I do plan on posting more blog entries defending my ideas and opposing those ideas such I find false. [edit.]

 [edit.]

I also love discussing politics, philosophy, economics, and religion so if any of you just want to have a discussion/debate about something in that category you’re free to call me anytime as well. I’m absolutely open to anyone who just wants to have a little debate.

Here is a small list of things I believe and enjoy defending.

1. Racial/Gender discrimination laws are unneeded and immoral
2. Price Gouging should be legal and results in good.
3. Free Market capitalism is just and results in the greatest good for the greatest number
4. Minimum wage laws do no good and hurt poor people.
5. Torture can be just.
6. All taxation should be abolished and replaced with a consumption tax (FairTax [HR25])
7. Outsourcing jobs and importing goods & services makes us richer, and attempting to stop it is fascist and inconsistent with a free society.
8. Eminent domain is wrong.
9. Not everyone should vote.
10.  Barack Obama does not “believe” in the American people
11.  Barack Obama will not & cannot cut taxes for 95% of the population.
12.  The Bible is false
13.  There most probably is not a god
14. There is no good reason to believe a god exists
15.  Objective value is an oxymoron.
16. There is no purpose to life
17.  We do have freewill even though determinism is true.
18.  Christianity is anti-American
19.  It’s good to press your beliefs on others
20.  Metaphysical Naturalism is true.
21.  Answering the question “Why is there something rather than nothing” is easy.
22.  There most probably is no soul
23.  There most probably is no afterlife
24.  I believe everything I believe is true, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

This is a short list of a few views I personally hold to. I of course only listed those which I think most people will disagree with. If you’re interested in debating me on any of these issues give me a call. [edit.]

One complaint we often hear about the conservative religious groups is about them trying to "convert" everyone. From  door to door Mormons selling spirituality to evangelicals who practice aggressive apologetics (such as Ray Comfort) are often characterized as "cramming their beliefs down people's throats" or "pressing their beliefs on others." I myself have even been criticized by fellow atheists for admitting to 'trying to convert' friends and others. He said he found it "disgusting." We hear "Other people's beliefs are not your business!" or "I have my beliefs, you have yours, don't 'press' your beliefs on me" What do we make of this?

Is it really rude to attempt to convert someone into believing as you do? What does it mean to 'press' your beliefs on someone? I would argue this kind of thinking can be (1) self-refuting, and on closer examination could even be considered (2) cold hearted and immoral. The argument consists of (3) premises.

1. A belief is either true or false.

This is a rather simple premise, and is hard to find anyone who disagrees. A belief or set of beliefs can be reduced to statements about the world. When one says "I believe the basket ball is in the closet" one is claiming to belief the statement "the basket ball is in the closet" is true. The statement is true if it corresponds to reality, which is to say, such a statement about the world is true if it maps on to the world.

There are some though, and they are not hard to find, who will object saying "Those beliefs are true to them" or "We're all right in our own way" and often resort to the Elephant in the room story. In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to try and discover what it is. Each one touches a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes on what they felt, and learn they are in complete disagreement. The story is used to indicate that reality may be viewed differently depending upon one's perspective. Each blind man says "It's a rope!" or "It's a wall!" the story ends as follows:

"They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right. It looked like they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, "What is the matter?" They said, "We cannot agree to what the thin we're touching is ." Each one of them told what he thought it was. The wise man calmly explained to them, "All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different part. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said."

If you find yourself in a conversation on religion with a liberal minded person, you will hear this story many times. It's the "We're all right in our own way" kind of mentality that is more of a preschool "We're all winners!" type of thinking. One blatant flaw in the story is, although each one felt a different part of the same "truth" - they were all wrong! It was NOT a rope, a wall, a tree, it was an Elephant! Each man made FALSE statements about the world, namely that the object they were touching was something other than an Elephant.

2. Holding true beliefs is better than holding false ones.
(one is better off holding true beliefs)

Beliefs translate into actions, and actions effect people. If those beliefs are false, you're almost certainly wasting a lot of time. Consider the belief that the gods require a child sacrifice in exchange for rain this month. If such a belief is true, then it may be justified, if however that belief is false, you're simply killing an innocent child. What people believe matters, it matters only because of the potentially wasteful or harmful implications of of those beliefs being false.

3. Helping people in ways that is better for them is good.

If people are better off holding true beliefs, and helping people in ways that is better for them is good, then it follows that helping people hold true beliefs is good. Of course, helping people hold true beliefs can only be done by providing good reasons and argument, which is precisely what 'converting someone' ultimately is. If you agree with premise 1, 2, and 3 you simply can not condemn or criticize someone for making attempts to 'convert the lost.'

Earlier I also claimed this kind of reasoning, namely the arguments that 'converting' people is rude, is not only immoral and cold hearted, but self refuting. To better understand how this is the case, we must turn to the actual definition for 'convert.'

convert. (v) - The American Heritage® Dictionary
1) To change (something) into a different form or properties.
2) To persuade or induce to adopt a particular religion, faith, or belief.

The second definition given is more appropriate given the context. To convert someone is to persuade them into believing whatever proposition is being presented.

persuade. (v)
1) To induce to undertake a course of action or embrace a point of view by means of argument, reasoning, or entreaty.

To be more specific, to 'convert' someone is to persuade them by means of argument and reason. So if you grant the definition of convert, or persuade, any instance where someone attempts to convince someone of a proposition by means of reason or argument is by definition attempting to convert that person. Therefore the very act of telling someone they are rude for attempting to convert others, if followed by reasons like "I think you should not do this for reason X" is by definition an act of persuasion which is what converting someone is! So to convince one that converting others is rude is in itself a form of conversion!

The entire complaint is self-refuting.

This kind of response may be so popular, and I apologize if I sound harsh, is because the majority of the population hate philosophy, hate thinking, and hate truth. People are obsessed with what 'feels good to me' rather than what is true. People are obsessed in preserving diversity of opinions by condoning those who try to unite. Beliefs about the nature of reality have become more like what flavor ice cream you like where it makes little sense to evaluate flavor preference as 'true' or 'false'; 'I like chocolate, it's good for me, don't try and change me' - the reality is of course that beliefs about the cosmos are not like this, you are either right about them or you're not - and truth should become what we strive for.

Recently Joe Wurzelbacher has received a lot of attention in the media. In this short entry I want to respond to one of the silly made about Joe to discredit him.

“He’s not a plumber, he does not have his plumbing license”

First, a plumber is a person installs and repairs pipes and plumbing. If you install and repair pipes and plumbing you’re a plumber. If Joe does that, he’s a plumber, period.

Second, a plumbing license is a way of demonstrating you’re a plumber. You don’t magically acquire the skills do be a plumber after you get the licenses. Were all the plumbers before government issued licensed not plumbers?

Third, there should not be a ‘plumbing license.’ The idea that you need government approval to fix your friends sink is disgusting, fascist, totalitarian and anti-American. Either you believe in liberty or you don’t.

Forth, even if he’s not a plumber using that fact to somehow discredit his argument is fallacious. Even if he doesn’t even know what a plumber is, his point is still valid and anytime you hear anyone try and use the ‘he’s not a plumber because he does not have a license’ as an attempt to discredit his argument you know instantly that person is an intellectual lightweight.

1.    The primary incentive to do X is money.
2.    If the amount of money increases then the incentive increases.
3.    If the amount of money is decreased then the incentive decreases.
4.    Therefore the amount of money offered corresponds to the incentive.
 

 Example in practice 

Imagine I offer you $100 to mow my lawn. You mow my lawn. Imagine I offer you $200 the next day to mow my lawn. Would your incentive to mow my lawn increase? Would you be willing to sacrifice more perhaps? (Not go to the movies for example). Imagine I offer you $20. Would your incentive to mow my lawn decrease?

This seems like a trivial and almost obvious point. The answer to all those questions is yes. In a way it's simply describing supply and demand. Of course if all things obviously true were believed, I would not need to write such things as this.

If you accept the premises above and answered yes to the questions in the thought experiment, then it's fair to say that we've established the amount of money offered corresponds to the incentive to do X.

Tax - A charge against a citizen's person or property or activity for the support of government. 

A tax basically is forced 'fee' or 'charge' on something. If I were to pay a 50% tax on $100, I would be left with $50. Taxation therefore reduces the value of whatever is being taxed. 

Example in practice

Imagine I offer you $100 to mow my lawn.  You mow my lawn. Now imagine I offer you $100 to mow my lawn, and the government recently imposed a tax on mowing lawns, the tax is set to 50%. I offer you $100, but you only receive $50. Would you incentive to mow my lawn change? 

Again, all of this is quite obvious. The answer is yes. Economically, there's no difference to you whether or not he offers you $100 or $200, what you will actually receive matters. By the same reasoning, economically it makes no difference to the man how much you get, what he actually pays matters. 

If you accept the premises above and answered yes to the questions in the thought experiment, then it's fair to say that we've established if the amount of money offered corresponds to the incentive to do X, and if taxation results in the amount of money being offered always being lower, then it's reasonable to conclude that

taxes always reduce the incentive to do X 

In summery 

5.    The primary incentive to do X is money.
6.    If the amount of money increases then the incentive increases. 
7.    If the amount of money is decreased then the incentive decreases. 
8.    A tax always reduces the amount of money offered to do X 
9.    Therefore taxes always reduce the incentive to do X 

The implication of this simple principle is that when someone offers to tax a good or service, he is by consequence reducing people's incentive to do that service or consume that good. 

When all of this is realized, it becomes very interesting to consider how our tax system is levied. Here are some commonly held ideas

1.    Tax the "rich"
2.    Tax businesses that employ people.
3.    Tax large oil companies with windfall profits tax (95% tax after a set amount)
4.    Tax capital gains (investment)
5.    Tax death

What's even more bizzar is many are in favor of having very high taxes on corporations, and very wealthy people and families. Barack Obama for example is in favor of taxes as high as 39% on individuals making $200k or more, and a family making $250k or more. Now I think it's reasonable to say that in general those who are earning such a high amount are the most productive in the sense that their services or labor is in such high demand. It's also reasonable to assume that in general those who earn such a high amount are the most responsible for employing people. Given those facts it seems odd to reduce people's incentive to remaining productive in the same ways.

Consider Obama's desire to raise the capital gains tax. Obama's was asked about this during a democratic presidential debate with Hillary Clinton. 

GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.  

Obama has since considered lowering that figure to 20%, probably due all of the heat he's received from it. In either case, when we consider the principles being discussed this idea seems counter productive. From what I understand, capital gains are gains earned from when a stock is sold. The result of the tax will be a decrease in the incentive to invest, or at the very least invest in risky stocks (stocks of those who are probably just starting out).


2. REFUTING THE CLAIM "CHEAP LABOR HURTS THE US"
Technology Analogy

Imagine there's a manufacturer of toothpaste who currently has 100 people working for him manually putting together the paste & tubes they go into. His current rate of production is say 5,000 tubes of toothpaste a day, his production costs per tube is $10, and he sells them for $15.

Thousands of people every month buy his toothpaste.

Now imagine this man meets an engineer and they discuss business. The engineer talks about inventing a machine that may assist him in his toothpaste business.

 Time goes by and the machine is finished. This manufacturer can now produce 50,000 tubes a day at the cost of $1 per tube. Not only does this equate to 10x the amount of production at 1/10th the cost, but the machine can easily be maintained with 10 people.

The manufacturer lays off all 90 of the least productive or needed employees and begins training the remaining 10 how to use the machine and then doubles their pay.
 
He now can not only provide 10x the amount of toothpaste but now sells it at $2, saving it's customers on average $300 a year.
 

Is this a good or bad thing? This in summary is the essence of technology. Technology allows human beings to do more things at lower costs. This is undoubtedly a good thing, and could even be said to be the best thing that could ever happen to humanity since it allows us to produce more of what we want and need with less work.

Now let's say this machine was in a different state from the manufacturer. Is this bad? Let's say the machine was in another country. Is it any less good? Now let's say it's not a machine but 1000 workers. Is it now bad?

To those who would say that free trade harms the US or the other country economically is now in a very absurd position, since economically speaking there's no difference between a machine & a person, if the costs and production speed are the same, and there's obviously no logical reason why the distance between the machine and the manufacturer would make this any less good, yet this is exactly what free trade opponents are saying.

It is undoubtedly true that 90 people lost their jobs. Many people who were in the horse & buggy industry lost their jobs when the automobile became less expensive and more people exploited its benefits. Many in the type writer industry lost their jobs with the advent of the personal computer. Yet, all of these changes are good things that have increased the standard of living for everyone.

3. REFUTING THE CLAIM
"NON-MONETARY TRADE DOES NOT INVOLVE PROFIT" 

Non-monetary profit 

When defending economic freedom, or as some call capitalism, I'm often confronted with the notion that non-monetary trades are not "for profit" but are done because the trade is "fair" or "more fair" then a trade or transaction done for profit. 

For example, in discussion with a member of the Socialist Labor Party‎ a part of the conversation on profit, trade, and labor went something like this.

Socialist: The capitalist employer steals the 'true' value of a workers labor by profit. A worker's labor may produce 10 chairs a day but his wage can only buy him 4 chairs. Therefore the workers true labor is 'really' 10 chairs. The capitalist is therefore stealing his real labor for profit.

Me: Of course, if the employer paid the man more or equal to the amount of output there'd be no incentive to hire him. If a worker makes a business $1,000 richer by increasing production, you're not going to pay him $1,500. (I then blabbed about supply & demand etc) 

All right, what about if I trade you 2 chairs for your table, and there is no money involved, is that wrong?

Socialist: No. There is no profit involved. 

This idea is brought up in many different forms. The idea that a trade, if done with goods or services alone is not for "profit" 

The concept of profit of course is the idea that you gain more than you invested, or the idea that you receive/benefit more than you put in. In monetary terms this is when you buy a good at $1 and sell it for $1.50, making a 50cent profit. Of course, we also speak of profit in terms of gaining in any sense. You could say that many profit from education, since what they get from an education is valued far greater than what was lost receiving it – time & energy. 

Let's take the case of the man who trades two chairs for one table. This is claimed to be a 'fair' trade not for profit. Why would anyone trade two chairs for a table? The man obviously values the table more than his chairs, and the man must also value the chairs more than his table. Here we have a situation where the objects have a value relative to each man. In each case the value of the good desired is higher than the good being traded for. 

Value is not an objective property but rather something that depends on the existence of minds to desire things. Oil has much more value than dog poop, and the reason has nothing to do with the essence of oil but the fact that it has a much higher demand for it – compared to dog poop. Imagine if tomorrow they discover that dog poop can be converted into something your car can run on – the value of dog poop would change. Its change is directly linked to its demand, which is the word used to described how much something is desired. So any notions of "real" value or "objective" value are false and based on a false concept of value. The term "real" value or "objective" value – in the sense that things have value independent minds/desires – is used time and time again in the discussions of economics, often by those trying to argue that profit or capitalism only works if people are suckered into buying something for more than its "real value." Those who argue this simply are clinging to false and emotionally driven intuitions about the concept of value, and simply have not thought it through. 

When this trade occurs, the result is that both men are now in possession of something that was deemed more valuable to them. Both men gained more than they lost – they profited. In the same way that someone makes a monetary profit by receiving more money than they put out.