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.