Fast Food And Minimum Wage

People at MC Donald’s are striking and walking off the job.  At the time I was living in Indianapolis and a few people were arrested during protests at a few East Side MC Donald’s.  Most of the protesters were asking for 15 dollars an hour, more than double the Federal Minimum Wage salary.  But increasing the minimum wage will not improve the finances of the poor.  Proponents of the minimum wage salary say that by always raising the Federal Minimum Wage Salary it will help lift people out of poverty.  People also claim that raising the minimum wage will really help improve the finances of Blacks and Hispanics.

Vanessa writes for the Center For Progress writes in an article for The Benefits of Increasing The Minimum Wage For Colored People (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2014/04/21/87248/the-benefits-of-increasing-the-minimum-wage-for-people-of-color/):

The Fair Minimum Wage Act would be a significant step to address this gap and help lift people out of poverty. A total of 6 million workers would be lifted out of poverty if the minimum wage were raised to $10.10, and 60 percent of them would be people of color. Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics would benefit significantly, since they constitute a larger share of minimum-wage earners than their share of the overall workforce. They represented 42 percent of minimum-wage earners in 2013 despite the fact that they made up just 32 percent of the workforce. Yet, as the above infographic shows, raising the minimum wage would mean a significant wage increase for blacks, Asians, and Hispanics, who would see their total wages rise by $5.2 billion, $2.4 billion, and $8.5 billion, respectively.

Most people look at poverty and poor people the way Vanessa does.  What I mean is most people believe that all one has to do is force businesses to pay people more money and this will lift poor people’s wages up and lift them out of poverty.  But people are not looking at the entire picture of what will happen when this happens and they forget to think about what causes so many people to live in poverty.  The problem of the large number of people being poor and in poverty is not related to those poor people with jobs not making enough money, the problem is that there are not people with marketable job skills to fill positions or to start and keep running profitable businesses.  Most people also forget who pays for the increased salaries forced upon them by the federal government and what are the ramifications of forcing business owners to raise people’s salaries.

The problem I have with the idea that the Federal Minimum wage law is helping people is that if people want to help the poor, whether they are black, white, Hispanic, or cartoon characters they have to figure out ways to create jobs without using tax dollars. Tax dollars come from people and businesses thus it takes money away from individuals and businesses.  This means individuals and businesses now cannot spend their money the way they want thus they have to make adjustments.  One adjustment that businesses have to make because of taxation is finding ways to reduce labor costs which becomes a huge issue with rising minimum wage salaries.

When increasing wage is increased businesses have their labor costs increased which means it is now more expensive to hire people.  If its more expensive to hire people then businesses have to ensure they hire people with the most skills and experience possible or they will not get the return on their investment of hiring this new expensive person.  If its more expensive to hire people then eventually businesses are not going to be able to hire more people.  If businesses are not hiring more people then there are people left unemployed than would be if businesses were hiring more people.  This is why businesses should be setting the salary for their employees not the government because businesses know how much they can afford to pay based on the signals it gets from the market and its on financial statements.

The problem is the minimum wage is supposed to be paid to very low skilled workers performing jobs that require very little skills but this is not happening.  Yes, we have a minimum salary being offered in exchange for a low skilled job but we have more experienced and more skilled people working these jobs than should be working these jobs.  This is why I call the poverty problem a skills and experience problem because if more people can get more experience and business skills then more people can fill vacant job openings and more people can start and keep businesses running.

Regardless of color, the minimum wage law will penalize low skilled individuals more than higher skilled workers because it becomes too expensive to hire low skilled workers.  The more the minimum wage is increased the more expensive it becomes to hire people with low skills.  This means the 25 year old that has graduated high school and has had some jobs is a more attractive candidate for a minimum wage job than an 18 year old high school graduate with no job experience.  Increasing the federal minimum wage just displaces younger people from low skilled, low wage jobs preventing them from gaining necessary job skills.

Its important to find ways to improve people’s skills so that they can work jobs or create and run their own business.  If we want people to improve their lives and be able to provide for themselves without the help of government welfare programs then we have to have an economy where people have skills to run their own businesses or work for other people’s private businesses.  The only way to get business skills is for people to have the opportunity to get work experience.  When people start gaining work experience they don’t have very many skills so they trade the low skills they have for low pay.  But if people don’t have these skills they will not start and keep any new businesses running, and people will not be hired for businesses that are running, thus people will remain poor.

This is important in regards to federal minimum wage and helping the poor because it’s the government raising people’s salaries and not a company increasing salaries based on productivity. Which means a company may have to pay more than it normally would for certain positions so people with more skills will be hired more often at low wages than lower skilled people. But low wage jobs are meant for low skilled people which is what creates a huge problem for poor low skilled people and for the economy and job market.

My evidence that this Minimum Wage law is not helping the poor, and is actually hurting Blacks is the fact that the unemployment rate for blacks is double that of Whites and Asians and has remained this way in spite of raising the minimum wage year after year.  More evidence is that the teenage unemployment rate for Black teens is double that of Whites and Asians. For African American teens age 16-19 years of age the unemployment rate according to Bureau of Labor Statistics in September 2014 was 30.5% and the unemployment rate for African American adults was 11%.  Compare this to the unemployment rate for white teens 18.7% and 5.1% unemployment rate for White Adults during the same time period.  I believe these statistics exist because the problem is not with laws and policies that can magically make people rich but poverty and unemployment is mostly a skill problem.

Lets look at who actually is using the Federal Minimum Wage salary.  Most of the people that are using the Federal Minimum wage are 25 years or older according to the 2013 BLS statistics (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2013.pdf).  This means people that have graduated from high school and /or college are working more jobs that offer the minimum wage salary than those that have not.  To the untrained eye this does not seem like a problem that would negatively affect the poor but I want to highlight why it is a huge problem to the poor.

Employers for the most part hire the employees they believe have the best skill set for the position being offered (Whenever friends and family members are not hired).  This means if people want to be hirable they need to have skills that employers are looking for.  Regardless of the occupation a person chooses they will need to have skills for that occupation.  The only way to get skills for any occupation one will have to have experience in that occupation.  Now back to the reason I highlighted the fact that most of the people working jobs that offer minimum wage are 25 years or older.  Federal minimum wage jobs are jobs that require very low skills to be worked and these jobs are intended to give people skills necessary to advance in this field.  This one of the reasons why the company pays such a low wage for the position is because it requires very few skills to perform the job and the market for the same position is flooded with people that can easily perform this job.

Now if people aged 25 or older are working the jobs intended to give people experience necessary to advance in any particular field then how can younger workers, get experience to allow them to gain employment?  People age 25 and older are low skilled workers that are more chances than not living off these wages and probably will hold this minimum wage job for an extended period of time.  Older people are holding jobs to survive at low wages that younger people should be holding to give younger people job skills that they need to be hired as they get older.

These statistics seem to agree with my theory that if one decreases the unemployment rate of teens you also decrease the unemployment rate for adults.  This theory seems reasonable considering the fact that if you allow more teens to work they will gain business skills that employers look for when these teens look for work as adults.  This is why I believe we need more free market policies, that don’t involve the government and allow businesses to create salaries so more people can work and gain business skills.  This way more businesses can hire people at salaries that allow them to expand and hire more people and more people have skills to start their own businesses.  If people disagree please respond.

When will you stand up?

There are moments in our past where people did not think the same way we do now.  People now know for certain now that slavery, beating slaves,  share cropping, mis-segination laws, Jim Crow laws, preventing women from voting, preventing blacks from voting are wrong, immoral, and bad actions.  But people seem to forget that before everyone knew that slavery, share cropping, mis-segination laws, preventing people from voting, and Jim Crow laws were wrong, immoral, and bad they were legal and widely accepted.  If people logically know that these actions were legal and widely accepted then they must also logically know that people did not easily support people that spoke out against these actions.

For example people forget that people did not always love and support the actions of Dr. Martin Luther King.  During many of Dr. Martin Luther King’s protests like the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Martin had his life threatened and the lives of his family members were threatened.  This means not everyone supported Martin’s efforts to improve the lives of other people.  Just because people look back at Martin Luther King with dreamy positive eyes now does not mean he was loved when he was challenging the status quo in the past.  Not everyone supported Martin and what he stood for during the time he was fighting for change.

During Martin’s life he had been beaten, thrown in jail and ended up being assassinated so clearly there were people that did not like the change that Martin wanted to implement.  So one of the most beloved men in history was not that beloved during a time when he was trying his best to implement change in America.  My point is that people forget that people don’t like change and change is not widely accepted at first.  It takes time for people to accept change because change requires people to change their behavior and thought processes.

Martin was fighting against the status quo, not fighting for it.  This means a lot of people black and white did not support Martin and his efforts.  The same will be true of any person that attempts to challenge and change the status quo.  The reason I write on topics like this is so people start to analyze and evaluate the arguments of other people in an attempt to see if they make valid points or not.  I believe it is dangerous to always believe the status quo should be maintained without good reasons for this.  Instead of just believing someone is crazy or trying to start trouble by challenging the status quo people should learn to objectively view alternative points of view.  I think this is important so that the world can be improved faster and start the process which will allow more people to experience a life they would like to live, not a life others think they should live.

So remember not all people are crazy when they challenge the government or the status quo.  When it comes to Cannabis use, do you understand why people argue for the legalization of it?  When it comes to taxation do you understand the arguments for the lessening, increasing, or elimination of it?  I think it would benefit people to get use to looking deeper into people’s arguments instead of immediately assuming people are crazy for challenging the government or status quo.  I don’t think it’s a good idea to allow other people to make decisions for them, because their will come a day where everyone else is running almost your entire life.  I just don’t see a negative consequence to carefully analyzing arguments before making a decision on the validity or intelligence of a person or certain argument.  If people disagree with me please respond.

What does the media know about “Ghetto”?

For those people that have not heard about the so called controversial comments of Deion Sanders in reference to Johnny Manziel, I am going to post them, give my thoughts on his comments, and my thoughts on the coverage of Deion’s comments. Many people in the media are taking a chance to make fun of and belittle Deion and his comments. Deion Sanders was a guest on Roland Martin’s podcast and Deieon stated that Johnny Manziel has “ghetto tendencies”. Then Deion was asked to clarify what he meant by “ghetto tendencies”.

 

Deion: “Because he was successful he made it and he let you all know he made it and he was cocky, he was flamboyant and he let you know.”

 

Roland Martin: “So he was a white Prime Time (referring to Deion Sanders) coming out of college?”

 

Deion: “Thank you. And I love him. I love him. They had the music playing when he came in. Put his whole equipment up, who go out there all do your pro day with all your equipment on? That’s some hood stuff. I love Johnny Football.”

 

 

I was listening to Sports Talk 790 AM this morning (04/04/2014) and the hosts of the show were confused on why Deion Sanders would back off his comments about Johnny Manziel having “ghetto tendencies”. The hosts went on and on about how Deion did not use the word “ghetto” in a way that was positive and that he should not have used the word to describe Johnny Manziel. The hosts also looked up the word “ghetto” in the dictionary and its meaning in the Urban dictionary. Of course Deion did not really use either of these definitions of the word “ghetto” when describing what he thought of Johnny Manziel, so the radio show hosts highlighted this fact. Then the hosts stated that he should not have backed off his comments about Johnny Manziel and he should have explained what he meant by “ghetto tendencies” especially if he thought it was a positive comment. While I was listening to the radio show I started to wonder why the radio show hosts was taking this point of view on Deion’s comments. Then I thought about the business side of the media and I think it would benefit others to look at situations from a variety of perspectives.

 

I had to understand that the media has an agenda and each radio station has to be able to sell advertisement space. The hosts of the show could very well agree with the callers but they can’t act like it, because they are under pressure to keep people listening to their channel for advertisement reasons. The hosts have to stick with ideas that are status quo and conservative because most people think that listen to the radio most likely will think in a similar way. Most of the people that own and run radio stations are white men and most of the people that listen to talk radio are white men. The sports talk radio audience is roughly 77% male*.

When we look at the race of Sports Talk listeners they are 51% Caucasian, around 26% are African American, and roughly 19% are Hispanic.* This means that the advertisements and the content of the show are geared towards its target market and it seems to me that a large segment of that market will be white. It makes business sense to have talk show hosts side more with a conservative point of view, versus a more diverse or liberal perspective (liberal meaning classical liberal, relating to freedom, in this case freedom of speech)on topics. By ensuring that the radio hosts use a conservative point of view they keep the larger segment of the market happy and they give more liberal thinkers something to think about and comment on.

What I mean by this is exactly what happened on the AM 790 sports talk show this morning pertaining to Deion Sanders. The radio station had hosts that acted as if they could not believe Deion said something racial and they also stated he should have used a different word other than “ghetto”. The hosts said that Deion should have just said Johnny Manziel is a confident football player instead of saying he has “ghetto tendencies”. For many African Americans and other races as well, there would not have been a problem with what Deion Sanders said because African Americans, Hispanics, and Whites use the same slang and vernacular when they talk.

 

Race is always the number one topic in America to stir up controversy and now the hosts had a famous African American, Deion Sanders, using a buzz word “ghetto” to describe a white athlete, Johnny Manziel. So what do the hosts do with Deion’s comments, they take the conservative point of view and in response to this point of view, the liberal thinkers disagree with this point of view. Now the radio station has satisfied it’s larger target market and the smaller segment of its market by giving both markets what they want. To my point many African Americans called into the show including myself, to disagree with the point of view of the radio hosts.  

 

On the show I pointed out the fact that Deion just like any other American can use words the way they deem fit and that the media cannot dictate how people choose to use words or formulate sentences. I also stated that just by using the word “ghetto” does not automatically mean something negative or bad, nor does it mean it should be associated with African Americans. I also pointed out the fact that the etymology of the word “ghetto” comes from the word “gheto” or ghet” which was used to describe the part of town Jews were forced to live in. This is from Princeton University:

 

**Etymology

The term “ghetto” actually comes from the word “gheto” or “ghet”, which means slag in Venetian, and was used in this sense in a reference to a foundry where slag was stored located on the same island as the area of Jewish confinement (the Venetian Ghetto).^[2] An alternative etymology is from Italian borghetto, diminutive of borgo ‘borough’.^[3]

**Story

The term came into widespread use in ghettos in occupied Europe 1939-1944 where the Jews were required to live prior to their transportation to concentration and death camps during the holocaust.

The definition of “ghetto” still has a similar meaning, but the broader range of social situations, such as any poverty-stricken urban area.

 

 

 

 

 

*http://www.talkers.com/2011/10/20/qualitative-aspects-of-the-talk-radio-audiences/

 

**https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Ghetto.html

Why are they hating on aspiring NBA Stars and Business Owners?

Why is the government always in our business? Does it really help the economy when the government tries to legislate change? Why does the media and others hate to see young people attempt to play in the NBA?
What does Lebron James, Jermaine O’Neal, Kobe Bryant, Lindsay Lohan, Drew Barrymore, Mary Kate Olsen, and Justin Bieber all have in common? They all went professional in their chosen fields before they ever attended college and they all have different rates of pay. But which people in this group have the media been heavily advocating that they should not turn professional and instead should go to college? The basketball players of course. Why do so many people get upset at young basketball stars standing the chance to make millions in the NBA. Shouldn’t we also advocate for children that excel in acting and music to attend college before they are allowed to be a professional music and movie star. Lebron, Jermaine, and Kobe Bryant are all professional basketball players and almost everyone in the media suggest that athletes should go to college before attempting to play basketball professionally.

This is funny to me because if the NBA scouts, general managers, and owners do not think the player is good enough to play in the NBA, then that player will not be selected in the draft. Also the media and former players continually state that they care about NCAA student athletes and they want to protect these student athletes from making a bad decision by entering the NBA draft prematurely; claiming a college experience/college degree is best for these people. If NCAA officials, NCAA coaches, and the media really cared about student athletes they would ensure that there was a training program available for athletes after they finish college so that they have the skills for a career after college is over. Why aren’t their coaching programs for athletes to pursue, so that if they love their sport they are ready to step into a coaching position? Why aren’t there general manager, sports agent training programs? Why aren’t there volunteer organizations set up to give athletes experience in fields of their choice?
Yes, there are graduate assistant positions but the numbers of them are very small. The media suggests college is better for athletes for many reasons, some of the reasons are because they say it will help them socially because they will have lived with other people that did not grow up in their neighborhood, another reason is that college will prepare them for the real world. What world were these athletes living in before they entered this real world? What is this artificial/virtual/fake world that some people like athletes live in? There is no fake world, there is only the world that we all live and participate in, if athletes are treated one way in college and a different way out of college, then let’s just say that and give them the tools necessary to be successful once they leave college

The truth is that the NCAA needs to put on the appearance that they care, because the truth is that they need these athletes to generate millions of dollars of revenue through television contracts, arena tickets, and concession sales.
.

Also why is the President of the United States, Barrack Obama, claiming that women don’t get fair payment for equal work and that women need to be paid more and be paid for maternity leave and leave for taking care of a sick parent? Why is the government once again attacking business owners? Why doesn’t the government go after Hollywood or the WNBA, neither of these businesses pay women the same as their male counterparts. I bet I don’t have to explain why, there is a pay difference in the WNBA compared to the NBA and I’m sure you know why Tom Cruise, Will Smith, Denzel Washington, make more than Meryl Streep, Julia Roberts, and Drew Barrymore. Where is the outcry about the difference in pay in Hollywood and WNBA?
Statistically speaking if people only look at all men and all women in the workforce it makes sense why men would make more money, because less men have to take off of work because of pregnancy. Men don’t have to leave the workforce to have a child, recover from the birth, and raise the child. Returning to the workforce after having a baby is even more difficult if the woman is a single parent. Even if you only look at the same occupations, you will see men making more money because more men will be able to stay in the workforce, gain more experience in that occupation and thus be paid more.
The question is, does the government have a right to force employers to pay women paid maternity leave and paid leave to take care of a child or parent? Is the government our parent, with the ability to tell us how to run our lives and our businesses? I know we want all people to be treated equally but there is more than just one type of party involved, there are employees and employers. There are a lot of business owners out there, small, medium, and large businesses that may not be able to afford to pay all of their female employees to have a child, recover, take care of the child and then return to work. Think of how expensive it is to pay a regular employee for their services, could you imagine paying for employees that are not performing their job, holding their job, recruiting a temporary replacement, and paying the replacement. Remember equal treatment goes both ways and employers have the right to hire and offer salaries whatever way they deem fit for their organization. If we allow the government to control how businesses run we will see more negative consequences than positive ones. Government controls and regulations make it expensive for businesses to start and continue running. The more government controls then less businesses will be started, more businesses will go out of business and more people will be out of work. If more people become unemployed then less people able to purchase houses and property taxes are major sources for the funding of our schools. So that means less resources for schools, more school closures, and less educated kids than it would be with more businesses operating. There of course will be more negative consequences for increasing government controls on businesses and if somone disagrees please respond and let me know how government controls produce more positive results than negative ones.

Television and Rap Music controls People. Really???

I love being able to sit down and turn on the television and watch an episode of The Housewives of Atlanta, Love and Hip Hop, Basketball wives, True Detective, True Blood, Wilfred and of course ESPN.  I also love being able to turn the Hip Hop music channel on my television while I clean my house or Listen to some Kendrick Lamar while I drive to work.  What I dislike is the media and other people that claim television and rap music is the reason why people behave the way they do.

 

 

Do you love to watch television and listen to music? Do you think television and rap music can control how you behave? Do you have kids that also love to watch television and listen to rap music?  Does television and rap music control how your kids behave?  To attempt to answer these questions, I think some other questions need to be asked and answered first.  Ever thought about if it’s possible for an external source (like other people, radio, television, newspapers etc) to control the inner workings of someone’s brain?  Ever thought about what it is that makes a person behave the way they do?  Ever thought about what is real and what is fake? Ever thought about what is appropriate behavior and why you think its appropriate?  Ever thought about how a child should behave based on their age?

 

Do you talk to your child, with a conversation deeper than “Do what I say” or “You are going to get punished because you didn’t do what I said” or “What did you learn in school today”?  Have you talked to your child about fantasy and reality?  Don’t think your child could possibly understand the difference, even if you do talk to them about it?  Well if it’s true that a child may not immediately understand the difference between fantasy and reality, then it must also be true that if you don’t talk to them about it, they will form their own opinion about fantasy and reality. 

 

When children form their own opinions of fantasy and reality they are unable to determine if what they think is true or false.  Also when they form their own opinion without the help from a parent or guardian they are also forming their own opinion of what is acceptable behavior because behavior is apart of reality.  Am I claiming that by simply talking to your child a few times about the difference between fantasy and reality your child will never display negative behaviors?  No, I am not making such claims because all humans will forever display negative behaviors.  But negative behaviors can be reduced with improved decision making skills and a better understanding of reality. 

 

I am claiming that by talking to your child about fantasy and reality, your child will grow up knowing that a parent cares enough to take time to talk to them about something that does not involve punishments and rewards. They will be engaging in an activity that causes them to think about what they themselves think is real and what is fake.  They will grow up knowing what their parent thinks about fantasy and reality which will have a positive impact on their thoughts and decision making.  What this will in turn do for the parent and the child is engage them in an activity that is positive and does not include watching television or listening to music.  There could be another benefit to the parent if they choose to think about what reality consists of and help refine their own idea of reality and this may help improve parenting skills.  By engaging in these thought activities, it could cause fantasy and reality, and may cause them to parent differently.  People should recognize that children have limited life experiences and limited cognitive abilities and should not be expected to behave like a 40 year old adult. 

 

 

 

 

 Does another person or thing have the ability to make a person do something?  If you think another person can make someone do something, think about when people are faced with punishment and the possibility of death if they don’t comply with something. There are still people that have chosen punishment and death instead of complying.  This proves that a person always has a choice to comply or not, a person can choose a punishment even if that punishment is death.  If someone says “Give me all your money or I’ll shoot you!” A person could choose to keep their money and face the possibility that they could be shot if they don’t hand over the money.  So my point is that another person cannot make someone else do anything.

 The fact of the matter is, that people make choices based on their own reasoning’s, so we should NOT claim that an external source made someone do something.  If we want people to make better decisions we should focus on their thinking skills, because it is what a person thinks that influence their decision making more than anything else.  I think it’s very important to look at the external sources that are supposed to help develop the thinking skills of people, like schools, teachers, professors, school officials, and parents.  These external sources are supposed to give people the skills necessary to make good decisions, which is supposed to help people behave in a positive and helpful manner.  If people don’t question if this is actually happening they will continue to blame behavior on television and music.  Negative behaviors such as killing and stealing and disrespecting other people existed long before television and rap music.

 

Were you exposed to Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, John Locke, David Hume, Kant, Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, Rousseau or any of the great philosophers in grade school, middle school, or high school?  Were you exposed to classical logic, how to form and analyze arguments in grade school, middle school, or high school?  Did your parents expose you to any of the great philosophers or classical logic or how to deconstruct arguments?  Some people will say yes to all of these questions, but why won’t most if not all people say “Yes” to these questions?  If schools are supposed to improve student’s thinking skills, why don’t they expose us to different ways to think and the works of different types of great thinkers?  The development of the mind, in regards to the way it processes, comprehends, analyzes, evaluates, and creates new ideas not just how much can be remembered and answered correctly on a test. Please comment and let me know if you still think rap music and television is controlling people.

Who is Really To Blame For Our Failing Economy & Rising Unemployment?

One of the main explanations that members of the media give for the failing economy and high unemployment rates seems to involve big corporations being evil and that their big profits taking money away from people.  There are three ways a company can stay in business and get bigger, 1)make profits  2)get government assistance or 3) receive a combination of the two.  A company that stays in business through profits does this by being able to have more revenue coming in than money going out.  The only way a company can have money coming in, is for consumers to spend money with that company and that company have less expenses and liabilities than what money it has received.  No person is forced to spend money at any company so if a company is not providing what consumers want, the consumers can simply stop paying.  Which brings me to the government, which does not need profits to stay in existence, nor does it need people’s consent for the use of their services like police and schools, nor does it need people’s consent to tax.  The government’s involvement in the market place has negative effects on the economy and employment because of it miss-handles the distribution of resources.

 When I say miss-handle resources, I mean that when the government decides to give money to anyone, it has to first take it from someone else. Although the government can borrow from the federal reserve to get money, high interest rates and high prices will be the penalty down the road for the governments actions.  If a company fails, it fails and it should fail, so that resources stop going to that company and someone else can use those resources.  If the government gives a failing company money that means someone else could not get that money, not only that, all the resources that the failing company purchases with the government money now, can’t flow to another company or person that may have needed those resources.

 The government’s answer to help the economy is always the same and can easily be summed up with: increase taxes, decrease taxes, provide a stimulus to the economy through tax breaks, subsidies to individuals, and subsidies to large corporations.  The reasoning’s behind stimulus packages,bailouts and subsidies should not seem favorable for the economy or unemployment, but many people think the government’s reasoning behind these actions are good, because of the belief that the government’s intention to help is good enough to allow it.  Most people have not been taught how to look at the results from government intervention in the market, nor how to analyze the government’s argument for the use of a bailout.

 A subsidy is any money that the government gives to a person or business.  The subsidy can be a government grant, bail out money, welfare money, student loans, money to produce more of something like ethanol or corn, or produce less of something.  Now the subsidy money comes from the government either taxing working people or borrowing from the federal reserve bank.  None the less a subsidy is government help and just like the hated “Welfare Mother” ,companies that receive bailout money and other subsidies are receiving government money at the expense of all tax paying people. 

 Now a private business has to use its own resources to make and sell their product or service and cannot survive without a profit for very long (unless the government bails them out of course!!).  businesses fail all the time because of several reasons, but if it can’t stay in business, should everyone else have to suffer economically just to keep them in business?  I think not!!  Now since big businesses have to protect it self from failing it using the government for contracts, subsidies, policies, and laws that reduce competition.  Big businesses do this with large sums of money they use to lobby for laws that are beneficial to the survival of their business.  It is not businesses fault for trying to do all it can to ensure their business survives. But the government is the institution that provides businesses with so much power enforcing the laws that businesses just paid the government to implement.  Big businesses have enough money to purchase the unfair advantage that is created by the government.  If the government was not involving itself in the market place with its regulations that favor who has the most money or who has the most connections we would see our economy and employment situation look totally different.

 I had to ask myself why would our government provide subsidies or money to these big corporations to stay in business?  If the government’s reasoning is that the economy would crumble if these big corporations were allowed them to fail, then what does that say about our economy, if our best hope are companies that can’t survive without government help.  I thought people were against people leaching off the system, because the system is a collection of tax dollars and no one wants their pay check short so someone can sit at home and watch Jerry Springer all day.  I thought that’s why the stereotype “Welfare Mother” was created, because this was a person that could find work but instead does not work and survives off the money the government gives them.  But I know that many public and private schools do not explain how governments are funded nor do they explain what a government subsidy is, nor do they explain what happens to the economy when people are taxed or what happens when subsidies are handed out.

 The government can do all of these things because it has legitimized power to create laws, enforce laws, run deficits, borrow from the Federal Reserve, and forcefully collect tax dollars in order to keep running its programs.  Borrowing money, higher interest rates, higher prices for products and services will definitely be a result of running deficits, borrowing from the Federal Reserve, and handing out subsidies.  This brings me to my question of who is really evil and who is really to blame for the failing economy and rising unemployment rates.  Is it big businesses that have to rely on paying customers to fund its operations or the government who picks and chooses who to give money to and who can survive by leaching off of working businesses and people to fund its operations?  Which organization is better for the economy, companies that survive only on the profits it receives or the government who can partner with businesses and create unfair advantages that are only favorable to those involved in the governmental agreement?

DOES THE NCAA AND NBA CARE ABOUT ATHLETES

I don’t believe the NCAA and NBA is in the business of caring for athletes, I think that is reserved for parents, significant others and athletic trainers.  Parents and significant others should attempt to show athletes how important it is to learn how to become a critical thinker, so that when athletes have to make decisions they have the tools to consistently make effective decisions.  Hopefully parents know the importance of critical thinking so that they pass down this tool to their child, especially parents of athletes because if that child becomes a professional star, so many people will be trying to get their money.  Its hard for any adult to effecitively manage their relationships and bank account, couple that with fame and fortune and things could go south faster than parking on college campuses.

 The NCAA and the NBA has the right to create whatever rules and policies they want because people do not have to choose to be apart of the NCAA or the NBA.  The problem is not the NCAA and the NBA, the problem is that there is not a large supply of professional basketball leagues in the United States to compete with the NBA.  The reason the supply of professional basketball leagues is low is because of how expensive it is to run a professional league and be able to pay the salaries the NBA pays out.  Most of the reason teams can afford to pay these salaries is because of large demand to watch basketball and huge television contracts.  Other professional leagues have tried to compete with the NBA but there are not enough television stations to offer deals similar to the deals the NBA gets, thus leagues without enough funding to pay players and run leagues will not be able to compete with the NBA.  The NCAA is no different they generate millions of dollars from the television contracts they get from network and cable television.

The NBA benefits from the NCAA because if an athlete becomes a big college star then they will bring fans with them to the NBA and fans equal jersey sales, ticket sales, concession sales, and good ratings.  The NCAA and NBA need money to stay in business so they are going to do what is most beneficial for them, and worrying about the choices athletes have to choose from is not top on their list.  All individuals take advantage of all the benefits they can take advantage of and since the NCAA and NBA is full of individual it makes sense that they would do more things that benefit their organizaiton and not the athlete.

 

Do People Have Different Morals?

People do not have different morals and do not live by different moral codes, what is different is people’s views on when morality should be used when making decisions and who can violate morality without consequence.  Morals don’t change, it’s the reason why the idea of right and wrong exist, so that there are concrete things that should or should not be done.  For example if killing is wrong in the North, it is also wrong anywhere in the universe and the same goes for rape and stealing.  Many people believe that different people have different morals because people recognize the fact that socio-paths exist, psycho-paths exist, serial killers exist, kidnappers exist, different cultures live life different ways and different countries have different laws and different penalties for breaking laws.  All of these reasons make perfect sense why a person would believe morals are relative to the individual’s culture or society.  The only reason it makes sense is because the system that is supposed to educate and enlighten people, the public and private school systems, fail to provide any solid insight on reality, knowledge, morals, ethics, critical thinking or philosophy. 

 

Without a foundation in critical thinking, morals, ethics, and philosophy individuals are left to decide what is real about reality based on their life experiences and the opinions of others.  Because of this many people will suspend their own morality, to enable them to do something they want at the moment.  Many people will also allow certain people to get away with immoral acts because of the belief in moral relativity.  For example people will not view their own government as immoral when it takes sales tax from purchases, property taxes from real estate purchases, and income tax from pay checks.  The money taken in the form of taxes are never asked for, negotiated, or bargained, they are just taken.  But without a clear view of morality and ethics, people will not view taxation as stealing even though the government did not ask if it could take out that tax money.  But if this person’s company makes a mistake and does not pay them the correct amount, this individual would be upset and would view the company as immoral if they kept the money that was due to this employee. 

 

 But just because a person suspends their morality for a certain need or want does not mean they have different morals than someone else.  An example of this suspension of morals would be an angry spouse finding out their significant other had been cheating so they punch their significant other.  The punching of the significant other does not mean this person does not believe punching is wrong, but at that moment this person felt justified in their actions because of the wrong that was done to them by their significant other.  The fact that this person chose to punish their significant other with a punch proves that this person values the moral code of keeping promises, specifically the promise not to cheat while in a relationship.  Another example would be people that believe that authority figures such as parents, teachers, and the government can do things that are morally wrong that non authority figures are not allowed to do.  So many people believe that certain people are above morality and can get away with doing immoral things without being considered immoral.  So if the people in the government decided to bomb a city in another country because the government officials say they are a threat, many people will support the government’s reason for the bombing as just.  If a person not in the government wanted to do the same thing, this person or persons would be considered a sadistic, animalistic, immoral monster.  The reason many people believe that morals are relative to the individual and to that individuals culture and that governments don’t commit immoral acts is because of several reasons either they have not been introduced to the idea of universal morals, they reject the idea of objective morals, or they believe moral reletivism makes more sense than objective morals.

 

 

So how did I come to the conclusion that morals are universal?

 

  A normal functioning human body has systems within it to help the human body survive.  The normal functioning human body does not come into existence to end its existence.  From conception the fetus does things to survive and the pregnant female body attempts to protect the fetus regardless of the intentions of the mother.  The mother can do things to force the body to reject the baby, but even if this happens the normal functioning pregnant female body tries to nurture and ensure the survival of the fetus until it can’t.  The fact that humans try to survive and has a body that wants to survive proves that humans want to survive and thus anything that attempts to end that survival is not a moral action.

 

The human body has an opening where food can enter, organs that process food, and an opening for waste to exist. The human body has openings for air, organs to process that air, and openings to get rid of harmful air. The body seems to be built to survive not to exterminate itself.  My point in all of this is to refute the idea that killing could ever be natural and good because if killing were natural and right then life would naturally try to kill itself when life comes into existence, instead life tries to survive thus survival must be natural and good.  If life tries to survive then the right thing to do is to ensure that life survives.  To not let life survive is wrong because that’s what life does naturally, to interfere with someone’s attempt at survival is wrong because it interferes with life’s natural tendency to try to survive.

 

Humans need material things to survive so if someone steals from another human they are affecting the survival of that human.  If a human attempts to kill another human they are also attempting to end the survival of another human, which is immoral.

 

 

 

Although I believe morals to be universal, I do believe that morals are relative to the existence of humans because humans have a brain that enables them to form multiple concepts and apply these multiple concepts to multiple situations, which allows humans to create the idea of morals.  Human brains enable humans to create concepts that help to generalize and organize thoughts of the outside world and one’s self. Morals are a response to the fact that humans are living things that try to survive from conception and have the ability to ensure they don’t interfere with the survival of other humans.  If a monkey, ape, wolf, lion or any animal does something like kill another animal or use aggression against another animal, their behaviors can only be looked at as moral or immoral by a being that has the ability to create the idea of morality, thus the animal can never for themselves create morals. 

 

 

Do non-human animals have morals?

 

Here is an article about the differences in human cognition and animal cognition.

 

Recently, scientists have found that some animals think in ways that were once considered unique to humans: For example, some animals have episodic memory, or non-linguistic mathematical ability, or the capacity to navigate using landmarks. However, despite these apparent similarities, a cognitive gulf remains between humans and animals.

Hauser presents four distinguishing ingredients of human cognition, and shows how these capacities make human thought unique. These four novel components of human thought are the ability to combine and recombine different types of information and knowledge in order to gain new understanding; to apply the same “rule” or solution to one problem to a different and new situation; to create and easily understand symbolic representations of computation and sensory input; and to detach modes of thought from raw sensory and perceptual input.

Earlier scientists viewed the ability to use tools as a unique capacity of humans, but it has since been shown that many animals, such as chimpanzees, also use simple tools. Differences do arise, however, in how humans use tools as compared to other animals. While animal tools have one function, no other animals combine materials to create a tool with multiple functions. In fact, Hauser says, this ability to combine materials and thought processes is one of the key computations that distinguish human thought.

According to Hauser, animals have “laser beam” intelligence, in which a specific solution is used to solve a specific problem. But these solutions cannot be applied to new situations or to solve different kinds of problem. In contrast, humans have “floodlight” cognition, allowing us to use thought processes in new ways and to apply the solution of one problem to another situation. While animals can transfer across systems, this is only done in a limited way.

“For human beings, these key cognitive abilities may have opened up other avenues of evolution that other animals have not exploited, and this evolution of the brain is the foundation upon which cultural evolution has been built,” says Hauser. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217102137.htm)

 

 

 

 

 

A moral code, ethical code, code of conduct, acceptable behavior, unacceptable behavior all depend on the being’s ability to formulate multiple abstract thoughts in their head, apply these abstractions to several different concepts, communicate their abstract thoughts, and understand the abstract thoughts of others.  If this being does not have the ability to formulate multiple concepts in their head and apply these multiple concepts to multiple situations then this being will not have the ability to form the idea of a moral code or ethical code, because that requires the mixing and matching of several different ideas in an effort to come up with new ideas.  With limited cognitive functions it would be next to impossible to create ideas of the outside world, ideas of self, analyze the ideas of the outside world, and analyze the relationship of self to the outside world and other beings.  This is why there is no moral code within the groups of animals that are not human because they don’t have the ability to combine, disassemble and reassemble multiple concepts and apply them to multiple different situations.  Non-human animals are left to do what they can to survive, humans can judge the behaviors of animals and say that the behavior of the animals is right or wrong, but the animals themselves don’t have that ability.

 

 

 

 

Any time a person does something immoral like stealing or killing they are in turn affecting the survival of that human. Without the existence of humans their would be no need to ensure the survival of humans because of course humans don’t exist.  Animals that are not human don’t have the mental capacity to create the idea of morals and apply them to their lives and interactions with other animals and this is also true for living things that don’t have a brain or central nervous system.  Non living things don’t need morals because they are not alive and are not fighting for survival.

 

 

 

 

So what about the idea that there are people that believe killing is moral……

 

If Hitler really believed the killing was good and not bad why did he have to convince and coerce people to do horrendous things to other people.  Why did Hitler create a system where people were punished for not supporting him or his mission.   If Hitler thought killing was good and not bad why didn’t he kill everyone around him, why did he single out Jewish people?  If killing is good then why didn’t Hitler start ordering the killing of everyone around him? 

 

If Hitler valued killing and did not think killing was wrong why did he arrest and kill the men that attempted to assassinate him?  Shouldn’t he congratulate and thank his assassins for attempting to do something good, which is killing?  The reason is because every living thing attempts to survive and killing would end that survival, thus Hitler wanted to survive so he wanted to ensure his assassins were punished to deter other from trying to kill him.

 

 

 

What about cultures do they really have different morals?

 

In Saudi Arabia a person could have a limb cut off for stealing or their life taken for murder.  It would seem as if Saudi Arabia has different morals than the United States, but is this so?  If Saudi Arabia does not think killing is wrong why would there be a punishment for killing?  If Saudi Arabia did not think that stealing was wrong why would they punish someone for stealing?  If Saudi Arabia did not think killing was wrong why would they punish someone for killing?  See the trick being played on many people is that people don’t realize that when you give a group of people the authority to make and enforce laws, then its hard to see how these laws could create immoral acts.  People believe that the government is doing the right thing thus its above morality or morality does not apply, but it does apply.  No human should be allowed to kill another human and no human should be allowed to commit violence on another human.

 

 

But why is all of this important?

 

This is important because people act based on what they feel is appropriate at that moment.  If a person believes something is right or moral they will be more likely to engage in this moral behavior and will be more likely to consent to the behavior of others either implicitly or explicitly.  Thus if a person was raised in a household where spankings were normal, this person may believe that spanking are good and necessary part of child rearing.

 

A parent that spanks their child does not view the spanking as unneeded violence against a child. The parent believes the spanking is a necessary part of rearing children especially when the parent believes the child has done something horrendous.  The parent believes they have the right to treat their parents they way they want since the parents are older and provide the necessities and wants of the child.

 

What about people that want to steal from people that make more money than them or break the items of people that make more money than them to bring attention to some type of cause.  They do it because they have not recognized that stealing and purposefully damaging property is wrong.  No matter what a person’s motive or intentions stealing  and damaging someone else’s property is wrong.

 

This applies to governments too, no matter the good intentions of the government, if the government takes money out of people’s pay checks for tax revenue, takes business taxes, takes sales tax then its stealing money because no one was asked and thus no one consented.  It does not matter that the people taking the money have good intentions, they still did not ask and did not get permission to take this money.

 

 

 

What if a person is broke and believes that entering in the military is the best thing for their life.  The military promises an income and money for college, the income will help this person satisfy their basic needs and money for college will provide an opportunity to get some type of education that will help to improve the financial status of this person.  But this person is only likely to take this job in the military if they believe what the military does is moral and ethical.  If a person does not believe in objective morals they will believe that the military has the right to take human life and think

 

 

Let’s take the example of the local government deciding to build a park in a certain neighborhood.  Most people will say that a having a park in a neighborhood is a good thing because it gives kids a safe place to play, it can give the inhabitants of the neighborhood a place to work out, it gives the inhabitants of the neighborhood a place to engage in recreational activities etc.  No one will question how this park is funded or the validity of how its funded.  Since the government is going to build it, the money to build the park comes from taxation.  This means that the people that work and pay taxes in the vicinity of the park will fund the construction of the park whether they like the idea or not.  Now the people that don’t believe objective morals exist will argue that taxes are just apart of living in America, or that taxes are our duty to pay, or taxes are a way to pay for our freedom in America.  Some people have argued that the park will help to raise the property value of the homes in that neighborhood.

 

If a person knows that objective morals exist they will know that taking someone’s property (in this example the property taken is a person’s money) is wrong, no matter the reason given for taking the property.  So if a government, religion, parent takes something from someone else it is wrong and these actions should not happen.  Although the government may have good intentions for what they want to do, they first have to take people’s money via taxes to fund their operations. 

 

 

 

It’s important for individuals to pay attention to the words they use and the reasons they use to justify their beliefs and behaviors.  Individuals should strive to find the reality in their thoughts and ideas about life so that they are not easily deceived by the propaganda of others.  Its important for individuals to understand the importance of morality so that they don’t mistakenly take freedoms away from those they know and those they don’t know.  Without a good understanding of morality people will continue to view morality the same way the people they trust and choose to listen to for advice, view morality. 

I hope this sparks a conversation within the minds of people that read this and I hope people research morality on their own and share with me what they find.  Thanks for reading.

Does This Equal That?

When most people are faced with offering up alternatives to the current governmental system in place most people have not thought of any alternatives.  Many people believe that the system in place in America is the best system possible.  This is not surprising since a majority of these people attended public government schools and private schools which are governed by governments. Why would the government paint a bad picture for itself in schools where they need people to support them? In these private and government public schools children are taught about the founding fathers of America, how these great men drew up the constitution, and how great men of this country fought Gt. Britain to win their freedom.  Students are told of monarchies, dictatorships, communism, socialism and other government forms but are not able to study the philosophical backgrounds of these ideas.  Then students are probably told about the greatness of a democracy, the free market, and the great mixed economy that’s in place.  Students are only taught about the intricacies of the current system, not any alternatives to the system, nor is any thought given to the idea that something else could exist.  Students are not even introduced to the philosophies and ideas behind the current governmental and economic system.  Only the system that America has in place is considered the optimal system to study and practice.

Once students advance to high school and college many of these same notions are reinforced, that the current system in America is the best one available and that the system only needs some tweaks and other types of improvements.  There is hardly ever a time to think outside of the government box, hardly ever a time for students to question the validity and effectiveness of the current system.  Its as if the horrible, nasty, horrendous actions of the government are necessary, in order for Americans to experience freedom.  Another thing left out of school is the idea of freedom, what it means to be free, nor is any philosophical thought offered on the idea of freedom.

Most people believe that violence and killing is necessary to ensure the freedoms of others.  But fail to realize that when you kill or commit violence against someone, you are violating their rights, which is taking away freedom.  An example would be the founding fathers owning slaves while at the same time claiming all men are created equal and deserve freedom.  So the word play that the founding fathers and other intellectuals and politicians used was to claim the slaves were less than human, sub-human beings that could be owned like any other piece of property.  Remember that people had to fight the Government, for their own right to be free, it was the government that perpetuated this idea of slavery, and that’s what abolitionists fought against.

Once slavery was over the government via state sponsored Jim Crow laws, did not want blacks and whites to marry each other.  These laws did not want blacks attending the same schools as whites, work in the same stores, eat in the same restaurants as whites.  The state or the government gave white people the power to commit violence against blacks and the government in their own government court houses did not want to rule in favor of any blacks.  There were very very few whites that were ever tried in a government court and found guilty for killing an African American.  It was not like the government said stop it with the slavery and stop it with the Jim Crow laws, instead there were killings, demonstrations, marches, trials, killings, marches, boycotts, trials, killings, discrimination etc

It was the same for women, it was not like the government stopped all harsh treatment of women.  Its was the government that turned a blind eye to the mistreatment of women, it was the government that allowed the mistreatment of women to continue as long as it did.  The introduction of the welfare state was an outright attack on women because it created an illusion of help for women.  As the government took more and more money from working people, it handed this money to poor single mothers.  What this action did was trick many women into relying on the state or government to take care of their life for them.  A person will live their life a lot different if they did not have a safety net to catch them.

 

I don’t want people to think I am being harsh and cruel with this issue, I am not advocating for people to die from starvation if they are broke.  My stance is that the free market ( a market without government intervention) will provide better quality as well as cheaper products and services to consumers, which will keep money flowing in and out of businesses.  Since businesses and consumers don’t have to pay taxes businesses have more money for their business and consumers have more money to give to businesses.  This should allow businesses to hire more people, it will allow more businesses to enter into markets that they normally would not have been able to, and this will allow people to have more opportunities to work and make money instead of depending on the government to provide services. 

The absence of government does not equal rampant poverty, violence, immoral actions, and chaos.  Governments intervene with the economy, creating artificial booms and busts which creates negative financial results as seen in the Market Crash of 1929 or more recent the 2008 financial crisis. But most people will blame the Market Crash, The Housing Market Crash, and other economic down turns on bad decisions made by consumers, totally ignoring the policies that encouraged and welcomed the bad decisions.  The bad thing is that all of these government programs cost money, money that is taken from people that work and the businesses they work for.  When money is taken from businesses and working people then these businesses and people have less money to work with, which means less money is available to enter the market, which negatively affects the economy. 

If more and more people accept welfare payments that means more and more money will leave business men and working people, which will in turn make products and services more expensive.  Then the government will say it will help by adjusting the money supply or interest rates, which will create other economic problems.

Many people believe that government has the same definition as law or rule and this is not the case.  Government means an authoritative governing body with the power to make and enforce laws.  Rule means a prescribed guide for conduct or action, an accepted procedure or habit, or a regulation or by law.  What this means is that a parent can create a rule or law in their household, a business owner can create policies, bylaws, and rules within their company, etc etc 

This also means that a government is not needed for laws or rules to exist, because any person or group of people can prescribe a guide for conduct or action .  So for a mother to say one needs a government for rules, laws, or guidelines would mean she can’t create rules, laws, or guidelines for her children, which could be very problematic for that mother.   The absence of a government does not equal, no rules, no laws, or no guidelines.  People will still realize that stealing and violence is wrong, even without a government, unless people make the claim that governments make people realize stealing an violence is wrong.  This claim would mean the government is some kind special entity that jumps in people’s minds and tells them what is right and what is wrong, but I don’t think this is the case, nor is it necessary.  This would also mean that people can’t determine for themselves what is right and what is wrong, therefore we need a government

Think about a typical trip to the supermarket, is the government in the supermarket walking side by side with every customer to ensure they don’t steal from the store or rob other customers? No, people already know stealing is bad.  Unless people want to make the argument that people don’t do bad things because of the government’s existence.  If a person makes this argument they must then, admit that their own behaviors and actions are controlled by the government.  But, most people will deny that the government is controlling their behavior and instead say, the government controls the behavior of bad people, but then one has to question how are these “bad” people any different than the “good” people.  If there are no special species of humans, then its reasonable to believe that the government is not controlling anyone’s behavior, instead people do what they want to do whether a government exists or not.  All a government does is allow certain people in the government to enforce their values on other people, then they call this enforcement justice.  But do people actually need a government to tell them what is right and what is wrong?  Is the government the same thing as morals?

I hope people don’t believe that it’s the government that creates what constitutes “good”  or “morally right” because people would be selling themselves short.  It is the human’s existence and pursuit of life that creates morals, it is not government for government is a human creation too.  Living things want to live and in that pursuit of life living things don’t want to come in contact with things or actions that would end their life prematurely.  People prefer to live without pain, sadness, or aggression against them during their pursuit of happiness, people realize that these things will arise but they want to minimize them as much as possible.  Most importantly the human brain enables humans to form the concept of morals, principals, right and wrong.  It was humans that created the idea of government, so it does not make sense that government created right, wrong, good, bad, moral, or not moral.  So the government is not the same thing as law, rule, policies, good, morally good.  The opposite of government is not chaos.  I hope people will check out for their self all the different types of governments and the alternative of no government.

Fear Is Always At Work

I have asked many people for reasons they think the world is the way it is.  Why there is so much poverty? Why there is such a large gap between the rich and the poor?  Of course the majority of people say that the problem with society is large corporations and wealthy people.  This of course is understandable because this is the idea that the media pushes out to the public and I was all but convinced that this was a valid answer.  After all I could not understand why someone would need to make these crazy profits that the media is good at showing people.  Who wouldn’t get upset when they see Exon making billions of dollars and people like me are living pay check to pay check.  Then the great media coverage of the Occupy movement, show Occupy people complaining about the large profits that corporations make.  Then there is the 2003 Canadian documentary called “The Corporation” there is the 2009 documentary by Michael Moore called Capitalism plus all the documentaries and you tube videos about the Illuminati.  I was convinced that something was wrong with capitalism, based on what I was reading and seeing capitalism seemed to be the evil that was making me poor, making others poor, and increasing the gap between the rich and the poor.  So I understand why other people may feel the same way I use to feel.  One of the ideas that I came up with for the reason why the world is the way it is was governments.  I know it’s an idea that is contrary to what people have been taught in their homes and in schools, but I believe that this idea is worth exploring.  When I share this idea with people strange things happen and all kinds of comments come out of people’s mouths.

These are the comments I get from people when I introduce my theory:

How will society work?  There will be chaos without a government.  Who will tell us what to do?

What about all the people, like terrorists that want to attack us?  The government are the people that help this country they don’t hurt people.

Yes the government may take someone’s property but if they take that property and build a park it will help that community’s property value go up. I don’t mind paying taxes if I get something out of it or the tax money goes to a good cause.

Taxes are necessary.

Yes, I know that taking tax money out without my permission is wrong, but its been going on almost since the beginning of time.

What about people that say, “Someone has to be in charge.”  “Someone has to be a leader.”

How will society work if there is not an authority figure like the government?

To me these comments show  a fear of taking responsibility for yourself, that has been developed from birth where many parents don’t allow children to make their own decisions until they leave their house.  Think about a majority of parents that constantly tell their children what to do and how to do it, in fear of their child’s inability to make good decisions.  Many parents say, “When you are 18, you can make your own decisions but as long as you are under my roof, you do what I say.  One of my favorite parent lines, “I brought you into this world and I’ll take you out.”  All of these phrases point to a fear parents have, a fear that their child can’t make rational decisions so parents feel they have to make a majority of the decisions for their child.

This is what I mean by avoiding responsibility when I talk about parents, school, sports, and government, although a person may not like it all the time this person does not have to worry about making decisions and facing the consequences for those decisions.  If someone else like parents, school (teachers, principals, superintendents etc), sports (coaches), and government tell people what to do, then when does the individual get to make decisions for themselves and live with the consequences?  if someone else is always in charge of an individual then this individual does not have to worry about creating direction for their self, they don’t have to worry about what to do next because the leader will tell them what to do.  Soon many people believe that they have to look to others to tell them what to do next, from whether or not they should go to college, to what to study in college, to how to behave in a relationship.

But it does not stop in the parents’ home, when children go to school the school does not allow the children to make their own decisions.  Many parents tell their children to follow the directions of the teacher and all school officials, and many children comply or at least understand the concept of being compliant to authority figures.  One can mix sports into the sauce of avoiding responsibility to, because coaches don’t ask for the input of players, the player is supposed to do everything the coach tells them to do.     The last institution that does not allow people to make their decisions is the government.

Then once the child turns 18, they start to notice that they have an additional parent, the government.  The government will tell an individual if they want to enjoy the spoils of life they have to do certain things.  If an individual wants to drive they must pay for a license, if an individual wants to own a vehicle they must purchase state registration and pay state taxes.  The government also says that a person must pay tax on the gasoline that they buy for their vehicle.  The government says you have to pay sales tax on the food you purchase, the government says that if you want to buy a house you must pay property taxes.  If an individual wants to travel to another country the government says you must purchase a passport and then pay taxes on the mode of transportation used to travel to that other country.

Of course the government also says that it will take money out of people’s pay check and save it for them and when they retire they can have social security.   If an individual can’t find affordable housing the government will provide government housing.  The government also says that if you can’t find work and you are poor it will provide money and benefits for the individual via welfare.  The government will also provide affordable medical care for those that can’t afford it.   I hope what I am writing shows how the government replaces parents for people; the government will now provide money, housing, food and medical care.  Yes these so called services like social security, government housing, Medicaid, and Medicare sound good but it causes people to allow the government to make decisions for them, allows people to rely on the government like people rely on parents.  The most horrible thing about these so called services is that they are soooo expensive for it requires the government to take money out of people’s pay checks to pay for these so called services, without asking people if they can take out this money.

One of the main reasons that people feel that a government is necessary is because of fear.  Many people fear that people are evil, mean, and not trustworthy and that people can’t make rational decisions on their own.  Most people believe that the government is able to keep the good people away from the mean, evil, greedy, violent, selfish people, or if they can’t keep them away the government will catch them and punish them.  But this sounds crazy how can there be good people if people say all people are evil, selfish, violent, and not trustworthy.  Many of these same people believe that a government provides structure in the form of laws and enforces punishments people that for break those laws.  But there is a huge problem with this idea of why people need governments, that many people don’t notice.

If people believe all people are selfish, evil, mean, greedy, and not trustworthy then why would any person trust another human for any reason?  Why don’t more people create all the products they need so that they don’t have to be around these mean, evil, violent, non-trustworthy people?  Why  isn’t there  more recluses or individuals that want to live in solitude, if people really believe what they say they believe about human nature?  How can there be so much trade and transactions going on in the world if humans are as bad as many people say they are?

If people actually believe this notion about human nature how would a government solve this problem, because the government is made up of people, and as people have already stated people are mean, evil, violent and not trustworthy.   Why in the world would humans believe it’s a good idea to give a certain group of people (the same evil, non-trustworthy, greedy, selfish people) the authority to make and enforce laws, to judge and not be judged, to kill, or injure?

People in government don’t magically change into angels once they are elected into office, they are the same humans that every other human is.  The funny thing about people’s thoughts and beliefs about human nature is that many of them have not actually thought about human nature themselves.  This same funny aspect of human behavior applies to government and economics as well, for many people have strong beliefs about government and economics but not many have studied and analyzed these terms for them selves.  Many people just parrot what other people say about human nature, economics, and government without researching and analyzing these terms for themselves.  Most people don’t even know how government’s work, how the government affects the economy or how governments are funded, so how can they form a valid opinion on these topics?  Although many people have a lack of knowledge about economics and governments, many are quick to offer an explanation for what would happen (and why it would happen), if there were no government.  Most people are unfamiliar with different governments, economies, economic theories, or theories about human nature but this does not stop people from offering up an emotional stance on government and economic issues.

It’s evident that many people have not analyzed their so called opinions on human nature, government and economy when they make claims that deal with other people and not their self.  For example if a person says that humans are naturally evil, violent, power hungry, not trustworthy, greedy, and selfish, they will also include a phrase that insinuates that they are not evil, greedy, selfish, violent, trustworthy, or violent.  Every person that I have come in contact with that say humans are evil, mean, violent and not trustworthy never include their self.  The majority of people that I have seen face this question always say that although they are not naturally evil, violent, greedy, other people are, but they don’t realize that this would be a contradiction to their own theory.  If a person believes humans are naturally greedy, evil, selfish, then they have to include them self in this category since they are also a human being, to deny this means they have not thought this through, or they refuse to use logic in their reasoning.

I just want to encourage people to analyze their fears and to analyze their positions on issues before they start to share them with people.  I also want to encourage people not to be afraid of being wrong, for the correction of a wrong brings enlightenment, not the opposite.  I encourage people to challenge my ideas or correct anything I have written, I have tough skin and I strive for enlightenment, I don’t strive to win or to be right.