NFL Preview 2012!

The Captain SAH 2012 NFL Preview is here!!

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B9XWHxevrOhFa1Vpb3VHYzZyUmc

Enjoy!!

Vilma Fett... Bounty Hunter

Transcript of an online debate: Who won?

Al: "Government is the problem" is one of the stupidest possible things a citizen can say in this country and it represents nothing less than a complete abdication of the responsibilities of citizenship. WE are the government. Each and every one of us IS the government. Government is or is not the problem to the exact extent that we are or are not shouldering the burdens of citizenship. The damaging conceit that the government is somehow divorced from us serves only to distance us from our fellow citizens and fosters an us vs them divisiveness that will end this democracy more completely than any foreign threat. Think deeply on this and recognize that if you hold this belief then YOU are the greatest problem this country faces.

Frank: Your statement is demonstrably false. Simple question: Does a government official have the right to declare a government office as a "Christian" office (or Muslim, Atheist, Jewish, etc.)? Do a group of people have that right? If the answer to those questions is different, then the two entities (government and a group of citizens) cannot be one and the same. As Lincoln pointed out, it's a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Government is NOT the people themselves.

Al:  Apparently demonstrably and false are words you don't understand. Our government is, as you noted, of the people, by the people and for the people, a direct manifestation of the people, if you prefer.

Frank: Your statement was "WE are the government". That statement is not true (not true = false). I gave a simple argument showing that the two entities could not possibly be one and the same (demonstrating the falsity of the original statement). I like to think I have an open mind. I make mistakes. Please illustrate how your statement was actually true, or provide the proper definition of "demonstrably".

Al:  The issue of who is the government seems pretty clear... We elect representatives from among us, thus we are the government. If you're having an issue understanding that, I'm just not clear on how to help any further.

Frank:  I'm trying to follow you here. Let me see: Government representatives come from a pool of people. Therefore, that pool of people are the government. Is that right?

Al:  That sounds like you do understand. We are that pool, we select and self-select. Government is our responsibility and it exists by our care.

Frank:  By that reasoning (that a pool of people are the government), then "we" are also the Washington Redskins. "We" are also the KKK (after all, both are groups of people culled from the community-at-large). You may counter that we get to choose the government, unlike those examples where somebody else is doing the choosing. But how much of the government are you really choosing? I didn't choose Nancy Pelosi. I'm guessing you had nothing to do with Tom Coburn. The public did not "select" the thousands of federal employees in the various agencies. Quite frankly, very few of us have any significant say in the makeup of government. When President Reagan said that "government is the problem", he was criticizing it in the same manner that you or I might criticize AMPAS or Halliburton. That criticism, whether you agree with the sentiment or not, hardly represents a "complete abdication of the responsibilities of citizenship." The government is comprised of citizens, but the two groups are not one and the same. The Dallas Cowboys secondary is comprised of Dallas Cowboys players, but that doesn't preclude Tony Romo (if he chose to) from criticizing them for failure and saying "the secondary is the problem."

Al: Last I checked I'm not a member of the KKK, nor am I on the payroll of the Redskins, Cowboys or any NFL franchise. I have no say in their decisions. I am a US citizen and as such I have the privilege of voting and knowing that my vote, as with all my fellow citizens (at least not those disenfranchised) helps in determining who will serve as my elected representative. I stand by my comments, at least until I get a check from the Redskins or my hood and robe arrive...

Capt. SAH's 2011 NFL Preview!!

It's here!! Yes, I know I haven't finished my "lawnmower" series, but things have been incredibly busy lately at work and home. I managed to scratch out a much-abbreviated NFL preview with one week until the season opens. Check it out!

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B9XWHxevrOhFNDg5NDM5YWQtYzMwNi00NDliLTk5ZjAtOWI4ZTIzMWZiOTBh&hl=en

Enjoy!!

The Lawnmower Series -- Part 2: Choosing your side

Welcome to part 2 of the lawnmower series, a line of thought that hit me while mowing the lawn. It's been a month since part 1, but I've been busy.

Last time (see the previous blog post), we examined the two primary political viewpoints in the US, and how each seems to contradict itself on the topic of freedom. The "conservative" side touts individual freedom when discussing property, but is quick to throw freedom under the bus when it comes to personal behavior. The "liberal" side touts individual freedom when discussing personal behavior, but is quick to throw freedom under the bus when it comes to property. These seemingly contradictory stances derive from the basic worldview of the adherents.

The question for today is if one of these viewpoints is more correct than the other.

Let's start with a postulate: Life requires work. Whether you believe that God created Adam and Eve or that some random explosion of particles created the universe, there can be no denying that human life requires effort. Not only does it require effort, but it requires specific efforts to obtain food, water, and shelter. A person who wished to do nothing but lie under a shady tree will soon starve to death or die of dehydration. At some point, every person is compelled to do SOMETHING in order to continue living.

It follows that some actions are more conducive to living than others. Playing soccer, for example (this is a sports blog, right?), is a fun activity with some positive health benefits, but it really does nothing to put food on the table. (BTW, this is a good time to point out that while I'll be touching on some general economic theory, I am not going to dive into much detail. I know perfectly well that lots of people around the world "put food on the table" by playing soccer. The key is that they're paid for it with money, which they use to purchase food from others who have spent their time growing/acquiring food. Everyone gets that concept, and that's as much as I'll discuss it.) Conversely, digging in the dirt to plant potatoes and turnips is not a lot of fun, but it is necessary to get food to eat. Somebody has to do it.

So where does that leave our two competing worldviews? Let's start with the "conservative" view. In the conservative's world, a person must work and provide for his/her own life. That's where the rules restricting behavior come into play. Conservatives acknowledge the need for "work" by suggesting and enforcing rules for people that ensure they behave in a manner conducive to life. The payoff for living "correctly" is that you get stuff with which you can do what you please.

So now can we take away the "rules" and keep a focus on freedom of property? The answer is yes. Personal behavior (not including obvious criminal activity such as murder and theft that no political group outside of anarchists support) that is completely unrestrained has no conflict with personal property freedom. People that make good choices with their personal behavior will live, and those who make poor choices will suffer. If a "successful" person CHOOSES to give stuff to another person that is suffering, that's still freedom.

If property rights and freedoms are maintained, there really is no need for legislating personal behavior, as nature itself will enforce these rules. True, it is a very harsh justice, and we may not like it, but it is there nonetheless. Total freedom of property rights is compatible with freedom of personal behavior, with the caveat that poor personal behavior is harshly punished by nature.

What of the liberal view? In the liberal world, people may do whatever they want with their own persons. To acknowledge the truism that people must "work" for life, the liberal view demands that work and its resulting property be shared among all. So can we take away the "restrictions" on property use and still have total freedom when it comes to personal behavior?

The answer is no. As mentioned above, nature itself has "rules" and enforces them ruthlessly. People who ignore these rules MUST have assistance from others, or else they will perish. In other words, the liberal emphasis of personal behavior freedom requires a restriction of property freedom. Otherwise, nature itself will defeat it. This is in direct contrast to the conservative emphasis of property freedom, which can still survive (in some form) when freedom is given to personal behavior.

To sum it up, total freedom of personal behavior is an impossible goal. Nature requires that people work, which restricts freedom. Logically speaking, this makes the "conservative" viewpoint more legitimate in my opinion than the "liberal" one. The liberal viewpoint is a hopeless struggle against the laws of nature itself. If you enforce behavioral rules, everyone can have some property with which they can do as they please. If you allow any and all behavior, you must take property from some to give to others. But since property is (at some level) derived from personal behavior, you must also enforce some type of behavior on some people in order to have property to share. This is why socialist/communist governments around the world always start with an ideal of "share and share alike," but quickly devolve into corrupt oligarchies, as a few politically powerful people decide who has to work and who gets to play.

So in this line of thought, I've established that the conservative view is more compatible with true freedom. You CAN have total freedom of property. In the next installment, I'll look and see if we can add more personal behavior freedom to the conservative view without turning the world into the "harsh justice" scene we envisioned earlier.

SAH

The Lawnmower Series -- Part 1:Cognitive Dissonance

From Wikipedia: Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously.

This struck me as I was mowing the lawn last night. Something that has bothered me for a long time is the natural contradiction found in today's prevailing political groups. The "conservative" group pounds the table for individual freedom, yet typically jumps in first whenever a restrictive new law is proposed (anything from gay marriage and abortion to no-smoking ordinances and "blue laws"). How can a group supposedly so grounded in "freedom" quickly support measures that would appear to limit its expression?

And on the other side, the "liberal" political group pounds the table for individual freedom, yet leads the charge for restrictive tax policies, government oversight of industry, and compulsory "public" service. How can a group that claims to celebrate individuality and acceptance attach itself to authoritarian measures?

This is cognitive dissonance. You cannot support restriction and freedom at the same time, yet seemingly both major political groups in this country are happy to do just that. How did we get to this state? Is one side more "correct" than the other? Is there a "better" viewpoint?

After ruminating on this for a while, I believe I have the key. It's a question of ownership. Most everyone, whether liberal or conservative, would agree with this statement: "I should be free to do what I want with what is mine." The difference comes in what groups believe is personally owned.

Conservatives believe that you own "stuff". Things like money, time, and cars are personal to a conservative. But conservatives don't believe you own people, not even yourself. Therefore, you should have the freedom to do what you like with "stuff", but not with others, even yourself.

Liberals take the opposite view. They believe that "stuff" is shared. Nobody "owns" things like land or water, but must share it. Conversely, they believe that everyone owns him/herself, and should be free to do what they want with their own self and anyone else willing to join them.

How did these opposing viewpoints originate? I believe the conservative viewpoint originated from the simple idea that human life is the pinnacle of creation. All the other stuff in the universe is secondary, and can be used however individual humans wish. Stuff may be assigned to individual people as they see fit, and there's nothing at all wrong with one person having more stuff than another. As the most precious item in existence, however, individual humans are too valuable to risk doing anything that might adversely affect their well-being. So freedom with stuff is perfectly fine, but freedom with individual human activity must be monitored closely. This viewpoint corresponds nicely with (and largely derives from) the traditional belief that God created man to rule the earth.

The liberal viewpoint originates from the idea that all of creation is equivalent (or at least roughly so). The only "stuff" that we can own is the bodies we've been given. We can do whatever we want to our own self, and we can engage others so long as they are willing. But other stuff can only be "borrowed", and it's against the natural order of things for somebody to use more than "their share" of general resources. So freedom to do whatever with yourself is fine, but anything involving outside stuff must be monitored closely. This viewpoint corresponds nicely with the belief that the universe is just a random grouping of particles.

With this, I believe we've answered the question of "how did we get into this state." People (largely, I'm not talking about each and every individual thinker on earth) generally base their political leaning on how they view the universe. Is it a design with humans at the top? Is it a random collection of particles with no defined hierarchy? That leaves the questions of which view is more "correct", and is there a "better" view. I'll tackle those questions next time.