Anyone who can even pretend to know me should realize the irony in this paper.

—————————————————————————-

Tyler Doyle

Dr. Cohen // Phil-351-03

WC: 1024

The Anthem of Freedom: Collectivism is Slavery

“I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask none to live for me, nor do I live for any others. I covet no man’s soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.” In Anthem, Ayn Rand establishes what she calls the monster of ‘we’.  She asserts that each man is an absolute individual, with no obligations or debts towards other men.  The main character of Anthem rediscovers the concept of individualism and breaks away from his collectivist community. Through an implied natural right of self-realization, Prometheus (the main character) dares to embrace the Unmentionable Word: ego.

The idea of ‘ego’ is central to the theme of Prometheus’ development. From the beginning he has wishes that are not that of the collective will, but are aspirations of his own. He wishes to become a Scholar, something that he desires. With no regard for his wishes, the collective decided that he would best be used as a Street Sweeper, and cast him in to that role. He accepts this, though is disappointed, as he had never known a concept of ‘I’, and merely followed the commands of the collective ‘we’. This is an example of the kind of coercive forces mentioned by Hayek. These forces are necessarily required to maintain the order of the collectivist state. If one individual were to reallocate the goods of the society (in this case occupation and human capital), that individual could leverage a competitive advantage over the state. If this were to occur, the allocation of goods chosen by the group would be disturbed, and shortages or surpluses would follow. If Prometheus were allowed to choose his own occupation, he would be acting on the fuel of his ego, and not that which is in the best interest of the state.

It seems the state derived its power from the fear of the market. The ‘invisible hand’ of market forces ought to guide the properly efficient allocation of goods and services. What happened was as Hayek describes the inevitable road towards an authoritarian coercive force, justified by the need to maintain strict control and order over the markets. The population of this world became increasingly obsessed with equality over efficiency. Just as in The Road to Serfdom the process began with good intentions, and evolved in to a system that can only be sustained by force. The World Council is responsible for the oversight of all the smaller councils, which are in turn in charge of every aspect of life. Occupations, schedules, where people live, what they may own (nothing), are all established and maintained for the good of the ‘we’.

If we establish that every man has a right to pursue his own ego, then it follows that each individual is free to achieve his own end. It is with this principle that the scope of a state is restricted by. No man in a means to any other man, or a means to the group, but an end in himself. By being an end in himself, each man carries an obligation only to serve himself. It isn’t unreasonable to think that men would eventually find the need for a standard system of justice or laws, through which they can address disputes over contracts or other voluntary exchanges. This system must respect each person as an end in themselves, and interfere in their lives only to the extent needed so that each man is required to interact reasonably with other men. Equality of opportunity arises from this system, where each man is equal to choose how they will progress toward their end. Equality of any of any other kind is unjust, for to alter any man’s means to benefit another is exploitation.

Collectivism imposes a type of slavery on men. The collective desire to achieve fairness or equality necessarily requires some men to alter their chosen means, in turn altering their intended ends. In doing this, the will of the state becomes Machiavellian, justifying the means by promoting the ‘beneficial’ end.  Hayek warns against the call of the ‘greater’ good. Collectivism cannot accommodate the full ends of every man, for each must necessarily give something to the state (liberty, taxes, control) so that it may be redistributed to achieve equality.

Prometheus discovers the peril of the state. With no concept of an ‘I’ he is slave to the will of the group. By breaking their laws he disobeyed his occupation and began to work towards his own end. In doing so he (re)created the light bulb, and presented it to the council. Here the evidence of the necessity of coercive force shows. In order to provide for the entire population, the state had carefully planned the occupation and allocation of each man. The new invention would present a disturbance to the candle makers, the wax makers, the oil suppliers, and all people who are involved with the making of the candle. Without markets to absorb them, or the free ability to move to different ends, these people would be unprovided for by the state. Alternatively, the world could choose to adopt the new light bulb technology, and the state would be scrambling to equalize the wealth and labor associated with the invention. Regardless of the adoption, it shows the coercive force necessary to maintain the collective balance; Prometheus is set to stand trial, probably to the result of his own death. The invention would be destroyed, and the state would return to the desired status quo.

To follow that collectivism is slavery is the next step in understanding the situation. If it is so that each person is necessarily his own end, and that he has the right to pursue his own end, then the state may not interfere in his ends. It also follows that the state may not interfere in his means, other than what every man agrees is necessary to prevent one man’s means from interfering with their own ends. If the state may not interfere with a man’s ends or means, yet coerces men to alter either, it is imposing involuntary rule, a sort of legal slavery.

Since James was going through his old blogs, I thought I’d post this old draft. It is unfinished, incomplete, but here it is. Enjoy:

__________________________________________________________________________________________

The title rhymes. Isn’t that great?

I’m now back in Seattle, amongst the rain, the cool air, and the ‘evil leftists’ (More on this later). If you don’t know, I spent a week in New York (Or Tarrytown if you’re picky. Think of it as New Yorks Everett) to attend a weeklong seminar hosted by the Foundation for Economic Education. (FEE) I attended History and Liberty as the seminar I would attend, and my friend Kelsey made all the arrangements. Booked a flight on American Airlines, and off I flew. (Airport’s taking forever is a lie; I’ve never had to wait more than 30 minutes to get through everything. Granted, I travel light, am white, and generally efficent, but still. Arriving 3 hours before your flight is unneeded.)

Now, before I went to FEE, I did expect it to be a little more conservative. I knew they were economists (I am an econ major, for reference), so they would probably be advocating a more free-market approach to government, liberty, and the economy. I didn’t think that would be much of an issue, the market is, afterall, one of the most efficent ways of allocating resources in a world of unlimited wants.

Boy was I wrong. I sat down for the first lecture, at an hour I wouldn’t normally be ‘learning’, and prepped by brain for information.

“Government is an organized band of robbers, who use violence, or threat of violence to rulle at the expense of others,”

My brain instantly fired up. What about Natural Rights? Social Contract? Mutual Protection? Locke. Hobbs. Democracy. Public Goods. Natural Monoploies… The list in my head ran on and on. I felt the lecturer had a valid point; the government does ‘rob’ us of our money via taxes, does threaten violence via courts and police, and can even take our land if for public use. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and let him continue; but he failed to impress me beyond the original statement. Let’s say for a moment he is correct, and those with a comparative advantage in violence, rule at the expense of others, and that is the only definition of government. Why does government continue to exist? Would the oppressed not overthrow the state? Well, that would simply replace the first ’state’ with another ’state’ of violence, but wouldn’t we eventualyl get the hint? History has shown that people can overcome political patterns when looking towards new governments. The United States worked hard to establish a government of least opression, ancient Greece, and later Rome, grew tired of Kings, and developed another system. If violence were the only motivating factor behind government, I doubt it would persist so often through history, especially thousands of years ago when running away or leaving your state was a matter of packing and going…

The works as far back as Plato suggest that government is an establishment for the mutual protection and benefit. The ‘Social Contract; theory. Glaucon offers this definition of Justice to Socrates, who rejects it for a more internal definition of Justice, but it is still offered. (The Republic). Marx addresses this class struggle (which FEE rejects, though I think they are more similar to Marx than they want to admit) in his writings, and suggests that the reason rebellion may not happen, is because the economic base (Capitalism in our case), provides the superstructure of society from which we draw our opinions. Due to this, we don’t see the problems, but what the ‘owners’ want us to see, and continue along being ‘oppressed’. Marx said it, and FEE agrees; though they won’t admit it.

1. Start everything anew.

2. Follow the 3 rules:

• 1. Do the least to get the most, but don’t take the easy way out.
• 2. Do it for the story. Always.
• 3. Don’t stress. Everything always works out.

Fuck everything else

You have to write a note with sixteen random things, shortcomings, facts, habits or goals about you. At the end choose sixteen people to be tagged, listing their names and why you chose them. You have to tag the person who tagged you.

I refused to do this on FB, but since it will be imported anyway, sure, why the fuck not.

1) After you meet me, you will think I am either the nicest person you’ve met, or the meanest person you met.

2)  I can’t fall asleep unless my feet are touching, crossed, or otherwise

3) I am OC in many ways, but the worst: All piles must be neat piles. Legos, Quarters, Cards, Papers, whatever, stacked NEATLY.

4) I think Bread + Cheese + Mayo is the most delicious thing ever.

5)  I play with the cowlick in my hair, I always have.

6)  Most people who meet me in Vancouver think I’m gay, but no one I’ve met in Seattle has said so.

7) I don’t like fruit, of any kind, in any form (except for Cherries, and Watermelon). Don’t try

I used to be hard core in to science, and wanted to be a paleontologist, my 9th grade history teacher changed that

9) I have 16-ish Neices and Nephews, 2 are older than me

10) I have an obsession with leather coats. I own 7, and keep buying more.

11) I love dark chocolate, all the way up to 100%, fuck you if you think it’s bitter, and one of my favorite snacks is Earl Grey tea, and some chocolate

12) I am blunt, cynical,  sarcastic, direct, and abrasive:  if I say fuck you, it probably means I care

13) I obsess over my hair a little bit, or a lot a bit, but it is damn perfect hair, I’ve been known to wash it in a sink

14) I always walk on the left side of groups, if I am on the right, I will drift over eventually, it is uncomfortable otherwise

15) I do my best thinking when driving, and I go over daydream-like stories in my head that evolve in to 10-minute narratives. It’s how I entertain myself

16) I am always attracted to the mystery, the hard way, the cheat, or whatever isn’t the easy way to do something, sometimes it makes my homework hard.

If anyone ever doubted that I was a geek, this will be the clincher.

I was recently posed a riddle by Bea. She asked me for an answer but didn’t expect a two page essay.

Follow the jump

Who to love?

Question posed: I am in love with a girl (Girl A) and lose my memory (via falling off a cliff). I meet girl B who I fall in love with. Sometime later, Girl A re-enters my life, and I have to choose between the two.

Before I can answer, we have to qualify a few things. We have to assume that both the girls are truly in love with me. For one of them to be unsure would make this not a question of love, but instead trying to pick the “right” girl. That’s an argument for another time. Also, there must not be any negative situation instigated by choosing one girl over the other, except for the obvious disappointment of the girl not chosen. For example, picking one girl does not harm the health of another, or anger a friend, etc. In other words, there can be no externalities. Also, the decision must be entirely mine. Not that of a friend or a family member. Love can’t be selected by the outside.

With these assumptions true, it can be truly considered a question of which girl to love. We can’t compare the love of the two, a contest between A and B to see who will love you the most, as they love you equally. Maybe A and B have different aspects that are liked, and different differences and similarities with me, but neither is exceedingly better than the other in ‘connection’.

If one is to believe in fate, it could be argued that Girl A was meant to be forgotten, and girl B was meant to be met. This means that either destiny, God, or some other causality desired me to be placed in a position to choose. In this context, girl B could be seen as a test against the love of girl A. Girl A was my first and true love, and Girl B is merely a test that I should pass and prove my love for A through. Through this line of reasoning, it is logical to pick Girl A. It could be that Girl A’s reappearance in to my life is a test of the new love for Girl B, and I shouldn’t be distracted from ghosts of the past, and should stay with the new girl B. Further, logically if both options are exactly equal the answer may be to choose neither. In doing this, however, I would be neglecting the feelings of both the girls, and myself. From an almost economic view, this answer, choosing neither, minimizes the utility, as it hurts the most people. But there is no way to maximize utility, no matter which girl is chosen, one will be hurt. As such, the outcome will always be 2 happy (me plus one girl) with one unhappy (the not-chosen girl), or 3 unhappy, with myself being unhappy, as well as the two girls.

If the time between the memory loss and the return of girl A is great enough, it can be said that I should choose girl B. Girl A would have been used to not being with me, whereas Girl B and I had never been separated. In this way, it can be seen that Girl A has had the most time to heal and move on, and the pain felt would be lesser than girl B who would be freshly torn away for me.

An option, probably one of the least plausible, but most pleasant, is to turn the decision over to the girls. Girl A and B will decide which girl I should choose. This option removes responsibility from me as the determiner, but introduces the unpleasant notion of the two girls fighting. At the same time it weakens my position in the matter, making me appear to be uncaring, unconnected, etc.

To explore the option best for me, I will list my three rules of life:
Do it for the story
Do the least to get the most, but don’t do it the easy way
Everything will eventually work out in the long run

The situation in itself is enough of a story for any man. It is obvious that the situation will work out, as something will happen, and time will heal any wounds that had already happened.

The rule to apply then is the rule of not taking the easy way out. The easy way could be viewed as to pick girl A, as she is the original safe choice of the angles explored above. This would mean I should pick girl B. However, I submit that the easy way is to decide at all.

Who would I pick?

I would walk up to girl A (alone), and ask her why she loves me.

I would walk up to girl B (alone), and ask her why she loves me.

I would kiss girl A.

I would kiss girl B.

I would tell them both that I am not worth the trouble, the pain, or the frustration of being their lover, and that I choose neither.

And the girl that realizes that I am being sarcastic is the girl that I choose.

Why? For someone to truly love me, understand me, and enjoy my company, is someone who realizes that I will spend the time to think about, plan, calculate, and joke about a situation such as this. The girl who can tell when I’m making a joke of even the most terrible situation, and laugh, is the girl that I can laugh with. And to love is to share a connection. Both girls and I are sharing in pain already, so all that is needed is the laughter for the connection. The easy way is to want to avoid the pain. The better way is to tackle it head on, and present the pain of rejection to both, and see from which the good comes forth. Whichever is the more difficult answer is the answer that should be chosen, as we reap what we sww in life. Our labor yields better results when we work harder.

When helping a friend out with an essay, I realized that I would soon need to be doing the same, writing papers, thinking, homework, etc. It makes me stop and take a look at what I’m doing, summer went by so quickly, and college is 1/4 over already. I found this essay I wrote, and thought it was fun to read. Not the best writing ever, but hey, what is?

“And so, when the two men have carried their justice and injustice to the last extreme, we may judge which is the happier,” (Republic, 361d) In Republic, Plato argues that the man who is just, yet appears unjust, will be happier both here and now, and in the end, than the man who is unjust and appears just.  We will find that the essence of his argument relies on consequences, either by harm to the soul, discovery by others, or a lack of spiritual harmony. The just man will truly be happy, at the end of his life, even if he has a reputation for injustice, as his soul is the most harmonious. Whereas the unjust man will be discovered in the end, and be miserable, or he will be ‘discovered’ by himself, and will have harmed his own soul. Plato’s presents justice as something that is good for the soul, and any rational person would want to have a good soul. However, Plato fails to recognize the physical and emotional consequences of a person’s life should they act just. A just person may have a better conditioned soul, but, through reasoning, we can see that the unjust person is the one who will lead a better life on earth, and in relation to his own existence.

Being ‘just’ is to psyche (soul) as health is to body. If we are to accept this statement as true, it follows that being just is a desirable and worthwhile endeavor, for who doesn’t want to be healthy? Plato presents this as his primary argument to why someone should be just. A well-ordered soul will live a good and just life, whereas a soul governed by spirit or appetite will lead a life lesser so.  In the Ring of Gyges, Glaucon asserts that no person can resist being unjust with the power of invisibility. Further, it seems that people often act in a just manner only out of fear of consequence, rather than self-fulfillment. They may steal whatever they wish, and do so however they please. As children, when our minds are governed by little more than appetite, we often transgress against our parents, friends, or teachers, knowing that we’ll never be caught. The popular adage “it isn’t a crime unless you get caught,” reinforces the notion that a crime not seen, is a crime not committed. Further evidence supporting Glaucon’s claim can be found in the habits of people surrounding traffic ticketing. It would be hard to find a driver that does not admit to the following: they will speed as long as a police officer will not know. In the same way, no person speeds where a police officer is present, for they will be caught. With no one to catch them, almost every driver will speed, for they find it internally just, though this may be a false justice; whether or not this act is truly just is irrelevant. It is important to understand that I do not argue that all justice is relative, but rather an individual may reason to himself that an action is just.

  Plato’s argument hinges on the assumption that a healthy psyche, a healthy ‘soul’, is an aim worth achieving. Justice and morality run the risk as being labeled as relative, yet at the deepest level, few would argue that there is not some basis in which all justice is rooted. If all of justice were relative, there would be no consensus on how to act, thus no true justice. If Plato is correct, one must agree to allow reason to rule, will to protect, and appetites to do their respective jobs. Plato would then place physical needs as something based in appetites, and emotions as something split between will and appetite, depending on which emotion this is. I feel Plato’s division of the person fails to properly attribute the roles of the physical and emotional aspects of a human’s existence. A person does not exist; at least that we can observe or understand, without a physical body. A physical body will have physical needs. Further, a person cannot live on physicality alone, as eating and drinking is common amongst all life, even plant-life; but emotions and feelings also enter into the equation for human life. Only the spiritual can reason, according to Plato, yet many actions considered just are committed in the name of love, fear, or courage, all emotions. Although some would argue that spirituality is what breeds or allows emotion, this cannot be the case; every individual has a different spirituality, some choose to invest this in religion, some in self-reflection, and others not at all. Just the same, these people have the capacity, and do feel emotions. It is because of this fact that the emotional must be kept separate from the spiritual. To complete our whole-person, we must not neglect the spiritual aspect we have separated from our emotional states. Spirituality is an object that is hard to define. Plato, states that it is what controls a well-ordered soul. He also states that it will have knowledge of truth derived from the ‘Form of the Good’. I will define Spirituality, and the spirit, as that what makes us different from other forms of life. This includes the ability to reason, to reflect, to think beyond observation, and to strive to understand. Many place this in a God, and derive their morality and rationality from such. Others choose to devote it to logic and reason. Wherever a person places this spirit, is where spirituality is defined. These concessions redefine Plato’s divisions of the soul into a division of a whole-person: Physical, Spiritual, and Emotional, and all ought to be considered in the overall being of the whole person.

Plato argues that the internal harmony of the soul stems from a rational governing of will, which in turn controls the appetites. Plato relies on reason, based on an understanding of the Good, as the method to achieving this, but neglects, I feel, to concede that people will differ in their interpretation of reason, and can listen to will or appetites while achieving the same action that reason may ultimately be aiming. As we have already examined, people are more motivated by fear of consequence than internal harmony. A reasonable individual can be said to be one who aims to achieve a benefit and avoid detriments. In this way justice only becomes an aim if it then achieves a benefit, or avoids a detriment. We have already examined that this internal harmony does not reflect the whole person, but only the spirit of. In order to reflect a whole person, the emotional and physical needs of that person must also be addressed. Societies form governments to protect their being, their emotional state, and spiritual rights, as history has shown; America was founded for spiritual and economic freedom, Athens formed a democracy to protect the physical and emotional rights and needs of citizens, etc. Laws against theft and murder are almost universal amongst civilization, all protecting a physical right. In this way internal harmony is superseded by a harmony of total existence, or a benefit of the three parts of the person, such that it also avoids a detriment.

            Plato’s appeal to the ‘One’ neglects the overall harmony we must have in nature and the physical universe. In this way, it seems Aristotle is correct, in that nothing can be real that does not have both form and matter. Form acts as a guide, and blueprint towards an object or concept, and matter gives that form existence. A widget only exists if there is matter to create something in the form of a widget. A spiritual realm, whether it relies on a God, reason, experience, or reflection, is variable amongst every person, and cannot be affirmed or denied in a pure form. A Christian will invest his spirit in God, whereas Plato sees it as a rational understanding of the Good. It is with this in mind that we must consider a multitude of consequences with relation to the spirit for every action we take. This principle is shown also in Schrödinger’s cat, where the cat must be both alive and dead, as we cannot know which is true until we directly observe which is true. Consider a father who cannot afford the cancer treatment for his son. To pay for it he steals from a bank hurting no one in the process. Plato might argue that the just thing to do is to listen to reason, appealing to maintaining a healthy soul. Yet, what does reason actually dictate? A spirit based in God may argue that the child is intended to die, and that theft is unjust. Thus, robbing the bank is unjust. Conversely, a spirit based in reason may reason that robbing the bank harms no one in the end, as their deposits are insured, and saves the life of his child. This action, robbing the bank, harms the least amount of people, and saves his child, therefore is the most reasonable course he can take and is just. Further, if reason were the only property of spirit, as Plato suggests, one could also reason that stealing is always wrong, and robbing the bank is unjust, and the child should die. If, however, we look at the more earthly aspects of the acts, we can better determine the ‘justness’ of the action with respect to that individual. Emotionally, a father’s love would hold few restrictions to preserve the life and well-being of a child. If a child is suffering a physical injustice (sickness), the father is completely just in his act of love, and will save his child. It is logical that any species will want to perpetuate itself. The father would argue that the Good demanded that he protect his children, as this is a necessity of civilization. Furthermore, the act of theft was dictated by the reason of his fatherhood, and the will (or courage) of his love. Had the father let his child die, (and if there is a spiritual judge or reward), then he may have done a just thing by refusing to steal, but his physical aspects (procreation) and his emotional state are both denied, thus causing distress within the whole person.

            A person, who is just, through his own understanding and terms, will lead a happy life, whether or not he is truly ‘just’.  We must understand that there are clear lines between justice and injustice, though they do not need to be defined to be understood. An observer of a bakery does not need to understand how to cook a pastry to enjoy it. A passerby in an art gallery doesn’t need to know how to paint to appreciate a painting. An understanding of the essence of an art is not needed to appreciate an art. As such, we can continue knowing that justice and injustice exist, and differ. If a man is to live his life not eating, he will die. If a man is to live a life not loving, that man can never know the joy that love brings. If a spiritual element to life truly exists, than a man with a corrupted soul can never truly be at peace. Examining a life with these pretenses, it follows that any man who denies necessarily any of these three parts of a whole person, is denying himself a proper existence.

Plato argues that a whole person must be governed by the proper proportions of the One, the Few, and the Many. A just person will lead a good life because he will listen to reason, which has a rational understanding of what is good and will pursue what is best for that person. Few would argue that reason and rationality are bad things, and indeed they are worthwhile aims. Yet earlier we discussed the fear of consequence and punishment as the primary reason for the obedience to justice. If each individual had a different definition of what that justice was, then society would be a tangled mess of differing appeals to good or reason. It is for this reason that laws are established and followed. However, if a man can break these laws, as in speeding or stealing, without being caught, there is a direct benefit to the physical and emotional aspects of a person, and arguably the spirit as well. It is reasonable to say that an act that benefits the whole is, in general, something that should be done. If an action, just or unjust, benefits some part of the whole person, and avoids being definitively detrimental towards an aspect of that person, that act is the most reasonable pursuit. In this way reason protects the harmony not only of the soul, but of an entire real, physical person. A man who lives his life by cheating and stealing, unjust in his daily actions, may live a prosperous and happier life than a man who lives his life restrained by justice.

James and I were talking a week or so ago about doing a joint-post, or some responses to each other on what we believe. It all centered around FEE, something I will post about as soon as I feel that post is ready. James went ahead and took the initiative. This is my response to ‘What it means to be a conservative‘.

People who know me now may have a hard time figuring out where I fall on the political spectrum. In High School it wouldn’t have taken more than a few minutes to figure out that I am a liberal. A flaming, left-wing, hippie, tree-hugging liberal. I align myself as a Democrat, I am blue, I am from Vancouver, I live in Seattle, and I am proud of every ounce of it. I am also an Economics major, and am not afraid to admit there are problems with liberal ideas. There are problems with conservative ideas as well. When I got to college, I found it hard to explain myself as a liberal, when everyone heard and saw me questioning so many of what I said I stood for. Think of my as a Stephen Colbert of sorts (though no where near as funny); I act conservative out of parody.

I managed to find a good quote from Geoffrey R. Stone, a law professor at University of Chicago about what it means to be a liberal.

1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others. This is at the very heart of liberalism. Liberals understand, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, that “time has upset many fighting faiths.” Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate.

2. Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support the civil rights movement, affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment and the rights of gays and lesbians. (Note that a conflict between propositions 1 and 2 leads to divisions among liberals on issues like pornography and hate speech.)

3. Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion expansion of the franchise; the elimination of obstacles to voting; “one person, one vote;” limits on partisan gerrymandering; campaign-finance reform; and a more vibrant freedom of speech. They believe, with Justice Louis Brandeis, that “the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people.”

4. Liberals believe “we the people” are the governors and not the subjects of government and that government must treat each person with that in mind. It is liberals who have defended and continue to defend the freedom of the press to investigate and challenge the government, the protection of individual privacy from overbearing government monitoring, and the right of individuals to reproductive freedom. (Note that libertarians, often thought of as “conservatives,” share this value with liberals.)

5. Liberals believe government must respect and affirmatively safeguard the liberty, equality and dignity of each individual. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion the rights of racial, religious and ethnic minorities, political dissidents, persons accused of crime and the outcasts of society. It is liberals who have insisted on the right to counsel, a broad application of the right to due process of law and the principle of equal protection for all people.

6. Liberals believe government has a fundamental responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support government programs to improve health care, education, social security, job training and welfare for the neediest members of society. It is liberals who maintain that a national community is like a family and that government exists in part to “promote the general welfare.”

7. Liberals believe government should never act on the basis of sectarian faith. It is liberals who have opposed and continue to oppose school prayer and the teaching of creationism in public schools and who support government funding for stem-cell research, the rights of gays and lesbians and the freedom of choice for women.

8. Liberals believe courts have a special responsibility to protect individual liberties. It is principally liberal judges and justices who have preserved and continue to preserve freedom of expression, individual privacy, and freedom of religion and due process of law. (Conservative judges and justices more often wield judicial authority to protect property rights and the interests of corporations, commercial advertisers and the wealthy.)

9. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, for without such protection liberalism is impossible. This, of course, is less a tenet of liberalism than a reply to those who attack liberalism. The accusation that liberals are unwilling to protect the nation from internal and external dangers is false. Because liberals respect competing values, such as procedural fairness and individual dignity, they weigh more carefully particular exercises of government power (such as the use of secret evidence, hearsay and torture), but they are no less willing to use government authority in other forms (such as expanded police forces and international diplomacy) to protect the nation and its citizens.

10. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, without unnecessarily sacrificing constitutional values. It is liberals who have demanded and continue to demand legal protections to avoid the conviction of innocent people in the criminal justice system, reasonable restraints on government surveillance of American citizens, and fair procedures to ensure that alleged enemy combatants are in fact enemy combatants. Liberals adhere to the view expressed by Brandeis some 80 years ago: “Those who won our independence … did not exalt order at the cost of liberty.”

Since James started with what he didn’t agree with, I’m going to be more positive and say what I DO agree with.

Item one is the most essential part of being liberal. Accept nothing. Question everything. Are we really under terrorist threat? Is global warming real? Does it hurt to be eco-friendly, even if it isn’t? Is Obama a good choice? Is McCain a good choice? Should the free market prevail? Should a mixed market prevail? Is history correct? What’s the other perspective? Question. Question. Question. There is no right answer but the one you believe 100%, you don’t think something half way; or you shouldn’t. If you want to invade Iraq, be 100% committed to the cause, if you want to be environmentally friendly, then do it, discuss it, practice it. Nothing, and I do mean nothing, is too soon to be discusses, joked, made fun of, honored, praised, blamed, debated, or talked about. America is, in theory, a beautiful democracy, and we were intended, nay required, to debate. If you are a liberal, don’t be afraid to talk about it. If you are a Muslim, don’t be afraid to talk about it, if you are conservative; don’t be afraid to talk about it!

In concurrence a good man once said: “Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislation? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward.” (Henry David Thoreau)

Second, Geffoery states the other most important aspect of being a liberal. Tolerance Acceptance. I’m going to amend him here. I can be tolerant of a cold, I can tolerate rap, and I can tolerate traffic. I need to accept and respect other people. If I meet a Republican in a dark alley, we should be able to discuss (ITEM ONE) and then AGREE TO DISAGREE. I may think A, you may think B, and we are both allowed to think what we wish. Ideally we should discuss and arrive at a median C. That’s how the system is supposed to work. Perhaps I am borrowing too much from Aristotle here, but the middle is often the best road, and I whole-heartedly believe that. Socialism isn’t the answer; Anarchy isn’t the answer, but a healthy mix of both! I think many liberals fail at this key point. Our answer isn’t always right, on that note their answer isn’t either. It’s a battle, a constant struggle to improve and advance, but people are remarkably resilient, they will get better. But no one will get ahead if everyone is beating everyone else down. I agree with competition, I don’t agree with discrimination. To be liberal, you must be open to being wrong, being right, and not knowing.

Item three goes with what I was saying above. Liberals must discuss, debate, but we must also act. Once we decide that global warming is a problem, and then we work to fix it. If blacks in the South are being wrongfully denied their right to vote, action must be taken. Everyone has a duty to express their opinions. If you have none, fine. If you are still deciding, great. If you are silent, leave. It is perhaps the most Un-American thing you can do. Do you realize the United States, while originally an escape from religious persecution, became the first federal constitutional republic? Borrowing from lessons of the past, American’s founded a country not based on a common language (though by de facto it was English), not a common ethnicity, not a common religion, but a common political belief. America exists to be political. I’ve struggled with the issue of voting. I feel that not voting is wrong. A denial of the freedoms given to you. And I would never advocate apathy in voting. However, I must respect your decision, I ask you to reconsider, but if ultimately you choose your voice to not be heard via a vote, so be it.

Question. Question. Question. Government, liberal or conservative. Obama or McCain, question everything. That’s al I’ve got to say on 4.

Liberals defend those who can’t defend themselves. This is the first item I can say really doesn’t agree with a conservative. A libertarian or conservative would say “I earned it, it’s mine,” or “They can defend themselves, they are just lazy,” or some other equivalent. They are right; sometimes. But not always, and less common than they’d like. The funny thing about some conservatives is that they had a poor background, and feel that if they can make it, so can everyone else. Well, I have a very sad truth for everyone. The American Dream is a lie. I can’t be a NBA basketball player, I can’t be an artist. The idea of the dream IS true, work hard, believe in yourself, and you can achieve your full potential, that society will let you achieve… A single mother who can work through college, and have 2 kids, and work 18 hours a week, works harder than any person I will ever know, and I respect you more than any CEO. But not everyone can do this. Luck, medical problems, money, assistance, location, color, and many other factors play into it, and many arise from social inequalities. A single mother who is still working 18 hour days, with one kid, may never be able to make more than $30,000, and will struggle until their death. They are working harder than you or I ever will (and I am going into Law). We (liberals) need to speak for this woman who can’t speak for herself. Society tells her she is worthless because she doesn’t own a BMW, have 2.3 kids, and doesn’t live on a street named after a tree. We tell gays they are worthless because they can’t have ‘families’ as we define them. We tell blacks that because they are darker, that they are worthless. All of this is simply untrue. So I am declaring right now, right here: No one is worthless, no one is better than anyone else, as a person. Bob may be a better CEO than Janet who is a better painter than Nick who is an asshole, but a better accountant than John. But as people, as fucking human beings, they are all the same. That is what liberals mean when they say we are equal.

Government isn’t the end-all-be-all answer. Socialized Medicine? Maybe, I am still discussing this one. But the idea, and the promotion behind it, cannot exist outside of a mutual care. John Locke believed we enter into government via a social contract, sacrificing some liberty to protect our rights. The debate is where the line should be drawn. A wise friend said to me: “The best way to determine whether or not anyone knows what they are talking about in relation to politics is to ask them this: What do you think the role and function of government is?” Tie, you are a genius. I will answer this.

The role and function of government is to promote the general protection of the entire group’s rights, and to promote the advancement of society as a whole.

In my world, this is what government is for. This is where welfare, social security, unions, labor rights, abortion rights, civil liberties, and everything else comes into play. The FDA (though in need of reform) protects the food I eat, and I know that chicken is chicken, period. There is no ’snake oil’ unless I want snake oil. Unemployment can help me while I look for a new job (and everyone I know has never ‘cheated’ this system, and genuinely used it to live while they ACTIVLY searched for work). The list goes on. I do not want the government to pick my job for me, or force anything on me, but I know that if I stumble, I can have some help getting back on my feet, so I can walk again.

When everyone walks, everyone wins. It’s that simple. You may disagree, but a class that has all 3.5’s is better off than a class with all 1.0’s and a single 6.0 raising the average. In the first class, there is more prosperity, more happiness, more innovation, than one where the top guy may have ‘the life’ but no one else can contribute, and he ends up having to deal with their problems in the long run.

I believe in God. I have a faith, and my faith has changed over time. But in the end, I believe in, pray to, and respect God. But I also respect Allah, Yew*h, Buddha, Shiva, what have you. My God is my God, and yours is yours. Since politics involves everyone, and God is individual, keep them separate. Jesus stated (roughly) that we “take no part in the world”, or, keep religion out of politics.

The rest is pretty self-explanatory. The government, following the role I described above, should never violate (in my opinion) and of those items. If you are denying a group their rights, that’s wrong. If the courts fail to follow the legal procedures, that is wrong. If the executive doesn’t uphold the just and proper laws, that is wrong.

A few people may ask me, how can I firstly advocate disagreement and compromise, then call various things wrong? Well, in short, I don’t think the world is 100% subjective. Though I feel our perception is more-or-less subjective, and different things are different for different people, nothing can be 100% subjective. Why? If one person’s perception is that something does not exist, while another’s is that it does exist, there can be no compromise. Something can’t half-exist. This is an extreme, but it makes my point that there would be a chaotic and infinite combination of subjections. I don’t want to get into this too much, but there is a line. There’s a point where something is wrong. That is when it violates the ‘rules’ of the social contract, or the Constitution, or your religion, or whatever rules govern your life. I believe in an objective perspective of many things, and liberty/freedom/rights is one of them. It is wrong for people to needlessly suffer. Period.

James went on and on about his various beliefs, and that’s not how I role (no disrespect to him). I like to be as concise as I can, and talking about my beliefs on issues isn’t the same as what it means to be liberal. However, if you want to know what I feel on something specific, ask me. According to rule number one, I’d love to discuss it with you

…. winter distances.

It is 2:30AM, and I have just finished revising what might be the best writing I have ever done. Strangely enough this isn’t coming from a business class, a class on computers, a class on politics, or anything else one might associate me with. Rather, it is the product of a philosophy class, where I wrote a paper on Plato, and whether or not living the just life is a worth it. What did I have to say? Well, where do you think I fall on that issue?

Many of you may or may not know, I am staying in Seattle this summer. There are several reasons as to why I am doing this, some are good, some are bad. Simply put, I like Seattle, Seattle is far less dramatic than Vancouver. I have a place to stay, and friends to hang with, and a job that I enjoy. Why not stay in Seattle? To all at home: I will visit, or you can visit me. Trains are cheap, planes are reasonable, gas is absurd. Pick one, and we’ll work something out.

I find a sort of happy calm writing in the dead of night. Classes are gearing up to end, and papers are due left and right, but in this I have a chance to have a bit of fun in my education, and a bit a creativity. Tests and quizzes, lectures and readings, these don’t allow for any sort of expression, beyond a certain limit. Papers, essays, drafts, revisions, these all allow me to say what I think, right or wrong, and have it evaluated, considered, even loved, or perhaps loathed. When I enjoy a paper, when I take pride in my production (suck it Marx), I remember why I am putting myself in debt for college.

As for the year as a whole, I will have to give it a B-. There is nothing about the year that I hated, and nothing to complain about, but even though I trodded through it, enjoying the moments that presented themselves, there were instances of failure, and the average fell. Classes have been amazing so far. Before I sign up for classes, I ask around, I google, and I RateMyProfessor every possible class I might take. Nothing could make my money (or rather my parents money) more wastefully spent then a poor professor. English is a subject I have always had a love-hate relationship with. Some years she treated me well, and I her. Others she was full of spite. English 120 was and will forever be the last course I will take in that subject. I am glad it ended the way it did. The affair will be remembered mostly as a sweet fling, and I will always wonder where that woman (the English class) is, and how she is doing. This is thanks to my wonderful professor Tara Der-Ye……. I’ll look up the proper spelling later. Again, I entered into a class with a subject I had long held reservations on: Biology. This is a science that I, despite my previous aspirations of dino-digging glory. My professor made that class worthwhile, interesting, and was a good guy. Thanks Jack Vincent! Music History started well, middle-ed full of fear, and ended well. Thanks Quinton Morris, you made the class interesting, if not challenging. History, same story (Lizabeth Johnson). Math, math is an interesting story. Davis Doherty, you are responsible for making me remember everything, and doing it well. Dr. Alex Barchachat (That’s probably not spelled correctly), you are an interesting case. You are the only professor I took on with a negative rating about you. I’d have to say that I have no idea what anyone was talking about, you are a great professor, if not a little quirky:) You can present math in such a way, that anyone will get it, and your accent only makes everything better, and slightly hilarious. Thanks! I can continue to rant, but I think the point is clear, I came to SU because I wanted to know my professors, or at least have the opportunity to do so. I believe that SU has provided that to me. Thank you.

Life in Seattle is everything one would dream it to be. Fun, expensive, eccentric, crazy, progressive, caffeinated, and wet. I love Seattle, the quirks, the buildings, the attitude, everything. That is partially why I am staying. I have made friends here that I can count on, talk to, and have fun with. At the same time we can discuss politics, philosophy, economics, GTA, women, cars, computers, coffee, and even corn sex. That is friendship, and I do expect us to visit somehow this summer. What more can I ask Seattle provide? Seattle did provide me, briefly, with one girl. One interest. One little spark. I was thankful, and took note. In the end, it didn’t quite work out. It’s a shame in some ways; you never get tired of that nervous feeling that you get. The anxiousness that overcomes the way you talk and act, and that no matter how well you may speak, or how clam and adjusted you act, you lose to it, and act like a fool. Butterflies some call it, knots in the stomach, anxiety, nervousness, whatever name it goes by; of it I never tire. To feel like there is something about that person to learn, a mystery to solve, is something underrated. When you walk away from a person smiling, and into a room of others, who notice you smiling; that is when you had a good day. That is a crush. Even though it changed into a friendship, thanks, I think it best you exist in ambiguity, but you deserve some credit; it is always good to be reminded of how a crush feels, and to make a new friend.

Can she (Seattle) provide a better life than current? She could pay better, but salaries go up, wages inflate, and people get promoted. Life goes on. I will be working part-time in Network Services, part time at the Help Desk. If you asked me at the right time in my life, I might say that this is my dream job; working on networking issues, messing with routers, learning subnets, using VLANs, filtering MACs. Now, it is just a hobby, but one for which I will get paid, no complaining there .

I have written a lot, and killed 30 minutes of sleep I had planned on taking, but my poor blog had been neglected far too long. Good Night!

#! /usr/bin/env python
# filename : blog.py

# Introduce variables
def time(x): None
def content(x): ‘Tons’ * int(x)
def work(x): x * wage;return x;
def updates(blog):

x = time(12)
y = content(5)
z = work(18)

Alright, jokes aside, the above summarizes my lack of regular content. I’ve been working the same amount as last quarter (about 18 hours), taking some classes that require a bit more reading than before, and generally being busy. Not to complain, all these things are good things, thus far, and my last quarter of Freshman (Sophomore.33 if you’re being technical), year looks like it will continue to be enjoyable.

As is pretty obvious with the above statement, I am working on learning python. I figured that it would be a good language to start with, being one that exists and runs on every platform known to man, is free, and is supposed to be simple, clean, and efficient, a notion I rather enjoy . I’m not super-master-programmer at the moment, but whatever, I’ll go as I please and have fun with it. I’ll move onto PHP and MySQL (JUST THE BASICS), and maybe play around with getting my website back up and running to do something useful; what I don’t know, but I’ll figure it out.

Life itself has been an interesting ride lately. My family, though I love ‘em, is one of the most dysfunctional, insane families around, and everything that happens is dramatic somewhere down the line. I do, however, have YANON (Yet Another Niece or Nephew; That’s the last computer joke, I promise), Shel(l)by. That makes me an uncle the (somewhere around) 14th time over! Hoorah! Celebration! I haven’t seen the baby yet, but Seattle University doesn’t seem to want to let anyone have any breaks during Spring Quarter; I’ll get to you when I can sis! The social has been going well; I’ve seen James more in the past few weeks than I have in a while. I probably have a roommate for next year too! Provided he doesn’t transfer (Read: Defect) to UW. Matt is cool, and he hates his current roommate; that of which I resemble very little, so all should be good. No women these days, but oh well.

Academically life isn’t bad. My Philosophy class is taught by Dr. Van Hollebeke, who does an excellent job of lecturing, discussing, and otherwise teaching a (what could be boring) topic early in the morning; I’ve yet to come close to falling asleep, rare in a class at 10AM. Business Calc (Don’t judge, math isn’t my thing), is going pretty well so far, I have Dr. Alex, same as last quarter. Although people say his tests are killer, I enjoy him, and think he is an excellent math professor. Sociology might be more interesting than I had expected, the professor knows what she is talking about, and has a sense of humor; more than welcome in a 2-hour class.

I moderated the World Trade Organization for WASMUN ‘08 Friday and today. My Chair Alex, was awesome, and very fun to work with. Our secretary Aledia was also very fun to work with, it’s too bad she had to leave us half-way through Saturday. Overall I’d say Alex chaired the committee very well, and the three of us (all being econ majors) had a good time. I’ll staff for WASMUN next year as well, and I will try to continue to be active in the SUMUN program here.

With THAT being said, Chicago was awesome! The city was amazing, the people were amazing, the team was amazing, and the actual ChoMUN committee and conference was amazing. Being a Grand Duke of Russia was simply beautiful! The wars we caused, avoided, and instigated were more than enough to quench my thrist for Pre-WWI wars and colonial influence! I will rule the world someday , even if it IS only via a MUN function.

I’m going to sign out now, but before doing so, I will recommend that everyone take an hour to go outside and enjoy it. Even if it is raining, it’s still good to get out

Goodbye, World! (For tonight)

I’ve decided to be a better geek. This means I need to focus my energies one at at time.

This month I will be doing coding.

Next month I will work on a Mag Stripe reader.

Etc. Etc.