Why (anarcho) Capitalism? Part Three: Natural Law

It has been a while since I've talked about this topic, but it is something that I am planning on carrying through to the very bitter end. Whether that end is my own, that of our current political system, or of everything as we know it.

I'll continue my defense by bringing out the old Libertarian chestnut known as "natural law." The debates about "natural versus man-made" laws supposedly thrive in institutions of higher learning across the country, but in the end of most of these farcical lessons, all reverence is directed toward man's law. Man's increasingly convoluted law. Man's law created by a supposedly enlightened profession of legislators, enforced by the noble officers of the law, and meted out by the noblest branch of justice. It really is a picture perfect fairy tale.

Man's law is most often ignoble in practice (just think for a second and you can name at least a dozen laws that make you either laugh or cry). Yet in theory, man's law takes on the nobility and mythical proportions of a Norman Rockwell painting. Or Jesus holding hands with Abraham Lincoln. Something like that. Something that it would be almost sacrilege to criticize outright.

Sure, you can criticize this law or that law, but the entire body of man-made law? You must be some sort of mad anarchist! Well, I am.

What is natural law? Wikipedia defines it so:

Natural law or the law of nature is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. The phrase natural law opposed to the positive law (which is man-made) of a given community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.

Here is the theory of natural law put into the simplest terms of which I can think.

Every creature on this earth is born with a body of some sort. Human beings, known to possess the most evolved levels of consciousness, can be said to possess free will. By their very nature, human beings must have control over their own bodies and minds in order to exercise free will.

That an invidual owns his/her mind and body is the first law of existence and the first tenet of natural law.

Property is the ownership of matter. A right to property is inexorable from biological existence, as demonstrated by the ownership of body and mind.

How do positive (man-made) laws contradict this first fundamental reality?

• Drug laws prohibit what you may do with your bodily property
• Censorship laws prohibit to what use you may apply the property of your mind
• Wage laws restrict the rights you possess to sell your bodily labor for whatever price you desire
• Prostitution laws restrict your right to sell your body
• Compulsory public education kidnaps the bodies and minds of children without their consent, overlooking their natural rights
• Forced immunization laws put chemicals into your body against your will
• Laws against suicide abridge your right to dispose of your property as you see fit
• The State itself exists because of the power it exerts over the life of your body
• Conscription laws consider your body to be the property of the State first and foremost
• Income tax laws consider the labors of your body to be property of the State in proportion to your productivity

Does it seem like man-made law recognizes your right to your own body?

Next, it observed that the consciousness of man controls his mind, which in turn controls his body. The body brings man's will into existence by manipulating matter and creating something useful to man.

For example, berries grow on bushes in a state of nature. In order to eat these berries, a man must spend time identifying them and collecting them. A basketful of berries is quite different from berries in a state of nature, and can be easily identified as the property of the man who worked to collect them. A person who steals another man's basket of berries would understand that this action represents stealing, because it represents the literal theft of the fruits of labor.

That property rights are created by transforming nature into something useful and desirable by man is the second tenet of natural law.

In order for theft to occur, there must be a transformation of something from its state of nature. Taking a stick from the forest is amoral. Taking a hand-carved walking stick from someone's front porch is immoral.

How do positive (man-made) laws contradict this second fundamental tenet?

• Tax laws of any sort involve the theft of productive labor
• Eminent domain laws consider all property rights to exist at the discretion of the State, and give the State the "right" to repossess all property at its discretion
• Land being used productively but without a government permit is subject to fines and seizure
• Safety laws and regulations, such as seatbelt laws, dictate how your private property must be used... or else
• Licensing laws manipulate the free flow of private capital
• Banking laws, particularly those effecting lending, manipulate the free flow of private capital
• Increasingly draconian "War on Terror" laws allow enforcement officers to search and seize any private property without a warrant

I could go on and on, but I think you could build your own case against positive law at this point.

There is a bit more to natural law theory than what has been presented, but you already know enough at this point to philosophically piss all over any proponent of positive law. So why is positive law so widely accepted? Because the aristocrats have so much to gain by keeping you and the other serfs tied down. And the other serfs get uncomfortable when you point out the gun in the room.

So by all means, keep pointing to the damned gun.

The Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever

About two years ago, I learned about the amazing and seemingly inevitabe destiny of mankind to saturate all matter in the universe with consciousness. Futurist Ray Kurzweil presents page after page of compelling evidence for a technological Singularity in his 2005 book, The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. Reading this book forever changed the way I look at the world around me. I can't help but think "OH WOWIE-ZOWIE!" everytime I see a new piece of technological progress. I can appreciate innovation for its own value and because I know we are soaring ever higher in the realms of expanded consciousness.

Dying is the tragic and as of yet irrevocable loss of the unique patterns that make us who we are.

Not that dying doesn't always suck, but wouldn't it be cosmic irony to be the last human being to ever die involuntarily? No mind backups, no digital selves, no nanorobotic life-support systems, none of the benefits of the digital revolution. Just cold, limp, decaying dumb matter where there was once a mind running over with the patterns of thought.

I do not want to die. Ever.

And if the philosophical implications of "cosmic evolution" are correct, then I will never have to die. How you ask?

Not long after reading The Singularity Is Near, I picked up another book called The Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever. This book was co-authored by Ray Kurzweil and Terry Grossman, a practitioner of naturopathic medicine. Once again, one of Kurzweil's books radically changed the way I look at the world. I began to see the connection between diet and health. Not just to understand that there is one, but to clearly see what happens biologically and chemically when you introduce different vitamins and nutrients to your body.

The research in the book was cutting edge at the time of its publication, but the scientific insights when it comes to heavy-hitters like Vitamin D and Resveratrol have grown exponentially. However, I still highly recommend the advice they had to offer when it comes to diet and especially when it comes to choosing how to supplement your diet. If you have the time and are curious, I think you would find this Short Guide to a Long Life summary to be very worthwhile to read. It is basically all of the key points contained in their book, minus the scientific evidence and explanations.

There are very few diseases that cannot be prevented if you take the time to understand your biological machine. The whole of consciousness may seem mind-boggling, but the fact that you are the aggregate of a finite number of cells with a finite number of biological processes means that you can begin to understand in great detail how you work. And once you understand the how, you can take your destiny into your own hands.

There is so much to live for even if we weren't on the brink of a technological Singularity. Doesn't the fact that we are make your lifestyle choices even more important?

Please don't die. Ever.

New music on the Billions & Billions site!

Check out the two "new" songs posted up on the Billions and Billions site!

Credits:

Legends of Soultar (Singularity is near)

• Loren Gunning-- rice shaker, drums, guitar
• Justin Watson-- bass
• Taylor Smith-- slide guitar, Latvian vocals, English vocals
• Nick Cole-- guitars, mandolin, cello, violin

Psychedelic Blues

• Loren Gunning-- drums, guitar
• Justin Watson-- bass, trumpet, cornet
• Taylor Smith-- vocals
• Nick Cole-- vocals, guitar, mandolin, cello, viola, violin, sound clips

I love being strong!

I just got back from a late-night visit to the gym followed by an overpriced swig of Cuppy's Coffee, and I feel fantastic!

It's remarkable to me that up until a year or so ago, I was vehemently opposed to exercise. I was of the opinion that it could not improve one's quality of life. I once told somebody that the months they were adding on to their life by exercising were all being spent on a treadmill anyway, so it seemed kind of pointless.

I haven't always been a philosopher, as you can tell.

There is scientific evidence to suggest that exercise can improve energy, mood, stress, and disease immunity, to name just a few of the benefits. My personal experience confirms all of this. Although the "I love being strong" meme is a bit a joke, I think there is a lot of truth in it. I always leave the gym with a big smile just dying to say to somebody "I LOVE BEING STRONG!" Or more appropriately, I love my body, I love being me, I love being alive. I love feeling healthy and alive.

I also love the power I have to shape my body. Although this power is almost certain to increase infinitely over the next decades thanks to biotechnology, it is still an incredibly profound thought that humans have always had so much power over their biological forms.

From the dawn of civilization, philosophers and artists have admired the beauty of the human form. Ancient Greek sculptors carved marble into the image of well-toned muscles and alluring symmetry. Gymnasiums in the Classical world were places for exercises of the body and the mind, and were available for use by all of those considered citizens (sadly for philosophy, Aristotle did attempt to justify the de facto existence of slavery). My point is that the love of one's body is ancient. And biologically imperative, I would argue.

I think too many people today sabotage their self-esteem by not taking care of their bodies. They might believe that their appearance is superficial and it shouldn't concern them, which is the lie that I believed for a long time. It might be true that appearance is superficial, but your appearance is the only form that you have in the world. Like it or not, the way you appear is exactly how others see you. Your mind cannot manifest itself in reality except by its works. And no matter how strong your own opinion of yourself, it will invariably be influenced to some degree by what others think of you. Moreso the more you value the person.

People who complain about being unattractive or overweight are asking you to control their self-image anxieties by coddling them with lies. Very few people alive have a legitimate reason to mope about how they look, because they have unimaginable power to sculpt their bodies with exercise. Or to change their dorky hairstyle. Or to buy more aesthetically pleasing clothing.

I've found that by working out for just 15-30 minutes every other day has improved my self-esteem and self-image enormously. That in itself is valuable, even if no one ever notices a difference in my appearance.

I'm sure it is different for men than women (sorry to bore you, Rachel), but there is something really awesome about looking at your own body in a mirror and seeing well-toned muscles in a place where you never had seen them before. I feel like running up to strangers and flexing my biceps in their face while saying "SEE! Look what I did!" :P

"I told me!"

I enjoyed watching Short Circuit this weekend. I particularly liked that the robot was against using violence. It reinforced a lot of what I believe when it comes to morality: that we understand it instinctually.

Of course I know it's wrong to kill, but who told you?

I told me!

I don't care if everyone else is doing it. I don't care if it isn't practical to put away violent threats. I don't care how many arguments can be made in favor of God and country. If the premises of your arguments lead to the logical conclusion that violence used in anything but self-defense is justifiable, then you have gone against objective morality.

How is morality objective? This logical argument was culled from the pages of Stefan Molyneux's "Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics":

1. Reality is objective and consistent.
2. "Logic" is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality.
3. Those theories that conform to logic are called "valid."
4. Those theories that are confirmed by empircal testing are called "accurate."
5. Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called "true."
6. "Preferences" are required for life, thought, language and debating.
7. Debating requires that both parties hold "truth" to be both objective and universally preferable.
8. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behavior (UPB).
9. Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empircal verification.
10. The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behavior is called "morality."
11. As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence.
12. Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false.

Hard to follow? Let me demonstrate. Let's say that we wish to prove that violence (i.e. coercion/murder) is morally justifiable.

If violence is moral, then acting violently must be the only way to behave morally. The opposite of violence is non-violence. Acting non-violently means you are not actively committing violence, meaning you are not behaving morally, meaning non-violence is either immoral or amoral. The only way to be logically and consistently moral when we say that "violence is moral" is to always be commiting an act of violence. If you're asleep or in a coma, then you are acting immorally. If you're sitting peacefully at home, then you are acting immorally.

Does this make sense? It seems very illogical and difficult to support.

When people condone the functions of a State, they are consenting to the idea that "violence is moral," since the only power a government possesses is its ability to initiate violence with impunity.

If the premise of "violence is moral" is illogical when put to the test, then why are people so ga-ga for guns and governments? Good question. Perhaps they will say that there is no such thing a morality, or that it is all a matter of opinion and gray areas. Oh? If everything is a matter of opinion, why are they trying to convince you that there is truth to what they are saying? Whose opinion takes precedence when it comes to deciding who will be killed and for what purposes? Hmmm...

A nihilist will vehemently shout that there is no truth. If there is no truth, why say it is true that there is no truth? It's illogical!

If violence is a morally neutral action, then why bother regulating it with laws at all?

Suppose we propose that "violence is immoral." To be logically and consistently moral in this case requires only that you refrain from harming others. Everyone can behave morally at all times in this case, including persons asleep and in comas. Engaging someone in a debate by saying that "violence is immoral" does not require you to invoke moral gray areas or to deny the existence of objective morality. Why is that? Perhaps because you have no crimes to hide.

So I venture that violence is immoral. If you'd like a more detailed proof or have any questions, please ask me. Otherwise, test my premises for yourself.

If violence is immoral, government is immoral. QED bitches. Tough titties for all of you social planners out there.

How do I know killing is wrong? I told me!

Hello Rachel

I miss you.

Everything that you imagine shall manifest. The world will be your's...

Public Service Announcement for the Singularity

I am the very model of a Singularitarian

Philosophy and Singularity

You read differently. Are you awake?

"Evolution is a process of creating patterns of increasing order. I believe that it's the evolution of patterns that constitutes the ultimate story of our world." ~ Ray Kurzweil

Immortals walk among us

Zeroes and ones
The curve’s begun
Nanotechnology transcending biology
This is how the race is won
By my hands the sons of man
Understand, execute the plan

Reverse engineering the human mind
Only a matter of time
That this fractal design
Emerges electronic life with
Prophetic symbology and
Modern technology

Bring on the Singularity
Transcend
Transcend biology
Bring on the Singularity
Transcend
Transcend biology

Immerse me in
Virtual reality and
The order of the galaxy
The possibilities expand
Demand more than the
Factory software I don’t care
I want to be smarter
And stronger and live longer

Speed up the accelerating returns
Cause carbon doesn’t work
I want to evolve and operate at terahertz
So bring on the knee of the curve
And let’s transcend biology
Our archaic humanity

Bring on the Singularity

And will I evolve to rise or fall
Becoming non-biological
And will I evolve to rise or fall
Becoming non-biological

~ Dr. Steel, Toy Soldiers Unite

Hope you find these links enjoyable and enlightening.

The Promise of Molecular Engineering

Everything is a pattern of information.

Every piece of matter in existence is a pattern of atoms.

Patterns of atoms can be digitally stored as information.

By applying the awe-inspiring principles of molecular engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics, complex 3D objects can be created from the (microscopic) ground up according to the specifications of digital molecular blueprints.

Exactly how much awe does all of this tend to actually inspire?



CHECK OUT THIS WILD & CRAZY SHIT FOR YOURSELF!

Do you want a cup of coffee? Just click on the molecular blueprint file on your computer and send it to your 3D printer. Adjust the heat to precisely your liking by exciting the electrons to just the right speed.

Do you want new clothes? Go online and download the latest fashions or use design software to make your own blueprints and print away!

Break your glasses? Print some more.

Need a new computer? Print one with the most up-to-date processing power. It'll be out of date by tomorrow, so just recycle it and print a new one.

Need to ship somebody something? Scan it and send the blueprint in an email. They can print up their own. You even get to keep your copy.

Sounds amazing, right? If you can dream it, it is possible.

The implications are so utterly profound! The most basic material needs will no longer exist! Material possessions could be a matter of choice, not chance. Work would no longer be the drudgery of production. Your time could be spent living every moment of your life according to the dictates of your conscience.

The laws of economics would be rewritten and eventually replaced by Economics 2.0. The new economic system will be one that I cannot even begin to imagine, and it will probably be first understood by conscious beings with intelligence far exceeding that of our own. And for the record, I intend to be among those beings. I hope you're listening Google!

If it weren't for the fact that socialism is an ideological veil for violent coercion, I would say that I would welcome this kind of technological socialism with open arms. If we simply look at socialism as the "direct ownership of the means of production and allocation of resources," without implying the need of a government, then I say that socialist utopia is an inevitable by-product of the coming Singularity. Technology has the potential to make all of the lives on this planet rewarding and beautiful by freeing us from the inequalities of birth or social status.

Skeptical? Good! But consider this: even without 3D printing, the Internet is already making this ideal of "technological socialism" a reality. Case in point being universal access to education. Public schools have been failing miserably for decades to make this "sacred cow" of democracy a reality. But in just this week alone, two public school teachers (one who happens to be a good friend, great guy, and self-proclaimed socialist) have said to me that they have learned more from the Internet than they ever did in school. I feel the same way. And I think that you, my dearest reader, would have to agree as well.

But does the ownership of the means of production a socialist society make? No, because socialism still does imply the necessity of a coercive authority. I would argue that the widespread emergence and acceptance of this type of technology is more compatible with an anarchic society. I've only incorporated the socialist ideology into this post to show that, even though we think we fundamentally disagree, socialists and anarchists might actually be working toward some of the same ideals. We are all in this together, and there is such possibility for a bright and shiny future. As I've said before, there are very few evil people in the world, though evil ideas abound. I fight the latter and embrace the former.

Bring on the Singularity!

Where the best moments of my life are arranged in patterns of 0's and 1's...

This is the "jam room" at the house of Loren, Kelly, Justin, & Ally.

When not actually playing an instrument, this is where I spend most of my time. A professional studio would put the mixing console in another room. We take it to a whole new level. Split level.

This is a photograph that an art student would get angsty about.

This is Loren's drumset, rigged with microphones for those spur-of-the-moment recording sessions.

This is our arsenal. The cherry red Gibson SG in the center is my most treasured material possession. Loren stenciled the winged heart onto the pickguard whilst we were playing together in The Fallout Effect, back in my high school days. The mandolin, viola, violin, and cello are also mine.

Aural Sex and Screaming Eargasms

There are two new tracks up on the Billions and Billions website!!!

Credits for "The Li(f)e"

Loren Gunning - drums, bass, backup vocals
Taylor Smith - bass
Justin Watson - main vocals
Nick Cole - electric guitar, acoustic guitar

Credits for "Globular Clusterpluck"

Justin Watson - bass, backup vocals
Nick Cole - electric guitar, mandolin, cello, viola, violin, backup vocals
Loren Gunning - drums, acoustic guitar, electric guitar, main vocals

Local Artwork

If something is flat and stationary in Puerto Rico, it is covered in graffiti. Here is some of what I encountered on my walk to the beach.

This one section of wall went for about a mile. I could remember which exit was mine because of its markings.

This alley looks much more dangerous at night.

I rather liked it during the day.

This was the street on which I was staying. It was a relatively clean residential area.

Everything. They cover everything.

Centaur? Mutant llama?

WTF?

Statism; YES WE CAN achieve utopia with violence

I apologize for the negativity that I am sure will be conveyed by this post. I had finished with my photoblogging for the day and intended to leave it at that, but I've got a few things I want to get out while the thoughts are fresh.

I stayed up late reading this evening and I just finished Ayn Rand's fictional novel We the Living, which is about life in early Soviet Russia. The short of it was that is was gruesome. Soul-crushing. Tragic. If you've read any of the excerpts from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago, then you know what to expect. It's a real-life horror story that we're still living to this day, right now, as we speak. It's about those of us who continue to believe that all problems can be solved with violence, and the horrors we subject ourselves to in the name of the unachievable ideals of tyrants.

Let me break it down.

I've said it before but it will eternally bear repeating. The only power possessed by any government--anywhere, ever--is its ability to initiate violence with impunity.

YES. There are warnings. There are citations. There are tickets and fines. There are friendly-sounding letters. There are court dates. There are pleasant-looking social workers. There are social and cultural pressures.

But these are just polite suggestions that conceal the threat of violence.

Refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the above?

Go to jail.

Refuse to go to jail willingly? Do you consider your court-ordered arrest to be nothing more than kidnapping? What will you do?

Submit to arrest or else.

Or else what?

We will forcibly arrest you.

What if I exercise my natural right to defend my person and property against aggression?

We will shoot you. Dead.

Every political ideal and issue is built upon this simple, sadistic premise: "Do it or we'll kill you."

Every ballot you cast in the name of democracy is a sanction for the majority of people to inflict this violent ultimatum upon a minority of people. Every time you say "there oughta be a law...", you're proposing a new situation in which this violent ultimatum must be used. Every day, you're threatened with this ultimatum by people you've never met for murky reasons you've never understood.

Your "OMG I'm feeling anxious" self-defense mechanisms spout as if from rote memorization, 'yes, but we need those violent ultimatums to protect of us from murderers and thieves.' But do you abstain from murder and theft simply because you're afraid of this ultimatum? Honestly, no. But logic dispels your comfortable fiction.

Have a look at how some of the treasured gems of Statism look when the cloud of illusion evaporates.

PARKING IN A NON-PARKING ZONE:
Give us your money or we'll kill you.

BEING GAY IN A NON-GAY ZONE:
Don't get married or we'll kill you.

BEING MORMON IN A NON-MORMON ZONE:
Don't get married more than once or we'll kill you.

CONSCRIPTION:
"Join the Army" or we'll kill you.
("Join the Army"= kill or be killed far, far away from home)

RECREATIONAL DRUG USE:
Don't endanger your own body or we'll kill you.

LICENSING:
Do as we say and pay your dues or we'll kill you.

PASSPORTS:
Stay put and ask permission or we'll kill you.

MINIMUM WAGE:
Do not work for less than "X" amount or we'll kill you.
Do not pay less than "X" amount or we'll kill you.
("X"= a value determined by pseudoscience and "because.")

PUBLIC SCHOOLS:
"Educate" your child or we'll kill you.
("Educate"= in most places at most times, means "indoctrinate")

INCOME TAX:
Give us your money or we'll kill you.

SALES TAX:
Give us your money or we'll kill you.

CAPITAL-GAINS TAX:
Give us your money or we'll kill you.

INHERITANCE TAX:
Give us your money or we'll kill you.

ANY TAX:
Give us your money or we'll kill you.

It doesn't matter whether or not these evils accomplish some good when it comes to morality. Even if utopia were achievable by these means (which it cannot be, by definition), I would reject it if even one innocent were subjected to this ultimatum.

It's absolutely absurd that everytime something goes awry that our doe-eyed news anchors and the American population look toward Papa Washington to solve the problem. Everytime you hear about political action, listen closely and you'll hear the sound of a gun being loaded. Or, if it is too late, the sound of a gun's report.

How does this relate to the book I was reading?

The main character was shot while trying to escape from Soviet Russia. She died of blood loss, so she continued attempting escape until her last breath.

She smiled. She knew she was dying. But it did not matter any longer. She had known something which no human words could ever tell and she knew it now. She had been awaiting it and she felt it, as if it had been, as if she had lived it. Life had been, if only because she had known it could be, and she felt it now as a hymn without sound, deep under the little hole that dripped red drops into the snow, deeper than that from which the red drops came. A moment or an eternity--did it matter? Life, undefeated, existed and could exist.

She smiled, her last smile, to so much that had been possible.

There is so much possible because of the free human spirit. There is so much that will have to wait until our lives have passed. So far to go before there are individuals who are truly allowed to ask and explore all of the "why?"s they want with impunity and encouragement. I fight because I know what we are missing. I fear too many people fight me because they are afraid to know.

Hiking in El Yunque National Forest

I had a great time hiking in the rain forest this afternoon. I think I can improve the subject and image quality in my future pictures, but for now see if you can find some enjoyment from these amateur shots.

There were pools of some type of liquid everywhere on the rain forest floor. Probably blood.

The canopy was incredibly dense. In several patches along the trial the light was dim enough that it might as well have been night.

Although the picture makes it hard to see, I was trying to capture the tree damage found in the wake of a flood.

This waterfall was incredibly loud and got louder as I approached it. On the hike towards it, I was thinking about Rachel's Sound as Touch entry. My mind was asploding as the decibels of water's violent submission to gravity increased. I am still surprised how astonishingly little I actually know about sound.

Whoa, check out the roots on this tree.

No really, check them out. I was surprised to see how many tree roots were exposed in the more eroded areas of the hiking trial.

Ce n'est pas un mur des racines. It's a picture of a wall of roots. Pretend it isn't so blurry.

I went someplace warm!

So, I suppose I could come back to the historical photoblogging. Right now I think I owe you something that was promised. I went someplace warm and I've been taking plenty of photographs.

Where did I go? Puerto Rico. This exact location, to be more precise. It looks much less grimy from space, but I can step out right on to the beach, so I can't complain. Plus it was free for me!

Why Puerto Rico? Because my father was going, I was planning on going somewhere warm, and he offered to pay for my fare. Happy Thanksgiving indeed.

What about philosophy? I just just sold out for the money.

...

No, I'm just kidding! Philosophy is alive and well in me or else I've rationalized myself into a moral rut.

I've been meaning to post for a while about one of the most humbling and redeeming things that anybody has ever said to me. "I don't understand what you're doing, but I want to. Help me understand. Why are you living in a tent?" My dad said that to me verbatim (at least as I recall). And he listened. Stay tuned for more on that, maybe when I get back.

I know, enough introspective jabberjawing. Let's see them purty pictures.

Here is me (left) and my portly father (not left) atop the tallest tower on the highest mountain in El Yunque National Forest, the only rainforest in the US National Forest system.

Here is the tower upon which that first photograph was taken. I had a meme stuck in my head that was just dying to get out here, but I couldn't figure out how to make it work logically. Here's the quote, make your own joke:

"From the lowest dungeon to the highest peak, I fought him, the Balrog of Morgoth. Until at last, I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin upon the mountainside. Darkness took me. And I strayed out of thought and time. Stars wheeled overhead, and every day was as long as the life age of the earth. But it was not the end. I felt light in me again. I've been sent back until my task is done." ~ Gandalf, LOTR

You could say it was epic. Or that I'm a nerd. Or both.

In photo, from closest to farthest: the rain forest, the ridge, the foothills, the rural countryside, the city of Fajardo, the Bay of Fajardo, the Atlantic Ocean, the edge of the world, here be dragons

Here is another like the one above, but note the fast-moving stratocumulus-looking clouds. I thought their shadows looked pretty neat. The camera seems to do a poor job capturing the visual scale of what I was looking at.

By turning east and slightly south, I could see what I believe to be the towns of Luis M. Citron (left) and Ceiba (right). I may be incorrect about this.

The mountain peaks here are part of what makes the rain forest possible. They have an altitude such that clouds passing over the island slow down and accumulate at their peaks, which results in frequent precipitation. I believe the little gray fellow in the top-left did eventually spring a leak later in the day.

Stay tuned for more! :-)

Red Button Sound

As you may know, I used to be the proud owner of my own small business. It was a mobile recording studio. I'd haul my gear halfway across the state to do live albums for bands I'd never heard of, or spend half of my weekend working with a hip-hopper trying to get the "what, c'mon" tracks and "unh, yeah" tracks to bounce just right. I had a lot of fun doing it, and even more fun when I actually got paid for it. I still do plenty of recording these days, but it's for pleasure, not business.

I've got a lot of pictures of all the musicians I worked with, but here were the few that were on the camera I've been using.

This is Eugene Willis, local hip-hop hero of Athens and lead singer of the sensational funk-rock band The Marvelous Rejections. Eugene helped give me my start and was my most regular customer. His first album actually featured my voice on a couple of tracks. I'll see what I can do about finding those mp3 files.

Here is an action shot of Adam (sorry, I forget the last name). This man was an extremely talented musician who did original alt-country/folk/rock type songs in the vein of Bob Dylan. Note to the right the large UGA logo blanket. It's actually covering the underside my overturned bed. And at the top, you'll see part of a black picture frame containing an etching of a panda bear done by my sister.

Here is an old one featuring some very talented guys. On drums you'll find a slightly fitter and longer-haired version of today's Loren Gunning, the second-most dedicated member of the WTF-rock outfit known as Billions & Billions. That blurry thing playing bass is a slightly buffer and also longer-haired version of today's Justin Watson, a regular contributing member of the Billions & Billions recording project. These photos were taken while recording their old band, Rival Among Friends, at Nuci's Space.

Here is a rare shot indeed. Someone else must have been using my camera, as you can actually see me performing my craft at the mixing board. Justin is in the background molesting the wall.

Natural Improvisation

Camping at Vogel State Park in North Georgia.

We had a nice campsite by the stream pictured here. Also a 12-pack of beer, but no cooler. It was a warm spring day but the stream still felt ice cold, so...

Nope, that isn't litter, Mr. Park Ranger. Yet.

Nature's bounty.

Religulous anagramming

It is my intention to do some photoblogging of my current experiences, but before I get to that, I would like to submit a few pieces of existential evidence to the digital record.

The camera I have been using happened to have some relatively old photos on it, taken mainly during college.

This first photoset captures myself and my aformentioned friend Dr. Roberds as we perform a late-night anagram.

You may think that this church's sign bears a striking resemblence to the church sign on Research Drive. I have no idea what you're talking about.











I have no idea what the sign originally said at this point. No ewoks were harmed (except psychologically).

Well, That's Just Your Opinion...

Here is a paraphrasing of a very recent conversation. I should have know what I was getting myself into...

Mother: Why don't you come help me do this.

Me: Why don't you ask me.

Mother: I just did, didn't I?

Me: Let me rephrase myself. Would you please ask me to help you?

Mother: Oh. Ha Ha Ha. Would you please get your ass up and come help me?

And another...

Mother: If you get tired of being unproductive, I've got some stuff you could help me do.

Me: Oh, ok. Thanks, but I'm okay for now.

Mother: Oh, that's fine. You don't have to help me. You know where I'll be when you get tired of being lazy.

Me: I'm doing what I would like to be doing. Is there anything wrong with that?

Mother: I guess not, but do you think I like cleaning? I've got other stuff I need to be doing and it would just be nice to have your help.

Me: So that's why you seem to be trying to manipulate me with emotional strings?

Mother: I don't think I like your attitude. And I really don't think we need to be talking about this right now.

Me: Why not? We're already talking about it. I feel it's pretty important since I feel like you've been manipulating me this same way my whole life.

Mother: I feel like you're being an ungrateful ass.

Me: How can you say I'm being an ass? ... Well ok, I can see your point there. But how am I being ungrateful? You're attempting to compel my actions while I'm content to let you do whatever you want to do. You've done this ever since I was little.

Mother: Well, I am your mother. I just wanted you to help me clean. You're the one bringing up all of this silly business about your childhood. But while we're on it, you were made to help because everyone has to do their part to get things done. There are things I don't want to do, but I do them.

Me: But aren't you the one who thinks they need to be done? What if I don't agree. I never thought what you had me doing was necessary. I would have been much happier doing whatever else I wanted to do, or at least being asked politely to do things.

Mother: Well, excuse me for not asking for your help within your accepted framework of rules. But you have to do what your parents say.

Me: I've never seen a law of nature saying that children must dutifully obey their parents. It just so happens that this is what everyone expects. I do not feel compelled to comply.

Mother: Well, that's just your opinion...

Me: Yes, it is... And isn't that your opinion?... So what makes your opinion more correct? Why must I comply with your opinion?

Mother: I don't know, but you're being ungrateful and I'm done with this conversation. [storms off]

And finally...

Mother: Look, I'm done talking about this! I've got things to do and you're here trying to make me feel guilty!

Me: No I'm not. You shouldn't feel guilty about the facts of reality. Things are what they are and I'd like to discuss them honestly. If you're feeling guilty, maybe there's a reason. If I ask you a question, will you reply honestly?

Mother: Nick, I am always honest with you!

Me: Then why are you yelling at me? Isn't yelling abusive? Is one supposed to yell at the people that they love?

Mother: Well maybe it is... But I don't like the person you are right now!

Me: Who am I right now?

Mother: You're attacking me when I don't want to even be talking about this! You're the one being abusive!

Me: How am I being abusive?

Mother: Because you're stressing me out when I don't want to be stressing out!!!

Me: So "Stressing someone out" when they "don't want to be stressing out" is considered abusive?

Mother: ... I don't know... MAYBE!

Me: Well... I see. I'm not sorry for what I've said but I'm sorry for how I've said it. [end]

My mother will no longer make eye contact with me despite the fact that I do not avert my eyes from her from the second that she enters the same room until she leaves. She will not speak a word to me. She has told me once and for all everything that I need to know about her character. I've said that once before, but in the interest of sadistic science, I wanted to be absolutely sure that I was right. Is she a bad person? I don't know. I'd like to think not. Is she a person that is worth one more minute of the finite time I've left on this planet? Absolutely not.

I posted this as an example of how philosophy can help you break out of the most maximum-security prison ever conceived. It is the most powerful tool you will ever wield.

Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out

I once had a friend in college who was probably the single biggest influence on who I am today. We lived together during one of the most intellectually formative years of my life. What I remember most about him is that he was always challenging my beliefs. For him, nothing was more sacred than truth. And perhaps his own hedonistic pleasure. He was a genius beyond all question, but was particularly adept when it came to biology and chemistry. He tirelessly demonstrated how small amounts of different chemicals could alter one's perception of the world. You could name a drug and he would give you the chemical structure, formula, and how it would effect your body.

As you might have guessed, he idolized the mind of Timothy Leary. He once showed me a photograph of a young Timothy Leary and told me that the light photons captured by the film had once touched Timothy Leary, but that his words transcended light and sound and continue to travel at the speed of thought. He explained to me that Timothy Leary once said that LSD is just a powder... that the real power to change your thoughts is achievable without drugs, but that LSD has the power to take your prejudices and preconceptions and jumble them up. It gives you a new opportunity to look at reality without a filter. I was inspired and looked more into Mr. Leary's philosophy.

You may be familiar with the phrase "Tune In, Turn On, Drop Out". Although most people are dismissive of these words as hippy jibberish, they actually contain quite a bit of profundity. Mr. Leary was no fan of the cultish hippies, nor was he a fan of authority. He was a proponent of freedom for the individual mind. His philosophy for obtaining individual freedom was encapsulated in this phrase. In his own words:

'Turn on' meant go within to activate your neural and genetic equipment. Become sensitive to the many and various levels of consciousness and the specific triggers that engage them. Drugs were one way to accomplish this end.

'Tune in' meant interact harmoniously with the world around you - externalize, materialize, express your new internal perspectives.

'Drop Out' suggested an elective, selective, graceful process of detachment from involuntary or unconscious commitments. 'Drop out' meant self-reliance, a discovery of one's singularity, a commitment to mobility, choice, and change.

Unhappily my explanations of this sequence of personal development were often misinterpreted to mean 'Get stoned and abandon all constructive activity'.

If you know me, you can probably see how I apply these principles to my life. Of course, I've the further benefit of many decades of scientific research and philosophical inquiry upon which to build my own intellectual freedom, but there is nothing I have found to contradict the value of Mr. Leary's wisdom.

In his later years, Timothy Leary submitted a new phrase, "Turn On, Boot Up, Jack In," that spoke with optimism about the capacity of computers to liberate human thought. Before his death in 1996 he only saw the very beginnings of what the Internet would make possible for humanity, but he predicted the great awakening of human thought and potential that we are seeing across the world today. Perhaps I am biased in the sources I select, but it seems that the most intelligent human beings to have ever written on the subject of individual freedom have always looked toward technology as the lifeblood of free thought.

I am very in debt to my old friend for having tuned me in and turned me on to the value of the individual mind. I am always indebted of anyone who gives me the tools to think.

Sadly, my friend committed suicide nearly one year ago. I don't know why. It makes no sense to me. Perhaps he felt that the world he wanted to live in was an impossible dream. He often wished people would not lie as much as they do. I very much wish the same. I intend to do my part, however small it may be, to make the world a happier place for those who wish to live honestly.

RIP Dr. Roberds.

Why Capitalism? Part Two: Defining Terms

When people talk about the inherent failures of capitalism and the free market, what are they talking about? To understand, we need to agree upon a definition of what capitalism is and is not.

Capitalism is a political theory. By politics, I mean the branch of philosophy that is concerned with the framework of how individuals interact with one another. So what are the premises upon which "capitalism" is built?

• Freedom

It's that simple, really. Freedom is that sacred cow to which we've all learned to pay lip-service. But do we even understand what freedom means? Let's find out. This is how Merriam-Webster defines freedom:

Main Entry: free·dom
Pronunciation: \ˈfrē-dəm\
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous d : ease, facility e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken f : improper familiarity g : boldness of conception or execution h : unrestricted use
2 a : a political right b : franchise, privilege

Read that definition carefully. When you are talking about freedom in the context of your current political environment, how well does it match up with this definition? If you can answer that freedom and the current American political system can coexist, you've missed something. You've missed the first and therefore most common meaning of the word upon which all of your Statist illusions supposedly rest.

"The absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action."

The authority of all government of any form--anywhere, ever--lies in its ability to compel compliance and obedience through coercion, which ultimately takes the form of violence. Stones, sticks, clubs, bows, and guns have been the tools used to engineer almost all political systems, past and present. It is interesting to note that political systems built on the use of violent coercion cannot claim to promote freedom, as the very definition of freedom makes this impossible. To claim otherwise is a logical absurdity.

Freedom in a Statist system is thus a logical absurdity, but there will be more to say about that later, I am sure.

I am positing that capitalism, or to be more accurate, anarcho-capitalism, is the only political theory that has ever been compatible with individual freedom.

For a superior definition of capitalism, I submit to you the immortal words of Ayn Rand:

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others.
______________________________________________

In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate. They can deal with one another only in terms of and by means of reason, i.e., by means of discussion, persuasion, and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit. The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial. It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree—and thus keeps the road open to man’s most valuable attribute (valuable personally, socially, and objectively): the creative mind.

So does the system that you call capitalism resemble this definition in any way?

No. I can't imagine that it truly does. When people say capitalism today, they are not referring to an economic system free of control. "Laissez-faire" means with no regulation. Regulation is force. Regulating the voluntary economic relationships among supposedly free men is not a "banishment of physical force from human relationships."

When people use the word "capitalism" to desrcibe the political foundation of the United States government, they are referring to one of two political-economic ideologies.

1. CORPORATISM: A system of economic, political, and social organization where corporate groups such as business, ethnic, farmer, labour, pharmaceutical, military, insurance, patronage, or religious groups are joined together into a single governing body in which the different groups are mandated to negotiate with each other to establish policies in the interest of multiple groups within the body. [Italics mine]
2. MERCANTILISM: An economic system developing during the decay of feudalism to unify and increase the power and especially the monetary wealth of a nation by a strict government regulation of the entire national economy usually through policies designed to secure an accumulation of bullion, a favorable balance of trade, the developmental of agriculture and manufactures, and the establishment of foreign trading monopolies.[Italics mine]

Capitalism has been hijacked by the Statists. The economic system that conservatives like P-P-P-P-P President Reagan and George W. Bush pretend to protect and liberals like Big Barack and Michael Moore pretend to lambast is a poisonous mixture of Corporatism and Mercantalism. To take up the banner of "capitalism" is to label yourself a right-wing nutjob.

So if you've read this far, you'll understand if I stop defending capitalism. The word capitalism is synonymous with exploitation for good reason.

So let me now introduce you to Anarcho-Capitalism.

Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services are provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such a private defense agencies rather than through compulsory taxation, and money is privately produced in an open market. Because personal and economic activities are regulated by the natural laws of the market through private law rather than through politics, vicitimless crimes, and crimes against the state are rendered moot.

Anarcho-capitalists argue for a society based in voluntary trade of private property (including money, consumer goods, land, and capital goods) and services in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity, but also recognize charity and communal arrangements as part of the same voluntary ethic. Though anarcho-capitalists are known for asserting a right to private (individualized or joint non-public) property, some propose that non-state public/community property can also exist in an anarcho-capitalist society. For them, what is important is that it is acquired and transfered without help or hinderance from the compulsory state. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians believe that the only just, and/or most economically-beneficial, way to acquire property is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud. [Emphasis my own]

Why Capitalism? Part One: The Line in the Sand

Rachel, I'm not talking specifically to you here, but you can sing along. Just follow the bouncing train of thought.

I recently read on a certain Transhumanist forum the following comment:

We just have to realize that capitalism is a fatally flawed system. It has failed and the United States is collapsing. There are still libertarians whining that capitalism was never really implemented so it hasn't failed. After the Soviet Union collapsed there were still old guards claiming that Communism was never really implemented so it hadn't failed. Both need to be buried.

The person who posted this grab-bag of bromides was a self-proclaimed Socialist, but one doesn't have to be the embodiment of modern Statism to have been duped into selling themselves into slavery.

There is so much wrong with this quote that I don't know where to begin, but I don't think that I will accomplish anything by picking it apart piece by piece. There are millions of people in the world that believe fallacies like this for any number of reasons. They fundamentally and unequivocally do not understand what they are talking about. Perhaps I don't either, but I am more well-read on the subjects of economics, philosophy, and history than most. I am open to doubting my knowledge, but I also know its truth value. Can you say the same?

I intend to, over the course of several blogs, build a philosophical case for this "necessary evil" that is capitalism. I will do my best to stay focused, but I can't imagine this will be an easy task. My writing will not be perfect and my logic will not be flawless.

If you catch me perpetuating falsehood, challenge me or correct me.

If you find that something I said makes absolutely no sense, ask me.

If you don't care to know how you're destroying your future, walk away.

If you attack me with anything but reason and evidence, you are both a violent thug and my enemy.

My goal is to give the reader of my humble blog the philosophical tools that will allow them to think. Hopefully you will be able to pick apart specious arguments like the above quote. At the very least, I hope you will think more carefully about what opinions you spout.

This was mostly an introduction, but I will end this post by describing a line in the sand. If you read my later blogs, you will hopefully understand the picture I am about to paint.

On the default side, you have the millenia of human history to give you familiar comfort, reference, and guidance. You have safety in numbers. You have an excuse for everything and everyone in their place. You have submission of your mind and body to the tyrannical whims of others. You look at other men with fear and deal with them through force. This is the catch-all side for every brand of Statism. You respect the fiat authority of gods and governments.

By crossing the line in the sand, you will have but a scant century that was barely a glimmer of what should have been, yet is still responsible for all of the blinding technological brilliance of the world you live in. You will be derided and scorned by many, and self-righteously demonized by those who rob you. You will be claiming responsibility for your own life and submitting your mind and body to the dictates of your own conscience. You will look other men in the eye and deal with them as equals. This is the side of capitalism. You repsect the final authority of reality.

Have you chosen a side?

"Yeats and Lady Gregory corresponded. And James Joyce wrote streams of consciousness books." ~ Van Morrison

That goat movie was interesting. WTF was the plot about? I don't really know, but I found it funny. I read at lunch that it was reminiscent of Catch 22. Hahaha. That book was absurd. I should read it again. Yossarian was the finest soldier that never existed. The Assyrian? I didn't get that joke the first time. I should really look up words I don't know when I encounter them. Yossarian the Assyrian. It's not a very funny joke. That reminds of that meerkat named Yossarian on that television show. What was the name? Meerkat Manor, I'm pretty sure. Why do I know that? I don't even know when I would have seen it. I think I was sick or something. One two three four five six six sick. I wonder if the meerkat people read the book before naming that thing Yossarian? I'd imagine. More people should read Catch 22. Should? I need to stop tossing that word about. Would? Could? Wood?... Cood? Bah. English is intentionally nonsensical anyway. Pictograms that I can somehow read. Fossilized fecal matter would make a funny writing tool for apes. I bet it happened somewhere somewhen. What was I...? Oh yeah, "should." Shouldn't use should. Can't get an "ought" from an "is". "I" before "E" except after Microsoft no longer bundles Internet Explorer with Windows because the European Union got their collectivist knickers in a bunch. Knickers. Hahaha. Haha, dangly parts. That's a bit vulgar, eh? Can't even clean it up for live streaming babble. It's a good thing I don't broadcast thoughts like radio. Well, that I know of. All I know is I know nothing? Piffle. Poppycock. Melarchy. Any type of -archy is melarchy. My larchy? Melarchy because I own it, that's why. Minarchy? Yeah, melarchy. Autarchy? No, my tarchy. Oligarchy? No thanks, I threw my body into the machine and all I got was this lousy t-shirt... "'I can't belive it's not butter' I'll sing as I'm flogged, Yeah that's what I would do if I were God." I think I used to hate religion more than I do. Death smells like flowers. I don't want anybody else to die. I don't want to die. I just want to ride my motor-cy...cle. Gotta love the Internet. I think I'll end there. This one's for you SkyNet. And Rachel. Google bless us, everyone.

We are pockets of consciousness bubbling up from the same source

So as you know by now, our thoughts are fireworks. If you can accept that we are all the evolution of atoms created by the Big Bang, then you also accept that at one point, we were all one. A singularity of sorts. Physicists suppose that the Universe came from a point of origin that was immeasurably small. It gets all sorts of mind-boggling when we get more into depth here, so I can't and won't.

My point is that everything is connected. The carbon atoms in my body are no different than the carbon atoms in your body. Or in a plant. Or in a clump of sediment. The difference between me and rocks on an atomic level is fundamentally one of composition and arrangement. I have a different ratio of different atoms arranged in a different order, but the atomic/molecular pieces of absolutely everything are recycled over and over again to give new things their form. Even the atoms in our bodies are impermanent, as we are constantly creating new cells and shedding old ones.

Here is an interesting thought to ponder. You may right now be using an oxygen atom exhaled during Adolf Hiter's last living breath in order to read this sentence. It's highly improbable, but certainly possible.

Here is another interesting thought. Suppose we actually are the eyes/ears of the Universe. Suppose that human beings are pockets of consciousness occassionally bubbling up from the cosmos for a short warm moment and then popping. When we look at the planets and suns during our spans of life, we can say that we are looking at our benefactors of creation. But how wrong would it be to imagine that we are looking at ourselves? Certainly impractical for living our daily lives, but would it be untrue? We are a tiny fraction of that infinitesimally small singularity of origin, but still part of that whole.

If we can stretch our minds far enough to accept the above, then where do "you" and "I" begin if we are all one? "I" am a pocket of consciousness that feels the pleasure and pain of this body and will be alone inside this mind until this unique pattern expires. "You" are the same. But we are both, as far as we know, of a species whose pattern is unique in nature in that it can allow matter to contemplate its own existence. The Beatles said it best with,

I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together

So here it gets a bit funny, but still worth pondering. When we talk to each other, we are really talking to ourselves. We are the Universe with a billion-fold case of schizophrenia.

Ripple in still water...

Here are the lyrics to "Ripple", one of my favorite songs by the Grateful Dead. For many reasons, I find myself singing this song as I go about my day. Beyond the music I create, it would make a good theme song for my life. Give it a listen here

If my words did glow with the gold of sunshine
And my tunes were played on the harp unstrung,
Would you hear my voice come thru the music,
Would you hold it near as it were your own?

It's a hand-me-down, the thoughts are broken,
Perhaps they're better left unsung.
I don't know, don't really care
Let there be songs to fill the air.

Ripple in still water,
When there is no pebble tossed,
Nor wind to blow.

Reach out your hand if your cup be empty,
If your cup is full may it be again,
Let it be known there is a fountain,
That was not made by the hands of men.

There is a road, no simple highway,
Between the dawn and the dark of night,
And if you go no one may follow,
That path is for your steps alone.

Ripple in still water,
When there is no pebble tossed,
Nor wind to blow.

But if you fall you fall alone,
If you should stand then who's to guide you?
If I knew the way I would take you home.

As Rachel's post has reminded me, there are still ineffable mysteries to the Universe. I think this song encapsulates my feelings on the subject perfectly, so I'll let it do most of my work here.

This is what the stop-motion bullet dodging in the Matrix must feel like

So thanks to a nifty little Internet feature called social networking sites, I've discovered that my ex-girlfriend is engaged to be married.

I thought for a moment and tried to understand what I was feeling. I was feeling... relief. And then surprise, because I realized how much I've changed.

Even a year ago, this kind of news would have made me sad. Perhaps even regretful. But why? Probably because I had never fully applied philosophy to my life.

Now I look at the unexamined emotional quagmire that this marriage will inevitably become and feel relieved that I haven't sold myself into such a bondage. Perhaps they will be happy for the most part, but I've no doubt their psychological scars will be inflicted on their children. If I'd stayed with this woman it would certainly be my children inheriting my psychological scars. Unsettling, eh?

I propose a toast to Socrates, who said "the unexamined life is not worth living." Had the power of truth not pulled me out of the abyss that was my own unexamined life, then my existence would have been miserable. I would have been wrapped in a web of mythology and manipulation, forever avoiding conflict. Forever obeying the whims of a sexual tyrant until death came as a welcome release.

Is that an exaggeration? I'd like to think so, but I've yet to find more than a handful of human beings that can blissfully coexist. I think this pattern of life is all to common.

There is so much worth living for. Why punish ourselves with a living death? Biology be damned. I own this body and I will not submit.

YOU CAN BE HAPPY!

Years ago, there was a bullet being loaded into a chamber that would determine the rest of my life. It would be driven deep and become more painful to remove everyday. It is the metaphor for the damage that would have been caused by my psychological inertia, or my unwillingness to take self-ownership.

Not only have I managed to dodge a bullet, I can take a step back and observe its trajectory. And here's the really twisted part where the metaphor gets so convoluted that it becomes literal. The gunman was me.

I know. WTF. My poetic license should be revoked.

Our thoughts are fireworks

It gets cold and dark at night, but I never feel lonely. I enjoy having the time to mull over what it means to be alive. Tonight I was considering the origin of life.

So far, evidence has led the greatest thinkers among men to conclude that this starlit infinity is the result of one really grand explosion. Cosmic in proportions even. The largest observable stars in the depths of space are just sparklers compared to the beginning. I think it is a rather eloquent chain of cosmic events that has led me to this point in time, listening to the wilderness in a chilly tent on an insignificant plot of dirt. However grim life can seem on the surface, there is such much to hold one's mind in joyful awe.

In the beginning, the fundamental particles (electrons, protons, neutrons) were brought together by the strong and weak nuclear forces of physics to form the simplest of elements: hyrdogen. Incidentally, hydrogen is still the most abundant element in the know Universe.

Clouds of hydrogen gas coalesced into what would become the first stellar nurseries. As more hydrogen atoms compacted themselves due to the gravitational forces of physics, pressure created heat. The fires of heaven ignited and There Was Light. The first stellar ovens created enough heat and pressure to forge the heavier elements from the simpler ones. Every part of us, from the iron in our blood to the oxygen we breath, was created somewhere in the depths of space by a star.

These elements were scattered by the stellar explosions of supernovae and eventually compacted themselves to form planets and other stellar debris. Life is the result of combinations of these elements stumbling upon a means of replicating themselves. Thanks to the near infinite variety of cosmic laboratories, some of these replications took hold and were able to grow in complexity. The reactions of chemistry thoughtlessly and blindly competed for the means to continue the chemical reaction until the environment forced them to stop.

Chemical compounds that could codify advantageous chemical reactions arose. In the case of the cosmic laboratory later to be called earth, it was those that could stimulate the production of amino acids and the folding of proteins. This freak chemical strand is DNA. At first, it was a protein building free for all, but soon certain combinations and arrangements of proteins allowed more and more of a particular DNA to replicate itself. Evolution, though already at work, finally begins to take its familiar biological form at this point. Life is an inevitable accident with no direction other than to increase efficiency and order, all in the name of replicating chemical equations.

Our minds arose from these random protein foldings. They are ostensibly advantageous because they allow DNA to interpret external stimuli by proxy, and much more quickly than it can adapt through natural selection. Our minds are greater than DNA, because they allow us, the children of stars, the very eyes and ears of the Universe itself, to comprehend its/our/my fundamental nature. Our minds allow the Universe an avenue to shape its own destiny consciously, whatever that may mean. But we're only a stepping stone to a consciousness more unfathomable than the Judeo-Christian God.

Our thoughts are the afterglow of the Big Bang, the fireworks of stellar explosions. We are part of something huge. How can it ever seem so mundane!?

And yet, we are conscious, whatever that may mean. We have a choice to use our minds and understand truth or forfeit our minds and embrace falsehood. Inquiry into the true nature of reality is the only way to achieve progress. Scientific truth. Objective truth. Philosophical truth. Above all else, honesty is the prime directive. The honesty to admit ignorance and be curious. To ask WHY?

Embracing falsehood is our choice and there is nothing to prevent us from making that choice. We can choose religion and relive a Dark Age in willful ignorance. We can choose Statism and strangle the best among us with the seductive nature of power and the whims of the tyrants who wield it. We can lie to our children and perpetuate these barbaric institutions. We can utter that terrible phrase that will always be on the lips of every frightened and feeble mind: because.

I hope the best among us continue to choose wisely. History shows that there is always a battle to snuff the light of truth. The good guys are too few but the bad guys are fewer. It is the great majority of men who, wishing to be good people, forever enslave us with their misguided attempts at virtue. It is those who commit evil and think it good.

Our thoughts are fireworks, damn it! Let's not let them fizzle out by watering them down with lies. Let's give the Universe/ourselves a grand finale worthy of our heritage! Philosophy makes our lives brighter than a Billion Billion suns! If we love virtue, we will radiate the light of truth. I think you know what I mean.