The Lazy Slacker Blog

Still Alive

2009-01-07T11:00:00.002-05:00

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

2008-12-12T12:59:00.003-05:00

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

2008-12-12T01:17:00.002-05:00

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

2008-12-10T04:08:00.005-05:00

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

2008-12-05T03:00:00.002-05:00

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?

2008-12-03T20:29:00.002-05:00

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

2008-12-02T22:12:00.002-05:00

A Follow Up on Pascal's Wager

2008-12-02T19:14:00.002-05:00

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?

2008-12-01T01:31:00.006-05:00

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...

2008-11-30T04:23:00.001-05:00

Never to do a prediction post henceforth. Jeez.

Predictions

2008-11-29T13:26:00.009-05:00

It's the biggest weekend of the year in the lazy slacker's book. That's right: Florida - Florida State. I'll be there, cheering on my 17 point underdog team and braving the wind and the rain. So now, a couple hours before kick off, I thought I'd make a few predictions about this weekend and the BCS.

First, and most importantly, Florida State beats Florida 24-21. I know, you're thinking there's no way Florida only scores 21. But you're forgetting that FSU is the best defense Florida has faced all year; Florida is missing at least one of its DTs for the game, which will help our O-line (and as I like to say, as FSU's O-line goes, so goes FSU); our D-line is playing at the highest level I've seen in years, and they'll get pressure on Tim Tebow; the rain will limit the throwing game of both teams, which should advantage Florida State (granted, Florida is also a great running team); and FSU will stop Tim Tebow from running, and when that happens, Florida typically loses when playing good teams. Watch the game (ABC @ 3:30 unless you're in North Carolina, Virginia, or New Jersey -- in which case I believe it will be on ESPN2) I'm so confident in my prediction, I've made it official (I may have gone a tad overboard). See above left.

Next, I'm predicting Maryland defeats Boston College 31-27. After the performance Maryland gave against Florida State last week, I've had my doubts about this pick, but I have my reasons. First, if Maryland wins, Florida State goes to the ACC Championship Game against either Virginia Tech (whom we beat) or Georgia Tech (whom we should have beaten), so I can't pick againt them. However, there are good reasons to believe they will win. First, Maryland is undefeated against ranked teams while unranked this season (4-0). Boston College is ranked this game, and Maryland is not, so that heeds well for Maryland. BC's starting Quarterback, Chris Crane, broke his collarbone last week and will be out for this game, which also helps Maryland. In the end, Maryland needs to have a big game against a weakened team, and I think they pull it off.

Further predictions include: Florida beating Alabama in the SEC Championship game; Oklahoma downing Oklahoma State, Florida State defeating Virginia Tech in the ACC Championship game. Also, Oklahoma plays Texas in the BCS National Championship and Florida State plays Texas Tech in the Orange Bowl (just because I don't want to play Cincinatti). These are my predictions and I'm sticking to them. Oh yeah, and I thought I'd add a couple of pictures I've seen around town:

I saw this one, and I thought now those are some Baptists I can support!

Not everyone is for the Noles, though:

The Problem with Pascal's Wager

2008-11-26T05:14:00.004-05:00

The genius of Blaise Pascal no one doubts. The man has had attributed to him a law, a triangle, and a wager. Yes, there is a Pascal's Law (a unit of measurement of pressure is named after him as well), a Pascal's Triangle (remember geometry?), and Pascal's Wager. I will be focusing on the latter one, however. Pascal's Wager is a way of showing that, despite the fact that reason cannot explain the existence of God, one ought still to believe in God. Essentially, it is a more complex version of a rather simplistic argument we've all probably encountered. If someone were trying to convince you to believe in God, they might say something to the effect of: "Well, what good is not believing? You might as well believe." This is the same type of thinking of Pascal, although I'm positive Blaise put much more thought into his argument.

What it boils down to is this: IF you were to wager (I'll show why this is important later) on the existence of God, then one should always wager that God exists. The basis of this is that God either exists or doesn't exist. You can either wager that he exists or wager that he doesn't exist. IF you wager that God exists, and he does, there is an infinite gain, and just a finite loss -- the finite loss being perhaps giving up on some things because of religious beliefs during life, while the infinite gain, we're assuming, would be heaven or some sort of afterlife. IF you wager that God exists, and he does not, there is a finite loss and nothing is gained. The finite loss again being the luxuries and other things you gave up during your life time, and of course you gained nothing in the end for your self-restriction.

Now, IF you wager that God does not exist, and God does exist, then there is an infinite loss and only a finite gain, where the finite gain is the benefits you had during your life, while the infinite loss is the loss of heaven or the afterlife, or whatever benefits come along with God's existence. IF you wager that God does not exist, and God does not exist, then you've lost nothing and gained the benefits of having lived a life without the restrictions of religion.

An easy way to think about this is by using poker. If you play poker, and you're good at it, you should know about Pot Odds and Calculated Odds (or Hand Odds, or Winning Odds, or whatever you call it). In effect, if your odds of winning are greater than your Pot Odds (the ratio of winning cards to the cards left in the deck), then you should bet. Your chances are winning are greater, thus, than the cost in the case that you lose. Theoretically, if you play by pot odds, you should end up winning more often than you lose.

In Pascal's Wager, you would bet on God. Your odds of winning are 1:1 (50%) because you cannot determine God's existence through reason (at least this is what Pascal is arguing, though he didn't believe that himself). Your Pot odds are infinity:1. Therefore, a logical person should bet on God's existence. The point may arise: Well, what if I don't want to wager? You must, according to Pascal. The reason he believes this is because if you do not wager it has the same affect as if you had wagered against God. Another way of putting it is this: Imagine you're on a ship that's moving forward. You see an island made of candy with waterfalls of alcohol. You consider jumping ship, because you rather like candy and alcohol, however you're not a great swimmer. While you are making your decision, the boat floats out of sight of the island. Though you have not made a decision, the lack of a decision essentially decided it for you, because the decision was jump or not, and you did not jump, even though you had not decided not to jump. The same goes with God.

Now you, like I, may have noticed some problems with this. The first minor problem, though glaring, is that it seems Pascal assumes a Christian God (and he does). However, the same logic could apply to the God of many other religions, such as Islam. Where the failure really lies is in the difference between wagering on God or not. Let's say, for example, there is a Fluffy Marshmellow God. He lives up in Candyland where the streets are made of chocolate and the clouds are balls of cotton candy. What's more, Fluffy Marshmellow God doesn't care whether you believe in him or not. You can come to Candyland either way. For this type of God (whom I would rather like to believe in) there is no need to wager. Thus, Pascal is assuming that God, if he should exist, must be a God that only allows eternal benefits to those who believe, which cannot be proven.

A better problem is one of belief. What Pascal is basically saying is that when you wager on God's existence, you're choosing to believe in him. This assumes what is known as doxastic voluntarism. In order for Pascal's Wager to be true, people have to be able to choose what they believe at will. Without properly inspecting this, one might conclude that there's nothing wrong with this. After all, you wouldn't believe something if you hadn't chosen to believe in it, right? Well, yes and no. You do, over time, change your beliefs and views, but this has more to do with changing beliefs at will. For example, look at your hand. Either one will do. You know how many fingers you have, I'll assume most of those reading have five. Now, believe there are six fingers on your hand. Can you do it? You can say you believe it, but you don't actually believe it because you can see plainly that there are only five. This is an evidential belief because it's based on actual, sound, sufficient evidence. Pascal's Wager, however, is based on pragmatic considerations. So one can conclude from this that one ought not to base religious beliefs, nor any beliefs, on pragmatic considerations. Beliefs should be based, rather, on sufficient evidence. So Pascal can have his triangle and his law, but I, for one, would bet against his wager.

Here's a follow up: Follow Up on Pascal's Wager

AP: MTV To Host Obama Inaugural Ball

2008-11-26T05:09:00.002-05:00

According to the article: "The network announced Tuesday that it will host the "Be the Change Inaugural Ball" at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington on Jan. 20"

Am I the only one who found this sentence disturbing on multiple levels?

A Follow-Up on My Abortion Post

2008-11-18T20:02:00.002-05:00

Just to follow up on my post on abortion, Mark from Publius Endures is guest-blogging at Upturned Earth and has an interesting article on federalism and abortion.

Liberty Quote of the Week

2008-11-18T18:43:00.002-05:00

I'm starting some weekly posts just to keep the blog flowing while I'm working on bigger articles. I'll start with the Liberty Quote of the Week, but I'm also going to do a weekly Sign of the Apocalypse post and on Fridays I'll do a Prediction and Synopsis on college football. I'm coming up with some other ideas; I'm taking ideas as well so feel free to comment with any. My first Liberty Quote of the Week is my personal favorite from my favorite author, Ralph Waldo Emerson:

"For what avail the plough or sail, or land or life, if freedom fail?" - Ralph Waldo Emerson

The End of Newt Gingrich?

2008-11-18T14:56:00.002-05:00

I had him as a frontrunner for 2012, despite the skeletons in his closet. Also, there were rumors of a possible RNC Chairmanship. I always knew (I've read a few of his books) he was a devout Chrisitan and believed in a strong, Christian nation, but I never thought I'd hear this from a man I consider briliant:

I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion.

So, this may not be the end of Newt Gingrich, but for me it is.

Pragmatic Libertarianism: Abortion

2008-11-17T01:49:00.002-05:00

This is the first in a series of posts entitled: Pragmatic Libertarianism. As I spelled out in a previous post, if the Libertarian Party wants to be taken seriously, it needs to put into practice sound politics. This would include practices such as incrementalism, which the LP has typically avoided. So I've decided to review the Libertarian Party platform in an attempt to form a more practical, incremental approach to politics in the hope of making the LP more widely accepted. I will start with the more pressing issues: things which I believe need to be changed if the Libertarian Party is going to be taken more seriously henceforth. The Libertarian Party platform is fairly vague, which is both beneficial and detrimental to what I'm trying to do. It's beneficial because I have room to work with; it's detrimental because it's harder to show the error in their ways.

Abortion is a perfect example of this. The Libertarian Party platform states the following:

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

And this is close to what I believe the LP should adopt as part of its platform. One might say this isn't vague or ambiguous at all; in fact, it's quite clear. The platform dictates that government should be kept out of the abortion issue, thereby making it legal in all cases. Maybe, but here's why it's not such a simple issue: recently, LP candidates have not been adhering to this. It started in 1988 with Dr. Ron Paul, who is vehemently pro-life. Bob Barr ran on a pro-life platform in 2008. Michael Badnarik, who ran as the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 2004, was mostly pro-choice.

I take issue with this from a political standpoint. There's no consistency here. Is the Libertarian Party for or against abortion? Well, apparently it depends on the candidate the party chooses. I will grant that this is a reflection of the party as a whole, which is divided on the abortion issue (though I believe more libertarians are pro-choice). So what's a way we can do this that alienates neither side and on which both sides of the abortion issue can agree?

Well, libertarians should agree that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional. Many pro-choice libertarians aren't exactly adamant on this issue because it's convenient for them, as it makes legal abortion in all states (supposedly). Most libertarians would also know that overturning Roe v. Wade would not make abortion illegal; rather, it would make it a states' rights issue, as it should be.

There is going to have to be a compromise here. Yes, a basis can be overturning Roe v. Wade, but there's still the fundamental problem of government intervention versus government nonintervention in the personal lives of individuals. If you overturn Roe v. Wade, then it becomes a state's right whether or not to ban abortion. This means that the state has the right to interfere in the private lives of individuals, with which many of the pro-choice libertarians would take issue. On the other hand, you risk alienating your pro-life voters if you take a position of allowing all abortions with no exceptions.

Thus, I believe the position right now must focus on overturning Roe v. Wade. In a presidential election, this would merely amount to promising to appoint "originalist" or "constructionist" or "original intentist" or whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-them judges, as well as stating your support for individual rights. For congressional candidates, promising to approve such judges as well as affirming your belief in individual liberty and the right to privacy would be the way to go. Incrementally, the party could move toward a more pro-choice position, working locally toward making sure abortion bans do not pass in each state, as well as working actively to support those who want abortions in states that ban them, etc. Therefore, I would amend the platform thusly:

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that the federal government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each state to decide whether or not it will allow the practice of abortion within its borders. This of course would require that Roe v. Wade be overturned.

Next in my series on Pragmatic Libertarianism: Drug Policy

Real Change

2008-11-16T23:56:00.002-05:00

It's deja vu all over again. Running on a platform of "real change," Barack Obama promised to be, in effect, the foil of George W. Bush and his administration. Though I supported neither he nor John McCain in the general election, after Obama was election I figured I ought to give him a chance. After all, most pundits were vehement in their prognostications that Obama would govern as a centrist and be a refreshing politician nouveau. All ready, however, before Obama takes office, he is proving to be more of the same.

In his "60 Minutes" interview, Obama stated that aiding the economy trumps a budget deficit. That is, he believes that in order to aid the economy, he's going to have to incur a budget deficit. $700 billion there, $300 billion there, shoveling money into carefully selected industries to try to save them from their imminent demises. He promised only funded new spending, and he's all ready seemingly breaking that promise. Granted, he's only said he's going to do this, just as he said he wouldn't, so at this point it's tough to say which will happen; I have a feeling, however, that an inflated budget deficit is more likely. Which, as I understand it, is one of the aspects of the Bush administration up with which people were fed (hit tip to Winston Churchill for the sentence structure). Is this the "real change" Obama's been promoting?

It Was a Blackout

2008-11-16T23:11:00.002-05:00

So, if you hadn't yet seen, Florida State lost to Boston College. Thus, I will not be posting any pictures. I won't even be posting an analysis of the game other than to say the refs gave them the game. Also, our O-line didn't give Ponder a semblance of what one would call a pocket, and our offense was anemic as a result -- particularly in the running game. Having 5 Wide Receivers suspended for the game didn't help -- BC focused on the run and I think we ended up with something like 20 rushing yards total for the game.

Right now, Florida State's record stands at 7-3, with the ACC record being 4-3. There's only a very small chance that FSU can make it to the conference finals. The following scenario must play out: 1) Florida State wins at Maryland.

2) Boston College beats Wake Forest.

3) The following week, Maryland beats Boston College.

If this happens, the ACC standings will look as follows:

Florida State: 5-3

Maryland 5-3

Boston College 4-4
Wake Forest 4-4

But because Florida State beat Maryland (per my hypothetical situation), Florida State wins the tiebreaker. A slim chance, indeed -- but possible. I've heard some say it's mathematically impossible, but I don't see how given this scenario. Given all of these, I expect Boston College and Miami to be in the ACC Championship Game.

Cato-at-Liberty: The Auto-Bailout

2008-11-15T15:59:00.001-05:00

Cato-at-Liberty has an excellent article on the Auto-industry Bailout.

Secretarty of State: Clinton or Richardson?

2008-11-15T02:19:00.004-05:00

We're hearing rumors Barack Obama at least spoke with both Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson concerning the position of Secretary of State. Two questions arise: first, which one would make a better State Department Secretary, and, second, which one will accept the position?

Well, it appears to me that Richardson would most likely make the better secretary, and would stand to gain more from accepting the position. Just look at it from Clinton's perspective: she just lost a highly contested primary battle against Obama, and accepting this position would be a constant reminder of that -- in that sense, it's almost demeaning. At the same time, though, it's not; Obama sees her as the best candidate for the job, and it's a job I'm sure she could do well. However, what's her impetus for accepting it? She could accomplish much more in a Senate seat she's probably not going to lose any time soon. As Secretary of State, she might have two, three years, maybe a term if she's lucky, and then what? Run for Senate again? I think she'd rather just stay in the Senate, maybe eyeing a possible run for President in 2016.

Looking at Bill Richardson, he would fit into the position wonderfully. He's a governor, whose second term is due to end in 2011. What is he going to do until the 2016 election primaries? Granted, he could always run for Senate after his governorship, and he's all ready been the Secretary of Energy. Given all the man has all ready accomplished, however, his credentials suggest he would make a great Secretary of State. That would transition better into a 2016 Presidential run than whatever he plans to do after his governorship is up. That is, unless Hillary accepts it and then resigns in 2012. That's a big hypothetical, though.

Just an afterthought: What about Colin Powell? Wouldn't it be rather poetic? A sort of "I got us into this mess, now I'll get us out" sort of deal! :-P

The Difference Between Immorality and Illegality

2008-11-15T00:37:00.000-05:00

To follow up on a previous post: it occurred to me that I missed a point that I wanted to explore. The reason, it appears, that many take it upon themselves to support and/or enact socially restrictive laws, e.g. gay marriage bans, is because they feel it is immoral (I know, I should rename my blog Captain Obvious). This is important to note this because this line of thinking is overlooked. The basis for such thinking is myriad, but in this instance, and, I believe, in most instances, such thinking is based in religious beliefs. I do not mean to batter religious beliefs, as I have posted several times recently on various religious topics, but given the current political climate, particularly in regard to the election of Barack Obama, I felt it necessary to return to the subject. I wish only to point out the differences in immorality and illegality.

First, to get the obvious out of the way, legal things are those which are allowed by the law. That is, they have not been deemed illegal. Legality and illegality are fairly simple to define. What is moral and what is immoral is not as easy to define. How these terms are defined are subjective. They can mean different things to different people. Though this conclusion is debatable, a series examination of the topic would be required and would make this post extremely long. Maybe I'll touch on it another day, but for now, I'm just assuming my conclusion as true -- i.e. morality is not an objective, mind-independent truth. There are certain things, such as cold-blooded murder and rape, which almost everyone would conclude are immoral -- that is to say, they are deleterious things or happenings which ought not be done. These things ("things" being the formal terminology) may be deemed to be a part of moral law -- that is, moral realists would conclude that these are the objective, mind-independent things in which they believe. Even if this were the case, issues such as gay marriage do not fall under these guidelines.

The major issues, like rape, are typically covered under Common Law, and this, I believe, is where the confusion may begin. Some people might assume that such things are illegal because they are immoral. This is not the case. It is also not the case that such things are immoral because they are illegal. They are illegal under Common Law because in a free society such things cannot be allowed to occur and are generally considered bad. The scope of what is illegal is very broad, and includes both moral and immoral things. Someone might retort, but how can you say that if you believe that morality is subjective? Quite simply, because whatever you feel is immoral and moral is different than what someone else might believe. No matter what you believe, some things that you think are moral will be illegal, while other things you believe will be legal; likewise, some things that you think are immoral will be legal, while other things you believe will be legal.

For instance, some people would consider gay marriage immoral. Others do not see it as an immoral act. Right now, it is illegal. Therefore, for some, gay marriage would be an immoral thing that is illegal, others would see it as a moral thing that is illegal. Therefore, there are in existence four separate regions on this spectrum, which I partially mentioned before. There are immoral things that are legal, immoral things that are illegal, moral things that are legal, moral things that are illegal.

Some people base their morality on religion. This is fine, however it often contradicts the views of other religions as well as non-religious people. Therein lies the problem: many different factions all claiming to hold the true definition of morality battling to impose their morality upon society.

The only solution to the aforementioned problem is to separate morality from legality. Of course, things such as murder, rape, and things of this nature will always be illegal. Prohibition of such things is the reason government exists, after all. This is not the same as saying that government exists to rid society of immorality. If that were the case, government does a poor job of this (although admittedly it does a poor job of just about everything else).

Religion, I believe, is a personal experience. More than one person may adhere to a particular religious belief, but it is what the individual believes that really matters. Likewise, morality is a personal experience. What one person deems as moral, a second may deem immoral, and vice versa. Thus, it should not be that any one person be able to impose his or her religious beliefs over another, just as he or she should not be able to impose his or her religion over another. However, often times these individuals unite through their religious beliefs, and become a powerful force of imposition. Their religious texts and doctrines often dictate that they enact their system of beliefs upon the society of which they are a part. Until this sort of thinking ceases, people will continue to meddle in affairs that do not properly concern them.

Still Alive

2008-11-14T15:55:00.004-05:00

Much to the chagrin of many, I'm not dead. I've been swamped this past week with tests and papers and laziness. I'll be posting several things tonight and this weekend. Until then, here are a few notes:

1) Florida State beat Clemson, just as I predicted! This week, however, five of our wide receivers were suspended for fighting with a bunch of frat douchebags in the Student Union. This particular frat I don't think even has a house; they just hang out in the Union and cause trouble. On this market Wednesday, however, they decided to pick a fight with our wide receivers, three of them who see major playing time. I'll be doing my best to have this frat kicked off campus lest they should get any more of our players suspended. Despite this, I still predict a 35 - 24 victory over Boston College. I'll be taking pictures, maybe I'll post some on here.

2) A friend of mine who also happens to be a libertarian started a blog I think will be very interesting. The premise is: a libertarian Obama voter critiques the programs and policies of the Obama administration with which he disagrees. Check it out.

3) Reason is teasing us.

The Weekend

2008-11-08T14:06:00.002-05:00

I'm headed to the Florida State - Clemson game. Usually this is a big game but this year people seem to have written off Clemson since they fired Tommy Bowden. That may be, but they still have Spiller and Davis. Cullen Harper has struggled, but he's looked good as of late and the young offensive line is improving. After the performance of our defense last year, I'm a little concerned about this game. Florida State's -5.5 on the spread, but given that we're at home it's essentially off. Also, two of our wide receivers, Bert Reed and Jarmon Forston, are suspended for the game, most likely for skipping class. I'm hopeful, but I wouldn't be surprised if we lose.

My prediction: Florida State 27 - Clemson 23 ... And one injured QB for Clemson (I know that's a horrible thing to predict, but we've injured three QBs in the last two weeks.

I'll probably be posting a few things tonight: a post on immorality and illegality, another one on the Free State Project, and something else on which I'm working.

Go Noles.

Being Lazy...

2008-11-07T17:18:00.002-05:00

As usual. I had to cram for a politcal science research problem set and so I'm going on about 2 hours of sleep! My favorite. Anyway, I'm being lazy on my posting today as I'm barely coherent enough to focus on what I'm typing. In fact, this may or may not make sense, I'm not really sure.

In any case, I'm awaiting reply from a director of recruiting for the Free State Project concerning an article I'm writing, so I might have that up by tonight. Also, I'm working on something...big. A manifesto, perhaps. I don't really know yet, but it's going to be something. I'm not sure if I will post it as a series or just one big post (probably the former, as it increases the odds that people will read it), but it has to do with what I'm calling Pragmatic Libertarianism. One might say, isn't that just intellectual conservatism? No. It's not. It's a way of making libertarianism politically important, or at least have it show up to the party. One can always hold on to their ideologically libertarian beliefs, but it does not mean that the Libertarian Party has to completely abandon sound political policymaking. One example of this, as I will explain later, is incrementalism -- something that libertarians seem to avoid like in-laws. But I digress until further notice.

For now, check it:

Election Day was a huge day for the advancement of sensible marijuana policy.

For you few remaining Republican libertarians, you can help rebuild the party (via Andrew Sullivan).