with that. Now, after the state is abolished, we can go make our liberal/conservative/communist/capitalist societies or whatever, with or without state-like institutions... as long as its done with consent!

Here is the point: if your born into your parents system of government, and they agree to it and you don't, you have every right to break from their contract. Anarchy is basically fighting for the right to be able to break contracts. A contract that does not have a clause to be able to break from the contract is slavery and this is exactly what the government runs on.

If you agree with this, (the point that you should be able to break contracts), you are an anarchist.

Anarchy is not about 'anti-capitalism' or 'fuck free trade' ... its about freedom. So stop writing that shyt on your signs.. its not what we are about and it makes all of us look stupid as fuck. Instead, write things that ALL anarchists agree with like 'taxation is theft' and 'fuck the police' ...
and we should not use violence against non-state entities... (I regard using violence against the police as self-defense).

If you agree with what I say and live in Toronto/Montreal, message me. Do it. Just say "I agree with what you say and I want to help make a difference."

Help us with future protests.

If you disagree, tell me why I am wrong and I will be happy to debate.

Gold

Warren Buffet at Harvard on Gold: "It gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head."

Gold is to us as a bone is to a dog... well, not exactly, chewing a bone is a source of calcium.

Thoughts on the Economic Crises

If a theory does not work in practice, it is a failed theory. Statements such as "communism works in theory, but not in practice" or "its not the religion, its the people" are completely meaningless.

Now here we have invertebrates protesting, the theory being the backbone. All of them are against the bailout but most proposed solutions are less than adequate.

In france, many advocate the nationalization of the banks. In iceland, they advocate the reformation of the government. In New York, they advocate more rights for the worker.

Many have come to the conclusion that capitalism has failed, but if you look at the amount of government intervention in the last, well, ever, you would realize that capitalism had never actually been given any room to breath.

Everybody has lost faith in their state, but instead of coming up with new methods to deal, they revive the debate on how one should bring on a proletarian revolution. Luxemburg and Lenin are at it again.

In economics, The Chicago School has died with Friedman and the Austrian School is the last remaining refuge for those who still advocate economic freedom.

I fear that, once again, tomorrow will be disappointing and end up looking like yesterday. And I wonder, how many times must we fail in order to get something right?

Our time may be now, but we are the minority. We must not give in, not this time.

Free Will and Time Travel: A Look at David Lewis' "The Paradoxes of Time Travel"

David Lewis’s essay in The Paradoxes of Time Travel has many underlying implications on the ongoing philosophical discussion regarding free will. Here, free will can be defined as a power to make a choice independent of external agencies. Of course, all of our choices are made because of some instance of cause and effect - e.g. because one is inquisitive, one chooses to learn more about the world so one chooses to go to university - but the question lies in the extent of which these external forces influence our choices. In this case, Lewis convincingly uses arguments concerning time travel, which are backed by modern day theories in physics, to take on a compatibilist position in the free will debate, arguing that although a fixed and predictable timelines exist, otherwise known as external time, the fact that we have, as he calls it, a personal time gives us the freedom of choice that we so desperately need and strive to argue for.

For a time traveler, Tim, the personal time is the time on his wristwatch, or the time it takes for his beard to grow regardless of what is happening in the external time. If there is no such thing as personal time, Tim would presumably shrink in age when traveling back in time or grow old rapidly when traveling forward through time. Lewis does not consider this, but it helps distinguish between the two types of timelines as one is traveling on the plane of the other. Lewis describes the shape of the personal timeline when traveling towards the past as a zigzag streak, towards the future as a stretched-out streak and towards either way instantaneously as a broken streak. The differentiation between the personal and external timelines may seem trivial at first, but that is exactly where our free will originates. The determinist view would need to deny any view which states that we have our own time, meaning that it would deny any non-classical form of physics.

As with any good philosophy, it is always best to create and examine the extreme form of the example and that is exactly what Lewis does by supposing that Tim has an unstoppable motivation to go back in time to kill his grandfather in the grandfather paradox. If we were to rule out all factors stopping him from killing his grandfather, there would be no reason for him not to do so. Although there would be a contradiction in Tim’s past if he was to pull the trigger, all it would do is fortify the multi-verse argument - meaning that there are many more different four-dimensional worlds - as there is absolutely no way that anything could stop Tim. Just as there are many different personal timelines, there are many different external timelines. Our choices help choose which paths we take on these external timelines. The determinist would argue that there is only one external timeline and it would be impossible to kill the grandfather as it would necessarily result in a contradiction; it would destroy any possibility of free will as every time Tim tries to kill the grandfather, he would always need to somehow survive.

Lewis’s argument, however, does rest on the notion that time travel is indeed possible, but his conclusions imply that we should be able to travel between these external timelines meaning that we can travel between the various choices we have made. His argument finds that free will exists because the external time is unrelated to our personal actions made within our personal time. His conclusions and the possibility of time travel, are, however, supported by most non-classical physical theories including the many forms of string theory.

What NOT to say in a debate

When you are not adding to a debate, your either not doing anything or taking away from it. Here I will outline ways that can actually take away from a debate.

Value Judgments with no backing of the 'why' something may be wrong.
Saying something such as "well, that's just your opinion!"... I don't need anyone to tell me that.
Meaningless and undefinable answers such as 'god did it' which stops all further questioning.

Usually when people do this, I loose any motivation for further debate as I know I will gain absolutely nothing out of the discussion, and I advise you to do the same...
...of course, you could teach that person about these things but that is up to your discretion.