I'm working on something that will explain Keynesian Macroeconomic theory to everyone, but I'm going to need a few days to pull it all together. SO in the meantime, here's some mental dandruff of mine...
Niceguy Eddie's 36 Principles
This was inspired by that subhuman gasbag, Rush Limbaugh's 35 Undeniable Truths. If you've never heard of them, google it. They're basically "principles" that drive his "philosophy." (Notice the quotes?) Some are just humorous, a few are surprisingly reasonable, and a rather a few are completely ludicrous. (And not a one of them is really an "Undeniable Truth.")
But it got me thinking that I should try and draw up 35 "undeniable truths" (or principals) that sum up my life's philosophy. I ended up with 36 because IMHO, you're basically barely even a human being if you don't operate with more principles than Rush Limbaugh!
So here are mine. Just as with his the order is not important and each one is as equally true and as important as the next. These are all points that I hold as true. But for now I'll just state them simply and not elaborate. If you have any questions, or want to debate any in greater detail, just let me know. I'll always oblige. :)
1) There is no sin worse than hypocrisy.
2) As Corporate Taxes are always a portion/fraction of profit, it is mathematically impossible to tax a company into the red.
3) The separation of church and state is necessary for the protection of both. (And inherently good for all.)
4) Sustainability is inherently good. (4a - Sustainability is required for any idea to be "good".)
5) Having choices is inherently good. (Not every choice will always be a good one, however!)
6) Accurate information and data is inherently good.
7) The scientific method is inherently good.
8) In a secular society, people of goodwill will do good in accordance with their better nature, and evil people will act according to their vices. But to make an inherently good person do truly evil things, you must first make them religious. (Stolen from Christopher Hitchens.)
9) Individual freedom and liberty is inherently good.
10) There can be no crime committed without demonstrable harm. The minimum threshold of demonstrable harm is defined as the usurpation of a choice belonging to another. (And I will elaborate on my 'doctrine of choice' at a later time, for sure!)
11) Movies, music, video games, popular culture, pornography, etc… do not make people do bad things. People have choices. Hold them accountable and stop trying to ban or censor all of my favorite movies, music, video games, pornography, etc…
12) Japanese animation is superior to American animation. (And pretty much all American Television for that matter.) Addendum: Akira Kurosawa is the greatest filmmaker that ever lived. (Hey, Rush had one about the Steelers in the late 1970's being the greatest football team ever, so I can have this one!)
13) Even the most vile, evil people, books and ideas should not be banned. They should be studied, so that evil is easier to recognize. Mein Kampf should be required reading for every high school student in America – so that we are better able to identify Fascism and bigotry when it tries to disguise itself.
14) "Hate Speech" should not even be discouraged. This is the easiest way to identify the ignorant.
15) All forms of magical thinking, including religious dogma, are inherently bad.
16) All of the truths we cling to are dependent on our point of view.
17) It is not hypocrisy to judge intolerance harshly. Nor is it hypocrisy to wish someone to get a taste of their own medicine.
18) Zero-Tolerance policies are always inherently bad. (That's the only one that isn't!)
19) Fines, penalties, etc… should never be viewed as "revenue streams." The purpose of these should only ever be to discourage the behavior that leads to them. Speeding Tickets, Late Fees, etc... should never be viewed as a "good thing" by anyone, even those collecting them.
20) The purpose of the U.S. Supreme Court is to act as a counterbalance to legislative and executive power by striking down laws that are too harsh, or unnecessarily curtail our freedom. A liberal supreme court will usually do this. A conservative supreme court will almost never do this.
21) We elect presidents, we do not serve kings. Politicians answer to the people.
22) It is immoral for a business to operate at a loss. (You read it right! Let me know if you need this one explained.) ;)
23) It is immoral to make a profit without either assuming some risk or contributing some intrinsic value.
24) It is inherently immoral to accept (or pursue) a power you would not give to your rival, or to enact a restriction on them that you would not accept placed upon yourself. (And yes, this includes the [Democratic] Massachusetts State Legislature who took the power to appoint replacement senators AWAY from Governor Mitt Romney (R) when Senator Kerry (D) won the 2004 nomination, but Restored it to Governor Duval Patrick (D) upon the death of Senator Kennedy (D) just recently. The two acts, taken together, violate this BIG TIME. And no, it ain't cool.)
25) If it's bad when "they" do it, then it's bad when you do it.
26) There is wisdom in pacifism… but it won't win in a fight.
27)Criminal drug laws need only apply to substances that are (1) synthetic and (2) physically addictive. Because (1) you can't outlaw what God/nature created, only what man creates. And (2) addiction is a usurpation of choice. (See (10)) (And don't tell me about "habit forming." Snicker bars are "habit forming" for Christ's sake! I could (hypothetically) easily give up pot before I could give up Snicker bars!)
28) All rules of logic apply to all arguments. Know them, or you'll sound like an idiot to anyone who knows the difference.
29) Life is not fair, because chance is involved. All man-made systems, however, should be designed to be as fair as possible.
30) Peaceful coexistence is inherently good.
31) ALL resources are limited.
32) In business (and in many other situations in life) there are three things you can choose from: GOOD, FAST and CHEAP. The thing is: YOU CAN ONLY EVER PICK TWO!
33) You can't cheat the law of conservation of energy / first law of thermodynamics.
34) Play and fun are inherently good.
35) True competition (meaning FAIR competition) is inherently good.
36) These statements (and all others like them) are opinions, not facts. And they cannot be elevated to fact regardless of how widely they are held, or how deeply they are believed.
I'm sure there are more, but I'm feeling lazy and really only wanted to one-up Limbaugh. But if you're ever in a debate with me and want to really stick it to me, find me violating one of these principles. Either I'll be forced to concede the point, or I'll be doing some serious spin, baby! LOL!
10) There can be no crime committed without demonstrable harm. The minimum threshold of demonstrable harm is defined as the usurpation of a choice belonging to another. (And I will elaborate on my 'doctrine of choice' at a later time, for sure!)
ReplyDelete27)Criminal drug laws need only apply to substances that are (1) synthetic and (2) physically addictive. Because (1) you can't outlaw what God/nature created, only what man creates. And (2) addiction is a usurpation of choice.
If the minimum threshold for a crime is the usurpation of a choice belonging to another, then do drug laws apply to the user? Or is it just for drug dealers?
If it does apply to the user, then it seems odd to define "harm" as something done to oneself. Alcohol and cigarettes would fall into the same category.
If it's just for dealers, then does the same principle stand for liquor stores? Vodka may come from potatoes, but there's still a process to create the alcohol. I'm curious where that line between natural and synthetic is. On that note, what if there was some purely natural plant that was incredibly addictive but very rare? That would be legal, since it's natural. Would the subsequent farming of that substance, making it quite common, make any difference in how it should be evaluated? And what if it was proven to pose a physical risk? That substance could be legal, while a less harmful and less addictive substance might be illegal. It seems like an odd distinction, since the effects of the substance seem more relevant to law than the origin of it.
Personally, I find all drug laws to be counterproductive, at least as far as users go. It's a health issue, not a legal issue. It should be dealt with just like one deals with someone who chain-smokes, drinks too much or eats three Big Macs a day.
14) "Hate Speech" should not even be discouraged. This is the easiest way to identify the ignorant.
If you're identifying these people as ignorant, isn't that a form of discouragement?
Nice list, overall. 18 is my personal favorite, because it's a reworking of a line that my father said that's always stuck with me "as soon as you take judgment out of the system, everything goes haywire". The zero-tolerance idiocy was best demonstrated by a case where a straight-A, upstanding student was expelled (I believe, perhaps merely suspended) because he forgot to take the box-cutter he used at his after-school job out of his pocket before going to school. Practically any situation where you deny an evaluation of the circumstances can be met with an example of circumstances which would defy the punishment in question.
Brab,
ReplyDeleteRE #'s 10 and 13. I'll need to expand about about "choice" in my next post. But to answer your question, I would have laws apply only to delaers. The reason I say there's a 'victim' with addiction is that no one who already KNEW, first hand, (and how CAN you?) the true pain and horror of addiction would ever choose it for themselves. It's either an irrational choice or (more likely) a misinformed one. (Remember the one about having ACCURATE INFOMRATION?") Maybe I'm being optimistic, but I'll bet most Heroin addicts, who aren't mentrally-ill independantly from their addiction, would chose differenty if they had the chance to do it all again. At the time? They just didn't know. (But you can bet their DEALER had a much more shrewd idea of what would happen!) So the dealer is still the criminal and the user still the victim here. Granted a victim of some of his own stupidity as well, but they make their choice without enough information, and that information is withheald from the by the dealer. So at BEST, I'd consider it a form of fraud.
TOBACCO still passes the test: It's consumed in essentially it's natural form. It literally 'grows on trees.' (You know what I mean.) Heroin doesn't. Cocaine doesn't. These things are distilled, processed and chemically altered before they are consumed recreationally. The degree of alteration maked the substance 'synthetic' in this case. Crystal Meth... well, obviously. (But Marijuana? I see no reason to make that illegal.)
Now... Alchohol? For no good, valid or principled reason, (other than #18) I'm simply going to 'grandfather in' Alchohol and keep it legal. Far to many people are capable of consuming it moderation for me to put this in the same class as hard narcotics. So we'll keep Alchohol in the "over the counter" class of drugs. But form that poitn out, if something is SYNTHETIC and ADDICTIVE, then it must be controlled, and only used under a doctor's supervision.
Tobacco has up to 600 additives that improve the flavor and increase the addictive potential. I'm not sure why that's very different from "processed and chemically altered", especially regarding ammonia and arsenic. Menthol wouldn't exactly be straight off the "tree" either. So aren't people who become addicted to cigarettes just as much victims, since their "choice" has been usurped? Unless they've changed the warning label to say "as addictive as heroin and a proven carcinogen", then they're not properly informing the consumer.
ReplyDeleteWell, I didn't intend this into a tretise on smoking, but you make good points all the same. I was just proposing a rough frame work for what drugs should be illegal/controlled: SYNTHETIC AND ADDICTIVE ones. (This was actually intended as an argument FOR the legalization of marijuana as opposed to AGAINST tougher tobacco laws.) If you want to take the 'sythetic' part out of cugarrettes (excepting the processes that REMOVE carcinogens) I'm not going to stop you. Those would seems to violate this test anyway. So thas cool. You'll just have a steeper burden to satisfy if you're proposing banning tobacco comsumtion entirely.
ReplyDeleteyou're an idiot
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteIs that seriously the best you can do? Sheesh. You're one to talk.
Nice site, Eddie;
ReplyDeleteJust a couple of things regarding your list of principles: You could add patriotism to number eight. I guess you could reference Ambrose Beirce or Mark Twain.
As far as number twelve goes, I have only one word: Ikiru.
Don't be so hard on Anonymous. It probably took him a week to type that out.
I've not seen Ikiru yet. So far only 7 Samurai, Hidden Fortress, Yojimbo, Sanjuro, Rashomon and Ran. (All fantastic.) The Netflix queue is getting pretty thin now though, so thanks for the tip!
ReplyDeleteQuestion for: How exactly would you add 'patriotism' to #8? I only ask because depending on how & where you add it, the whole idea end having very different meanings.
So, you haven't seen Throne of Blood, eh? As Ran is based on King Lear, ToB is based on "the Scottish Tragedy." (some superstitions die hard)
ReplyDeleteDon't wait for Netflix. Check out your local library. You might get lucky. I was stunned to learn that the little one in Sheffield, MA, has an incredible Kurosawa collection.
I think that many of the people who, for example, listen to Glenn Beck are probably decent enough, and not particularly prone to hatred. But if you gin them up enough with tales of the iminent destruction of their country "as we know it," they will become, as we've seen, pretty scary. Now we can argue about terms, patriotism vs chauvinism, but I believe that would only apply here, in a country which is founded on ideas, rather than blood ties. When you start talking about the "Mother/Fatherland", atrocities loom.
Oh yeah, OK. I think I getcha. First/Last refuge of the scoudrel, and all that then?
ReplyDeleteAs for "the Scottish Tregedy" superstition... Does THIS mean anything to you...:
HOT POTATO, OFF HIS DRAWERS (?), PLUCK TO MAKE AMMENDS! (and then pinch the other guy's nose)?
Right. Bierce defines a patriot as, "the dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors." Bitter and cynical but, I'm afraid, spot on.
ReplyDeleteI have a very vague recollection of the hot potato prophylactic, probably from a discussion, decades ago, about different antidotes to mentions of the unmentionable. The one I'm most familiar with is from Hamlet: "Angels and ministers of grace, defend us."
It's from Blackadder III, episode 4, "Sense and Senility." (The epicosde used that very superstition as a running gag.) If you've not seen it, I highly recomend Blackadder's II, III, and IV, and the first one to a lesser extent.
ReplyDeleteA Blackadder blogger, eh? You and my oldest.
ReplyDeleteI'll have to check it out (as he's been urging me to do) and see if it jogs the little gray cells.
Speaking of funny things Brit: Yesterday was the 40th anniversary of Monty Python's debut.
Wah! And I didn't have a parrot or anything!!! LOL
ReplyDeleteBut yeah, DEFINITELY check out The Black Adder. (2,3 or 4 though. The first one is still good, but not as good as the others, and very different in style and story.)
When someone writes an post he/she retains the thought of a user
ReplyDeletein his/her brain that how a user can understand it.
Therefore that's why this article is amazing. Thanks!
My web-site ... how to get rid of acne overbest way to get rid of acne overnight
I couldn't resist commenting. Perfectly written!
ReplyDeleteCheck out my web page ; how to get rid of acne at home