If all men were Angels equipped with assault weapons, would there be any crime? If all men were demons equipped with nothing but their hands, would there be any crime? The former hypothetical universe supposes all men are perfect and equipped with assault weapons, but in such a universe zero crime does not occur because all perfect men do not commit crime. The latter hypothetical universe supposes all men are demons and are equipped with nothing but their natural hands, but in this universe assault weapons do not exist but crime still does because demons are naturally criminal.
The reality is that men are a union of demons and angels. Some men commit crime and some men commit no crime. If all men were angles then the world could be filled with most devastating weapons, but yet no crime will ever happen. If all men were demons then the world could be isolated from all weapons, but crime would still exist. So it would seem that to eliminate crime all that is needed is the absence of demons. However such a solution is not widely realized or widely excepted as plausible. Rather, the most common solution is to separate men from assault weapons. The problem here is not separating angels from assault weapons, but removing assault weapons from a demon.
A demon does not need a weapon or an assault weapon to commit a crime. So the question is what's the goal? To reduce crime or to reduce weapons? Although some men are committed to the notion that limiting a demons choice in weapons to less severe weaponry is better for the union of men. This implies that those same men believe three homicides is better than twenty homicides. However, any offensive homicide greater than zero is the mindset of a demon. But most likely these men (wanting to limit weaponry choice for demons) are not demons themselves. They just haven't pondered the hypothetical universe of angels and demons, and therefore don't realize that the correct solution is to remove demons, and not assault weapons. After all, angels can possess the most demonstrative weapons, and no crime will ever be committed.
So the correct solution is to remove demons, but this solution brings on it's own problem's. If there is to be a universe of angels then crime must not be committed to remove demons. So the problem is how to remove demons without crime or without infringing on the rights of others. Such rights include property, defense, and most importantly life. To successfully remove a demon: property must not be confiscated; an individuals ability to defend their-self must remain; and no ones life must not be taken in-justly. The difference between angels and demons must be understood inorder to realize the correct solution, and the biggest difference is love. Demons are absent from love, and if a demon were to ever receive and retain love it will cease to be a demon.
So now the problem becomes how to give love to a demon? It is widely known that all men are created equal. The fact though that all men are created equal does not mean in physical features. The meaning of, all mean are created equal, is referring to the rights all men have. Of course rights are not privileges because this implies rights are gifts from other men, this would mean rights post-cede creation. It is also quite obvious that not all men are not demons. Furthermore, with another hypothetical it becomes obvious that all men are not created as demons. To understand this, imagine a universe with only one person. This sole person is incapable of being a demon because there is no one else to commit crime against. So perhaps the problem is not how to retain love in a demon, but how to keep an angel from releasing love?
Just as a side note: There are numerous ways to keep any person from becoming a demon, such as but not limited to: thank-you's; appreciation; knowing the difference between right and wrong. Most importantly though, taking away liberties is never a way to retain love, because liberties imply rights, and rights are needed for love.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Thursday, November 8, 2012
One
When the word, "faith," is mentioned God may be the first thought that comes to mind. However the set of things that pertain to faith is much more than God, because faith is simply belief without proof.
People have faith that: global warming is real; taxing the wealthy will help others; college degrees are needed; gun laws prevent crime; food stamps help promote independence; the police will protect the public; others will help the poor; or electric cars are more environmentally friendly than gas powered cars.
Many of the things mentioned above are key issues for government action, but if faith is belief without proof then it should be apparent there is no justification for government to act on these issues. Moreover it should be noted that even though God and the other issues mentioned both require faith to believe in, they also each have a different element of faith. With God there is a personal faith. Someone's faith in God may be described to someone else, but that someone else will never have the same type of experience with God. On the other hand the other issues above share a public faith.
For example: we all experience the same weather; we all use the same currency; we can all strive to achieve the same college degrees; we can all own the same types of guns; recipients use the same food stamps (it's a form of currency); we share the same police officers; we all passed the same person asking for money on the side of the street; one chevy volt was built the same as the other.
There is nothing wrong with public faith or personal faith, it's just a title we can group them in. In fact faith is a very important part to human evolution. Faith is responsible for human ambitions, desires, and goals. All these things may lead to achievements. Someone who has ambitions to achieve something, such as, circumnavigating the globe, harnessing electricity, building skyscrapers in the clouds, or traveling to the moon. None the of the previous mentioned goals were known to be possible at their respective inceptions, in other words there was no proof these goals could be accomplished. However faith kept the human spirit persistent and these goals were eventually accomplished. Although since these goals were initially fueled by faith that means each one of them falls into the subsets of public faith or personal faith.
They all have potential of being a member of public faith, but only one goal, traveling to the moon, was fueled by public faith. Circumnavigating the globe is credited to Magellan. Allesandro Volta, is credited with making the first battery. Lastly Carnegie made steel cheaply and skyscrapers started to define the skylines. All of these being fueled by faith means there was uncertainty in the beginning, but since these goals were accomplished their faithful ties were cut. But the important thing to know is that, regardless of which type of faith fueled the goal, there was uncertainty in the beginning.
Now that it is apparent that goals fueled by faith are uncertain, it should also be apparent that government actions fueled by faith are uncertain as well. Moreover, all government goals fueled by faith are in the category of public faith, because we all share the same government. So it should also easily be understood that a government making policies about: global warming, redistribution, college degrees, gun laws, food stamps, police protection, funding the poor, subsidizing green energy; is an uncertain government.
So is an uncertain government an effective government? If such a government were to answer yes, then it would be an uncertain yes, and a possible no. If such a government were to answer no, then it would be an uncertain no, and a possible yes. Such a government's answer is no different than a guess, and a guess is essentially leaving things to chance. However, rolling dice for solutions is certainly not effective.
People have faith that: global warming is real; taxing the wealthy will help others; college degrees are needed; gun laws prevent crime; food stamps help promote independence; the police will protect the public; others will help the poor; or electric cars are more environmentally friendly than gas powered cars.
Many of the things mentioned above are key issues for government action, but if faith is belief without proof then it should be apparent there is no justification for government to act on these issues. Moreover it should be noted that even though God and the other issues mentioned both require faith to believe in, they also each have a different element of faith. With God there is a personal faith. Someone's faith in God may be described to someone else, but that someone else will never have the same type of experience with God. On the other hand the other issues above share a public faith.
For example: we all experience the same weather; we all use the same currency; we can all strive to achieve the same college degrees; we can all own the same types of guns; recipients use the same food stamps (it's a form of currency); we share the same police officers; we all passed the same person asking for money on the side of the street; one chevy volt was built the same as the other.
There is nothing wrong with public faith or personal faith, it's just a title we can group them in. In fact faith is a very important part to human evolution. Faith is responsible for human ambitions, desires, and goals. All these things may lead to achievements. Someone who has ambitions to achieve something, such as, circumnavigating the globe, harnessing electricity, building skyscrapers in the clouds, or traveling to the moon. None the of the previous mentioned goals were known to be possible at their respective inceptions, in other words there was no proof these goals could be accomplished. However faith kept the human spirit persistent and these goals were eventually accomplished. Although since these goals were initially fueled by faith that means each one of them falls into the subsets of public faith or personal faith.
They all have potential of being a member of public faith, but only one goal, traveling to the moon, was fueled by public faith. Circumnavigating the globe is credited to Magellan. Allesandro Volta, is credited with making the first battery. Lastly Carnegie made steel cheaply and skyscrapers started to define the skylines. All of these being fueled by faith means there was uncertainty in the beginning, but since these goals were accomplished their faithful ties were cut. But the important thing to know is that, regardless of which type of faith fueled the goal, there was uncertainty in the beginning.
Now that it is apparent that goals fueled by faith are uncertain, it should also be apparent that government actions fueled by faith are uncertain as well. Moreover, all government goals fueled by faith are in the category of public faith, because we all share the same government. So it should also easily be understood that a government making policies about: global warming, redistribution, college degrees, gun laws, food stamps, police protection, funding the poor, subsidizing green energy; is an uncertain government.
So is an uncertain government an effective government? If such a government were to answer yes, then it would be an uncertain yes, and a possible no. If such a government were to answer no, then it would be an uncertain no, and a possible yes. Such a government's answer is no different than a guess, and a guess is essentially leaving things to chance. However, rolling dice for solutions is certainly not effective.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)