Authority is inherent with identity. You have authority over your identity. You have authority over using your legs because they are yours — authority, or rights, are found in self-ownership. All social understandings of morality is based upon this, explicitely or implicitly, intentionally or accidental.
Mainstream Acceptance
Both conservative and progressive beliefs are based on this concept of authority.
Progressives believe that it is wrong to legislate morality, like banning pornography, homosexuality, etc. They believe that you have a right over your own body to do what you like, at least to a certain extent. Their standard for the limits of this right is fuzzy at best.
Conservatives believe it is wrong to violate what they call “individual rights”, though exactly what those rights are is never really understood, accept through the lens of tradition or, to paraphrase, “If’n it was a good nuff for my grandaddy, it’s a good nuff fer me.” Conservatives adhere closely to the authority-identity philosophy in terms of economics — especially in terms of individual property rights. You own your land, so no one has a right to it. Again, the extent of the self-authority is fuzzy at best.
Basically, both philosophies just kind of randomly make up utter philosophical crap and adhere to it for socio-cultural reasons.
Mainstream Rejection
Progressives dislike the self-ownership/identity-authority principle in regards to property. They support individual restrictions, often confiscations, and other ideas for the sake of the “common good”.
Conservatives love to attack progressives for being collectivists. The conservatives are hypocrites. Conservatives typically take a similar approach, only they reject the individual nature of moral principles, and conclude that because others are affected, use of force is justified. For the sake of national-well being (collectivism of sorts — not all collectivistic principles are unjustified, but I find this one to be philosophical suicide) it is justified to ban pornography, homosexuality, etc.
Non-Political Implications
I find that morality transcends politics. If it’s wrong for me to rape a girl, it’s wrong for the cop to do it. If it’s wrong for me to shoot first and ask questions later, it’s wrong for the government to do it. (read: yay due process!)
This means that what makes sense in terms of us finding self-authority in our identity in the political arena also means that this principle works for non-political issues. Church, business, etc. Just think about it.
This was … random and nerdy.
Remember that you can receive automatic updates of Reason and Capitalism by subscribing to the free RSS feed. You can unsubscribe at any time, so there's no risk involved at all.
1 Comment
The following is the former home-page of Reason and Capitalism. ShaunConnell.com has since gone on to focus on business, blogging, working at home and making money online.
Millions around the world have abandoned reason as being cold and unpoetic, and have concluded their theories purely on emotional and cultural pressures. Without logic to guide their conclusions, their conclusions clash and contradict, leaving us without true guidance.
Capitalism and a desire for profit, called
Remember that you can receive automatic updates of Reason and Capitalism by subscribing to the free RSS feed. You can unsubscribe at any time, so there's no risk involved at all.
2 Comments
As many of you know, I love blogging about Making Money Online — it’s a great hobby and part-time job for me. I’ve bought a lap-top and some other cool stuff with my income generated through my blogs. I’m the main author and operator of Reason and Capitalism, Rebirth of Freedom, Money Talks, Rational Christianity and several other blogs.
However, I’m thinking about merging several of them. My “Money Talks” blog is located at ShaunConnell.com/make-money-online. The URL is, well, obviously hard to remember. So I’m thinking about doing the following:
1. Turning “ShaunConnell.com/make-money-online” into a static tutorial on making money online. The blog part will be zapped out.
2. Turning ShaunConnell.com into a blogging-blog — a blog about business, money, making money online and the like.
3. Having 1-2 off-topic posts per week on ShaunConnell.com, both to spicen the site up, and simply as an outlet for my random ideas that I think the readers might appreciate.
4. All political writings will go to the RoFF.
5. All philosophical/religious writings will go to Rational Christianity.
6. All personal writings go to my facebook account.
Thoughts? I’ll obviously have to rename the blog to something else, like “Money Talks” or something similar. Any suggestions? 
Remember that you can receive automatic updates of Reason and Capitalism by subscribing to the free RSS feed. You can unsubscribe at any time, so there's no risk involved at all.
2 Comments
I have really strange taste in music. I like Irish Punk, classic rock, classical music period, heavy, and pretty much everything in between. The following song by My Chemical Romance is one of my favorites. It’s about a man who’s on his deathbed, and is thinking back on his favorite memory, when his father took him to a parade, and asked him to use his life to help others. The first lyrics are simply incredible.
Welcome To The Black Parade Lyrics
When I was a young boy,
My father took me into the city
To see a marching band.
He said,
“Son when you grow up, will you be the saviour of the broken,
The beaten and the damned?”
He said
“Will you defeat them, your demons, and all the non believers, the plans that they have made?”
Because one day I leave you,
A phantom to lead you in the summer,
To join the black parade.”
When I was a young boy,
My father took me into the city
To see a marching band.
He said,
“Son when you grow up, will you be the saviour of the broken,
The beaten and the damned?”
Sometimes I get the feeling she’s watching over me.
And other times I feel like I should go.
Through it all, the rise and fall, the bodies in the streets.
When you’re gone we want you all to know We’ll Carry on,
We’ll Carry on
Though your dead and gone believe me Your memory will carry on
Carry on
We’ll carry on
And in my heart I cant contain it
The anthem wont explain it.
And we will send you reeling from decimated dreams
Your misery and hate will kill us all
So paint it black and take it back
Lets shout it loud and clear
Do you fight it to the end
We hear the call to
To carry on
We’ll carry on
Though your dead and gone believe me
Your memory will carry on
We’ll carry on
And though you’re broken and defeated
You’re weary widow marches on
And on we carry through the fears
Ooh oh ohhhh
Disappointed faces of your peers
Ooh oh ohhhh
Take a look at me cause
I could not care at all Do or die
You’ll never make me
Cause the world, will never take my heart
You can try, you’ll never break me
Want it all,
I’m gonna play this part
Wont explain or say i’m sorry
I’m not ashamed,
I’m gonna show my scar
You’re the chair, for all the broken Listen here,
because it’s only
I’m just a man,
I’m not a hero
Just a boy, who’s meant to sing this song
Just a man,
I’m not a hero
I — don’t — care
Carry on
We’ll carry on
Though your dead and gone believe me
Your memory will carry on
We’ll carry on
And though you’re broken and defeated
You’re weary widow marches on
We’ll carry on
We’ll carry on
We’ll carry on
We’ll carry
We’ll carry on
Remember that you can receive automatic updates of Reason and Capitalism by subscribing to the free RSS feed. You can unsubscribe at any time, so there's no risk involved at all.
4 Comments
Perhaps the most fundamental misunderstanding of economics is how wealth is viewed. Wealth is seen as natural. It is thought that wealth should be given — redistributed among people. Wealth is seen as something that already exists, rather than what is really true — the exact opposite. Wealth is not natural.
Take a man and place him in the wild, and you will see that He has no fire — until he sparks the flame. He has no shelter — until he builds it. He has nothing. Nature gives him nothing — he is naturally poor. Wealth, then, is unnatural. It must be created — not just redistributed. This fact seems forgotten or utterly missed, even by populist economists who support heavily restrictive economic policies rather than capitalism.
So how do we win the war on poverty? There is but one way. Creation. As explained in the chapter “Creating Wealth”, man is poor by nature. He comes into the world without clothes, without shelter, without food, without drink. These things must be taken from nature.
There is no way to stop the absence of shelter but in the building of shelter. There is no way to the war on hunger but through the creation and consumption of food. There is no way to win the war on thirst but in the “production” (through searching for water, creating a water infrastructure, etc) of drink. In the same manner, the only way to win the war on poverty but through the creation of wealth. Man must make money to stop being poor. Creation destroys poverty.
Unfortunately, this concept is utterly missed by most politicians and the general public. They see wealth as something to be “redistributed”, as though it is natural, and as though it does not need to be created — just spread. It is this folly that keeps the economies of so many nations in a deplorable state.
The United States is targeted and ridiculed for being a greedy country. It is argued that the United States is evil because of our lust for material wealth. We are looked down upon by the rest of the world for having wealth, and reveling in it. American comfort encourages the hatred of America. There are, of course, other significant factors in the world’s attitude regarding the United States, but that this exists is undeniable.
But is it not interesting that the people who are the best off, in all the world, are Americans? It logically follows, because Americans are “greedy”, with “greedy” simply meaning they do not usually see themselves as sacrificial animals, and wish to profit themselves and their family. They wish to achieve material success and do it. (Not to mention other success are also achieved, depending on the person, of course — material success does not mean spiritual success, for example, is not also possible, of course.)
If you wish to see a society who’s poor know the luxury and have no cap on their possible achievement, then look no further than America. America is the land where poverty is low because her economic system is free. Her citizens and poor receive a standard of living much higher than most of the world, with no cap on their potential living standards.
If America is an example of greed at work, then greed is good — not evil. It is this greed that caused the creation of wealth which caused low poverty rates.
Remember that you can receive automatic updates of Reason and Capitalism by subscribing to the free RSS feed. You can unsubscribe at any time, so there's no risk involved at all.
3 Comments
There is a frightening movement that has existed since man first bartered. The movement views profit (or “greed”) as evil. Self-interest is seen as wrong. The root of the movement is that “greedy” people are evil, that they don’t care about the poor. Because we do.
My family owns a business, and we have dozens of similar friends. We donate to the poor constantly. We donate out of love. Not because the man with the badge has a gun to our heads, but because we are moral. I hate to be over dramatic, but the idea of capitalists seeking profit so they don’t care about the poor is simply dehumanizing. Desiring the comforts of life and hence working to achieve those comforts doesn’t mean we are evil. Wanting to have success doesn’t mean a disdain for others.
The average employee at Wal-Mart works hard for the cash that s/he makes. I know I do. It’s not wrong that s/he works for money so s/he can buy things that most in the world would consider frivolous. There should be no shame in achievement. The reason for this is found in the root of the desire for profit.
The root of a desire for profit is not the desire to destroy or harm — profit is based on achievement, not destruction. A desire for profit is based on a desire to better oneself — to achieve wealth and enjoyment. To create. But not just to create — to create through peace and not coercion or force. Creation through peace.
Unfortunately, millions are confused regarding how capitalism relates to government. They believe that it is capitalism when a corporation is subsidized by government, or when the government uses laws and restrictions to support big business. This couldn’t be further from the truth. This is not capitalism, but fascism. Capitalism is a system of voluntary exchange. It’s a system of economics based on trade. When a business wishes to profit in a capitalist economy, it does not resort to government, but ads and exchange.
Capitalist profit is based upon trade — transaction — peaceful agreement. In a capitalist system, it is never based upon coercion. The economic system of capitalism knows no coercion. Capitalism, by definition, is a system where all financial decisions are based upon mutual consent. Capitalism is the economic system of peace.
Business owners who achieve a profit do so, not at the sake of others — but for the betterment of all. Their reasoning is unashamedly selfish, of course. But economically, their profit benefits others. For an explanation, see the section “Wealth and Poverty“.
There have recently been interesting buzz phrases used regarding profit. Members of the media, random people on the street — people in general — often refer to the profits that oil companies make as “extra” or “unnecessary” profit. The idea is that the oil companies are evil, because they want to make more than absolutely necessary.
This, it is assumed, is obviously evil, because the oil companies are profiting at the expense of others. Profit is evil, it is then concluded or implied. This is wrong. Dead wrong. When you desire a food that goes beyond the basic necessity, you desire “excessive profit”. When you want clothes that look nice rather than just cover your body and provide shelter, you desire “excessive profit”. When an employee wants a raise because he thinks he is “worth more”, even if he isn’t starving, he wants “excessive profit”.
When a father wishes to see his children provided with items beyond the basics needed for human sustenance, when he wishes to see them have nice things, when he wishes to see them have a computer or TV — he desires “excessive profit”.
To suppose that these people are evil because they wish to maximize their profit is absurd. Especially considering the only way they can, in a capitalist economy, maximize their profit is through efficiency and voluntary trade.
Rather than being “evil”, those who wish to make a profit are acting in a moral manner. They wish to create material achievements for themselves and their family. This is not evil — this is good. “Excessive profit” is wrong — it represents the achievement of one’s values. It is good on the most fundamental level.
Remember that you can receive automatic updates of Reason and Capitalism by subscribing to the free RSS feed. You can unsubscribe at any time, so there's no risk involved at all.
Comments
Capitalism, both morally and pragmatically, is not just justified — it’s dramatically needed. The economic and moral benefit of resorting to the system of financial freedom is absurdly necessary.
I will not pretend to be unbiased here. Though I used to support economic restriction, years of research and contemplation have brought me to the conclusion that anything less than capitalism is not only destined to failure — it’s wrong.
Capitalism helps the poor by raising the average standard of living — this is why the poor in the US would be considered rich in other countries. This is, of course, not to say that the standard of living could be hire — hence the need to stop the economic prohibitive laws.
Capitalism helps the middle class by allowing them to invest to a greater degree — the middle class is disappearing in the US today because they are becoming part of the upper class. Freedom breeds success.
Capitalism helps the rich by not robbing them of that which they have earned. By not squandering the income that had been achieved. This in turn adds to the incomes of the lower and middle classes by turning the rich income into efficient investment and business creation, and not lost through political bureaucracy.
Nation after nation has discovered a simple idea. Government isn’t the answer to our economic problems. In 1680, French finance minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert joined a group of French businessmen, led by M. Le Gendre. The finance minister asked how the government could help the business owners, and Le Gendre quickly replied, “Laissez-nous faire” — “Let us be.” The economy doesn’t need the state to look over it. Economic restrictions don’t help business, they restrict business. That’s the point of economic restriction.
Freedom works. Freedom is moral — freedom helps achieve. Freedom is not to be shirked, freedom is the responsibility of the people and its government. Rather than seeking ways to restrict the economy, we should be strengthening it through economic liberty — capitalism.
My purpose for writing this series is simple. In the great American classic “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”, actor Jimmy Stewart, playing the role of young statesman “Jefferson Smith”, said something that I have never been able to go a day without thinking of.
He was giving a one-man filibuster, a one man war against a political machine of corruption. At one point during his long monologue, Smith leaned over his podium, desperately tired and friendless. But though his body was tired, his mind was afire and poured hope out of his eyes. Leaning for support, he said, “Just get up off the ground, that’s all I ask. Get up there with that lady that’s up on top of this Capitol dome, that lady that stands for liberty. Take a look at this country through her eyes if you really want to see something.”
My purpose is simple. I want you to see the world through the eyes of lady liberty. I want you to think in the terms of freedom and peace. I want you to see the people who live for achievement as the heroes that they are. This is my purpose. I’m not ashamed to say that this is my bias.
“Look … through her eyes if ya really wanna see something.”
Remember that you can receive automatic updates of Reason and Capitalism by subscribing to the free RSS feed. You can unsubscribe at any time, so there's no risk involved at all.
2 Comments
I’ve not been into fiction since I was 12 or so. I’ve always been into non-fiction because of the substance. But currently digress from my traditional status on fiction because of a new blog a friend of mine set up. He’s in college, and is more of a poetic kind of writer — but rather than having no point, his stories revolve around a point. Plus the stories are absolutely beautiful.
Bedtime stories for all ages.
Remember that you can receive automatic updates of Reason and Capitalism by subscribing to the free RSS feed. You can unsubscribe at any time, so there's no risk involved at all.
Comments
What always shocks me is how Christians view the principles of Objectivism as clashing with the principles of God and Christ, usually without any substantiation at all. The only way I can even fathom this happening, is on the basis of the ego (self-worth) and selfishness (self-interest).
This post will probably be short, as I’m simply going to debunk the idea that Christianity and Objectivism aren’t compatible. Objectivism is not contrary to scripture, it compliments scripture.
Pride — Ego
The Objectivist is famous among all people for having a sense of pride that is disgusting. It
Remember that you can receive automatic updates of Reason and Capitalism by subscribing to the free RSS feed. You can unsubscribe at any time, so there's no risk involved at all.
19 Comments
The entire basis of the current God-debate is wrong headed. We seem to be taking the approach that “proving” the existence of God is similar to proving that the minimum wage increases unemployment among minors, or that gun control increases crime.
We seem to be taking the approach that it’s a political or economic debate rather than an analysis of the senses. We seem to view the proof for God must necessarily look like the proof of a principle or law of nature, rather than simply proof for the existence of a person.
You believe in the Wal-Mart greeter because you see and hear them. You believe your neighbor exists because you see and and hear them. You believe your wife exists because you see, feel and hear her. You don’t necessarily need a traditional “proof” — your senses are enough.
This seems to be all the proof that we need to believe in the existence of others. We sense them, and that is all that we need. To believe in a person, all we must know is that our senses give us evidence of the person.
Interestingly enough, this is not, of course, to say that this is the only reason to accept the existence of a being.
Insert the existence of God. Christians and religious people say that He is a person. An omnipresent one at that. Given that Christianity is a purely empirical belief system, one which is based upon relationship along with belief[1], it would certainly follow that one of the biggest factors for personal belief would be to sense his existence.
Richard Dawkings, in his book “The God Delusion”, explains what he believes to be a trump card on the so-called “God delusion”. Dawkings believes that the prevalent belief in God can be attributed to mishap in human DNA. The “God DNA”, as he calls it, is a leftover product of evolution that explains why people seem to feel as though they sense God — hence their belief in Him.
Dawkings gives no reason as to why the sensing of God is a DNA mishap, and is not instead just humans literally sensing the existence of God. After all, if God is a spiritual being and the human has a soul, it would make sense that the soul of man could sense the spiritual existence of God much in the same way that physical humans can “sense” the existence of other humans through their senses.
It’s interesting that Dawkings also explains that there seems to be something engraved in the human existence that tells us of God. He calls this a mishap of evolution. This could just as easily be interpreted as God simply writing his existence in the programming of life. Rather than explaining God away, it explains God in.
This seems to be a fairly common occurrence among everyone, atheists, agnostics, deists and theists alike — the sensing of “something out there”. Something in the human mind screams out the supernatural when looking at the natural. General individual human intuition points to the supernatural.
An agnostic friend of mine says that she often feels what she considers the “romance of the cosmos”. This “romance” is some kind of “feeling” regarding something out there. The human spirit, as some suggest? Or is it actually a spirit in the literal sense of the word?
The Christian movements are often characterized by an appeal to emotion, and unfortunately often will focus on the emotional aspect of religion, while completely ignoring the rational side — the reasoning. I’ve always been turned off by this approach, even as a Christian.
However, from a purely honest approach, one must admit that feeling as a part of reasoning is not to be unexpected or even looked down upon if dealing with the provability of an entity only provable through the senses. Maybe there’s a reason religion often focuses on feeling — the foundation and cause of their faith was found in the experience of sensing the existence of God on a spiritual level.
All things considered, the number one reason I believe in God is the same reason that I accept the existence of anything else. My senses tell me. I sense God. I sense the supernatural. I sense objective morality, just as the atheist does when someone wrongs them.
For the periods of agnosticism in my past, I viewed this “sense” as something irrational — as something contrary to how one should conclude anything. What I was missing was that the belief in God was the same as the belief in the existence of any other being — one based upon basic senses.
No, this is not a case for God. This is a personal explanation. There is no reason you should accept His existence on the basis of what I feel. A question of empirical truth can be answered only through individual experience. This, again, would make sense in the Christian doctrine of grace — we don’t accept until touched — until we sense its truth.
———-
[1] One must sense God to believe in Him. I concluded this before accepting reformed theology. I accepted reformed theology for rational reasons before accepting it for Biblical reasons.
This is a good example of why I have concluded Christianity to be true. I hypothesized about God, life, happiness, self-interest, etc, for literally months on end (being an easily obsessed person, I’m not stretching it at all to say that I thought of little else for any significant period of time during this rationalization period) before reading through the New Testament one more time. I discovered that everything I had concluded was reinforced.
Fishermen simply wouldn’t have had the insight needed to provide the philosophical framework of Christianity. It’s impossible that they accidentally stumbled across the most coherent and workable philosophies regarding life, ethics and government.
Remember that you can receive automatic updates of Reason and Capitalism by subscribing to the free RSS feed. You can unsubscribe at any time, so there's no risk involved at all.
3 Comments