Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Why Global Warming Does Not Matter,

and its Solution

First off, let us get something out of the way, global warming is real. I am simply not interested in arguing on this point. The climate scientists that have denied climate change are a tiny fraction of the total number of scientists working in the field. Furthermore, most of these denialist are either working on the pay role of groups opposed to acknowledging man-made climate change (1) or were included in the claims against global warming against their will. (2) Logically, neither of these facts automatically discounts their opinion, but it does lower the probability that they are correct. In addition, many of the people who were included on the list of climate change skeptics were not experts themselves and not qualified to speak on the issue.  Even if one allows for the possibility the notion that thousands of scientists are lying about global warming is beyond paranoid, and not simply laughable if people were not serious about it.

     But, that does not necessarily mean there is not some other conspiracy or an attempt to use the crisis to gain power. It could very well be that their goal is to push a socialist agenda down the throats of people. In fact, I do not think there is a single instance in human history where crisis, manufactured or real, was not exploited by the ruling elites to get what all men with power really want - more power! In fact, many have been quite blunt about it, with Rahm Emanuel saying as much and phrasing it as a general maxim of politics. (3) So how the problem is exploited may matter, but global warming itself does not, for reasons that will become apparent.

     First, its is not as bad as you have been told.  In an Inconvenient Hype Al Gore predicted that global warming could cause sea level to rise 20 feet, showing the audience a picture that predicts the submergence of New York and other parts of America in order to frighten people. In reality the real amount is around four feet. (4, 5) While that is enough to displace people, it is not the desperate fear mongering result that would drive ticket sales. It is possible that the Greenland ice sheet could melt within our lifetimes, but not likely.  Furthermore, Gore shows an event with the death and displacement or millions. This is false, not to sound callous, but people can walk - they have legs. In the real world rising sea level would not kill hardly anyone. In addition, sea level has already risen at least 1.7 meters or about five feet in the last hundred years, with nobody noticing. (5) Human displacement might be tragic, but not as life-threatening as it is made out to be.

     Another thing, the far lefts solution to anthropogenic climate change would either kill millions or would be pointless. At a seminar I attended at Cal Tech on the subject of global warming, a very thorough briefing was given about the effects of climate change and what was required to slow it down. The gist of this is that it would be necessary to curb carbon production by 70% in order to substantially make a difference. The Kyoto protocol with its 5 % reduction is a joke and would cause no significant change in the worlds long-term effects. The environment also stores carbon for a substantial period of time, so much so that the world would take hundreds of years for temperatures to return to their present state. (6) Also, if we did reduce global CO2 output by 70 % (through a carbon tax or limit for example) it would cause millions of deaths. About 80 % of the world population is poor, living on $10.00 a day or less. (7) Without unemployment they would die as many of them subsist at a level just above starvation. No job, no money, no food, no survival for the worlds poor. The radical lefts solution for a carbon tax is a de facto racist program to exterminate millions of mostly poor Black Africans and Asians. So political solutions simply are not feasible.

     Last, global warming can be solved technologically. At least three practical technological solutions exist and they are; thorium based nuclear power, artificial photosynthesis and - the most promising; and algae based bio-fuels. Algae bio-fuels would take an area of about 469.12 square miles to provide for all of Americas transportation needs. (8) This is an area 39 % as big as the state of Rhode Island. This is much better than corn ethanol, which competes with food and would take 97 % of Americas land. (9) Current oil consumption for the U.S. is 19,497.95 x 1000 bbl per day. Canada has 176.8 billion barrels in the form of oil sands, and the Green River Formation has 252 years of oil alone. (10) Therefore, peak oil is a long way off for the world. We have 300 years of shale at present consumption, and a whole suite of technologies will keep gas low, such as hydraulic franking and horizontal drilling. Most of Americas pollution comes from automotive exhaust, so much so that its elimination with a carbon neutral technology like algae based fuels would solve our contribution to global warming. However, with algae being a new technology, its costs are high relative to the market, and this means that it is unlikely to get off the ground until it comes down in price.

     As a result it would need government support, much the way the internet was supported in the beginning of its existence. The good news is that the military is making heavy investments in algae based bio-fuels (11) and the cost is coming down steadily and significantly. As long as the next president (Romney?) does not sabotage progress (he will), it should come down to market rates in the near future. So ironically, the very mild position taken by the Obama administration may be just what the doctor ordered. Because of the potential human costs, it simply is not a good idea to try to solve global warming with purely political means such as a carbon cap, therefore the invention of a new technology that could be a drop in replacement and eventually compete with oil could be the solution everyone is waiting for. He may yet redeem his legacy.

(1) http://www.martlet.ca/martlet/article/uvic-prof-climate-change-deniers-payroll/
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory#Sample_claims_that_global_warming _is_a_global_conspiracy_and_hoax
(3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvSP-HDcY0g
(4) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060524-global-warming_2.html
(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
(6) http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/big-idea/05/carbon-bath
(7) http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
(8) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel#Biodiesel
(9) http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nMAqCm-rK1gJ:www.evsroll.com/Pros_and_Cons_of_Ethanol.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
(10) http://www.eccos.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10&Itemid=6
(11) http://www.dailytech.com/Military+Biofuel+Costs+Slashed+Thanks+to+Massive+Navy+Purchase/ article23454.htm

Sunday, May 20, 2012

The Purpose and Value of Justice

The basic and original purpose of Justice was to prevent anarchy by providing an intermediate arbiter for retaliation. Its second and modern purpose is to protect witnesses and victims. Its third purpose it to stop further crime from being committed.

     Vigilantism was a problem in the ancient world, and continues to be a problem where justice is lax. The Code of Hammurabi was created in ancient Babylon specifically for the purpose of maintaining good order, which is the same as preventing vigilantism. The Code is notably strict in order to serve this purpose. The problem with liberal compassion on the subject of justice is that with any amount of compassion towards criminals which exceeds the normal sentiment of victims regarding justice, the purpose of justice is undermined with that compassion. In other words, exceeding the victim's tolerance level for compassion toward their attacker, threatens to destroy social order by inviting a vigilante response.

     It is also, in many cases, unrealistic to tolerate the criminal as no guarantee can be made that he or she will return the favor and refrain from committing crimes. An example concerning liberals over-acceptance of compassion is the opposition of many on the left to the death penalty. This opposition ignores the fact that there are gang and organized crime bosses who can have victims and witnesses killed from prison. In such a circumstance it is unrealistic to expect the victim to live in fear. The Witness Protection Program is a testament to the incompetence and failure of the justice system to perform the entire function that its creation serves, to protect, prevent, and stop vigilantism (the only reasonably position to take when one life, property, or family is in jeopardy.)

     Criminals have almost no rights while incarcerated. Every now and then you here that the left is asserting the rights of a criminal and a judge agreeing with them. How could, for example, a criminal have the right to free speech? Thus, an imprisoned child molester has the right to write a sick letter to his victim - a gang boss to place a phone call to a hit man to execute your loved one. Giving rights to criminals undermines the penalty effect of justice - the one thing that motivates the criminal not to come back to prison, and invites abuse of others and the system. With the exception of enumerated, and entirely procedural rights, convicted criminals only have privileges while incarcerated.

     This is also illogical. The most basic rights are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When a man is incarcerated he looses his right to liberty, when put to death, he looses his right to life. The pursuit of happiness becomes difficult without either. The only rights that a criminal has are those spelled out in the Constitution itself.

      Prior to conviction the accused has all his or her rights, except possibly liberty. (This depends on whether or not bail is granted.) Those rights are trial by jury, habeas corpus, and the ones listed below. Once convicted the criminal only has the following rights: the right to appeal, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and the right to petition. Those who wish to interpret the document as a living Constitution forget that they are not as smart as the framers. The Constitution is a philosophical document as much as a legal one. The "living constitution" people forget that the only reason they want the right to interpret it according to their whim, is because they do not understand its purposes and articles to begin with. As usual the liberal practices his dogma of challenging every notion - only to conveniently forget to answer the question. He asks, "why do we do things like this?" then fails to find the reason. There is always a good reason why it is done that way when it comes to this document.

     At any given time a culture has a thousand neurosis on the subject of justice, and those in rebellion to justice even more so. Its function to the individual is to protect everyone equally, as the week cannot protect themselves. The most competitive system on earth is anarchy, the least competitive system is communism. In anarchy there is a vicious competition to the death as every man jockeys for power in an environment of unlimited violence. Anarchy is really a transitional form or social order. It is not stable, and is always a prelude to the rise of a dictatorship that will become monarchy over time. Justice eliminates the competition to murder and creates the mild competitive condition called freedom.

     Its second function is to provide retaliation to the individual so he can be relieved and protected. This is another thing overlooked by the liberal. Retaliation provides satisfaction or relief of a sort to the victim or their family. This is worthy in itself when an injustice has occurred, in fact, done properly it can be therapeutic.

     All justice must uphold the rights of the individual. Only individuals can have rights. This is because the assertion of minority group rights uses self-contradictory logic. The smallest minority is the individual, and since the creation of minority rights in the form of group rights threatens the individual's rights, no group right can be legitimate, because the individual is the smallest minority. It is self-contradictory to subscribe to minority rights in multiple ways. Groups aka. (minorities) are composed of individuals. Majorities are composed of individuals. It is the individual who bleeds, not the minority or majority. These terms are just abstract concepts that do not exist in reality. Giving a right to an abstract concept is an invitation to abuse of actual flesh and blood persons. Abstract concepts do not have bodies. It is the individual who has a body, and it is the individual whose body is broken by authority. Rights are a right to the control of ones body, and to the control of the possessions that clothe and feed that body. No right can ever be legitimate when it leads to the breaking of bodies or attack against the body of an innocent. Furthermore, group rights have existed before - having been called the divine right of kings, and the rights of slave owners respectively. Such group rights invariably serve to elevate a group at the expense of another, and indeed that is the true and secret purpose of the concept.

     Tyranny takes many back-doors into a free society, and always does so with muddled and poorly defined fad philosophy concepts. Ideas that appear new are really much older, as the same tyrannical ideas are continuously repackaged by every liberal and idealistic group within each generation that falls in love with tyranny and with the impulse to create perfection on earth, an impulse that has been responsible for every mass-murder revolution, inquisition, crusade, and jihad that has ever been waged. The impulse to save the world always destroys it, as societal perfection is unobtainable due to the imperfection inherent in every human being.

     Power in a zero-sum game, there are only so many people to rule and only so much they can be made to do. With the exception of revolutions, generally no vast increase or decrease of power by government over its citizens occurs within a system. Economies are not a zero-sum game. In the economy wealth is constantly being created by technology and the production of people. The liberal often confuses the two and believes that economics is zero-sum. This is because he is relatively unproductive and oft destructive and thinks success is accumulated through power and not production.

     There are three basic concepts that govern a free society, they are; negative liberty, rights, and freedom. Negative liberty is simply the act of a society that leaves its non-forceful persons alone. The non-forceful are those that do not initiate force against others - save in self-defense.  Rights are those prohibitions on force that preserve negative liberty, aka, the right of the non-forceful to be left alone. A right can never be an obligation to a benefit or claim against the property and money of others. Besides the obvious immorality of establishing a right to a benefit (such as welfare or health care), it is entirely impractical because it depends on the fiscal action of often incompetent politicians and results in the mass accumulation of societal and government debts. It is also hypocritical. The person who wants a handout demands that politicians overcome their inclination to accumulate debts and pass that debt to the next office holder. They demand this in spite of the fact that the very same person who demands a government benefit would punish their leaders by voting against the one that exercises fiscal restraint and self-discipline: the very self-discipline required to run such a welfare state properly. They demand that the politician exercise self-discipline and an almost saint like disposition toward national finances while simultaneously being unable to exercise that same discipline in their own finances and provide the benefit themselves. They demand that the politician overcome human nature in order to serve the most vile and lazy impulses of their own nature. The name for this attempt to establish a right to a benefit is called positive liberty - a misnomer since it is neither positive nor liberty.

     Positive liberty and negative liberty are mutually exclusive concepts and completely incompatible. Any right to a benefit comes at the expense of the right to be left alone since that benefit requires forcing the non-forceful to pay for it. It is also morally self-contradictory. If one establishes a right to a benefit on the basis of fairness; is it not unfair to the person who pays more than they receive? If on the basis of compassion, is it not cruel to those who pay against their will? This continues with any moral or ethical concept you apply. It is the most flagrantly hypocritical idea and those who push "fairness" or "compassion" are really just pushing "compassion for me at your expense." Positive liberty is the mindset of a criminal. Positive liberty leads to positive tyranny, and does do both in its own right, and because the act of using force against another engenders it opposite - people fight back. For example, attempting to over-regulate a business invites lobbyists to defend their industry and then in turn demand special handouts. Imposing on the right of others invites them to impose on you. For example: affirmative action was harmful to the careers of white males for the supposed purpose of correcting discrimination. The same affirmative action could be used to force conservative teachers into the classroom to remedy the injustice caused by an environment of liberal academics often openly hostile and discriminatory to conservative professors.

     Only negative liberty can work because only it does not cost anything financially or socially, and does not engender an opposite reaction. All positive liberty either engenders opposite reaction or has financial cost. A thing that costs money can never really be practical as a human right.

     Liberty is the act of being left alone by government and free from force, rights are those limitations on government that serve liberty, and freedom is the condition of having both liberty plus rights. Liberty + rights = freedom. Positive liberty, or the "right to a just society," or the "right to equality," is predicated on a false assumption that the world is unfair. In a free society without endemic corruption this is false. Those that succeed do so precisely because they deserve to: because hard word, persistence, and most importantly, producing a product that society needs has made them profitable. The liberal believes that large corporations are bad because they are profitable, when it is precisely their profitability that makes them a value to society. What people spend money on is what they actually value, and businesses that make vast amounts of money do so by delivering massive positive social value for society.

     The market works because every dollar is a vote, with the proceeds going to the business that produces the most valuable and needed items. Without this mechanism nations would starve, and indeed, in centrally planned socialist economies they have. Greed feeds because it sends food to the hungriest person, who, because of their hunger is willing to pay more. When societies starve it is not because of the market, but because of government actions that have the effect, always intentional, of causing it. When there is a massive surplus that causes obesity, it is because of government subsidies. The market may not be perfect, but it is less stupid than the average liberal who wishes to modify it. Natural equilibrium generally always beats interference. This is so often the case it should be taken as the default position until proven otherwise.

     Justice always exists within government, and since not all governments are created equal it behooves us to define what types of government there are and the effects of those types. This task is already done for us to some degree by past philosophers. No single universal definition exists that is adequate, but rather there are three as follows. The first could be called abusive government, defined by the Fourteenth century Islamic political philosopher Ibn Khaldun as; "an institution which prevents injustice other than such as it commits itself." This definition is wholly appropriate for the time he lived, and still so for many nations.

     The second definition of government could rightly be called the definition of social government, socialist government and all false democratic societies where the tyranny of the majority prevails, it is provided to us by the Ninetieth century French philosopher Frédéric Bastiat in his treatise on The Law as: “government it the great fiction by which every person tries to live off the other.”
     The third definition comes from no particular source and would say that “government is a protection racket.” This could be called the definition of criminal government.
     The fourth is Republic, and if I may define it; "a republic is that from of government that protects the non-forceful person from both the force of others and the force of itself.”
     Within the field of government, there are four forms of action. Each of these represents a moral or immoral behavior and moreover, affects the entire health of a society. They are;
     Crime, which can be defined as scarifying the future gain for the present gain. All criminal actions can be shown to have some element of wasting future gain for present gain. The man who sets the store on fire for the insurance money sacrifices future profitability of his store and some of the future profitability of his insurance company, as well as committing fraud and breaching his agreement, for a quick payout. The meth dealer sacrifices the health and well-being of his customer for profit. The criminal broker sacrifices the financial well-being of his clients for a temporary payout. The only time it can be justified to sacrifice some future benefit is when it is debt as an investment. In this case, a debt is taken on to invest in a future gain.

     Investment; or sacrificing the present for future gain, is not justifiable when it serves crime.
Pure creation, a possibly nonexistent phenomena, that is, creating to create.
Pure destruction, destroying to destroy, the activity of psychopaths, all destroying to destroy is really destroying to create something to destroy. Real destroying to destroy also probably does not exist. Regardless of whether or not those involved in justice realize it, all justice relies on the process of assessing the worth of the individual based on social standards codified into law, and based on these four forms of actions: two of which are immoral. A person whose actions are deemed to be more destructive to society than constructive is locked up. Also, a person is always jugged based on action, not opinions or identity, except when such identity is destructive - such as a spy or communist revolutionary.

     Justice has great potential for abuse. Time and history in western civilization as well as an American revolution have come to limit the scope of what justice can do. These lessons are based on historical memory of what worked. When done properly it leads to a cooperative society, and done improperly, it leads to a lack of respect for the law, the rise of vigilantism, and the creation of corrupt regimes. However, the individual may want benefits at his neighbors expense, and she endorses a system that will eventually abuse her or her offspring.

     It must follow the morals of the public in order to be respected. It must be slow to change its standards and avoid bandwagons. It must not abuse the innocent no matter how perverse the publics standards become. Maintaining standards is the role of education, maintaining order and freedom for future generations is the role of justice.


Monday, May 14, 2012

The True Meaning of “Social Justice”

     The left has a habit of obscuring their ideas in vague terminology in order to hide true meaning. This is accomplished either by using euphemisms to make atrocities sound pleasant, or the pleasant sound atrocious, or by wrapping one argument inside another. For example; "the right to health care" is a liberal method of covering up their belief in the notion of a right to steal health care services, with another more legitimate argument that is completely unrelated. That legitimate argument is that everyone has the right to healthcare, that is, everyone has the right to purchase health care services from a willing seller in the free market. This is not the same as saying that one has the right to FORCE others to pay for his or her healthcare. But notice that this argument is deliberately obscured by wrapping it in the vague and more sensible sounding argument. This deception is intentional.

     And so it is with Social Justice. This word has been defined by Dictionary.com as;
"Social Justice: the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society."
Now if that was not vague enough another definition is;
"Social justice generally refers to the idea of creating an egalitarian society or institution that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognizes the dignity of every human being." This definition refers to multiple ideas, but justice is not an idea, it is an action that involves punishment and judicial ideas are always put into practice.

     Equality and solidarity? This is nonspecific, which is it; equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? (The later of course.) There are two types of equality that led to opposite philosophies. What is meant by solidarity?  The dictionary defines it as follows;
"Solidarity: Unity or agreement of feeling or action, esp. amoung individuals with a common interest; mutual support within a group."

So let us summarize:
     1) It is a belief in equality of outcome, (It must be, after all, even conservatives believe in equality of opportunity and this is not a conservative concept.)
     2) It “understands and values human rights.” Does it now? Does it understand the human rights of the wealthy? Does it understand that part of human rights is property rights?
     3) "Solidarity: Unity or agreement of feeling or action." So I have to feel the way you want me to? Do I have to have a common interest with you?

Even the definition contains deliberate obfuscation, but from what I can tell this idea is leaning toward a very communal type of property arrangement.

To clear things up here I will provide you with my own, much more accurate and specific definition as follows;
Social Justice: "A program to retaliate against, and redistribute wealth from a dominant white majority to a liberal, pathetic, lazy minority of mostly white, but also non white socialists in order to assist helping them avoid work and responsibility."

You like?

This is its action definition. It is the definition of the ideas put into practice, and practice is where ideas come into contact with reality. There is one other institution that does this kind of linguistic deception; the military, and it is in the business of killing. Liberals have their own private language of euphemisms. Here are some for your consideration;
"Affirmative Action," is really, "discriminating against whites for the sake of others,"
"Minority" means "everyone but the white man" or "everyone but white people" as evidenced buy the phrase, "women and minorities."
"Patriarchy," - the white men we are trying to suppress and rob.
"Accountability" - mob justice against the unpopular.
"Economic Fairness," - the false presumption that you are poor because the rich are keeping you down and not because of your own stupidity or failure to recognize the opportunities available to you, and seize those opportunities.
"Minority Rights," a program to empower one group at the expense of another. (The last time minority rights existed in western civilization it was called the divine right of kings, and also the rights of slave owners)

Social Justice is a perversion of actual justice. Justice always begs the question; who is to be punished? How is it to be applied? Justice involves punishment. Does this involve punishment or is it just another euphemism? As well as, are they guilty? Who is the accuser and do you have the right to face them? Well, who is to be punished with social justice? Also, how can you punish a person for the past crimes of his race? He has committed no crime. Real justice follows certain ancient traditions that have been worked out over centuries to avoid the abuses of power that plagued humanity since time immemorial. These are based on certain concepts and rights, none of which exist in social justice. They are;
1) The right of habeas corpus, or "the civil right to obtain a writ of habeas corpus as protection against illegal imprisonment," This is to prevent against the mop justice that social justice serves.
2) The right to trial by jury - to prevent politics from playing a part in justice as it does in social justice.
3) Not just a jury, but a jury of peers (is the advocate of social justice going to let the rich man be tried by other wealthy persons?)
4) The right of appeal - because injustice can happen, especially in politically motivated social justice.
5) Innocent until proven guilty, the white man is guilty until proven innocent in the liberal view, the wealthy as well.
6) The always implied right of an individual to be tried and judged on an individual basis regardless of class, race or group membership - because the last time an entire group was tried collectively six million Jews were lost, and before that blacks were enslaved.
     It may not occur to the left that it is practicing concepts that it also abhors. All of social justice is a thinly veiled justification for horrors that the past need not repeat. Let us not forget that social justice has its roots in Marxist thought.

     Language is important. Its usage in politics is a type of weapon which serves the goal of the author. Since most people hold secondhand opinions and do not bother to form their own because of the nuance, complexity, and annoyance of political philosophy, it matters what vocabulary we select for our ideas. Political language can clarify, confuse, or confound (that is, combine two or more ideas to obscure their difference). Language is subject to the flaws of both informal and formal logical fallacies. Knowing exactly what the goal of the author is, and their possibly deceptive methods will bring us clarity in the pursuit of truth. That is, after all, the point of this blog - not the pursuit of government benefits.