Government, at its core, is force with protocols. It is law. If one disobeys the law, government will use deadly force (or the threat of deadly force)* to keep it's citizens within the law. Now, whether or not this is good or bad depends on exactly what those protocols are.

That said, I am going to make a statement of faith. It isn't really much, and most people would agree with it, but since it is unprovable in any traditional means, it is faith. And here it is:

Every human being, by the very nature of being human, has a will of their own, and it is wrong for one will to force itself upon another, unless they are harming another‘s basic human rights. These rights are Life (to keep, preserve, and enhance it), Liberty (to say, do, think, believe, feel, etc, whatever you want), and Property (to apply your labor in any way you see fit, and the right to decide how to allocate the fruits thereof). And, just as it is wrong for one human being to infringe upon the basic rights of another, it would be wrong for Government (which is just a group of people) to do the same.

Now, most people will say they agree with that… but, in many cases, they are willing to make exceptions. For example, Welfare. Many people thing it is right for government to take money from Group A and give it to Group B, because it will help Group B survive. I am sorry, but when government does this (remember, it uses deadly force or the threat of deadly force to do so), it is theft. It is wrong. Group A has not harmed the rights of another; they have not hurt someone, or oppressed them or stolen from them; why is it right for Government to, essentially, mug them? Simply put, it is not. It’s not right to let people die or go hungry, true, but it also isn’t right for government to step in and put a gun to someone’s head and demand their labor. Such policies and laws make people a slave to the state, saying that they do not own their own labor or the fruits of their labor. Welfare is an example of “positive rights”, where the rights of some are subsidized at the expense of others… and those aren’t rights at all; they are privileges.

Consider, would it be right to take away your money to fund the building of a church? Of course not; it’s your money, and government has no right to use it to fund something you may not agree with. Nor should they *force* you to provide lodgings for homeless, or prevent you from speaking out against a special interest group because it would harm the reputation of that group. We wouldn’t tolerate it if an individual did this; why should we tolerate it when government does?


The only true rights are negative rights, the rights that do not discriminate between class or race or religion or gender or sexual orientation or any other facet of the human condition, the right to not be harmed (so long as you do not cause harm);

You have a right to life, protected from those who would take it from you. But others are not obligated to give up their basic rights to fortify yours.

You have a right to liberty, to do and believe and think as you please without fear of someone using force to stop you. But society is not obligated to provide you your soapbox or church building.

You have a right to property, to labor how you want and do what you want with the fruits of your labor, without fear of someone taking it from you. But you must likewise respect another’s right to do what they want with their labor and the fruits thereof.

I am a sovereign entity, as is every other person alive. To force one will to subsidize the ‘rights’ of another is tyranny.




*Yes, it is deadly force. If I refuse to, say, pay my taxes, they will call me. And if I continue to refuse, they will send a representative. And if I continue to refuse, they will send the police. And if I continue to refuse, speaking with the voice of my Walther P99 and Colt .45, they will use deadly force. The only reason it takes so long to build up to this is that they are used to compliance.

Today, it's minimum wage. I don't like it because A: It infringes on what should be a private contract, and B: it is inefficient, doing more harm than good. Now, the first should be obvious; no one is forced to work for another, so employers shouldn't be forced to pay more than a job is worth. Nor should people be prevented from getting a job if they can't get one at a higher pay.

Which brings me to my next point; the job market (like any market) is governed by the principals of supply and demand. In this case, the businesses are demanding labor, and the workers are providing it. Without interference, these things will shift toward equalibrium by coming to an appropriate price; those willing to provide labor at that price will provide it, and those willing to accept labor at that price will purchase it.

If the businesses have to pay at least a certain price, however, they will not demand as much labor as is willing to be provided at that price. So, not all those who want jobs will get them. It equals out for those who want a job, having an effect of zero. On businesses, however, it has a negative effect; while they would accept the job at market price, they wouldn't accept it at the artificially inflated one. So, the business suffers. And, when this is applied to hundreds of thousands of businesses, it makes the economy as a whole suffer. So, the net effect of these laws is a negative one.

I have had several debates with some liberal friends of mine, and they can't quite seem to decide whether or not people have basic rights. I challenged the idea of whether or not people own their labor (ie, social security, welfare, and taxes in general), and they said something very much along the lines of "well, if it's achieved by democratic means, then it's allowed." I challenged them by pointing to the "Just Compensation Clause" and how that contradicts many ideas behind taxes, but they said taxes are exempt from this. Finally, I asked them something along the lines of "If people were to vote that you don't have a right to your life, would that be legal?" They answered something along the lines of "No, because that violates my basic rights."

...I nearly had a seizure trying to follow this line of though.

A free society requires three basic rights that cannot be taken away unless the person violates another's basic rights: a right to life (to enhance and preserve it), a right to liberty (to say, print, believe, and basically do whatever you want), and a right to property (to keep, accumulate, and protect from unwanted and unauthorized usage). Somehow, they don't accept the right to property. But, in order for a society to be truly free, the individual's right to their labor cannot be subject to the whims of the majority. To deny that is to allow tyranny.

Basically, they are bunk. Any study trying to show trends for homosexuals and their behaviors will be irrevocably flawed because of one important fact: it is nearly impossible to get a truly representative sample of the gay population.

Unlike other groups, homosexuals don't always stand out (and just choosing the ones that do will also result in a corrupt sample). You can generally pick African Americans out of a crowd; women and men are readily apparent; churchgoers can be easily found at their local places of worship. Not so with homosexuals; not all of them go to gay bars, not all of them protest for gay marriage, and not all of them even look any different from straight people. As a result, most psychologists/scientists simply go with the easiest choice. Those who view homosexuals in a favorable light may go to a local GLBT society, as people who are actively involved in clubs and societies tend to be more upstanding citizens. And those who have a less favorable view of homosexuality may go to a leather bar or gay dance club and find their sample there. And any attempt to obtain a representative sample would not only be ludicrously expensive and time consuming, but would be dependant on how the test maker thinks the gay community is broken down (aka, it would be dependant on biased and unproven statistics). So, it would be impossible to prove that a sample is truly representative of the homosexual population.

Still, these studies, by their very nature, tend to be biased toward a favorable view of homosexuality. Political pressures on or political leanings of their creator aside, these studies are entirely voluntary and the participants must be informed to the general premise of the study (not that they couldn’t guess it). So, who would participate in these studies? Well, the ones who have nothing to hide. The ones who are fairly monogamous, the ones with relatively healthy relationships, the ones who have raised emotionally and psychologically stable kids; these are the ones who would volunteer for these kind of studies. But what about the ones who have a new sex partner every weekend? Or abuse/have been abused by their partner? Or who’s kids are not socially well adjusted? No, they would not willingly participate in the study, and for good reason; they would reflect badly on other homosexuals.

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrFVjg79_iM

Fred Phelps’ site: http://www.godhatesfags.com/


A (fairly liberal) site that I regularly visit had the video up for discussion, and everyone who replied (so far) either thought that the Fred Phelps Supporters (FPS) got what they deserve or that both groups should get boots in the a**.

Now, I have no love for Fred Phelps or his organization (see other link). What’s bothering me is that no one on the site has commented on the illegality of what the protestors did in the video, but so often claim a “right to privacy” for when the FPS protested outside the funerals of fallen gay soldiers (so long as theprotestors didn’t trespass onto the grounds they rented out for the funeral, the FPS’s were in compliance with the law and could protest like anyone else).

To sum it up; so many liberals out there will rant and rave when they think their rights are being suppressed, but will not hesitate to take away the rights of those who disagree with them.

I'm pretty neutral to the issue as far as whether or not it's happening. To put it simply, I don't have much faith in the evidence of either side. Those who think global warming is actually happening were also the ones who thought there would be a global cooling, and many of the people who support it (ie, white upper middle class college students) are too biased. The Penn and Teller episode proved that quite well; they sent a petition around at an environmental protest trying to ban "di-hydrogen monoxide" (water), and the vast majority signed it without asking many questions, if any (search youtube if you want to see the video). The other side also seems to have problems; though I haven't seen or tested much of their evidence, it is clear that many of them are politically motivated.

However, while I am neutral on the issue of whether or not Global Warming is actually happening (with the disastrous results so heavily advocated by its supporters), I am not neutral to how the issue should be handled. My 'Golden Rule' in regards to law is as follows: "So long as an activity is not causing clear harm, or the harm caused is consented to by all harmed parties, the activity must be allowed. To do anything else is to pave the way for the individual's rights to be subject to the public's whim." So, I don't think the government can unilaterally impose restrictions on businesses that produce waste. That does not mean that the individual (or group of individuals, as a class action lawsuit) cannot sue. But the burden of proof must be on the plaintiff, not the defendant, and such laws create the reverse situation.

I just had my first Psychology class today, and I realized something very important; the subject is heavily influenced by the politically left. Consider the categories in the "Multiple Intelligence" test: Verbal/Linguistic, Logical/Mathematical, Visual/Spatial, Bodily/Kinesthetic, Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Musical/Rythmic... and Naturalist. The characteristics of this include
-Deep understanding of nature, environmental balance, and ecosystems
-Appreciation for the delicate balance of nature
-Feeling most comfortable when in nature
-Ability to use nature to lower stress

Is the Naturalist category truly necessary? After all, it has more to do with what you enjoy than how your mind processes information. And, if there is a fundamental link between that and the other categories, why isn't there a "Dietist", someone who thrives on their religion. Here is a parellel to what it may look like:
-Deep understanding of their diety/dieties, their purpose, and their beliefs
-Appreciation for the intracasies and balances made by their diety(s)
-Feel most comfortable when meditating on their diety
-Ability to use their faith to lower stress

After all, these are rather distinct and useful characteristics (at least as useful as those of the Naturalist). Yet, I doubt that it will ever be introduced.

That is not the only thing, however; in the book, it gives a brief history of Psychology by listing famous psychologists and their contributions. Right after that, however, they thought it necessary to point out how none of the ones listed were women, and then gave a list of female contributors. Okay, then why not put them in with the men? Of course, to capitalize on the discrimination of that time. Have they not considered that this could create hostilities toward men? Especially ones who prefer a traditional marriage, one where the men earn the money and the women take care of the household? Of course not! After all, those kind of men must be bigots who treat their wives like dirt, and regularly attend clan meetings (yes, that was sarcasm). Look, if there were important female contributors, then list them with the men! By labeling people by gender, the only promote a different kind of discrimination.

Which leads me to my final conclusion: the field of psychology supports homosexuality because it is influenced by liberal politics rather than unbiased scientific studies. Consider how, not long ago, homosexuality was considered a mental illness. Perhaps not one that must be treated, or will have a significant negative effect on the person's life, but it was not considered the norm. Today, anyone who thinks that homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual ones is labeled a bigot. Now, let's look at one of the key evidences that support homosexuality; a study with numerous flaws (small sample sizes, corrupted samples, and using questionarres as absolute truth, among others) made by a clearly biased lesbian. I'm sorry, but she clearly is not a neutral observer, and her methods render her data corrupt. Yet, it is often cited as a viable source for information on homosexuality (the maker of that study also came up with the "one in ten" rule, that is, one in ten males are gay. Which is false).

Sorry for meandering a bit, I'm not used to making journal entries.