Giving Back? It’s implicit in the trade.

You hear the refrain all too often: “because we (you) have been so fortunate in life, we (you) are obligated to ‘give back.’” Well, it could be true that your earnings and success in life were purely by chance. That, for the most part, whatever wealth or success you have accumulated/achieved was not gained through trading mutually in beneficial exchanges, nor through incredible hardship, long hours, and really hard work; a lottery winner (or Stephen King) comes to mind. If such were the case, then you might feel compelled to simiply premise your actions upon a “give back” approach to those who were not so fortunate, and obviously did not earn it. What is heinous, and uncalled for, is an admonition from others (especially beneficiaries of the give back, social engineers, collectivist ideologues, and various and sundry promoters of the “give back” rant) that it is a moral imperative to “give back,” without judgment or any particular direction. That merely the idea and act of “giving back” is, in and of itself, a pinnacle of virtue – and in the process create out of whole cloth the obscene notion of unearned guilt.

After a lifetime’s worth of trading value for value, after giving your all, your best efforts, in the production of goods or services that others valued so highly that they were willing to trade with you that which they valued? Yet, you must now give more? After the years upon years of paying taxes, fees, subsidies that were promised to cure all the maladies of society, you are asked to forfeit the fruits of your labor? And how about the soldiers; we can argue about the ridiculous premises upon which they have placed themselves into harm’s way, but must they too “give back?” The list goes on and on. In all likelihood, you have already given to many individuals far more than you know; your honest efforts have enriched the lives of others in many ways. The reality is that you, as a successful human being, “owe” no one anything except your honest measure and judgment of them, and your commitment to respect their individual rights. You’ve done your part, you can walk proudly and fully enjoy the product of your efforts with zero guilt.

What you have earned is yours; others do not have a moral claim on your life, your life’s work, or the fruits thereof. If you decide for reasons wholly and rationally selfish that donating to a person, organization, or cause would make your own life better (all things considered), and above all enhance your own happiness, then by all means you should – but only if you have been able to adequately provide for yourself and those for whom you are directly responsible. True benevolence is a concept devoid of coercion, altruism, or (especially) sacrifice.

What is not needed in this world is a creed of self-sacrifice as suggested by those who advocate “giving back” carte blanche. An ethos that would mandate as a moral precept you give up what you value more for that which you implicitly value less (or for a non-value such as “society”), or somehow be duty bound to simply give. We live on the heels of, and indeed in many ways still in, an era in which the creed of self-sacrifice has been drum-beaten into us by mystics of both muscle and spirit; its effects are all around us. We see that “need knows no end,” and that dependency is institutionalized to the extent where generations are now dependent upon generations yet to be born, where money has to be “created” because earning it is too hard. That those born into this world are, in fact, indentured to some inane notion of “the greater good.” Such is a legacy and world-view that assumes the worst in man, celebrating his vices while demonizing his real virtues.

So, the next time you hear some public service message admonishing you to simply “give back,” take it with a grain of salt. Reflect on the wide ranging and meaningful contributions to your fellow man through the honest trades and service you have provided throughout your life. The role model you set as you merely went about your work, your sports, your relations with others. You will very likely find that over the course of your life you have indeed already given back – it was implicit in the trade.

The complete idiots guide to atheism

Fabulous.

On Gary Johnson, the Military, and Sacrifice

When leaders ask volunteers to place themselves into harms way in an undeclared war using premises that include religious mysticism (Bush) and social mysticism (Obama and Bush) you know you are in deep, deep trouble and it will take a long time to extract yourself (if ever) from the theater in question. Moreover, the cost in lives and money will be insane in the long run.

Such military interventionism is neither virtuous nor prudent. And the brave men and women who volunteer to abet this need to check their premises. A sacrifice, properly understood, is the surrender of that which you value more for the sake of that which you value less (or of a non-value). Politicians and leaders who promote, and the citizens who volunteer to participate (we still have a volunteer armed forces, so no one “has” to go to Afghanistan, Iraq, Afghanistan again, etc – they employed free will in volunteering to participate), who consider it a true sacrifice are implicitly indicating they value the lives and livelihoods of non-Americans, and the funding of military operations and nation-building, LESS; they are willing to surrender that which they value more (their own lives and the money it costs to do what they do) for the sake of others whom they implicitly must value LESS. This is the only premise under which the use of and participation in military force can be considered a sacrifice, and by this standard much/most of our present operations are irrational; operations for which there have been and will be undesired consequences. I do not remember the author, but the quote that “when you pursue the irrational, do not be surprised to awaken one day and discover that the world does not make any sense” seems rather spot-on.

Point being, please, don’t call what volunteer military personnel do at the call of our political leaders a sacrifice as if sacrifice can merely be misinterpreted and then vomited out as some justification for an irrational military operation; or worse, an inherent virtue. A rational thinking person, a proper national military policy, would NEVER sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one. Moreover, let’s keep in mind that the proper use of force is only in retaliation, and never initiated.

This is a truth that Gary Johnson appears to be close to understanding, but has not yet articulated. If he were to do this, he would be the only candidate in the race with a rational concept of military power, its proper and moral use (and there definitely is a proper and moral use of military might), and the proper meaning of what a sacrifice for ones country really is and ought to be about.

“Fracing Amazing” – Indeed!

Engineering, per se, is defined as “applying the laws of mathematics as well as science, in a way in which the properties of matter and the natural energy resources can be made useful to the mankind. It applies scientific knowledge to work out technical solutions for humans^1,2“.

In other words, exploit the earth or die. Which means, either use science and technology (with a fundamental premise of reason as one’s principal guide) in ever greater scope and application to enhance and improve our lives and livelihoods, or relegate to live as uneducated, mystic rubes who have no conceptualization or practical tools with which to manipulate the world around them so as to sustain their lives. Let alone pursue happiness and increasing standards of “life.” This is such a profound truth, that to argue otherwise leaves one utterly breathless because the implication is, simply and without need of any debate, death worship and immorality unmatched.

This technology of fracing represents some amazing achievements in applied science. What we see is a grand example of scientific synergism involving all four major types of engineering (chemical, civil, mechanical, and electrical), as well as specialized subsets.

“In the Eagle Ford and elsewhere, by hitting the horizontal source rock horizontally, drilling operations can fracture one section of rock after another without needing to drill a single additional hole in the ground.

Here’s the upshot. In 2004 engineers were able to produce a total of just over 90 gallons a day out of the entire Eagle Ford. In 2007 this number had increased to 125 gallons per day. Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling led to this number jumping by over 100 times to 15,040 gallons per day by 2008–and then to 3.5 million gallons per day by 2011.

And this is just one case among a growing many.

This increase in value creation is being repeated all over the country in places such as in North Dakota where the Bakken source rock is responsible for North Dakota’s recent assent to third highest oil-producing state. And these technologies have been even more productive in extracting copious quantities of oil’s geological cousin, natural gas, from the ground.

It is no accident that all of this occurred in the country with the greatest respect for property rights in the world. And as politicians deride oil production with cliches such as “drilling won’t solve our problems,” we should remember that the freedom to drill has made every American’s life better with Eagle Ford and other triumphs.”

“Fracing Amazing” full article here

^1,2 www.typesofengineering.net, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_engineering_branches

Yet Another Power Grab

Welcome to the Future

Ditch the archaic/antiquated pumps and you’ll really look like you’re ready for the future – nice notes by Ari Armstrong.

My prediction is that the greatest revolution of our time will not be technological, but rather philosophical. Mark my words, reason will win easily and hands down over mysticism of every form – it already is in many ways, both subtle and profound. And the soon the better; for you, me, and all of our progeny.

However short this intellectual battle may be, historically speaking, it could be both bloody and painful. Nevertheless, the greatest leap mankind all over the planet can make, a leap that will save him from certain doom, IS the leap from superstition and mysticism of any and all forms to the premise of and absolute reliance upon reason and rationality. In all affairs.

I for one wholeheartedly welcome and revel in what a future universally premised upon reason may hold, and I do not regret I will not be there to see it blooming. Knowing how an enlightened view of reason and individual rights have filled me with an incredible sense of liberation in my own lifetime gives me great reason to be profoundly optimistic in viewing the prospects for the longer term..

Welcome to the Future – indeed!

Ms Rand’s brilliance, and her unwitting description of Warren Buffet

Occasionally I run into items Rand that I very likely ran into before, but on re-reflection catch me more deeply.  

Q:  “Ms Rand, why would anyone accept altruism (properly understood)?”

A:  “Very few people actually do, but the theoreticians of altruism certainly do accept it. Most people ignore the question and simply try to get by in a totally amoral attitude. Most people do not have a consistent moral theory to guide them; a theory they understand, accept, and fully practice. But the reasons why they accept altruism are many. The main one is that men realize, so long as they have to make choices, that they need some kind of code of moral values; a code to guide their choices and the sort of values and goals they will pursue.  They realize the need, yet they have not been offered any code of morality other than the altruistic one. In one form or another altruism has been the dominant moral theory of most societies of history.  And such attempts as have been made by philosophers to devise a different code of morality have been so impracticable, so unsuccessful, that they could not offer competition to altruism. Most people are afraid to be left on their own in moral issues; they’re more afraid of it than in any other issue. Men are not afraid to be scientists and to stand alone in the face of nature, in cognitive issues.  That is in issues of discovering new knowledge, but they are terrified in issues of values. In having to stand alone and define what objectively is right or wrong for men. That, I would say, is the most general reason why men accept altruism, or at least pay lip service to it, but there are many other reasons.”  . . .  “A man who would accept the theory of altruism necessarily has to regard himself as of no value. It is his self-esteem that he has to renounce in every issue. His self-esteem intellectually, his self-esteem spiritually, his self-esteem in the sense of the desire to make something of his own life, to achieve happiness or to achieve some kind of purpose which he desires. That is what he has to give up; the mere idea of looking at yourself as merely a means to the ends of somebody else, whether it is one other person or the total of mankind, implies lack of self-esteem.  That is the start of accepting altruism, and the extent to which you attempt to practice you would have to destroy your self-esteem more and more.  Now what most people do is that they abandon morality, they then decide that nobody can be perfect and that we’ll assert a model as best we can – I will not attempt to be a perfect altruist but I will feel guilty and give to others once and awhile, which really means an amoral kind of existence; the destruction of any firm principles of morality, and any firm base of self-esteem.”

As I finished listening, I was struck by an almost uncanny description of Warren Buffet at 26:18 into the recording..  Source link: The Psychology of Altruism