The Morality of Capitalism

Capitalism is based on individual rights, namely right to individual liberty and right of property. These rights are required in order for individual development and well being.

Man's main difference between other animals is his ability to reason. Man's essence of being is the ability to think, chose, and produce his well being. All other animals are already born with their instinct of survival. Humans must use their reason, to acquire knowledge, learn new knowledge, communicate knowledge with others and to apply this knowledge in a logically perceived environment. Man uses his senses and thinking to know what his environment is and thus be able to change it for its optimal living. Man, when at its most rational state (which is essentially at its most humanly state) is keenly aware of his own existence and wishes to make it as best as possible for himself and those he loves most dearly, principally his own family.

This awareness, knowledge and perception of reality is what makes a person moral.

It makes him foremost as honest as he can with himself and others because the moment he cheats, lies or deceives, he is autodeconstructing a reality of his surroundings. This corrupts his own rationality and his ability to think and therefore his uniqueness as a human being. Man, in order to remain as most human as possible must be truthful of himself and to others because as he gradually lives a world of lies, deceits and cheats he loses his ability to think logically and autodestructs.

Secondly it makes him moral by desiring to be worthy of his own existence since existence is perceived logical and absolute by his own senses (whether he wants to or not, say by believing in God). This need to be worthy is what sometimes makes him altruistic by giving to others, but if he is truly honest with himself, it makes him want to be productive for his own sake. A person who denies his own reason of existence (such as basing it on God), lacks self-esteem, and will tend to be excessively altruistic, sacrificing himself above others, leading to a spiralling self destruction of self. It is when a person actually produces for himself when he becomes proud since he is affirming his reason of being alive. He can produce art, goods and services of value to others which he can trade for anthing he and only he himself considers is good for himself. Since man is rational, he can only feel morally proud by his own production, not by stealing or killing others cold blooded (cynical egoism), since he is would be falsely affirming his own existence by denying the existence of others.

Thirdly it makes him moral by attempting to control his irrationality (which distorts his sense of existence) with actions gone amok by emotions. Uncontrolled anger leading to violence is irrational and completely against the essence of being a human being. He attempts to control his irrational lust for others than his purposeful love. He attempts to control his irrational desires, those that lead him to results that he knows are the ones he doesn't want, such as eating leading to being fat, drinking leading to stupor, laziness leading to lack of productivity, etc.

Of course not everyone is rational all the time, but we naturally detests it when we are irrational by our recognizance. Man is constantly striving to be as humanly human as can be and that is why he develops a morallity for himself. It is when he is at its most objective with reality when he can become as most humanly conscious of himself as possible. But this is not possible all the time of course but should be so at least in what he considers are the most important decisions of his life. Man must not strive to eliminate his own emotions by regarding them as irrational since he himself should know its impossible, but rather to become rational by trying to understand them and use them as tools of perception themselves.

For man to be as able to think and chose what is right for himself and those he loves, he needs, first and foremost, liberty and freedom to do so. Violence, Force or threat of force completely denies this state of freedom to think. Man then is no longer morally obliged with himself and should or might not recognize the situation. If someone threatens his wife to rape her, he can be free for himself to kill the person that is initiating force. Likewise in any situation where force or threat of force invalidates his ability to think.

For man to feel worthy of his own existence he needs to have created his own survival by procuring goods and services for himself by his own physical work, creative thinking or productivity. This is why he should have the right of property, so he can be sure of his own worthiness of individual existence. These are the moral foundations of capitalism.

Originally posted at the Internet Infidels forum

Congress should not bailout airlines.

Congress should not bailout airlines.

By bailing out the airlines, congress is breaking a fundamental rule in capitalism. The state should never intervene in the markets in anyway and for any reason. That includes bailouts and corporate subsidies.

It is obvious the U.S. has relied too much on air travel for its transportation. By NOT bailing out the airlines, congress would send a clear message that the markets should find alternate ways for transportation, maybe high speed trains or some other creative solution.

After all, it was the airline's faults for relaxing on security and for not providing adequate measures to prevent this type of hijacking.

Why does the government "promote" air travel so much in the first place? I think a main factor is its fear of monopolies. Air travel is very flexible, very open, and easy to establish and until recently the safest mode of transportation. A more efficient form of transportation such as bullet trains requires long term investment and tends to become "natural" monopolies. This fear of monopolies has crippled the openness of markets for different modes of transportation and now we only have high fuel consumption modes such as road travelling by cars and trucks and jumbo jets.

Anyway, "true" capitalism forbids the government into bailing out a sector such as how the Mineta is suggesting for the airlines. It is going to hurt the economy in the short run when some of the airlines fail, but in the long run, it will make the economy much stronger by having a much more diverse sector of transportation. We should resist the temptation for short term gains. This is what capitalism is all about.

Originally posted at the Internet Infidels forum

Why the unfounded fear of absolutism?

Since I have join this excellent Secular Web site and discussed many topics with my fellow atheists and agnostics (mostly in the Political Discussions Forum) I have detected a subtle but nonetheless prevalent fear for dogmatism, absolutism and fundamentalism.

I can very well understand why such fear would exist in the first place. After all life and reality has shown us to be vastly complex, knowledge never completely perfect, and always humiliating us whenever we become arrogant in our beliefs. We have learned to be skeptics and to reject religions with their obvious beliefs in the absolutes, such as God.

However I think we need to establish some baselines in our realities or else we become hopelessly confused. I propose we should be able to define well set boundaries of the absolute within the realms of our total relative existence.

Much like the physical laws of Newton can apply to our comparative existence as humans though now completely and provable fallible in the larger cosmological realm of Einstein's theory of relativity, so should we, philosophically speaking, be able to establish fundamental laws of human interaction such as politics and economics without the fear of absolutism.

For example I think Ayn Rand's seemingly dogmatic morality for objectivism has been unjustly discarded on the grounds of absolutism, despite the fact that in the relative human realm, it can very well be true and therefore practically applied.

Originally posted at the Internet Infidels forum

Similarities between environmentalists and Christianity

As I have repeatedly said, there are many similarities between Christianity and radical environmentalism. I admit I hastily made up the following list in a semi-angry mood because of Gurdur's provocation. I hope to refine these points as the debate goes along(that is if anyone cares to debate in the first place).

• 1. Both predict imminent apocalypsis. Christianity believe in the return of Christ and the death of all sinners. Environmentalist believe in the destruction of the Earth by global warming or some other man made catastrophe. For environmentalists the antichrist are the depraved developers, ignorant and selfish consumers.
• 2. Both consider mankind to be fundamental "sinners". Man by needing to destroy his environment in order to live, Christianity by having been born with the "original sin".
• 3. Both believe there was perfect paradise until man by his own actions destroyed it. Christianity has its Garden of Eden, environmentalist have man destroying natural habital which was a perfect eden before.
• 4. Both deny humanity with the pleasures of living, since it would involve commiting the sins they preach against. Radical environmentalists want human beings to live with the pains and hardships of primitivism. Christianity want people to give up the sensuous selfish pleasures with the idea of a higher heaven.
• 5. Both promote an impossible paradise by sacrificing immediate wealth.
• 6. Both use inexact science to support their beliefs.
• 7. Both attempt to control the way we live with precise guidelines. Environmentalist decry any kind of nature tampering whatsoever, from chopping down a tree, to gene altered food.
• 8. Both blame sex for human woes. Environmentalist blame overpopulation due to uneducated sexual practices.
• 9. Both blame selfish indulgance for the problems. Environmentalists blame indulging SUV owners for selfishly polluting the environment at everyone's cost. They blame cheap consumerism for littering our planet. They blame "reckless" use of energy for "useless" entertainment such as television. They would rather have everyone suffering heat instead of us wasting electricity in airconditioners.
• 10. Both resort to endless subjective rhetoric preaching us the dangers of our "sins".
• 11. Both are even willing to kill human beings to prove the point. Environmentalists have eco-terrorists. Christians have abortion doctor killers.
• 11.Both want to impede technology and progress, blaming it for our woes and self destruction

In short: both radical environmentalists and Christians hate humanity.

Originally posted at the Internet Infidels forum