Do I even need to discuss Venezuela?

 So...the epstein files are due out in a few days, and trump is giving a speech tonight, so you know what that means, let's invade a country and start a war as a distraction!

 Trump has been trying to manufacture consent for regime change in Venezuela for a while, and it's not working. Most people see through it. Why? because this is Iraq again, only with an even flimsier justification. They're bombing fishing boats that are allegedly drug boats, but everyone with a brain knows they're fishing boats. They're even doing war crimes and doing double taps and stuff.

And yeah, we'll see tonight, but I suspect his big speech tonight is about attacking Venezuela. Why now? Again, the epstein stuff is gonna drop and he's gonna want the news on something else. It's the standard switcheroo. 

Anyway, do I need to really discuss this further? Obviously, I'm against the war, it's stupid, it's unnecessary, he's going in for the oil. It's Iraq 2.0. And I dont think it's gonna unite the country for a time like iraq did until it didn't. Because I don't think anyone wants to invade really outside of trump and his die hard base.  

So let's discuss the economy a bit

 So....I've been watching the news this morning and there's a lot of doom and gloom indicators about how bad the economy is. Jobs are down. Some of this is tariffs hurting consumption and some is AI. A lot of probably AI. AI is killing the entry level job market. AI is also driving the price of computing sky high. RAM is getting more expensive and is now 3.5x the price, SSDs are like 2x the price, and GPUs are expected to rise next year. People are suggesting we're witnessing the death of affordable computing if the AI bubble doesnt pop. AI is also affecting the price of electricity and making that go up too. I really hate this AI trend in some ways. Again, nothing against the tech but it seems highly destructive to the economy in its current form, at least with the aggression it's being pursued. Apparently consumer spending is down. Tariffs and inflation are just causing people to pull back. I saw an article today suggesting the switch isn't selling that well. Gee, I wonder why. Could it be you're charging $450 for an underpowered last gen console that's a poor value proposition vs a PS5? Honestly, I'm happy to see that silver lining. The businesses tried to push people for higher prices, and people are pushing back. Of course, most spending is driven by the top, which is why the computing industry is abandoning the little people. Some people are calling it the "whale based economy." What happens when a handful of all people have all the money? Everyone else becomes irrelevant and the economy is just a massive churn between these huge corporations selling to each other. That's what's happening now and why the AI thing is so terrible. While AI should, in theory, benefit everyone, without my policy prescriptions, all the money just goes to the top and everyone else gets shut out. Fordism is dead. The wealthy have won capitalism, and now it's like the system is eating itself, and we're all on the menu. It sucks. We really do need a new New Deal to fix this. Ugh. 

Ibn Khaldun Reaction (3/8/2009)

 Another reaction to my reaction to political philosophy from back in the day! Yay!

 This time it's Ibn Khaldun, ie, this Islamic philosopher who existed in like the middle ages. Society was such where Islamic society was booming, while Europeans were basically in their dark ages. Anyway, this guy was interesting enough to talk about too.

Personally, I agree with much Khaldun’s view of history and the world. It is very advanced for his time and adopts a rather scientific perspective (Khaldun, 5-69). In my research methods class I am taking right now, one of the main issues we grapple with is how we know what we know (Other class, 2/2/09-2/4/09). Khaldun used logic to poke holes in many of stories people told in his time (Khaldun, 36-37). After all, it would not make sense that Alexander the Great would go underwater in a box to observe sea monsters wreaking havoc on his empire (Khaldun, 36). Moreover, Khaldun approached the world from a scientific perspective; he knew the earth was round and even accurately predicted the circumference of the earth (Khaldun, 49; Geography). He said that the “the geographical degree is twenty-five parasangs, the parasang being 12,000 cubits or three miles” (Khaldun, 49). This means that one degree is seventy-five miles (Khaldun, 49). He also recognized that the earth’s circumference is divided into 360 degrees (Khaldun, 49). Seventy-five miles times 360 degrees is twenty-seven thousand miles (Khaldun, 49). The real circumference is 24,860 miles (Geography). Therefore, Khaldun was actually very close (Khaldun, 47; Geography). What makes me so intrigued with Khaldun’s scientific explanations of the world is about this is the fact that during this time, many people still believed that the earth was flat. After all, he lived in the fourteenth and early fifteenth century before Columbus made his journey to the New World (Khaldun, xxxvii-xxxix). This is a side of history that I have never heard of before this class.

I do not, however, agree with Khaldun’s views on why certain races are superior and others inferior (Khaldun, 58-64). While I believe that culture and the environment have some impact on why certain civilizations are more advanced than others, I do not think that climate effects a person’s intelligence (Khaldun, 58-64). Looking at history, I also disagree that advanced civilization cannot develop in hot or cold climates (Khaldun, 58-64). Until recently, the Soviet Union, which has one of the coldest climates in the world, was one of the two major powers in the world (Kegley, 108-115). Moreover, I think it is safe to say that climate does not have as much of an impact on one’s skin color than genetics (Khaldun, 60-61). While one can tan his or her skin by being in the sun all of the time, this does not necessarily mean that a person’s descendents will change color just because they are moved to a completely different climate (Khaldun, 60-61). However, I can understand why Khaldun believed this. After all, Europe is in the North, and there are a lot of white people in Europe. Moreover, Africa is in the south, and many black people live in Africa. In his time, Muslims in the temperate zones dominated most of the known world (Class, 2/25/09).

I agree with Khaldun that human organization is necessary (Khaldun, 45-46). Without such organization, I do not think that we could have developed such an advanced society (Other class, 3/4/09-3/6/09). In my research methods class, my professor mentioned that what made culture and social structure possible was surplus, which freed a small amount of people from rudimentary work and allowed them to bring society forward (Other class, 3/4/09-3/6/09). Without human organization, everyone would be too busy just trying to survive instead of inventing things like medicine (Other class, 3/4/09-3/6/09). Moreover, Khaldun’s claims are pretty accurate (Khaldun, 45-46). After all, the human hand is not very effective against a tiger’s teeth and claws. Moreover, one person is not very effective at fighting a group of equally armed people (Khaldun, 45-46).

I mostly agree with Khaldun’s theory on how empires become strong and then decay (Khaldun, 123-142). The description given throughout the book, particularly on pages 141-142, sounds a lot like a modern theory that is still taught in political classes today (Kegley, 94-95; Khaldun, 105-142). It is known as the “long cycle theory” (Kegley, 94). This model has been applied to many famous and infamous empires such as Spain in the 1500s, France under Napoleon Bonaparte, the Axis powers during World War II, and even the United States today (Kegley, 95). Though a war, a dynasty, or “hegemon”, as it is called in this context, establishes its dominance through a war that caused a previous empire to lose its power (Kegley, 94). The hegemon then consolidates its power (Kegley, 94). However, this empire eventually begins decaying and a new power rises to challenge the old order (Kegley, 94). This leads to another major war in which the hegemon is normally defeated and a new world order arises (Kegley, 94).

While the modern “long cycle” theory does not address issues such as group feeling and desert toughness (Khaldun, 123-142; Kegley, 94), I think that these concepts are important as well and serve to answer the question of why empires fall. The U.S.’s rise to power is a good example (Kegley, 95-124). World War II is probably one of the defining moments where the U.S. became a major world power (Kegley, 95). Our country was attacked by Japan (Frankel). This brought about a strong feeling of group feeling in a sense; people were so outraged about the attack they many people volunteered to fight against the Axis powers (Frankel). Some people even committed suicide because they could not join the military (Frankel). Tom Brokaw even referred to the people who were young adults during World War II as “the greatest generation” (Boston Globe). While “group feeling” was really nationality in this case, people were still willing to die to preserve the country, which is basically, at its core, what makes group feeling so important (Frankel; Khaldun, 123). Out of this war emerged a bipolar system with Russia and the United States as the major world powers (Kegley, 108). The U.S. still is the world’s major power today (Kegley, 118-120). On the other hand, I believe that the U.S. is now weakening as the sole “dynasty” in the world. When it comes to the wars the U.S. is currently fighting, we do not have the same kind of group solidarity we had during World War II and many people do not even think that we should be in some of the wars we are currently in (Page). Moreover, my generation is immersed in luxury, which eventually leads to decay according to Khaldun (Khaldun 137-142). Until recently, our economy was doing very well. People in the U.S. are generally used to a sedentary lifestyle with a stable job and decent paycheck, and take for granted many luxuries for granted such as television, computers, and ipods. While I disagree that the rule of law makes society weak as Khaldun believed (Khaldun, 95-96), I think that we have lost our group feeling and have become cowardly in comparison with “the greatest generation” (Khaldun, 137). I do not believe that my generation would die for a cause as our predecessors who fought in World War II would. After all, why would we want to give our stable life of luxury up to endure the rigors of warfare? I am guilty of this mindset myself.

I agree for the most part with Khaldun’s view that external circumstances such as culture influence a human being (Khaldun, 94). While I believe that genetics can play a part in a person’s character and are a driving force behind some of peoples’ predispositions, I agree with Khaldun’s proposition that “the soul in its first natural state of creation is ready to accept whatever good or evil may arrive and leave an imprint upon it” (Khaldun, 94). After all, socialization is a powerful force. In my own life, my past experiences have made a major impact on what kind of person I am today. My parents, church, and private schools taught me Christianity throughout my life and I have become a Christian. If I were raised in a Muslim family, I would have probably become a Muslim. If I were raised without being introduced to religion, I probably would not have any religious beliefs. The same applies to my political ideology. If I were born into a stone-age society, I would be different than I am in our current, sedentary society. I would hunt for my own food and probably think that the earth was flat.

When it comes to injustice, I also agree with Khaldun (Khaldun, 238-242). I believe it is unjust to take away a person’s property, especially without compensation, and to distribute it to people who are well liked by the rulers (Khaldun, 238-239). Our own society considered this injustice to be so important that there is a constitutional amendment outlawing the practice (U.S. Constitution). Moreover, I also believe forcing people to buy certain goods at high prices they cannot afford where they have to resell them at a low price is unjust (Khaldun, 241). In this sense, I agree that injustice can ruin a dynasty (Khaldun, 238-242). After all, that practice reminds me of the housing market, which is a major part of the economic crisis we are in right now (Cornett). After all, banks gave people loans they could not afford, and as a result, many people lost their homes (Cornett). Now the banks themselves are in trouble and looking to the government for support (Norris).

Overall, Ibn Khaldun covered a large amount of issues in his book, the Muqaddimah (Khaldun, 5-301). He laid out his views of history, the world, the necessity of social organization, differences between desert and sedentary cultures, the emergence and decay of empires, justice, ways of making a living, and human development (Khaldun, 5-301). I find his book to be extremely interesting. In particular, I am astonished by his very advanced view of the world (Khaldun, 45-69) and even the fact that he accurately predicted the approximate circumference of the earth (Khaldun, 49). While I disagree with his views on why certain races of people were inferior to others (Khaldun, 48-54), I agree that culture and the environment effect how a person develops (Khaldun, 94). I think Khaldun is correct that human cooperation and organization is necessary for survival (Khaldun, 45-46; Other class, 3/4/09-3/6/09). I agree with his view on how empires rose and fell and even found it to be more descriptive than a similar theory I learned in an international politics class, since that class did not cover concepts such as luxury and group feeling (Kegley, 94-95; Khaldun, 123-142). Much of what was described in his theory reminds me of what has been going on in the U.S. since World War II (Kegley, 94-95; Page; Frankel). Finally, I like Khaldun’s view of injustice (Khaldun, 238-242). In particular, I like what he said about how the rich and make people buy stuff at high prices that they cannot afford where they have to resell them at lower prices (Khaldun, 241). This reminds me of the economic crisis we are currently in (Cornett).

 So...to go through it. Yeah, as you can tell, even at this point, I liked relatively scientific approaches to the world rather than whatever the F Rousseau was doing (even if he ended up being right on the concept of property). 

Yeah, Khaldun was racist, he had this idea that brownish skin people were superior because they were advanced, while black Africans and white Europeans were dumb due to the climate being too hot or cold. I mean, it's kinda funny, any culture that dominates thinks they're the best. Nowadays there's a lot of whites who think they're the superior culture. Meanwhile, skin is just skin, a lot of it is just the spawn lottery in this game of civ. Btw, the reason Africa hasn't had strong civilizations in recent centuries is in part due to western imperialism, and in part due to the fact that the geography is just too hostile to human development. I mean, I've watched a lot of those real life lore videos on how geography makes or breaks countries, AND I've literally played civ on a world map. And yeah, best spawning spots on the planet are north America and northern Eurasia (basically where Russia is, but you need to control Europe and China to make it work). Whereas a lot of the less successful places just have rough geography that screws them over. It's not the people themselves, and I'd argue even culture has little to do with success. It's the geography. US has the best and is only rivaled by a combined Russia/China/Europe. And that's why the world is as it is today. 

On human organization. YES, it's human development and organization that makes society advance. And economic surplus can free people from labor, which could advance society further in its own ways. Which is why it baffles me we continue to work and produce more and more surplus while keeping people chained to their jobs. It's nonsensical to me. We should be freeing people from a lifetime of labor. And society would be better off for it.

On long cycle theory, I have more mixed thoughts these days. It's basically the whole "strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times, hard times create strong men" argument. He argues luxury is bad and living like a bedouin who lives in the desert makes you tough and resilient. I can see an argument for that, but eh....we're both luxurious and the strongest military on the planet. Even other rivals have their own problems. China is a paper tiger, their soldiers dont wanna fight to my knowledge. Russia's meatgrinder is held together by pure repression and it's demographically killing the nation long term. At the same time, we kinda are weak. And I kinda cringe at my whole "this generation would never storm normandy" take. Our generation and the one before me wouldn't even turn the heat down come winter in the 1970s, or get vaccinated today and sit on the couch for a year collecting paychecks. We are an entitled society, and to some extent, I do fear that we are seeing the rise of that "destroyer" generation with late gen Z. 

The human nature thing is a big reversal from my stance as a fundamentalist Christian. Back then, human nature was driven by sin and external factors were irrelevant. But that's what college does to you. it teaches you things and backs up its arguments. 

On property, I have evolved a lot though. I'm fine with redistribution of property. It beats the legal screwery that comes from an ironclad belief in property as a natural right, which just enslaves humanity to have to work for the wealthy forever. We also have a massive economic surplus even someone like Khaldun couldn't possibly imagine. So....again, different ideologies for different times. Khaldun's works made sense in the middle ages, but today? yeah, I think we can do better.

I was kinda dead on with the housing crisis, but that's also why I've evolved to be so progressive on property. This system doesn't work for most, it works for the wealthy. And operating from that, I'm fine with my own ideas. After all, my ideas are created for the times I live in, and intended to solve the problems of today. As I said, I kinda have a problem with people reading old books and making them their entire ideology. The books make sense for the time they're designed for, but not necessarily for the modern era. We have to figure out how we wish to live today. 

So with that said, Ibn Khaldun, interesting guy. Some stuff holds up, some doesn't, but that's to be expected from some Muslim philosopher from the middle ages.  

Reacting to 1 Texas Democrat vs 20 Undecided Voters

 So....Jubilee has had a few more debate. I aint gonna react to the doctor vs RFK supporter one. Quite frankly it's not that interesting from my perspective and not a good use of my time. I would like to address James Talerico debating undecided voters though. 

So...overall....kinda cringe. The debaters were ignorant. And James was...well...too Christian for my tastes. i get it, dude's from texas, he has to push the "good old Jesus boy" thing, but UGH...I really don't like Christianity mixed with politics given my own belief system. 

Anyway, let's get on with it. 

Claim #1: Cuts to healthcare and food assistance hurt all of us

He's right, you know. They do. And of course the people he's arguing against are going on about fraud. And it's like...ugh. Really? That rarely happens. And honestly, cutting welfare programs to punish the undeserving does more than it helps. And of course, Christian boy over doing the protestant work ethic thing, debating on their terms. Going on about teaching people to fish and hands up, not handouts, but yeah. As a secular progressive, handouts are based and we should normalize that.

Here's the thing. I wanna solve problems. I wanna solve poverty. I wanna improve peoples' lives. My policies would benefit around 70-85% of people depending on the measure you use, and I stand by that. On the question of what of people "taking advantage" of the system, I don't see it that way. I believe that UBI and other services should be a RIGHT of citizenship, not a privilege. I believe that if we wanna talk personal responsibility and people misusing cash that they're given under my proposals, the thing is, if they waste it, that's on THEM. They're only hurting themselves, and no, they shouldn't get more. That's personal responsibility in my system. I aint interested in debating welfare fraud and undeserving people who are lazy and blah blah blah. This guy is and that's why I dislike democrats like this. I get it, it appeals to moderates and undecideds with ignorant takes, but yeah. Again, not super sympathetic.

And then there's a debate about how we shouldnt have the state do this but have charity take care of it. Again, this is something that irks me about christians. I look at it like Thomas Paine did. You know, one of the founders? The dude who wrote agrarian justice. He talked about how charity doesnt solve problems and if you wanna solve poverty, you do it by organizing society like a system of pulleys to remove the weight of the problem. Instead, Christians wanna keep the problem existing so they can then impose this moral burden on people to give. It's backwards. Like, again, I wanna solve problems. These guys don't have a solid exegesis of the facts that allow us to do so. So they leave us with a fragmented and broken system instead. 

Really, this is why Christianity in politics irks me and why I'm so hostile to it. Everyone gets caught up on these BS shoulds and oughts and in reality we should be doing what Paine suggested, use society like a system of pulleys to solve problems. But people are unhappy with those solutions because of these stupid shoulds and oughts and we all gotta suffer because of them. Again, it just annoys me. 

 Claim #2: Immigrants make America stronger and richer

 This is unequivocally true. Again, this is why we need a secular worldview that values things like facts and statistics. This is an objective reality the sociological data tells us. Welfare fraud is low, most immigrants arent harming the country, they're paying taxes, blah blah blah, and people just get so caught up on the immigration thing. Anyway, I dont have the energy to argue this one like I do point 1, but I believe I've made my points clear on this blog before. 

Claim #3: Your vote matters in 2026

 Here I see things both ways. On the one hand, to James Talerico's point, let me make my argument for voting in 2026. Texas is technically a swing state. It's not a very swingy one, it is likely R to "safe" R, but honestly, it's in that zone where if enough people came out for the democrats, they could swing it. It's mostly a theoretical exercise, but let's go back to a few of my previous predictions.

2024 (presidential): 1.2% chance

2024 (senate): 13.6% chance

2020 (presidential): 38.2% chance

2020 (senate): 3.0% chance

 I mean, the chance is never great, and sometimes it's rather insignificant, but it can happen. I consider texas in play for good reason. And if voters turn out highly enough, yeah, it can flip.

On the other hand, will that make their lives better? A lot of these guys don't really feel like their vote matters because even if this guy could win, he's not gonna represent them. This guy is saying he's gonna try, but honestly? I kinda feel sympathetic to some of them. Like the atheist dude who didn't think that anyone actually represented their beliefs. yeah, I dont blame him for thinking that way. This dude gives me HRC vibes at time laying on the christianity so thick, and honestly, that's one of he reasons i disliked her and many other moderate dems too. Those guys just represent a milder version of the same worldview the right has. The right is fundamentalist christian and then these guys are just moderate christians who think the same thing just with more nuance. So I can understand feeling disenfranchised. 

To Talerico's credit, he pointed out he doesnt always like the dems either and he places his convictions above the party, but let's think about what that means. He basically talked about already having a church and a sports team. So...again, more loyalty to religion. Not really inspiring me there. Because when someone like that does defect from the party odds are they'll run right, not left. So again, not really feeling this dude much. 

And thats the thing. if you're disaffected, and feel disenfranchised by democrats, this guy doesnt give me much hope for the party. Question #1 tends to center around my own ideological vision for the country and this dude isn't that. He's just another moderate dem in my views who has those flawed views and it doesn't inspire confidence. I get it, it's texas, but still. I really wish we could throw religion into the trashbin of history and just abandon it. It just holds us back and stops me from reaching common ground with these guys on basic existential philosophical issues. Like, my values are not his values. And he might appeal to what the dems conventionally consider moderate, but that ain't me. 

Claim #4: The biggest divide in our politics is not left vs right, it's top vs bottom

Eh...I do kinda agree with this. But again, let me put some nuance here. What is the top vs bottom? Corporate interests vs the interests of everyone else. THis one woman who spoke was talking about how she's like in the 97th percentile of income and how she was willing to pay more taxes, but are all people willing to do that? Will they do that to advocate for policies that I support like UBI? A lot of those guys bristle at that idea. And they'll go on about how they earned it and everyone else should work for theirs. Even though that's clearly not working. And those guys being democrats....actually makes the dems weaker. because that's why they become this insufferable moderate hugbox. They're like "we cant do that..." because they wanna appeal to those guys. A generation ago, many were republican. Hell, as recently as 2012, many were republican. But the centrist dems keep trying to bring these guys into the party and it weakens it. 

But, at the same time, it's also values. And for me, I define left wing politics between the Christian worldview vs the secular one. I understand that's not a clear divide in reality. Pope Francis was pro UBI and left wing and Ayn Rand was an atheist. But, if we really wanna discuss the cultural issues of American politics, and the real existential, philosophical stuff undergirding these views, I really do believe Christianity seems to drive a lot of right leaning thinking in the modern era, while secularism drives the left. And we can see that statistically demonstrated just by checking out the build a voter stuff.  You go from evangelical to atheist and BOOM you shift like 75% of the spectrum from that one variable. And then other brands of Christianity are in the middle between them. Kinda fitting all things considered. The right is driven by evangelical Christianity, the left by secularism, and the "moderates" are....moderates. Kinda in the middle. Almost like religion matters. 

So idk is it left vs right? To some degree, yes. Where you stand on cultural issues does influence your ideology down the line, and a progressive christian is still gonna cede a lot of ideological ground to the right that I'm not comfortable giving up (see question 1). On the other hand, it is top vs bottom. because both republicans and democrats in America kinda both serve the wealthy interests. It's not one or the other, it's both. And if anything, one of my arguments is that religion really is the opium of the masses where it kinda placates people. It keeps them running around with this worldview full of flawed premises and all of these nonsense shoulds and oughts that people just won't think straight on the subject from my perspective and solve problems. When i left Christianity, it really did make a HUGE difference in my ideological perspective.And I feel like, if people approached these issues from a secular perspective where people could think straight, that we would see a left wing revolution that crushes modern conservatism. 

On the flip side, maybe it might make the conservatism we get worse. Look at germany, and the split between the CDU in the western parts, and the AFD in the eastern. Whereas western germany's conservatives are religious, eastern germany's conservatives are turning into fascists. Of course, eastern germany also might be nostalgic for authoritarianism given it was communist for four decades. Either way Im willing to concede that point back to the Christians on that one. Maybe their influence makes their version of conservatism significantly more ethical and less homicidal, despite it making me role my eyes from all of its arbitrary beliefs and rules for how things should be that hold us back. Idk. 

Undecided Voter Claim: No matter how much gun violence happens within the state of Texas, there will never be a gun ban or gun reform

I dont remember much about this one and it wasnt that long, but honestly, I won't say "never." Either way, yeah, I kinda agree. I don't see it happening any time in the foreseeable future. Texas is really "yeehaw" country and big on their second amendment. And honestly, I think pursuing the gun issue is a good way to lose. Even I'm pretty moderate on guns and am basically a second amendment lib. Still, you give people enough time, and enough party realignments happen in American politics, and anything can happen. 

Conclusion

Honestly, not a bad debate, but I really don't care for James Talerico as a candidate due to him being so up front with his religion. Again, it's texas, I get it, but...UGH. It just reminded me why religion and politics don't mix. And before people ask of me what James said of himself, and how doesnt my spirituality influence my politics? of course it does, in a sense. But let me explain HOW.

My deconversion was apparently planned "from above" to bring me to my current ideas, which I then express to everyone else. My views are based around secular humanism. And even coming back to spirituality, the secular basis of my politics haven't changed. Like really, I'd still believe 99% of what I currently belief if I wasn't spiritual. Why? Because I developed my belief system as a literal atheist, and I still fight for that perspective even though I have spirituality. 

So...I'm in a unique perspective to say that yes, I wish there was less religion in politics. 

Either way, my spirituality just strengthens my belief that I'm advocating for what I see as the right thing. Because if this whole thing was planned, then I'm supposed to be like this, and I'm supposed to advocate for what I do. It just adds even further conviction that "this is what I'm here to do." and makes me double down even harder on my views. If that makes sense.

But even if I was still an atheist, my beliefs would be the same and you can probably tell that since I literally sound like a new atheist here still. 

Either way, yeah, I still think the world would be better off if they leave Christianity...and for that matter, other organized religions.  Because they just mess up your worldview with all of these weird arbitrary shoulds and oughts that stop us from seeing the issues with clarity, and advocating for solutions that would actually fix things. I really think we allow problems to exist for a lot longer than they should because people see those problems as part of god's design and think fixing them goes against said design. Meanwhile if we removed that veil from peoples' thinking, it would be like, oh, yeah, the way we're doing things is irrational, let's change this. ya know? That's all I'm saying here. 

Like, why teach people to fish when we're advanced enough to create a machine to do all of the fishing for us? It's just maddening to me. Ya know what I'm saying? 

Why I'm not a conservative because I don't support social media bans

 So...there's a debate recently to be had around social media and how it affects kids. Being a grown adult who doesn't have kids and who hasn't been a kid for almost 20 years now, I don't have a strong dog in this fight, but if anything, I come out against them. The fact is, I dislike this idea that everything is a problem that has to be solved, and my stance since I was young enough to be affected by these bans is "keep your hands off my internet." I'm a child of the wild west days of the internet of the 90s and 2000s, mostly the 2000s for me, my family was a bit behind the curve in adopting computers, internet, etc. And honestly, I think most changes made since then have been negative. Because you got all these people coming in and finding "problems" with the status quo and insisting we have to make the internet safer, specifically for kids. 

Like, I'm of the generation who were the people on those unmoderated xbox live lobbies of the mid-late 2000s. And I recall back around 2015-2016 when we started moving toward "oh, we gotta make it so people can't say mean words on the internet." Me, I'm like sink or swim. I respect the trash talk, I respect the freedom, but you got these weirdos who are like "we gotta regulate this", and now you can't say anything without getting banned in some games, it's ridiculous. I forget exactly what was said but I saw someone got banned from BF6 lately for something really mild and really dumb. You truly can't say anything any more that is offensive or controversial in a lot of places. And I kinda hate it.

I also resent crap like how we need to have porn bans "to protect the kids." Use parental controls, monitor your kids' online activities.  Don't make us have to submit our fricking IDs just to jack off. Jesus christ, who thinks this is a good idea? Just braindead authoritarians.

And now with australia banning social media for those under 16, there's debate here in the US about whether we should follow suit. NO! Just...NO! Again, why does everything have to be a problem solved by some law? And yes, I am aware social media is making kids depressed, I just dont think the solution is government regulation that could lead to the end of internet anonymity and the need for people to submit their IDs to actually access websites. I get it, kids should be protected from certain things, I just believe it's the parents' job to do that, and there are plenty of tools available to them. 

 Anyway, today I got called conservative for having this stance, given liberals are typically in favor of government regulation, and conservatives are opposed to it, preaching personal responsibility.  I can see why someone might say that, but I'd like to flip the script. 

 For most of my life, every time there's a moral panic, it often came from conservatives. it was the conservatives freaking out over satanism in the 1990s, over violent video games, harry potter, and pokemon in the 2000s, over terrorism in the 2000s (remember the patriot act?), and more recently, they're going nuts over porn and crap claiming we gotta protect the kids.

Quite frankly, the whole "OMG WE GOTTA PROTECT THE KIDS" mentality is inherently conservative. It comes from that part of the lizard brain that embraces authoritarian and conservative thinking. When I came to liberalism, i did it via libertarianism. I rejected these conservative impulses and designed my philosophy around...well...actual philosophy. I understood the limit of government action and how just letting people do what they want is often better. I believe that decriminalizing drugs is better than prohibition. That regulating abortion access only harms people who legitimately need access to it. That teaching abstinance only education in hopes to stop people from having sex doesn't work and they're gonna do it anyway, leading to higher rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancy. 

Quite frankly, when I came over, i thought liberals were just libertarian on social issues, but then you got these weird paternalists within liberalism as well, who end up having this pathological "must protect the kids" mentality. Reminds me of HRC, since she was into that, supporting conditional safety nets to protect kids, but then having a history of also crusading against violent video games in the 2000s. And I dislike that mentality. I mean, my opinion is what about everyone else? With safety nets, protect everyone. With social issues, just let people figure crap out for themselves. It's simple.

And some liberals might see me more as just a libertarian. Fair. I kinda am. Even my economic positions are in part driven by a desire to be free from the economic coercion of capitalism. Economic security is necessary for liberty IMO. But that said I'm not a right libertarian, aka, a propertarian or one of those lockean property rights guys. My views are obviously more influenced by Rousseau, Mill, and of course, more modern thinkers like Phillipe Van parijs and Karl Widerquist. So I kind of am in my own eclectic political lane here.

Either way, I'm DEFINITELY not conservative. They're the opposite of me: authoritarian on social issues, but then free market on economic issues to the point of social darwinism. I'm libertarian on social issues and very progressive and left wing on social issues. Even if I sometimes agree with conservatives on things like "instead of asking the state to ban this behavior, maybe you should take more personal responsibility here?", I do it from a perspective of anti authoritarianism. I dont believe that all problems are worth solving through state action, and on stuff like social media bans with stuff like that, I just see that as the latest moral panic where authoritarian minded individuals try to ruin a good thing with heavy handed solutions that cause more harm than good. 

Some might try to insinuate that I'm okay with letting kids suffer. Okay, I'll play that game. Go ahead and say it. I dont cave to pressure from the OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN crowd who use such rhetoric to politically pressure and emotionally manipulate me into supporting authoritarian positions. That crap doesn't work, you have no power here. Go ahead and hate me, I don't care. My principles are my principles, take them or leave them.  

No, we shouldn't be grateful for the "job creators"

 So...I was watching the news today and there was a discussion about how OMG, what would we do if not for the jobs of the job creators! We'd literally be poor without them!

I know I once felt prey to this logic in my conservative days, so I really wanna break people out of this.

The structural functionalist argument

 So, I would argue that every advanced society needs a system to determine who does what, and who gets what. Hunter gatherer tribes had a division of labor of...hunting and gathering. Feudal societies had the kings ruling, the nobles fighting, and the peasants growing food. In more modern societies, we have capitalism. We let the financial rewards of the system do things that way. Businesses create jobs out of their desire for profit, and workers work for their desire for a paycheck. It's argued things need to be done this way because we need people to work, to create the goods and services we rely on. When we talk about communism, the argument is often presented that under that system, without financial incentives, there are no real incentives to work, and I agree with that.

The function of work

However, when we ask why things have to be this way, let us not forget that the whole reason is because we need work to be done. We could just give everyone stuff for free, but the argument is that if we do, work incentives would disappear and we'd all starve to death as no one would do the work necessary for the survival and functioning of society.

As such, let's really emphasize this, the function of tying income to work is to motivate work, under the pretense that work is necessary. if work is not necessary, then this structure for society makes no sense and is cruel. 

The necessity of work

While I'll agree that some level of work is necessary for society to function, we've long since evolved beyond the needs of the entire society to work all of the time. As capitalism has allowed us to become more productive, we have been more and more able to do more with less. In theory, we should be able to support at least subsistence level living with relatively little work these days. Working hours reduced through the 19th century, but after the New Deal was struck, hours stagnated at 40, and were never reduced from there. Now, we work for higher and higher standard of living under the pretense that growth is good. Rather than working for necessity, we work for consumerism. 

A lot of this was due to fear of what would happen if we moved away from a work based system. Businesses feared losing money if we became so efficient at producing our needs that we didn't have to work any more. Businesses might close up and disappear because there was no need for those products. So we invented consumerism to keep people on a treadmill of working for higher and higher standards of living, all while imposing the same economic coercion on them we always did.

On the flip side, because the labor unions were the first dominant means of resisting the tyrannies of capitalism, narratives shifted from work being seen as evil among the working class, to work being "dignified." Because unions gain their power through organized resistance to employer demands through the labor system, and the benefits of capitalism for the lower classes are tied to jobs, they also became dependent on this job based system, fearing what would happen if human workers remained irrelevant. This caused them to develop what I consider luddite style anti progress attitudes at preserving old work.

We could have shifted toward a system less dependent on work, but this would upset stakeholders of the existing system, and cause us to have to rewrite our social contract to find ways to provide for people in an absence of work. As such, capitalism has remained coercive at forcing people into the work based system whether they like it or not, and because most people are invested enough in the existing system, and unimaginative enough at thinking beyond it, we've mostly preserved some variation of this system since, with there being intense political inertia to change the system. As such, work is no longer a necessity in the past, although many people believe it. The real reason we don't move toward less work is people fear what would happen if we do. Again, it's political inertia. 

The myth of the "job creator"

While for the first half of this past century's economic arc, we operated under the principles of Fordism and Keynesianism, the idea that it is consumption that drives the economy, and that it's useful for workers to make good money so they can buy more products and keep this consumerist loop going, in the second half, we shifted toward "supply side" economics rather than "demand side" economics, where we see the wealthy as the producers of everything. Rather than businesses merely responding to human needs and employing people to meet those needs, we started seeing the narrative that if only we give all of the wealth to the wealthy, that it would trickle down to the rest of us. This has largely been untrue. For the next 45 years since this way of thinking became dominant, the rich have grown significantly richer, while the wealth of the majority has stayed the same or declined. For this narrative of growth as a tide that raises all boats, it really doesn't. It raises the boats of the few while the rest struggle to tread water. And in the 2020s, as we enter our first real inflationary period since the beginning of this paradigm, it's quite clear the problems are largely corporate greed and the economy shifting away from appealing to actual middle class people and below, toward the wealthy top 20% of people who captured most of the economic gains since the 1980s and who now hold the vast majority of money and make up the vast majority of spending, and especially the mega wealthy who are buying up everything and distorting entire economies in fields like computing and electricity (AI data centers go brrr). 

But yeah, in all of this, we're still talking about the "job creators" as if they're the ones who make the economy work and we should be grateful for the opportunity to work for them or we'd be poor. Uh....again, we could have shifted away from jobs in any point in the past century. Our economy is 5x as productive per person as it was 100 years ago, not even per WORKER. Per CAPITA. We could functionally eliminate poverty at any time, but we don't, because we are so invested in this stupid system.

And that's the thing. None of this is necessary any more. And if anything, relying on this old system IS the problem with the economy. Because businesses dont wanna pay workers, they never did. And honestly, as a "worker", I don't really wanna work anyway. I HATE this system. I always have. And I've always been of the opinion that if we could do away with this system we should. The real question is, how, and is that viable?

A hybrid system

Obviously, we can't do away with all work. However, if we redistributed about 20% of the income, enough to keep people out of poverty, we could establish a compromise. Much of the economy would still operate under capitalist principles as we understand them. We need that stuff, after all just to keep the engine of capitalism functional. I have no desire to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. However, if we give people a UBI, we take the first step toward liberating people from this system. We could also reduce the work week over time, rather than pursuing infinite economic growth, which would allow us to spend more time enjoying life, than spending all of our time working. At this point this work and consumption cycle is artificial. It's not necessary. We operate this way because we've made ourselves slaves to our system and the moral assumptions that underlie it, rather than those systems working for our benefit. And we've so brainwashed the populace into this culture of work and jobs that we actually have them begging the wealthy to create jobs for them so they can meet their needs. This is sickening, and without its absolute necessary, it is functionally enslavement IMO. We don't call it that, it's slavery with extra steps, but yeah. 

I don't have all the answers to what a post work society would look like. However, I'm not trying to create a true post work society. Rather, I'm just trying to take the first steps toward one. Give people an unconditional basic income, reduce the work week, etc. I don't see us slaying the beast of work entirely any time soon. It ain't gonna happen in my lifetime. But by taking the first steps toward such a goal, we can at least move away from it gradually. And when we need to transition to another system, if we ever get that far, we can. Quite frankly, I remain unsure if we ever will. I think some human labor will always be necessary. it's just a matter of how much. 

To be edgy...

 If I wanted to be really edgy on this topic, I could even discuss the ideas of colonialism and prehistory of captialism and the work ethic. We had work before capitalism. And for much of history, reducing work was necessary. But we introduced this capitalist work ethic through protestantism that created this pathological obsession with gathering more wealth at all costs. In the early days of capitalism, people tried giving say, other cultures fertilizer that can grow 4x the food. However, rather than growing 4x as much food and selling it, they'd just work 1/4 as much. We had, for example, the irish, who would grow potatoes. And the British stopped them from doing so, to impose the work ethic on them, which contributed to the 1848 famine. We privatized all of the land, and forced people to get jobs in factories. For all the talk about how money "doesn't grow on trees", actually, some of our needs do grow on trees, but capitalism made picking the fruits illegal as they belonged to someone else, and we enforced that system of property with force. This is what really drove the masses to the factorys, to live at the mercy of the "job creators." And even know, these "job creators" are heralded as heroes as we ask why people would do if not for the jobs they create. They'd be in poverty and would starve without them. Except, we literally took people over, disrupted traditional precapitalist ways of life, and imposed this culture onto them. And then we act like we should be grateful to sell them the cure (jobs) for the disease (poverty) we created. 

So...yeah. F the job creators. let them shove those jobs where the sun doesn't shine. This society is sick, we should stop acting like it isn't, and we should understand that LIFE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY.  So yeah, that's my answer on this. 

Ya know, reading my old essays I can kinda understand why I despise centrist democrats now...

 So...in last night's group of essays, I covered my reactions to Jean Jacque Rousseau and Karl Marx when I read them for a political philosophy class back in 2009. And....when I really dissect my beliefs, despite calling myself a "moderate conservative" at the time, it's quite clear my economic views were closer toward establishment liberalism. Like, I always had this pro labor and anti elite aspect to my politics. I never trusted the wealthy to look after the best interests of the people, I always recognized they screwed people over, and I quite frankly only voted conservative because I literally didn't believe liberal ideas could work. I mean, stuff we already had, like social security, minimum wage laws, etc., I could get behind. I mean, I was a structural functionalist, we tried those ideas and they worked. But I was very anti welfare (outside of like social security), and I opposed any efforts to shift America even further left. This was because, at the center of my ideology, I understood that what made capitalism work was its incentive structure. The profit motive was what motivated people to work. When you take that away, there's no longer any motivation in the system. If you made people too economically comfortable not working, they wouldnt work. if you taxed people too much, they would stop trying to excel. So...for me, it was like "yeah, it sucks, but we kind of need society to be like this to function."

What changed for me? Well, first of all, after the Tea Party took over and I saw them scream about the budget deficit and arguing we need to cut spending in the middle of a recession, while also proposing tax cuts for the wealthy, the ruse fell apart. When my dad was laid off and told that they did it so the company could keep its record profits, I understood that trickle down was a scam. When I analyzed republican tax plans like Herman Cain's 999 plan and the fairtax, I understood the net benefit of this plan was rich people. We normal people pay MORE in taxes, wealthy people pay less. I understood that in an economy with no jobs, where the rich have no money, cutting taxes on the rich while also cutting safety nets was literally psychotic, and I realized conservative ideals are just bad at their core and abandoned that belief system. 

And then as I built up my views under a more humanistic approach, I continued to look for solutions for the economic mess we were in, only for UBI to fit the bill. And like many people, I was skeptical at first. Like, come on, we're gonna raise taxes to the tune of $3 billion to fund a guaranteed safety net for everyone? No one would work, and we'd lose all motivation. But being scientifically minded, I was willing to look for evidence, and evidence, UBI supporters had. There are countless studies showing that at least up to the poverty line, work incentives are minimal. The fact is, UBI isn't enough to give everyone a GOOD life, it's just enough for the bare minimum, and most would still be motivated to work. We'd see SOME reduction in work ethic, like, maybe 10-15% in terms of hours worked AT MOST, but all in all, it was sustainable. Quite frankly, I would need to look at studies of those who won the lottery to find a significant work reduction, and even those guys only dropped out at like a 50% rate despite having to the tune of say, 3-8x the poverty line worth of income a year. Think the "$1000 a week for life" kind of people. And then the tax rates. Sure, if we taxed at like 100%, we'd see a reduction of work ethic, but at like 50%, which is where most tax schemes with UBI would end up? Not really. With rates studied between 30% and 70%, yeah, the 70% stopped working more than 30%, but still, it was relatively sustainable in that curve. If we looked at international studies on tax rates and what's sustainable, the maximum sustainable rate is somewhere around 70%. So with that said, we can say motivation if a spectrum, and that we can move up to social democracy level taxation with a poverty line level UBI, and still have a functioning capitalist economy. 

So...why don't we do that? Why don't the left push for that? At first, I thought it was simply because the pressure from the Reagan revolution forced them to the center. And they just needed to rediscover their voice and convictions. The great recession was the greatest economic crisis since the great depression, and it was clear what we're doing wasn't working, and it was clear trickle down economics were a scam. If we wanted to retake the narrative from the right, the 2010s were the time to do it. 

So imagine when 2008's sloppy seconds came back and insisted it was her turn, and how we can't have nice things. Clinton was perfectly amenable to me in 2008. Seriously, given Bill clinton's approach to the national debt, and Hillary's opposition to the Iraq War, I liked Clinton better than McCain. Because she WAS a moderate, I knew it, and I understood despite my conservative beliefs, that I could be comfortable with a moderate liberal president. I just was told by Fox News that Obama was a literal communist and thought that that was too much. 

But then Obama governed like I expected Clinton to, and I found him far more reasonable than the republicans, who were very quickly radicalizing. And given my evolving views at the time, yeah, I became pro Obama in 2012, and in his second term, I shifted further left to where I am now. So yeah, by 2016, I wasn't interested in Clinton. If anything, I found her views to be far too moderate, closer to my own 2008 views. I mean, you got this moderate christian who was wishy washy on abortion, gay marriage, and who supported minimum wage laws and the economic status quo but was otherwise quite fiscally conservative, and it's like...this is me in 2008. And I had long since evolved since then.

I mean, it's quite clear college was a transitory time for me, and while most of the ideological shifts explicitly happened in 2011-2013 or so, with 2012 being the big focal point for me, I was moderating from like 2006 onward. Because my Biblical Christian worldview was shattered back in my freshman year in college, and while I maintained some level of my Christian and conservative views in the following years, my worldview was conflicted and I didn't really have a consistent, coherent worldview.

Quite frankly, moderate democrats have exactly that worldview. They are trying to constantly compromise with the right. They don't have solid convictions. They got these weird liberal Christian beliefs, and they basically let the right's worldview serve as an ideological anchor while walking it back a bit from the edge of extremism. But here's the thing, as an ex conservative and ex Christian, this isn't a good place to be. Because such an ideological zone is a storm of cognitive dissonance. It appeals to virtually no one. Remember, I voted for McCain. Did Obama need my moderate vote to win elections? Hillary was the more "moderate" candidate. She was the conventionally "electable" one. Did that fricking matter? No. Obama won in a landslide, and the whole electability narrative was repudiated for me. It isn't the more moderate, candidate who wins elections, it's the one who fires people up and excites them. "Hope, change, yes we can!" That's what did it. Not "well we need to be moderate, so we can win moderates, because moderation is good, for some reason." That's McCain 2008, that's Romney 2012, it's an enthusiasm killer. Because you're alienating your own side and not doing a darned thing to win over voters from the other side. But now we're in our weird McCain/Romney esque desert running people like HRC, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris. 

Really. I guess I'm rambling now. I really just got on to say that, yeah, 2009 me was a fricking centrist lib and didn't even know it. Conservative me, was economically a very moderate liberal. I was pro minimum wage laws, pro unions, I was just super pro work ethic and anti welfare. Which is basically a moderate lib anyway. I mean, no wonder I liked Obama once he governed a bit, right? My views were always closer to that than the republicans on economic issues. I was just a brainwashed idiot voting against my own interests. But thankfully, i grew out of that at a relatively young age, and now I have logically consistent beliefs that actually stand for something. And now I look at centrist dems like...ew you're like old me, the one I called conservative, actual progressives should be so much further left. 

I mean, let's face it, these centrist libs have conservative convictions, they just recognize that they shouldn't just go so far right they lose touch with reality. And yeah. Again, my views are just cut from a different cloth now, and as such, I despise that old belief system.  

Marx Reaction (5/5/2009)

So...in this political theory class, I also covered Marx. You will see some references to John Stuart Mill in this reaction. We read that between Rousseau and Marx, and while I did not react directly to mill, mainly because the Rousseau reaction took so much out of me, I'd say Mill was my favorite philosopher who I studied in this class, and my brand of libertarianism was based more on Mill's "On Liberty", rather than someone like say, Ayn Rand or something.

Anyway, here's my reaction to Karl Marx's writings:

Overall, as someone who is rather economically conservative and overall prefers the free market system, I have to say that I liked Marx a lot more than I thought I would. I do not agree with his ideas for overthrowing the system as I will mention later, but I did agree with many of the premises he built his arguments on (Marx, 70-200). I also like the fact that he used history to back up his arguments (Marx, 145-200); one thing I did not like about some other authors I have read in this class is the fact that they did not offer such a grounded approach to their philosophy. I agree with Marx about how the current system of labor completely wrecks a person’s life and does not allow people to act as individuals (Marx, 70-101). I think that some people really do throw their lives away seeking careers solely to make money (Marx, 94-97). Some people seem to spend their whole lives working and never really enjoy life or even the fruits of their labor (Marx, 94-97). What is the point in owning a huge mansion, a seventy-two inch plasma TV, and having five cars if you never have the time to enjoy them and you are too busy working in order to get more money to buy more stuff that you will in turn never enjoy? I think that labor is necessary in all systems in order for society to function and for people to live. I am not against the concept of work here; I just think that spending one’s whole life in pursuit of money without ever really living is a waste (Marx, 94-97). In short, I think that work is necessary, but it should not be the primary function of their life unless they want it to be1; if they do not, it should only be a means of living and nothing more. Some people actually do enjoy their work; the president of the United States probably feels great satisfaction for being president and will spend years on the campaign trail to get there, but this is not the case in all jobs, and not everyone would want to be president.

I also agree with Marx’ views regarding the modern relationship between a worker and an employer to an extent (Marx, 74-75). While I think that such a relationship is necessary, it is true that a worker is ultimately working for his employer’s benefit instead of his own (Marx, 73-74). I also agree that such a relationship can consume one’s life against their will and turn them into robots (Marx, 74-75). I know my dad’s former employer once told him that he had to work for like twelve hours every day and that the fact that he had a family was his problem and that his job was more important. I could not think of a clearer example of people being alienated from their lives other than this (Marx, 74-75).

On the other hand, I do not really buy into the whole concept that such a relationship does in fact alienate everyone from their work (Marx, 70-81). While I understand that if someone makes a chair or something and then sells it himself, he can feel pride in making a good chair as opposed to merely producing one in the factory for someone else (Class, 4/29/09). However, given that the wages are good enough, I think that working in a factory could also be something to be proud of, which is something Marx did not agree with (Marx, 80). I think that if people earn enough money and can buy a house or something, they can take pride in that. I know this sounds a little contradictory to what I just said earlier about people working their lives away, but it really is not. If people work up the ladder to earn something that gives them great pride and enjoyment, who is to take that away? In my opinion, if that is what they want to do with their life, it is up to them as long as their quest for happiness does not interfere with someone else’s (Mill, 80).

I do not agree with Marx at all on his views regarding overthrowing the system (Marx, 162-200). As much as the current system is flawed (Marx, 70-200), I do not think abolishing it is a good idea at all. Marx’s what the ideal community is like is a bit too utopian to me, and I do not think that utopias work (Class, 5/4/09; Marx, 162-200). We live in a real world and that world just is not perfect and it is not going to change in that sense overnight if at all. Let’s say that the workers overthrew the system and abolished the state and the current ruling class (Marx, 162-200). Now what? Marx mentioned how people need to have the means to overthrow the system and people cannot just make the change mentally, but the converse is also true (Marx, 169). Marx talked about how our ideas are shaped by the people in charge, that being the bourgeoisie (Marx, 165-174). Merely getting rid of the system and setting up a new one based on principles just will not work (Marx, 165-174). When the North beat the South in the civil war, the former slave owners did not all of the sudden want black people to be equal to them and instead oppressed them with the Jim Crow laws (Pilgrim). The old paradigms were still there (Pilgrim), and this is a major problem with Marx’s revolution; the bourgeois paradigms would still be in peoples’ heads because they were exposed to them their entire lives (Marx, 165-174). Moreover, who is to say that when the proletariat overthrows the system that they will set up a system in the best interest of all? After all, it could become a democracy like Aristotle described, if not worse (Aristotle, 79). Since bourgeois paradigms still exist in peoples’ minds and people still like property (Marx, 165-174), people can just take advantage of the instability of the system and establish their dominance. Thus, like the bourgeoisie overthrowing the aristocrats before them, one ruling class will just be replaced with another (Marx, 174).

I also do not think abolishing the division of labor is practical (Marx, 197-200). I do not think it is really possible for someone to be a doctor one day, a garbage person the next, and then a nuclear physicist (Class, 5/4/09). The reason we are going to college is to get a degree in a certain field, or possibly two fields. While it is possible to be somewhat rounded, ultimately, people are probably going to specialize, since it takes years for people to prepare for their careers. Moreover, I would not want someone to do work in something that they are not qualified in. Think about this: would you want someone with no knowledge of medicine to do surgery on you, or would you prefer someone who has thorough knowledge of the field and a lot of experience? Marx’s ideas regarding no division of labor probably worked back in the old tribal system when life in general was much simpler (Marx, 151), but life now is very complex and I do not think abolishing the division of labor is practical.

Instead of overthrowing the system, I think that working to mitigate the negative effects of it is a better alternative. I base a lot of my views in economics off of Mill’s harm principle, which basically says that the only legitimate reason for government intervention into peoples’ lives is to prevent harm from being done to others (Mill, 80). I do not think that it is necessarily wrong for people to want to attain wealth; the problem is the harm that one’s conquest of wealth can do to others (Marx, 70-101; Mill, 80). Marx described this harm very well (Marx, 70-101). First of all, I think that workers in most professions should not be forced to work more than so many hours a day by law (the eight hour work day sounds good to me). This way, if people do not want to make the accumulation of wealth and the advancement of their career their top priority in life, they can still have time to develop as individuals and live their lives as they see fit (Marx, 94-97; Mill, 80). Moreover, I think that people should be guaranteed at least a certain wage. I am not saying everyone should be millionaires, but I think that people deserve fair compensation for their work and should not be starving after working for twelve hours a day (Class, 4/29/09). I think that this would be a better alternative to overthrowing the system and risking yet another perverted form of government emerging from the mess created (Marx, 165-174). It probably would not eliminate the underlying causes of the problems in the current system that Marx describes (Marx, 145-200), but I find his solution to be worse than these causes.

Overall, I found Marx to be a lot more interesting than I thought I would. He discussed an array of topics including the alienation of the worker from his labor and even his own life, how money can more or less dominate one’s life, a detailed description of economic history, how the ruling class shapes our views, and how to abolish the present system and build a new one on different principles (Marx, 70-200). I agree with a lot of Marx’s premises regarding the alienation and the place money has in modern life (Marx, 70-101), but I do not think overthrowing the system is possible or practical (Marx, 165-174). Since many of the same paradigms people have are present even after the system is overthrown, there is no guarantee a new system could work (Marx, 165-174). After all, when the bourgeoisie overthrew the aristocracy, they took control and did exactly what the aristocracy did (Marx, 174). At best, I think what could happen would be the development of a democracy similar to what Aristotle described (Aristotle, 79). I also do not agree with Marx’s ideas regarding abolishing the division of labor because nowadays, it takes years for people to become prepared for their careers and it makes no sense for them to change what they do for a living all the time (Marx, 197-200).


1 I am a strong supporter of Mill’s harm principle, and do not think people should be discouraged from working and earning money as long as they are not harming others in doing so (Mill, 80).

 So...keep in mind, I'm a conservative when I wrote this. But yeah. Also keep in mind, I was a conservative who hated rich people and wasn't really a fan of the idea of working for a living even then, I felt like work was necessary, I justified my views within structural functionalism, but yeah. Clearly not a fan and even I could understand what was so appealing about Marx. I just felt like communism didn't work. And it doesn't. 

But yeah. First paragraph, yeah, you can see where I was on work even then. Like...wasn't a fan of the concept, and clearly understood capitalism was oppressive. This was because of my own family's history with it. Of course, I cited my own dad's experience working with the HVAC company Sears, which in the 1990s had rather oppressive work policies and got no better in the years since. This is something I think we should really talk about. A lot of Trumpers, for example, dont seem to actually like the wealthy and the like either. But they're brainwashed into a conservative worldview. 

On alienation, I'll still agree that some people can feel pride in their work, but on factory work...I'm clearly referring to like 20th century union work here. Ya know, the kind that existed here in Pennsylvania between 1945 and 1980 or so, and that no longer does exist. And even then, uh...given how I've evolved on work, yeah I really dont agree with that whole model. Like, I AM a lot more anti work now than I was then. Back then i accepted it as a necessary evil. Now I realize we're creating jobs for their own sake and it's fricking stupid and that we shouldn't do it. 

STILL, I always did have that libertarian streak in me. And I kinda believed even then it was up to the individual. If people wanted to work, and truly liked it, that's up to them. It's kind of like the whole lazies vs crazies arguments Van parijs demonstrates in his ideology. Ideally society should support both. And while in my own personal ideology I think work is oppressive and people shouldnt aspire to work more than they have to, well, again, we're gonna live in a pluralistic libertarian society and people arent gonna agree with me. It's a lot like how I find organized religions to be distasteful but I still affirm freedom of religion. You gotta let people live as they want. Left wing authoritarians trying to impose their own ultimate version of truth on people are going to backfire.

But yeah. Between Rousseau, Mill, and Marx, and the influences all 3 have had on my thinking, it's not surprising i ended up where I am now. My view is kind of a mishmash of the three combined. I recognize from marx that capitalism and work is oppressive. I support my approach from a perspective that's pro freedom. And Rousseau, well, Rousseau had the whole property being the source of oppression thing and the idea of the social contract. 

But yeah, it's not really surprising where I ended up and my current worldview is like a synthesis of all of these guys. Or rather, I was driven toward more modern philosophers in the UBI movement like van parijs and widerquist who are more aligned with synthesizing these different schools of thought. 

I'm actually surprised how progressive I was. Like, despite being a conservative and a tea party republican during this time, I clearly supported things like minimum wage laws and worker protections as we were able to have them and wasn't for just unfettered capitalism. My positions were actually closer to democrats than republicans. But that's cognitive dissonance for you. And this is why I really have this view that a lot of conservatives are like this. Because I was like this, and once my deconversion and associated issues forced me to take a side, i realized that right wingers were just insane and evil and haven't supported them since.

And then in rebuilding my worldview, I ended up going toward concepts that reflected and actually synthesized these conflicting ideologies at the time into something that...isn't really conflicting and is quite logically consistent. 

And even when I started this blog, I pointed out, hey, marx, great analyzer of capitalism. Great at defining problems. But the revolution stuff, not so great. You gotta go in the more liberal direction there. And I did. And forging my own path, again...now I ain't really like "well I agree with marx but I also agree with mill", it's more "I agree with van parijs and widerquist who give us a form of left libertarianism that synthesizes these concepts into the political platform that I now support."

And yeah, that's all I really have to say here.  

Rousseau Reaction (4/4/2009)

 So, this is a part of an essay I did on Jean Jacques Rousseau back in 2009 for a political philosophy class. I will not post the whole essay as its 15 pages long and tedious, but long story short, I read a bunch of stuff Rousseau wrote and did an essay on it. This is the result of my actual reaction part.

Personally, I largely do not agree with much of what Rousseau says. I think he makes valid points at times, but I disagree with parts of his worldview as well as some of his conclusions. First of all, I question the validity of natural right and natural law (Rousseau, 4-6; Class, 3/23/09-4/1/09). I do not think that such things exist on their own. I may be turning this into a theological argument, but I believe that a god would have to establish natural right and natural law himself. This appears to be a rather American understand of natural rights, since this is what the Declaration of Independence seems to argue (Declaration of Independence). While one can make an argument that humans should have a right to life because their instincts drift toward self-preservation (Class, 3/23/09-3/30/09), I do not necessarily think that this has to be a case. Animals themselves often do not grant every being the right to live; some eat each other for food. I believe the same with natural law; without a supernatural being, who says that certain laws are so simple that they exist in nature and must be followed? Again, nature itself is silent on the subject in my opinion. I do believe that such rights and laws exist, but these come from my religious beliefs; I do not think they just occur naturally.

I also do not think that there is a man in the state of nature as Rousseau claimed (Rousseau, 11-34). I do not think that humans can survive on their own, at least not for long. If a human gets injured or sick in this state, which is very likely considering the hazards of living without civilization and medicine, he or she has no one to care for them and no one to turn to for help. When I was in high school, I dislocated my knee. The reason I am better today because we have a society that has health care and my parents and school helped me get around. If I were in nature, I would be lying there on the ground, not able to move, exposed to the elements, and I might even attacked by some wild animal. This is the complete opposite of what Rousseau thought, since he believed that it was possible for humans to recover from even serious injuries (Rousseau, 14). Life in nature, according to scientific theories, appears to be centered around the idea of natural selection, meaning those best able to survive in nature do, and the others eventually die out (Darwin and Natural Selection). While a man in nature probably is fitter than one in society due to constantly exercising his body in the fight of survival, I agree more with philosophers like Ibn Khaldun who thought that humans needed to be in groups to survive (Khaldun, 45-46). Like Rousseau, I think that families were some the first groups found among humans (Rousseau, 37).

The idea that people need one another and function in groups also removes the issue Rousseau had explaining language (Rousseau, 22-25); it probably developed among these groups as he eventually concluded (Rousseau, 37-38). These groups could have agreed to a language rather easily; many would be raised learning the language of their parents and group like we do today. Considering this, I do not think the creation of language was really that difficult. We do need consensus on what the words mean like Rousseau said (Rousseau, 22-25), but if someone in a group decided one day that this brown and green thing should be called a tree, are people really going to argue with him and say “no, I want that to be called a skunk”? I seriously doubt it, since the group would need a uniform code of communications to interact with one another. We can observe this behavior in the creation of pidgins, which are makeshift languages between groups of people who share no common language and need to communicate with one another for some purpose (Pidgins and Creoles). In modern times, it is observed that these languages come from the participants’ original languages (Pidgins and Creoles), but even in the absence of that, I could imagine people still agreeing on using a common sound to communicate if they needed to for some purpose. While coming up with grammatical rules is difficult, it probably happened naturally over time, since this also happens with pidgins that do not die out (Pidgins and Creoles). Languages probably started out as being very primitive as Rousseau described, and then became more complex over time (Pidgins and Creoles; Rousseau, 25).

I also do not agree with Rousseau on the issue of human nature and his views on passions and sentiments (Rousseau, 27-29). I do not think that there is really a difference between Rousseau’s two kinds of drives regarding the self (Rousseau, 27-28). While humans do show empathy, or pity as Rousseau put it (Rousseau, 28-29), they ultimately care for themselves in my opinion. People show pity because they can put themselves in that situation; if the self could not experience such a situation, there could not be pity (Rousseau, 28-29). Therefore, even in actions of putting oneself in another’s shoes, there is still an aspect of the self involved (Rousseau, 28-29) I thought Rousseau made a good point though when he said that a person does not “beat his mother when she is too slow in giving him her breast” or “strangled one of his young brothers when he inconvenienced him” (Rousseau, 27). Nevertheless, this does not mean that humans are not self-interested; it just means they are generally not extremely malicious for no reason. I believe reason merely changes the nature of a person’s passion regarding self-interest (Rousseau, 29), since then humans can actually think about what benefits them while limiting the amount of negative consequences they induce (Keel). This is often considered acting rationally (Keel). In other words, I believe it is the same passion regardless; reflecting on it merely takes it to a whole new level. I also think humans are malicious to an extent when the right stimuli are present. I am currently taking a course on criminal corrections and I have recently learned about all kinds of horrible methods of punishment people used in the past (Welch, 16-61; Lash, 2/5/09-2/12/09). Some of these methods of punishment remind me of something that belongs in the Saw movies, which is an extremely gory horror series (Welch, 16-61; Lash, 2/5/09-2/12/09). I do not think that Rousseau’s “timid” human who has a soft spot for human suffering (Rousseau, 12-29) can invent such horrible yet innovative methods of punishment throughout history (Welch, 16-61; Lash, 2/5/09-2/12/09). Moreover, in ancient times, people watched gladiator fights in the Coliseum for the fun of it (Lash, 2/5/09-2/12/09), and even today, much of our population has an interest in violent media such as movies and video games.

However, I largely agree with Rousseau on how societies developed beyond the family (Rousseau, 34-57). Eventually, families probably got so extended that they needed to work with one another and divide the labor among each other (Rousseau, 39-41). Moreover, it makes sense that the population eventually got big enough where the earth no longer had enough food for subsistence cultures (Rousseau, 35). After all, with the amount of food remaining constant and human population increasing, something would have to be done to prevent people from starving (Rousseau, 35). Moreover, I could see self-interested actors acting rationally and trying to secure advantages for themselves (Keel). I could see natural inequality being transformed into civil inequality among people; after all, some people are more productive than others (Rousseau, 41). I agree that this conquest of property could lead to a form of despotism as Rousseau described (Rousseau, 55). After all, I do not think the rich care about the poor, only about their own interests. I could also see this conquest develop out of a more legitimate form of government, as some people do try to bend the system to their own advantages (Rousseau, 46-55).

I agree with the main concept of a social contract, but I do not like Rousseau’s interpretation of it (Rousseau, 91-118). I agree that the best form of government is when people come together to form their own community, and give up some of their freedom found in nature to obtain security and be able to live freely within the confines of the law (Rousseau, 92-93). However, unlike Rousseau, I do not think that a people necessarily need to consent in order for a government to be legitimate (Rousseau, 87-93). After all, as long as the strongest tyrant remains the strongest, that government is legitimate enough since opposing it means that it will still succeed (Rousseau, 87-88). While a stronger force can defeat a tyrant (Rousseau, 55, 87-88), the same is the case among governments set up by a social contract. A tyrant can still defeat a social contract if it is stronger militarily. I think the social contract is the way government should be run and that it is best to live under a social contract as opposed to under any other form of government. In a way, I believe it is the “correct” form of government, although others are also “legitimate”, since I see force as legitimate enough (Rousseau, 87-93).

I also strongly disagree with Rousseau in terms of equality and how it relates to the social contract (Rousseau, 115-117). I do not see the social contract as a society where everyone relies on each other (Rousseau, 46-47, 92-93). After all, our own government is supposedly also a form of social contract in a sense, or at the very least it was based off of it in the sense that the Founding Fathers fought against a “despot” in order to establish themselves as independent and free (Declaration of Independence). However, we do not have equality, nor do I think that we should. I think the social contract is merely giving up some liberties found in nature to live in a more secure existence, much like what Hobbes described (Class, 3/25/09).1 While I understand why Rousseau wanted to make everyone equal so that we do not have people wield more influence than others and therefore become masters, I do not think it can be avoided (Rousseau, 46-47, 92-93). Society is like an organism. In order for it to be strong, people need to do different tasks. This is why division of labor began to begin with (Rousseau, 39-41). Moreover, not all jobs are equal. A doctor is not equal to a garbage man, but we need both for society to function. If we did not have garbage men, we would live in a really unsanitary society. However, one has to admit that becoming a doctor is much more difficult than becoming a garbage man. One needs to study for years to be a doctor while little education is necessary to pick up garbage. Therefore, there should be higher incentives for people wanting to become doctors; if everyone were to receive equal pay, why not just choose the easier job? Ibn Khaldun mentioned in his book that attacking peoples’ property can damage society (Khaldun, 238-239); I agree with this, and I think that trying to make everyone equal damages society because it takes away peoples’ will to excel (Khaldun, 238-239). While Khaldun was mostly speaking of injustice in his quote (Khaldun, 238-239), I still think taking away that which one has earned his unjust. Society, at least in today’s day and age, is not as simple as Rousseau seemed to think. People need to rely on one another; that is how society works. We cannot adopt a subsistence culture like Judith Skhlar described (Rousseau/Skhlar, 267); even if we could, why would anyone want to? It would require hard labor anyway (Rousseau/Skhlar, 267), and society would have nothing to show for it. In an unequal society, people might work for other people, but people would have to work anyway and in this case, progress can be made. Some people need to lead and some need to be led. In corporations, there are employers and employees. Not everyone can be an employer; if this were the case, nothing would get done. Without employers, the employees would not know what to do. While the rich or the strong do exploit the poor or the weak (Rousseau, 41-55), this does not mean that the system of inequality is necessarily bad; there just need to be limits on what the rich and the strong can do in order to protect the poor and the weak. This is where I agree with Rousseau’s idea of a sovereign (Rousseau, 94-95). Since the sovereign makes up everyone, and since the majority of people are not rich, the general will should have a distinct bias against the rich and powerful to an extent (Rousseau, 94-95).

I do not really agree with Rousseau’s attitudes toward life and death and the role of the state (Rousseau, 104-105). Rousseau said that if a state said that one should die, he should because the state provided the security he or she had lived in until that point (Rousseau, 104). While sacrifice in war is sometimes necessary, I support an all-volunteer military in most situations. I can understand such logic in a war like World War II, where the U.S. was facing an enemy that killed millions and wanted to take over the world. However, what about wars like Vietnam and Iraq? I do not support sending people to their deaths involuntarily over such operations. In Vietnam, many people opposed the war but were forced to fight anyway. They were basically sent to the grinder against their will in a war that posed no imminent threat to U.S. security. I believe this is morally wrong. No one, not even a “legitimate” state, should send someone to their death against their will. This breaks Rousseau’s own golden rule regarding “doing what is good for you with the least possible harm to others” (Rousseau, 29), which I agree with. I agree with Rousseau on the death penalty though in the sense that I do not think it should be used unless there is no other alternative (Rousseau, 105). However, in modern society, I think that the death penalty is not needed since prisons can hold people and stop them from becoming a threat to society.

Overall, I disagree with Rousseau on the public will (Rousseau, 100-101). I do not think that we can really count on people to do what is best for the community as a whole, although we should definitely try (Class, 4/1/09; Rousseau, 100-101). I like what Judith Skhlar said: “the force of things is always against it” (Rousseau/Skhlar, 271). For example, in the current economic crisis, I see a lot of individuals wills, but no general will. The unions do not want to cut back when it comes to the government bailing out the auto companies, the AIG executives want to keep their bonuses (CBS News), and the politicians seem to have their own interests. For example, Chris Dodd, who received money from AIG, actually signed the amendment that let the AIG executives keep their bonuses (Chicago Tribune). In the midst of this economic crisis, most people appear to more about themselves than the public good. Even if people did want the public good, who is to say which public good is correct? Many people have different ideas of what is best for the country. Some people might want small government and a strong defense, while others might want a larger government that provides goods to its people. There are different orientations of the general will, and not all of them are compatible with one another and are sometimes polar opposites.

1 I agree with Rousseau though on the fact that we should maintain as much of our liberty as possible within the social contract, as long as it does not harm other people (Rousseau, 29). On other words, I agree with the phrase: “do what is good for you with the least possible harm to others” (Rousseau, 29).

Reaction 

Okay, so...a few things before I begin. I tried to read some of the material I read for this class again before doing this response. And my god, I remember why I hate Rousseau. He his so fricking long winded and a bit of a blowhard IMO. Like, I think I'M long winded at times, but here I am trying to cut down my own work for the sake of readability and this dude just rambles for dozens of pages before getting to the point. It's insufferable to me. I hated reading him at the time, I had to reread him so many times just to understand him, and yeah, my brain just turns off trying to read this guy. it's the very definition of TLDR. 

He also seems to do a lot of speculation. Ironically, there's a lot more I agree with him now on than back then. he emphasized how humans were free in the state of nature and then someone made property and now we're all slaves. I actually agree with that. However, I came to that conclusion from studying Widerquist and McCall. And those guys used anthropology mixed with philosophy to build their worldview. Like, they actually attempted to study how humans behave. A lot of these enlightenment guys they just speculate, and even though Rousseau kinda got it right, I can't help but read his stuff and be like "where's the evidence?" It's like he's just spouting his mouth off and pulling this stuff out of you know where than actually basing his views on evidence. 

Still, I have to say, I've grown to respect the hustle. The state of nature is important, prehistory is important. A lot of enlightenment myths actually are based on a christian worldview, and if we're gonna do an atheistic perspective we kinda need a explanation for how we got from like, tribal societies to capitalism. And that's going to give us a Rousseau like understanding of that prehistory and property being more a force that enslaves people than something that's "natural." Like, if you properly understand history from a secular worldview, it actually does bolster that aspect of Rousseau. So Rousseau, despite being a bit of a blowhard, kinda got it right IMO. 

To go into what I wrote, I kinda like how I was evolving away from the Christian worldview even by this point. Like, I was basically saying natural rights are BS. Because they are. If you have a state of nature based around natural selection, crap just dies all the time. There are no natural rights, they're a convenient fiction we created later on. And while I support some variation of them (without property mind you) based on secular principles, yeah, I fully recognize that these are simply values that I believe morality should seek to advance and that failing to do so betrays the entire concept.

 I would uphold my rejection of humans as a solitary individualistic creature in the state of nature. We're more pack animals who operate in groups because it's a survival strategy. However, we largely operated in small band societies prior to the modern age of states. And while we were a lot freer in some ways, life was a bit more nasty, brutish, and short in others. Despite my heavy criticism of states and property, I'm not going to claim that life without states was, on the whole, better. It wasn't. 

On human nature, I'm going to offer a compromise. Humans are complex. I still agree humans are ultimately selfish, but at the same time, they are capable of pro social behaviors and empathy. All of this is related to the fact that we are animals with survival instincts, but sometimes those instincts extend beyond ourselves to what we consider in groups. There is complexity there. And yes, we are capable of great evil. However, most of the worst anti social behavior is geared toward out groups. people who exhibit extreme negative behavior toward in groups are often retaliated against and kicked out of the group or killed. Ya know, like murderers and the like. But a lot of the worst of human behavior is based on dehumanizing and "othering" people, where people don't see them as human. That's how the nazis treated people during the holocaust. And such views are common today where white nationalists are all about the in group and protecting it from outgroups like immigrants or those of otuer races. Meanwhile in my own ideology I consider racial minorities part of the in group in the group, "Americans." And I'm even accepting of immigrants who want to come here and genuinely be a part of our society. 

I actually think it takes a lot of effort to develop universalist tendencies, but if we follow kohlberg's stages of morality, that's essentially what it is. Preconventionally moral people are selfish and only interested in themselves. Conventional people are interested in the in group. Post conventional people like myself become more universalist. Although being universalist, like, TRULY universalist is hard, so we end up being in between in group and universalist. That's why so few stage 6 thinkers exist. Because it kinda means overcoming one's own nature of selfishness and bias toward in groups and it's hard to consistently operate at such a level of moral thinking. 

I think that Widerquist and McCall did a good job explaining how we got from band societies and families to larger societies. Societies settled down, established property, as societies became more complex, surpluses happened, leading to more inequality. The ruling class themselves developed their own in groups that favored themselves over the rest of society, and the ruling class became more and more isolated from the people. And societies also turned to conquest and enslavement where they took over other societies, forcibly integrated people into their societies against their will, and often practiced negative things like genocide and slavery. So again, I pretty much agree with Rousseau and what I wrote, but I prefer the more sociological and academic approach of reaching these conclusions rather than, ya know, pulling it out of one's behind, which is kinda what I felt like Rousseau did. Still, for some dude who wrote during the 18th century, his model of how societies arose holds up surprisingly well. So well I feel like Widerquist's work kind of bolsters his model, while refuting those of others, like Locke with his Lockean Proviso and natural rights to property. 

On my views on inequality, we gotta keep in mind, it was 2009, I was still very much conservative and defended my views within structural functionalism a la sociology. I bought into the line that if we didn't make people work, and we didn't basically punish people with poverty for not working, that people wouldn't work, and I also believed that we need some level of inequality to motivate people. 

I have evolved quite a bit on this issue over the years. I still accept some level of that functionalist argument, but if one can tell, even in 2009, I had this skepticism of the wealthy, and pretty much admitted that the wealthy "job creator" types abused their positions for their benefit. Over time, we can see how my skepticism of the wealthy and need for income inequality have ultimately been reconciled. I have come to understand that the functionalist aspects are very overblown. Even if we had, say, a UBI and every proposal I call for, there will still be significant income inequality due to meritocracy. Like, a UBI and the like doesn't necessarily mean rich people will no longer be rich, or that there will be different classes. As I said, I think some level of class difference based on a division of labor and the rewards associated with those different jobs is inevitable and healthy for society. BUT....a UBI would basically be compatible with that, while greatly reducing the poverty and suffering of the poor while reducing the ability of the wealthy to exploit people. Still it is interesting to see how 2009 me squared that circle. I can see how my current views evolved from there, but yeah I was still about 3 years out from leaving conservatism here, and about 5 years from evolving into my current views. 

On the draft, I still agree with what I wrote and am categorically against it. Only when we face a life and death crisis on the level of Russia invading Ukraine can a draft even be justified in my view. And even then I did feel some sympathy for those trying to escape Ukraine. It's natural to not want to die in war. And I don't support people being forced to fight in meatgrinders.

Yeah I would agree that American society is very pluralistic and individualistic. We have no "class consciousness." Of course, this is by design. The wealthy are invested in ensuring we don't develop a "public will" and keep us uneducated and divided amongst ourselves over BS issues that shouldnt matter like race and gender. A lack of education is a huge part of it, as discussed recently, Reagan killed off free college because he didn't want an educated working class to arise. And of course, there's the worldview issue with the fundie Christians in their own little world and liberals in a completely different world. While I agree more with the liberal view, as the conservative one is literally a cult, well...yeah. I would say we're even more divided now in the 2020s than we were in the 2000s. And we're to a point we can't even agree on basic scientific facts like vaccines being good things. It's messed up. 

So..yeah. Looking at what I wrote 16 years later...eh....I can see where I was evolving away from my Christian worldview a la 2004-2005ish and toward my current secular humanist one of 2012 and beyond. 2009 is where I started seriously having doubts of my perspective, and to be honest, a secular education did poke holes in my worldview quite a bit. I already basically gave up on bibical literalism by this point and was a far more conflicted and liberal Christian at this point wrestling with a lot of contradictions. We can see how some of the contradictions were bubbling up. And while I still had this edgy conservative worldview at the time that seemed to assume the worst of the world and human nature, ultimately, I can see why, when I left Christianity for good, and I finally reconciled some of the conflicting thoughts I had here, why I ended up where I did.

That's why I'm revisiting old essays like this. Because they are kind of fun for me to revisit, given what I believe now.