The Right To Defend

There are several reasons one may have for owning firearms... sport, hunting, collecting, but the two most critical are defense against personal injury, and defense against tyranny. A firearm is the best tool available to protect one's own, and/or the lives of family members. Even though a civilized society has laws against the use of physical force between members of its constituency, law enforcement officials are not capable of protecting you from criminals. The police collect evidence pertaining to a crime and arrest and formally accuse people who are suspected of committing an offense. However, if someone wants to kill or steal from you, then you must protect yourself since the police are not available for prevention.

Of course the hope is that we never have to use deadly force to defend ourselves. But that hope should not foolishly include being unprepared to do so. Fortunately for citizens of the United States, the authors of the constitution and Bill of Rights knew that; "An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny." The second amendment also states that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Unfortunately there is currently a growing constituency in favor of dissolving the right to own firearms. Revocation of the right would disarm law abiding citizens leaving weapons in the hands of law enforcement officials, the military, and criminals.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity ... will respect the less important and arbitrary ones ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." — Thomas Jefferson

As Mr. Jefferson points out, gun control laws make it harder for law-abiding citizens seeking to protect themselves. Criminals already obtain weapons through illegal channels consequently they are unaffected by current, or additional gun control laws. Gun control is not the solution to ending random killing.

As it is, government already holds a monopoly of sorts on the legal use of physical force. From the government position, it must hold such a monopoly as the restraining element of the use of force by its constituency against each other, and against the government itself.  For that reason alone, government must be rigidly defined and controlled by the people.

According to the National Crime Survey administered by the Bureau of the Census and the National Institute of Justice, it was found that only 12 percent of those who use a gun to resist assault are injured, as are 17 percent of those who use a gun to resist robbery. These percentages are 27 and 25 percent, respectively, if they passively comply with the felon's demands. Three times as many were injured if they used other means of resistance.[1]

"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
 --Thomas Jefferson

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty."
 -- Thomas Jefferson

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
 -- Thomas Paine

"Who will govern the governors? There is only one force in the nation that can be depended upon to keep the government pure and the governors honest, and that is the people themselves. They alone, if well informed, are capable of preventing the corruption of power, and of restoring the nation to its
 rightful course if it should go astray. They alone are the safest depository of the ultimate powers of government"
 -- Thomas Jefferson

1. G. Kleck, "Policy Lessons from Recent Gun Control Research," Law and Contemporary Problems 49, no. 1. (Winter 1986.): 35-62.

~

Agnostic Atheist

No, agnosticism is not atheism lite. Like theism, atheism is a belief. Agnosticism is a logical proposition. To expedite discourse on these concepts I first offer these generally agreed upon definitions:

Theism: 1. Belief in the existence of a God or gods, especially belief in a personified God entity as creator. 

Atheism: 1. Belief that there is no God. 2. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. 

Agnosticism: 1. The doctrine that certainty about truth is unattainable without proof, and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge. 2. A doctrine affirming that there can be no proof either that god exists or that god does not exist.

The most notable and relevant difference between these definitions is that two of them (theism and atheism) describe suppositions based on an unknown, both of which represent a departure from critical thinking and enter the realm of believing in something based on feeling, whereas agnosticism describes a neutral conclusion about knowledge based on a lack of evidence. Knowledge (information gained by proof) is a separate issue from a belief in something for the want of it.

The term 'agnosticism' is predominately used to claim abstinence from siding with the belief or non-belief in the existence of a God or gods. But by definition, agnosticism enjoys a broader meaning. Agnosticism is rooted in logic; a position that does not permit a claim of something unknowable or predicated by negative proof. Both theism and atheism claim to have knowledge based on a negative proof (also known as a faulty inference), which constitutes a logical absurdity. To the agnostic, all such proposals, are equally untenable. Consequently, agnosticism is not a withdrawal from participation, but rather a position of non-participation because there is nothing to contend.

True agnosticism includes no opinion about the existence, or non-existence of God or gods. As an adjective, 'agnostic' can be used with theism or atheism. One might believe in gods without claiming absolute knowledge of their existence, a position which could be described as agnostic theism. Conversely one might disbelieve in gods without claiming absolute knowledge of their non-existence, which could be described as agnostic atheism.

For years I called myself a true agnostic with no emotional investment in the belief or disbelief in the existence of God - most likely my religiously fraught childhood instilled in me at least some modicum of belief that there may be a god  presiding over my possible continuance beyond the duration of my biological form; a god that may very well deny extended existence to non-believers, yet show leniency toward those who simply claimed not to know what cannot be known. However, brainwashing in youth dissipates with intellectual maturation, and the notion that persistence after death might be presided over by some deity, is recognized for the fairy tale that it is. This concession is an implicit acceptance of atheism - a disbelief derived from nothing more substantial than the same disbelief I have in the existence of Santa Claus - it seems unreasonable. Nevertheless, holding that something is unreasonable without proven data to support the conclusion still constitutes a belief not held in evidence, and consequently represents a departure from pure logic of which, I confess my guilt. However, I qualify my departure from pure logic to an atheistic belief with the 'agnostic' adjective. I don't believe there is or ever was a god (atheist), but withhold judgment about proving this belief (agnostic) since such a thing cannot be verified. My use of the agnostic adjective with my atheist belief does not redeem my departure from pure logic on this matter, but it does qualify and explain my refusal to engage in a discussion about the consequences and/or rewards of being naughty or nice.

~

Ego

The abundance and proliferation of "ego" nay-sayers has always surprised and caused me to shake my head in disbelief. First: it should be clear that I reject the commonly accepted misunderstanding of ‘ego’ that is ubiquitous in our society – that promoting one’s ego is somehow pathological, or the contention "having an ego" represents some kind of spiritual malady. I have never understood, and completely reject this little piece of stupidity, obviously not founded on any system of reason or rational thinking.  Second: there is no source within us, which is without ego since the self is the ego.  Borrowing from Merriam-Webster's definition:

Ego -- 1: the self, especially as contrasted with another self or the world

So basically your ego is who you are. And personally, I am not interested in depreciating who I am.
Do the anti-egoist support their absurd contention because the ego by nature is NOT self-sacrificing or self-immolating (which for some insane reason are considered virtuous behaviors in our society)? People denounce ego and wonder about the amoral condition of society at large – what a pity. What else could there be in a society that promotes self-loathing – and make no mistake about it, denouncing the ego is an unequivocal promotion of self-loathing by simple virtue of the meaning of the word ego.

The natural condition of ego is not self-sacrificing, self-immolating or any other such form of self-depreciation. The ego by nature is self-promoting, not self-depreciating. The natural inclination of ego is toward self-esteem and pride, not shame. The ego and its natural extension – pride is about believing in yourself and your abilities. Feeling pride in your abilities and accomplishments is the recognition of your own self-worth.  Pride and ego are all about recognizing self-worth through the realization that you are capable of producing value and consequently capable of sustaining your own life. How can this be considered bad in any way? The amoral faction who consider pride to be a sin are the proponents of fear, hate, and discrimination that plague society.

Rewire America.

~

On Freedom

Freedom is not an illusion. It is an unrealized concept. Within any social framework the concept of freedom pertains to its constituency as a whole, and the individual members are bound by governance. Consequently, to maintain a feeling of freedom while adhering to the social mandate, you must manifest the concept of freedom within your own particular cage - or not.

Other freedom challenges can include physical impairment, financial issues, obligations, property ownership, family and other relationship affiliations, and so on. Whatever your cage may look like, your freedom is what you make of it. True freedom cannot be granted or taken away. It is achieved within your own heart and mind. That is the only mantra on freedom that permits its actualization, and I live it because I choose not to fester and die by constriction.

What I Really Think

In a recent conversation while lambasting faith, television, spectator sports, gender assignment, flu shots, the patriarchy, decaffeinated coffee, and other such nonsensical and/or useless conventions and inventions,  my audience of one interrupted my soliloquy with the seemingly comedic interjected question; "So, what do you really think?" True enough, I am, and have been abrupt on many an occasion in my reactions to piety and other institutions of mindlessness – but in defense of my social skills, I most often only rail against that which has been shoved in my face, or otherwise been made unavoidable.

To me, whether it is Heaven or Hell, no mantra, dogma, or their associated ‘ism’ is too sacred for derision. Yes, I will even make sport of militant ignorance to amuse myself and other rational thinkers within earshot. Trivializing issues of grave concern is the American way of covering up or otherwise euphemizing that which we don’t want to see is it not?  And if it can’t be trivialized then you can probably get a prescription for it.

Yeah, I know - just tell us what you really think. . .

Well I think that a really good cheesecake is better with Champagne than chocolate.  And I think that Champagne is best when shared with a lover, though I dare say, it can be pretty damned good self-served a la singular. I think the earth is an imperfect spheroid in orbit around a dying star.  I think Jack must have been a dull boy to begin with for even considering cutting out play time for work. I believe Oswald was a pawn of a much larger conspiracy. I am finally convinced that there is at least a good chance that I may die some day, which consequently makes all of this seem so unimportant, and yet dramatically important at the same time, and that bodes well with my belief that all that really matters is what is happening right now.  Consequently it is my personal charge to make the best of it.  I celebrate the present, because in a very real sense, it is all that we have.

“Life moves pretty fast.  If you don’t stop and look around sometime, you could miss it.” – Ferris Bueller

Skeptical and Mystical Absurdity

In a recent discussion with an online acquaintance about Skepticism and mysticism and whatnot, I found myself once again in the position of having to defend logic, reason, and rational thinking.  Much of the difficulty in maintaining focus in the conversation stemmed from the lack of common definition of critical terms.  For that reason I offer a definition of "mysticism" relevant to our discussion from Webster’s dictionary:

Mysticism: Any doctrine that asserts the possibility of attaining knowledge through intuition. 

Essentially mysticism is the acceptance of allegations as factual – a claim of some irrational means of knowledge such as intuition, revelation, or any other form of “just knowing”, also to my amusement, referred to as magical thinking.  I also draw on Webster’s definition of knowledge since that word seems to be wholly misunderstood by Skeptics and mystics. I use these published definitions because they represent a common ground for communication.  An attempt to use these words with some meaning other than their accepted published definitions removes the common ground element of communication.

My debate participant oscillated between supporting proponents of both Mysticism and Skepticism (which are logically in opposition) and being exposed to such "crazy making" anti-reasoning was challenging to say the least.  At one point he expressed having no certainty about "anything" (classic Skepticism); an unacceptable contention because I am not willing to doubt my mind's ability to form cogent interpretations of my perceptions - particularly when perceiving scientifically obtained results or any other self-evident truth. (To be certain, I am not referring to scientific skepticism which is simply the requirement of proof to substantiate knowledge.  I am specifically referring to the philosophy sector known as Skepticism - a doctrine that questions truth in knowledge, even doubting existence itself which of course is a logical absurdity).

Existence merits identification for the sake of our (humankind) understanding of the concept as such, and it is simply that existence exists.  Existence cannot be reduced to any other sub-part or component and therefore needs no other evaluation or verification.  An argument that would attempt to disprove existence would constitute an absurdity (i.e. proof by means of non-existence).

The laws of Nature are unequivocal, absolute universal corollaries of existence.  I do not mean to imply that all of Nature’s secrets are attainable.  Humankind obviously does not know or fully comprehend all of Nature’s secrets, and has miscalculated more than a few – but those discrepancies in the repository of human knowledge, in no way permit an existence that defies the natural laws.  Pardon the personification, but Nature doesn't care about the accuracy or inaccuracy of our theories concerning her order.  But the fact that Nature has secrets, and that we are as yet unable to decipher many of them, does not substantiate a general negation of knowledge and truths that have been observed and verified.  Factual, knowable information is not contingent on doubt.

The principles of an objective reality are self-evident and absolute.  (Note that I do not claim to offer proof of these principles.  An attempt to prove an irreducible self-evident principle would be equally as absurd as trying to disprove it.  To propose that these axioms are not self-evident truths would constitute a denial and evasion of reality.

By the same token, reality does not permit a claim of truth where there is no available evidence, such as the existence of god, or other such forms of mysticism or magical thinking.  The mystic’s claim of “knowledge” without any evidence to support the claim does not conform to the definition of knowledge and consequently represents nothing more than conjecture by speculation.

My debate contestant also asked what does logic have to do with the real world (implying that logic is only useful as a tool for proving Boolean expressions).  My answer was and is everything - provided that you intend on conducting your affairs and making decisions based on the precepts of reason and rational thought, but certainly logic has no bearing at all if you operate on a belief system rooted in mysticism. Thinking is an act of identifying and integrating information.  Logic is the application of non-contradictory identification.  Logic is the fundamental concept of method on which all other rational methods depend. The abandonment of logic is the first condition on which mysticism and Skepticism depend (which is likely the only commonality between those classically divergent camps).

I reject mysticism for accepting something as factual without proof, and I reject Skepticism for upholding that provable information cannot be conclusively substantiated or true.  Both of these contentions represent logical absurdities.  To assert that natural facts (i.e. existence) can not be proved is to create an unnatural dichotomy between logic and reality.  This kind of anti-reasoning is what Skepticism sustains.  Credulity in a system that permits this kind of abandonment of reason leaves its constituents within the confines of hopeless perpetual uncertainty.

The application of reason, which inherently sustains the integrity of knowledge and truth is freely available to anyone choosing to think rationally.  It is not a requirement that anyone subject themselves to the impairment of their cognitive faculties as demanded by the Skeptic and the Mystic.  Fortunately, reason and rational thinking are matters of volition.

~

Fascism American Style

American fascism is a long standing tradition that began with the arrival of Columbus and the establishment of Jamestown by the English.  In post-conquest America (after slavery and extermination of the aboriginals) fascism flourished in economic crisis.  The conservative movement today is directly derived from the Lincoln administration that defined the post-civil war oligarchic state - a vision embraced by every aspect of the modern American Republican party, from the support of the religious right, to their obsessive, mindless nationalism. This modern oligarchic movement is also blatantly racist, sexist, exclusionary, and determined to keep its hold on the American public through control of the media, and backed by its sustained implementation of military and para-military (police) force.

Some have told me that comparing the Republican party to Fascism is an extremist and alarmist point of view, but is it?  According to Wikipedia:

"Fascism is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology [that] seeks rejuvenation of the nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood through a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical education, and eugenics."

Sounds like modern conservatism to me.  The modern conservative (Republican) movement promotes social change through "moral revolution", and the glorification of nationalism, just as Fascism does. Fascism and Republican conservatism  reject internationalism, pacifism, liberalism.  Republican conservative values are rooted in the concepts of social class order in which 98 percent of the population are in servitude to the ruling 2 percent. Fascism and Republican conservatism are anti-feminist as evidenced by policies on birth control and abortion (just to mention two).

There may not have been a committed institutional partnership between conservative elites and the Bush administration but most observations would testify otherwise. Advent of an American version of totalitarianism as demonstrated by Nazi Germany and other fascist regimes blossomed in the wake of the World Trade Center disaster of September 11, 2001, and there seems to be no limiting the ever expanding police state.

The conservative faction supports and promotes terrorist action by law enforcement agencies against American citizens in peaceful protest.  From here, does it escalate to murder and targeting certain groups for elimination?  Or are we already there.  From the alternative minority (GLBTQ) point of view we certainly are.

Republicans target immigrants, gays, women, and liberals for persecution. Republicans do not want the public to recognize the need to replace the corrupt media, and a government system that gets away with stealing away rights under the banner of national security and moral values.

Anyway, I digress, and ramble on.  In the absence of returning to common sense and social sanity, at the very least, now that Osama bin Laden is dead, can we please have a little dignity returned to the mass transit experience -- do away with Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, and whatever other fascist implement that was enacted after 9/11?

Answer: Probably not in my lifetime.

~