Still Alive

So I was a lazy slacker for the entire month of December pretty much.  But I'm back now.  I have some vacationing to do, which includes vacationing from thinking deeply and critically.  More soon to come.

Thought Crime 1.0

Scientists have successfully extrated images directly from someone's brain.  Eventually, they hope to be able to watch people's dreams.  Orwell wrote about thought crime under the assumption that one's mind would never be able to be read; this potentially is even scarier than the thought crime described in 1984.  Potentially, the thoughts in your head could be subject to the whimsical world of government surveillance.  If you think this is an impossibility, or that it would never happen, perhaps you need to grab yourself a copy of 1984 and ponder the implications.  Granted, I've often been accused of being a hypochondriac and a little dooms-dayish, but am I the only one who foresees the government using this under the guise of national defense?    

The Problem of Evil: The Hitler Example

Over at Unreasonable Faith, the author posts a quote from another blog: "There were 42 failed attempts to kill Hitler…. If there is a God seated on his Royal Throne in Heaven, why did he not let [one of them succeed]?"

While one could answer this from a religious standpoint, but why waste our time?  A G.E. Moore switch here, a defense of free will there -- when, really, it all comes down to what's known as the Problem of Evil.  Most critical thinkers have probably pondered something similar in their lifetime.  Just today, before I read the post at Unreasonable Faith, I was reading about a suicide bomber destroying an Iraqi restaurant and killing half a hundred people, and the Problem of Evil popped into my brain.  Why does this happen?  If there is a God, why do people have to suffer or die before their time?  It's the same sort of reasoning that lead Nietzsche to proclaim that "God is dead".  The problem is this:  God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, and there is evil in the world.  This is used as an argument against the existence of God, and it goes as follows:

1) An omnibenevolent god would want to eliminate as much evil as he could

2) An omnipotent god would be able to eliminate all the evil he knows about

3) An omniscient god would know about all the evil in the world

4) Therefore, if god exists, there would be no evil in the world

5) There is evil in the world
6) Therefore, god does not exist

This shows that one cannot believe that god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent and also believe that there is evil in a world, as it is a contradiction.  There are some arguments against this from both theists and atheists.  An atheist might claim that there is no such thing as evil, and the concept is merely an illusion.  Experience in the world would show otherwise.  Evil is similar to love in that it's undefinable but you know it's there and you know what it is.  

Agnostics or even some theists might claim that god exists, but he's not omnipotent or omnibenevolent or omniscient.  This, too, is basically untenable, as if god is not these things, then he is not really what one would define god to be.  Ergo, stating that god is not omnipotent, omnibenevolent, or omniscient is tantamount to denying god's existence.  

Here's where this gets interesting (to nerds like me, anyway).  There is an entire word devoted to this argument: theodicy.  A theodicy is a defense of god's goodness in light of the fact of evil.  This is the G.E. Moore shift to which I referred earlier.  Essentially, the theist will declare premise (1) of the preceding argument is false.  That is, it is entirely possible that god, being omnibenevolent, would still not want to eliminate all the evil in the world.  He might have an ultimately good, overriding reason for allowing such evil and suffering to exist.  This argument concedes the Problem of Evil argument is valid, but denies its soundness.  

So, what is this good, overriding reason?  Why, free will, of course!  The Free Will Defense is as follows:  

1) It is logically possible that an omnibenevolent god would have good reason to create beings with free will

2) Free will entails the possibility of evil

3) Therefore, it is possible that an omnibenevolent god would want to allow for the possibility of evil

A popular and probably the best defense.  It too, however, is not without its flaws.  In order for this argument to hold it must be shown that evil is necessary to bring about good; otherwise, there would be no overriding reason to allow evil to exist.  

There's a unique perspective on this I would like to offer.  Why couldn't god create a world of free beings that always choose to do right?  He is omnipotent, according to the theists, after all.  This is indeed possible, since it is possible for a person to choose right in one instance, they could choose right in all instances.  An objection to this might be: But, that's not free will!  Oh, I beg to differ.  It is free will.  Take, for example, a child and a cookie jar.  In one instance, his parents put the cookie jar in a place where the child is physically and otherwise unable to reach it.  In another instance, the parents instilled in the child discipline, and so they put the cookie jar in a place the child could reach it, but the child does not ever steal a cookie from it because he knows it is the wrong thing to do.  Similarly, in the first example, even if the child wanted to steal a cookie (which we see as wrong), he is physically unable to do so.  In the second case, the child is able to steal from the cookie jar, but always chooses not to because he knows it is wrong.  Can it now be seen why being instilled the ability to always choose right is not the same as not having free will? 

So, going back to the original question: why didn't god allow one of the assassination attempts on Hitler succeed?  A cynic would suggest it is because god doesn't exist.  A free will defender would suggest it's because god didn't want to interfere with free will.  An agnostic would suggest we cannot know god's nature so the question need not be asked.  I, on the other hand, would suggest that, if god exists, it's obvious it is not a utilitarian.  In all seriousness, though,  it's hard to see the greater good or purpose from the reign of Hitler unless you view god as an anti-Semite, which to at least two major religions is quite laughably contradictory.  The Westboro Baptists might agree with this, but they themselves are an example of evil.  I'm still not entire convinced that they're not just remarkably committed satirists.  Perhaps instead of shaking our fists at the sky asking why god would allow such atrocities to occur, we should be lambasting the failures of the Nazis to off Hitler when they had the chance.  Just a thought.   

The Official Lazy Slacker Blog Recession Shih-Tzu

Boredom + Photoshop + Pictures of my dog drinking beer = This tragic contraption.  
*Note: No dogs were harmed in the making of this picture.  The bottle was empty.  So go bother someone else with your animal rights bolshevism.*

So this is finals week, hence my general non-postage.  Got three down, two remain.  I've been working on some posts on the institution of marriage, drug policy, utilitarianism and liberty, as well as some more posts on religious philosophy.  

It occured to me that the type of blog I run is not the type to warrant heavy traffic.  That is, I don't update every day.  As someone once told someone else, apparently, "If it bleeds, it leads."  No, that's not right...umm...oh, yeah, "Dogs don't drink stagnant water".  Which isn't true, and actually I just made that up, but the point remains the same.  If you don't update your blog at least once or twice a day, you're not going to keep your traffic.  Now, this usually manifests itself in just linking to other sites and writing a sentence or two of praise or criticism.  If that works for you, wonderful, but I have neither the time nor the will power to scour the internet seaching for something interesting to show you.  I'd rather come up with the interesting stuff (still hoping to accomplish this!) myself.  

Live Free or Die: The Free State Project

For many libertarians, living in the United States during these times can be quite distressing.  The cyclical process of Republicans restricting social liberties, then being thrown out of office only to have the Democrat preside over restrictive economic policies, continues at a rapid pace.  The only champion of liberty in the presidential debates, Ron Paul, found his pleas for common sense met with laughter and rolled eyes.  Sometimes it seems as if there's no escape -- nowhere to exhale a long-awaited sigh of relief.  If only that utopian libertarian society we've all pondered in our minds actually existed.  I'd name it Libertaria(hmm...maybe a new blog title for if I ever go .com).  A place where the invisible hand reigns supreme and people are more feared by their governments than they of their governments.  A place where taxes are low, utility is high, and people are guaranteed life, liberty, and property.  Yes, if only such a place existed.  

Fortunately, libertarians who feel this way are not alone.  There are others, and they're trying to make that dream come true.  They understand the principle of consolidation, which is a must for a third party to be successful in our system of government.  They have said, "enough," and instead of peering around the corner to see if anyone heard them say it, they did something about it.  Such are the founders and members of the Free State Project.

Perhaps you've heard of it, as many libertarians have.  Perhaps you've had your reservations.  Or maybe you've never heard of the FSP.  In either case, allow me to impose upon you a little edification.  To start, the goal of the Free State Project is to entice 20,000 liberty-minded (i.e. libertarians) to move to New Hampshire.  Once there, these noble pioneers of liberty will set out to create a Free State, the likes of which has not been seen in this country for many, many years.  So far, 622 people have made the move.  A small number, indeed; but before you dismiss the Free State Project as a quixotic pipe dream, consider the following:  over 8,800 people have all ready pledged to migrate to the Granite State.  Brett Powell, FSP Director of Recruiting, graciously corresponded with me and answered my questions regarding this movement.  He asserted his belief in a "'bandwagon' or 'critical mass' theory where once we have several thousand activists here and further prove the concept through favorable political changes, the remaining several thousand signers will be achieved very rapidly thereafter," adding that "In many ways it’s like a new product or technology that has to be successfully tested and endorsed by a relatively small group of early adopters before it’s embraced by the mainstream."  

A hesitation many people have with pledging is that they are not sure if they will be able to fulfill their commitment.  As Mr. Powell explains, however, "the signers are in no way obligated to move until we have 20,000 Statements of Intent and even then they have a maximum of 5 years to fulfill their commitment."  As I do not suspect they will reach their goal this year or the year after, a signer is looking at probably having to move no earlier than eight years from now.    

I know what you're thinking.  I thought the same thing myself at first. Why New Hampshire?  It's cold.  I mean, really cold.  Mr. Powell told me that he would love living in New Hampshire whether or not the FSP failed or even existed.  He elaborates:

 "It’s absolutely gorgeous here – particularly during the Fall – and we have all the outdoor recreational activities you can think of from skiing, mountain climbing, fishing, etc. New Hampshire is probably the most geographically diverse state in the country. If you want easy access to a major metropolitan area, you can live in a border city like Nashua and be in Boston in ~30 minutes. If you desire a more rural setting or if you want to live close to the ocean or further north in the Great White Mountains, we have that too."

The benefit of a free state should outweigh the cost of having to endure the cold five months out of the year for most.  Freedom in New Hampshire comes from all areas one would desire: Economical and fiscal policy included.  For example, there is no state income tax nor is there a state sales tax in New Hampshire.  For the business inclined, there is nowhere in the United States wherein it is easier to start a business.  Tax laws are very business-friendly, as well.  As one would expect from the freest state in the Union, New Hampshire "generally [has] lower unemployment, lower crime rates, less pollution, and an overall better quality of life relative to almost every over state in America," claims Powell.  Ever feel as though you're outcasted for your libertarian beliefs, or that you would like more liberty-minded friends?  "Although clearly politics and philosophy is[sic] rarely too far from our thoughts, we’re also very good friends, a big libertarian family or community in a sense, that genuinely cares about its members," Powell explains.  Except this family doesn't nag you about never visiting or pinch your cheeks (the facial ones, at least) and marvel at how much you've grown.  An interesting side note:  New Hampshire's Constitution is the only in the history of the world to recognize its citizens' right to rebellion.  More fun facts are available at the FSP website, which is linked above.   

Could this project actually work?  Could 20,000 lovers of liberty actually turn a relatively free state into a positively free state?  Further, could libertarianism have a major impact in national politics?  Powell prefers to think local before entertaining ideas of a federal presence.  New Hampshire is the site of the first presidential primary, however, and libertarians could definitely have an early impact on the presidential race.  Oh, and if you or someone you know is interested in running for office as a Libertarian, there is simply no better place than New Hampshire.  Because the state has a 400 member legislature and a low population, there are very small districts that make a campaign inexpensive and more open to third parties.  One could also run as one of the two majors, while still advancing libertarian ideals -- Ron Paul style!  As Powell notes, libertarians are among the most heavily active political supporters, and this makes campaigning that much easier.  In fact, Free Staters (or Porcupines, a reference to the project's mascot) are all ready making an impact, and there are all ready several Libertarians in the state legislature.  

For libertarians, this proves to be the closest thing to that libertarian utopia in their dreams.  The frustration of screaming the truth while nobody listens need not be tolerated any longer.  Few and far between are libertarians considered for, much less elected to office.  Powell reiterated the phrase, "Why fight a losing battle?"  Indeed, why continue to waste your efforts fighting for liberty when the trend is exactly the opposite.  In New Hampshire, the Free State, a libertarian can fight for liberty standing side-by-side with more than twenty-thousand others, and win.  Liberty can still win, and it will.  It will win in the state that sports the motto: Live Free or Die.    

First Cause?

A long, long time ago St. Thomas Aquinas offered five ways to prove the existence of god.  Aquinas's Five Ways are still considered very influential even over 700 years after their creation.  His "second way" is better known as the First Cause argument.  The argument goes as follows: 

1) There are things that are caused
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself
3) There cannot be an infinite regression of causes

4) Therefore, there must be an uncaused first cause

5) If there is an uncaused first cause, it is God

6) Therefore, God exists.  

This is generally considered the argument, although I've seen 5 and 6 put together as one premise.  At first thought, it seems rather valid.  Of course, there's no way of knowing whether it's sound.  This used to be my basis for religious belief, in fact.  From our worldly experience, we can discern that things have causes, and nothing can cause itself.  Upon further reading and inspection, I would now take issue with two of the premises in Aquinas's argument.    

First, scrutinizing premise 5 (If there is an uncaused first cause, it is God), something is missing.  It seems as though it is assuming an awful lot, or there's an implied premise in there somewhere.  Essentially, Aquinas jumps from "there is an uncaused first cause" to "this uncaused first cause is God" without linking the two.  Perhaps if we took him to mean any deity or some divine power or knowledge, then this might be easier to accept.  Assuming the Judeo-Christian God, however, seems like a further stretch.  Linking an uncaused first cause to a supernatural force seems more of a quantum leap than a logical step.  This is almost irrelevant in light of another premise challenge.  

Premise 3 (There cannot be an infinite regression of causes) brings out a fundamental question: Why not?  I am reminded of the works of Paul Edwards.  He explained that there are two different types of cause: cause in fieri and cause in esse.  The former, cause in fieri, is a cause that brings into existence its effect.  The latter, cause in esse, is a cause that sustains its effect, continuing its existence.  Aquinas implies in his argument that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes because there would be nothing in existence right now.  Essentially, what he believes is this: A caused (~>) B, B ~> C, ... X~>Y, Y~>Z, with Z being the present.  He argues that if there were an infinite regress of causes, you would be taking away A, and thus B would not exist, and thus C would not exist, and so forth.  

What Aquinas fails to distinguish is the difference between A not existing and A not being uncaused.  The latter is what an infinite regression of causes implies, not the former.  The believer of the infinite regression is not taking the series away, nor A, but instead the "first causiness" of A.  That is, because the series is infinite there is no beginning and no end, thus no first and no last.  Aquinas's argument also does not take into consideration the possibility of multiple first causes.  Even if it is proven that there cannot be an infinite regression of causes, the possibility of multiple first causes cannot be ruled out.    

Having said all of this, the believer in the infinite series does not need necessarily to deny the existence of a supreme being; the only thing they deny is that that supreme being is uncaused.  Further, it cannot be proven that any first cause, if it existed, is still in existence.  Since this is a proof of the existence of god, there is nothing in this argument that would prove that god, had he ever existed, still exists -- it is just assumed.  Experience will show, after all, effects often outlive their causes.  

Objections to these arguments often arise.  Going back to causes in esse and in fieri, defenders of First Cause would claim that Aquinas is dealing solely with causes in esse, and that it is implausible for there to be an infinite regression of in esse causes.  As it turns out, they're right!  However, something's not quite right here, either.  Imagine A is the cause in esse of B.  Since it is a cause in esse, A must exist as long as B exists.  It is not implausible, hence Aquinas's original argument, that all natural objects require causal explanation.  It is implausible, however, to suggest that all natural objects require cause in esse.  Atoms certainly did not cause themselves, because they would have had to exist before they started existing.  Thus, supporters must admit that everything has a cause in esse, but there's nothing self-evident about this. 

Another note of interest is this:  People often confuse an infinite series with a very long finite series.  The way people tend to think of First Cause is exemplified thusly:  Imagine you stacked Pringles chips (since they're so darn stackable) 100 miles high.  There is a first chip, A, and a last chip, Z.  In order for these chips not to fall, they need a self-supporting object.  Enter: Earth.  Earth stops the chips from falling, and this is how First Cause works.   If the Earth were not there, the chips would have fallen.  This is how most people imagine an infinite series.  A hundred trillion chips stacked, but there's nothing to support them, so they fall.  This is not the case, though, as an infinite series has no beginning and no end -- each chip is supported by another.  Another great example of this is that of a train.  This train is comprised of all engines, though, and they're all connected to one another.  No matter which one moves, they all are moved by the engine behind them.  In an infinite series, every member is the veritable cause of the member in front of it.  

The argument can be taken to further places, such as the nature of the universe and things of this nature, but I'll leave it for another day.  First Cause is simply not effective as a proof for the existence of god.   

The Bailout Propaganda

A Follow Up on Pascal's Wager

My post apparently confused some people when it came to pragmatic reasoning, so I'll try to further clarify.  When Pascal posited his wager, he, for the sake of argument (not because he actually believed this), assumed that humans are incapable of knowing what God is or if he exists because these cannot be determined through reason, which is all we have.  If you're just taking Pascal's Wager as a hypothetical that has nothing to do with reasoning, then you're missing the point.  Pascal argued that one must wager (as I mentioned in my previous boat -- look at the sailing ship example).  A better example might be this:  or must choose to call heads or not call heads.  This is different than choosing between heads or tails, because whether you choose tails or you choose nothing, you're still not choosing heads.  Just as much, if you choose to believe God does not exist, or you don't choose at all, in effect you're still choosing not to believe God exists.  You must choose God exists or face the consequences of the antithetical belief.  What wagering involves is believing and as such living those beliefs.  

The argument against this is not only that of doxastic voluntarism.  W.K. Clifford argued against basing religious beliefs on pragmatic reasons.  It is wrong, he would argue, to believe anything without sufficient evidence.  Further, just believing it is one thing, but when one acts on an insufficiently evidenced belief, that is wrong.  One example he gives is that of a shipowner.  This shipowner had been sailing his ship for years with no problems.  Because of this, he believed there was nothing wrong with it, and so he ignored the advice of his peers who told him he needed to fix a few things.  He thought since his ship had made every previous voyage, it will make this next voyage.  Well, the ship went out, and it sank.  Is the shipowner guilty?  Yes; definately yes.  It was his responsibility to send out a seaworthy ship.  Even though he truly believed the ship would make the voyage, he is guilty because his belief was based on insufficient evidence.  Just the same, pragmatic reasons are not sufficient evidence for a belief in god.  Thus, it is never permissible to base religious beliefs on pragmatic reasons.  I hope that cleared that issue.   

Is Government Legitimate?

The division between theory and pragmatism can either be a puddle or a vast ocean; in political theory, the latter is often the case.  It is with this realization that I offer the following: I wish to discuss both the theoretical and practical justifications of government.  Just to put it out there, I am a philosophical anarchist.  That is, when I am talking about what should be, I am anarchist.  When I discuss what is, or what should be within the current system, I am a libertarian.  Is this inconsistent of me?  Perhaps, but as I previously mentioned, there is a difference between theory and practice.  Some might take umbrage with this, but allow me to explain.

First, let's look at the justification of government.  This is probably nothing my readers (being the brilliant minds you are) don't know, but it's good to refresh the memory of such things just to start.  Rather than spelling out the entire history of how governments form and why and all that, I'll simplify all of this.  There was before government a state of nature in which all human beings existed.  This is not theoretical; humans must have come before government because humans had to create government.  What is theoretical is what exactly the state of nature was like (or is like) and how government evolved from this.  Many prolific and respected philosophers wrote on this: Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, etc.  There were evils in this state of nature that needed to be controlled.  In order for these to be controlled, there had to be rules.  In order for there to be rules, there had to be impartial and just enforcers of the rules.  Thus, government arose.  

This was the practical way of solving these problems, and it worked, in a way.  However, people started observing government from a philosophical perspective eventually.  This is because, over time, the evils in the state of nature started looking tame compared to the evils of government; the rules put into place were more restrictive than the restrictions of life without government; and the enforcement of the unjust laws became partial and unfair.  At this point, the Leviathan they created truly became a monster.  Questions inevitably were raised.  Should we be forced to kneel at the feet of injustice?  Should we follow unjust laws?  Is government even legitimate at all?  Many theories were developed, most of them with good reasoning but in the end just didn't hold up.  There were a few, though, that still resonate.  

Liberty, until recent times, has been something that people tended to revere.  At the time many philosophers were forming their ideas, liberty was still something that was to be taken into consideration.  Many people, even to day, take liberty to be something to be considered on a theoretical level; its practice, however, is rarely initiated.  So as not to make this a master's thesis, I won't delve into the history of the different political philosophers.  It should suffice to say that all respectable political philosophies take into consideration the idea of universal political obligation (though some have extremely different views on how this can be done than others).  This term can be confusing.  By political obligation, I mean to obligation to obey laws because they are part of the law, and not because of some independent moral justification.  By universal, this means it applies to anyone within the proclaimed boundaries of any government or authority.  Thus, in order for a government to be legitimate, it must be shown that all people within its boundaries are obligated to obey its laws intrinsically, or simply because they are the laws.

Sounds fine, right?  It's understood, for the sake of this argument, as an axiom that humans have individual rights (perhaps a topic for another post).  Because of this, how does one show universal political obligation whilst respecting individual rights?  This is where many theories divide.  Communism, liberalism (similar to what is now libertarianism), utilitarianism, among others, all formed at least partially based on different answers to this question (some more successfully than others; some completely redefining the meaning of "rights" unlike others).  

Again, it would take a very long post to go into all of these, and again maybe I'll get into this in another post, but some of these philosophers use the social contract as a way of justifying universal political obligation, and personally I consider this to be the strongest of them all.  The logic is sound:  in order to respect the rights of the people you govern, you need to have their consent to be governed.  This is widely considered to be the best way of going about this and is actually accepted by most people as legitimate.  John Locke, one of my main influences, used this way to justify the state.  It fails, however, in a couple of ways.  

First, there's the problem of knowing whether people are actually consenting or not.  Some have suggested that voting is a form of consent; however, if someone doesn't vote because they do not consent, yet they still live within the boundaries of a certain country, then that country's authority is thereby illegitimate, and thus the election nugatory.  From here, people will claim that merely living in a country to which you not consent is by default consenting to its authority.  There's a few problems with this, too, though.  The example which best demonstrates this is that of a slave ship, as Hume famously observed.  Imagine you're a slave on a slave ship.  You've been kidnapped in the middle of the night, knocked unconscious, and you've awoken aboard this ship.  You've had no choice in the matter; you're in this ship against your will and it was by no doing of your own.  You cannot flee, as you would drown in the ocean.  

This example should help to show why staying put is not the same as consenting.  Many people not only were born in a country or region and thus had no say in whether they were there or not, but they also may not have the means to leave.  In such a case, it's absurd to say they are consenting simply because they haven't fled.  They may not be able to afford the trip, or, there may not be anywhere to go (if the dissenter is an anarchist, there's no region that lacks a state on Earth that's habitable as far as I know).  This isn't the only problem with consent. 

If everyone in a state must consent to its authority, then they must do so at all times.  There is no practical or even really theoretical way of discerning at every second of every day whether every person under an authority consents to such an authority.  This really is the final nail in the coffin of consent -- whether hypothetical or tacit.

When one looks at it practically, however, the situation is quite convoluted.  People have a conception of anarchy (which may be correct or it may be erroneous) that it would amount to mass chaos and strife.  Government reaches to almost all corners of the world -- almost all people on earth are under some kind of government authority.  Given this, it is impractical to try to go directly from statism to anarchy.  That is mass chaos.  Is anarchy even practical in the real world at all?  We cannot know; I don't think it has been tried in modern history.  So theoretically, anarchy is the only legitimate way to live, but in reality, it may not be able to work.  For some, government is a "necessary evil".  This is where libertarianism comes into play.  For philosophical anarchists, libertarianism is the best way (if not the only realistic way) to limit this "evil".  The smaller the government, the less the evil.  Perhaps supporting libertarianism, which works within the state, is in a way legitimizing the state.  But what alternative do anarchists have, really?  Stand idly by as the Leviathan grows larger?  Government, in theory and in practice, is illegitimate.  However, government still exists, and that's not going to change any time soon.  

During these times, with governments being at their largest in history, and markets becoming increasingly convoluted with laws, treaties, embargoes, and all of the other complexities of international trade and markets, perhaps the time where anarchy is finally tried isn't too far off, at least in small pockets.  Recent events have shown that governments are not stable, much less invincible.  So if anarchy is tried, we can observe how it works.  However, my hopes are not high, as any time there has not been government in history, government has developed.  This is the reality of government -- it has no right to exist, but its existence is inevitable.  

*Update: I accidentally posted this last night before I had finished it, so there's an extra two or three paragraphs at the end now.  Also, I've decided this will be the first in a series.  I'll have updates on utilitarianism, libertarianism,  and anarchy among other things related to the justification of the state. 

            

Remind Me...

Never to do a prediction post henceforth.  Jeez.