Free speech & the Internet

The news media loves showing how "hip" they are these days by constantly talking about Twitter. It's kind of funny actually, because we almost don't need the news anymore since you can track current events and memes in the blogosphere and twittersphere. Yesterday Michael Jackson died, and within minutes the tag "#michaeljackson" was at the top of the website's Rising Trends list.

The Internet changes the world in a lot of ways. It really is revolutionary if you think about it. I would compare the Internet to a technological catalyst such as the printing press. Gutenburg invented the printing press in 1445, allowing the collective knowledge of humanity to be spread throughout the masses. The Dark Ages was a time known for repression by religious dogma and despotic rulers. Literacy took Europe out of the "Dark Ages" into the "Renaissance" (roughly the 14th - 17th centuries) where culture, science and philosophy expanded. Martin Luther sparked the protestant revolution by nailing his printed 95 Theses to the doors of churches in 1517. Our founding fathers were inspired by the printed pages of thinkers before them like John Locke and Thomas Paine, who supported inalienable rights and representative government.

The Internet multiplies the spread of ideas. We may be on the cusp of a second renaissance, which will be fueled by 1) unlimited access to information by all, and 2) "crowd-sourcing" becoming the new efficient standard for growth of ideas. Youth in Internet cafes around the world now have Google and Wikipedia, which can provide a better education than most U.S. public schools. Interest groups organize and communicate instantly. Ideas aren't merely filtered by a news network of talking heads, instead they spread virally across blogs, tweets, and Facebook networks. Sure, there is a lot of crap to sort through... like inane blabber about reality TV - but that's just muck in the sea of diverse ideas. The Internet's potential resides in it's unfettered openness.

Now, here's the scary part. The Internet is a new phenomenon, which makes it a prime target for bureaucrats and statesmen who are eager to control it. The FCC already has it's regulatory tentacles wrapped around traditional media - censoring what can be said when & how. Thus far, the Internet is the wild west... pretty much anything goes. Americans may not be surprised when oppressive government in China filters internet use, but most people don't realize so-called 'free states' in Europe are also creeping this direction... just look at France and Germany. Politicians will of course use a premise such as "child pornography" or "homeland security" to justify these intrusions, but what most non-techie people don't understand is that ISP filtering gives government a censor button for the entire Internet (a dangerous level of power).

We may not have to worry here in the USA right? We all trust our government implicitly to not violate this power. Well, history should always be a gentle reminder to cozy Americans that eventually... the State and the People tend to disagree. Let's check out a few current examples where the Internet is already becoming a game-changer:

First, there's this guy, Rodrigo Rosenburg. He was assassinated by the Guatemalan President.... he just had someone post-humously post his testimony on YouTube. This incident triggered huge protests in Guatemala. Someone was even arrested for Twittering.



Also in the news this month, huge protests in Iran over election fraud. SMS (text message) networks mysteriously shut down during the election, perhaps a way for the State to squash any attempts at flash mob rebellion. Yet, they couldn't be quieted with alternatives like Twitter and YouTube available. The world gets an inside look at Iran's oppression, which must make the regime quite uncomfortable.



These examples demonstrate the Internet empowering the People. This is why it's critical that we protect it's openness, and prevent any kind of ISP filtering or censorship. This month in South Carolina, the Governor skipped town to visit his Argentinian mistress, while the Attorney General attacked Craigslist for it's sexy ads. Should we allow these people to control our choices? I've come across observations that the Internet is highly libertarian - perhaps because more intelligent people comprehend the economic and moral value of liberty, and also recognize that the Internet is a means to fight for liberty.

Time Travel Movies

Ok, I watched this weird time travel movie tonight on the Roku, called Truecrimes. It got me thinking about how many different flavors of time-travel movies are out there. Time-travel movies are cool, because they must make philosophical assumptions about fate, paradox, and even plural realities.

A great line from a South Park episode:

[at the time portal. News vans, reporters and scientists, one in a space suit, gather around and marvel at the portal] Aaron, I'm standing at the time border which scientists say follow Terminator rules. That is, it's one way only and you can't go back. This is in contrast, say, to Back To The Future rules, where back and forth is possible, and of course, Timerider rules, which are just plain silly. Anyway, it appears that the man from the future is here to stay.

First off, I have to say... I don't believe time-travel is possible. Nothing surpasses the cosmic speed limit, c. Worm holes and space-time curvature are wild exaggerations that help describe a theory, but there's no reason to believe it's possible to tear space-time. Still, it's a fun conversation topic for the logical and philisophical implications.


Back to the Future has a memorable scene (oddly one of my wife's favorites) where Marty McFly literally fades transparent as his parents almost don't hook up. Even if the effects were cheesy, it shows the writers relied on a single linear timeline. Apparently, even if Marty from Timeline-A travels back and prevents his own birth thereby erasing Timeline-A, the new Timeline-B would still become a new permanent timeline. A bit of a paradox, but hey it comes with the territory and those were a fun series of movies!


The Terminator movies got a bit more into destiny, and a lot more into paradox. SkyNET and the machines travelled back to kill Sarah Connor, who would give birth to the leader against the machines, John Connor. The trippy part was: John Connor sent Kyle Reese back to save his mom, and Kyle Reese has sex with John's mom becoming John's biological father. So, one must assume... some timeline must have originally caused Kyle Reese to go back and hook up with Sarah Connor for John to have ever existed. Either that, or Sarah Connor had some serious machine-ass-kicking genes... and she birthed a John Connor by another man in an original timeline who led the fight against machines.

Now, there's a whole category of time-travel stories that are pretty ridiculous - the "go back and fix it" premise. Superman: The Movie has one at the end where Superman flies around the Earth (presumeably > c) to save Lois. Star Trek IV has one where they go back to get a humpback whale because a whale-song-loving-alien is threatening Earth. It's amusing that they fly around the Sun (presumeably > c) to travel backwards, then conveniently do the same thing to return to the future. It's all worth it to hear Spock cuss though. I wouldn't call Groundhog Day a time-travel flick... it's more of a deja vu scenario.
Time Cop is probably the worst time-travel movie ever. Not only are the characters going back and interacting with their past selves without altering their memories or the timeline. They switch to 'Back to the Future' rules when the past-villain gets a cut, and the scar appears on the future-villain's face. Then they change the rules again at the end of the movie after Jean-Claude Van Damme's character prevents his past-wife's death. He returns to the future to find he has children with his wife he has no recollection of. If there's one thing that makes a bad time-travel movie, it's inconsistency of applying the rules.

There are so many great time-travel flicks. I haven't even talked about Time Bandits, 12 Monkeys, Butterfly Effect. Then there's more bad ones like Bill & Ted. (How come the 80's were such a big decade for these films though?) The movie I watched tonight, Truecrimes, is worthwhile for anyone who likes time-travel flicks. It had a bit of chicken-egg dilemma in it, but taught the same important lesson as most time-travel movies: Just don't mess with time-travel, it ain't worth the trouble it will cause!

Perverting "Equality"

Equal rights! Equal rights!
Those who are at a disadvantage should get special help!
Everything must be fair.

We can all agree slavery is evil. No one should be forced to act behind the barrel of a gun. Life, liberty, property - these are the rights every person must have equal protection of. However, our culture and media are always debating 'equal rights' issues. At what point does it all go too far?

I've heard women at work argue that females need to be promoted in the workplace. I've heard complaints about our 'male-dominated society'. Are these accusations true? Let's not forget: men have a penis, and women have a vagina. Testosterone pumps through the hearts of aggro-macho-competitive males, shortening their lifespan. Men are tuned to compete harder, in order to acquire the power and resources that attract females. Sure there will be Joan of Arcs and Hillary Clintons in the world - but women, by nature, will never be equal in status and power to men on average. If equality is forced by regulation based on guilt and ideals, we'll suffer negative social consequences. Let there be inequality. It's natural.

What about minorities? There are many racist people in the world. Regulations like "affirmative action" have been sought by minorities to make things more fair. However, who really gets hurt when a business hires a less qualified person based on racism? The business only hurts itself. What explains the fact that most I.T. departments employ many eastern Indians? These 'colored' people didn't get the job by affirmative action, but by being highly skilled and industrious workers. Affirmative Action, like rent controls or subsidies, create an economic 'dead weight-loss' where everybody loses.

Today the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, restricting marriage to be between a man and woman. I'm not going to preach on that. I've already voiced my thoughts on Prop 8 aftermath.

Today, the Court said:

"Proposition 8 does not by any means "repeal" or "strip" gay individuals or same-sex couples of the very significant substantive protections afforded by the state equal protection clause either with regard to the fundamental rights of privacy and due process or in any other area, again with the sole exception of access to the designation of "marriage" to describe their relationship."

Again, we had a minority group whining "no fair" that they didn't have equal rights. They don't really care about the fact that 'civil unions' are the same as marriage, and they don't even want to fight that fight. They want the word "marriage", and nothing less, claiming they are 'separate but equal'. The gay/straight-marriage-equality debate is invalidated with the same dose of reality as the male/female-equality debate: biology & nature. When two things are not the same, they shouldn't necessarily be treated the same. Penis-vagina. Let the Boy Scouts keep the girls out & vice-versa.

Perverting "equality" is what this all comes down to. American culture is infected with an ugly sense of victimization and entitlement. When any group is hurt by circumstances or jealous of another group, their first course of action is to cry "no fair" to the Nanny-State, which adjusts the rules until the whiner is appeased. The loser in the race always cries that the winner cheated. We correct government meddling with more meddling. We fight the wrong fights and ask the wrong questions, because no one ever asks "What is government's proper role?" Sadly, most Americans think it's ridiculous to ask: "Shouldn't government just stay out of marriage in the first place?" We're so caught up in twisting the system in our favor, that most of us forget what the system is supposed to be: protector of rights, not granter of rights.

Jesus Christ, Vampire bats, and Ayn Rand

What do Jesus Christ, vampire bats, and Ayn Rand all have in common? No, there isn't a bad punchline.. and no, I'm not blogging about Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter. What they have in common is... they all say something about altruism.

First, let's examine two differing moral philosophies: Jesus' Christianity & Rand's Objectivism.

Jesus Christ taught 'the meek shall inherit the earth', and 'to turn the other cheek'. Christ taught that a rich man cannot enter heaven. He died on the cross as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind. Of course, all of this is held irrefutable coming as the word of God. Altruism and self-sacrifice are a central theme in christian morality.

Ayn Rand, the philosopher who founded Objectivism, taught that self-sacrifice and altruism are immoral. This derives from the logic that we are rational beings, and 'man is an end unto himself, not a means to the end of others'. Therefore, the pursuit of our own happiness and self-interest is the highest moral purpose. Capitalism and voluntary trade is the ideal social environment, where every person has a right to choose and be protected from force or fraud.

I got to thinking on this topic after a family discussion about morality and law... where it was argued that religion is the foundation of morality in our country. You see, many people think our country was founded on judeo-christian values. This connection comes from references to "god-given, inalienable rights". There lies my problem. There is an inherit danger in labeling the source of our liberties as a 'natural law', or 'gift from God'... because a religious, mystical source has no substance. It can be created out of thin air as easily as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Rand's philosophy is unique because she uses reason, logic, and axioms to deduce that individualism is the ideal morality. Within her framework, standards of sacrifice and altruism have no logical moral value.

We each have different individual morality. Our society's rule of law forms from social standards of morality. For example in the Muslim middle-east, law prescribes religious practice. In our religiously tolerant USA, religion has less legal influence (although some, remember Prop 8?). Our individual morality comes from our individual philosophy. So what's more admirable? A morality based on supernatural dogma & mysticism, or a morality based on philosophy & rationality? The latter is, since it can be applied consistently based on reason and logic.

To complete this comparison of religious/christian morality vs. objectivist morality... I'll address the first criticism most people would pose: 'Objectivism sounds selfish and unfeeling. Christians must be more warm and giving people because they value charity, right?' Here's where vampire bats come in.

Surprisingly, vampire bats are highly altruistic creatures. Interesting studies have shown these bats to feed each other when starving. Is this caused by guilt, shame, love, or charity? Such emotions are merely the same bio-chemical responses that modify behavior in both humans and animals alike. These bats learn to trust those that fed them before, and remember 'cheaters' that don't reciprocate. Bats have no moral code, they perform this behavior because it works in their social structure and eco-system. These bats aren't christian.

Humans have no monopoly on charity or altruism, and religion has no monopoly on morality. We learn many hard lessons in life... like lying and cheating are not worth the trouble they cause. Religion often does a nice job of packaging these bits of wisdom into digestible chunks like commandments or parables. Still, I consider the highest morality one that has a solid foundation. One that can be questioned without fault because it's deduced from a structure of principles and philosophy, rather than mythology and dogma.

This is what we can learn from Jesus, vampire bats, and most of all... Ayn Rand.

The new disco

I recall watching a documentary about the 1970's on History Channel or somewhere recently. One of the interesting aspects of that decade was the birth and death of disco music. Disco must have started out as a great dancing, upbeat, positive, new sound to celebrate. The interesting cultural transition happened with the Disco Sucks movement, and the restoration of rock & roll by angry macho white people everywhere. Did disco jump the shark, or did it ever really die? Let's face it.. most big-label music are just bands mimicking the sounds of other recently popular bands. It comes in waves... from disco, to 80's pop, to hair-rock, to grunge, to whatever the hell you call it these days.

All art... whether it be music, news, movies, or fashion are simply bundles of memes replicating across the social-cultural landscape. We just have to hope for sparks of creativity that instigate a new wave of meme mutation & innovation. The disco meme ran it's course eventually.

This brings me to my point: Reality TV is the new disco.

If I could commit "memocide", I might initiate the 'final solution' for reality television. It has become the banality of cable television. It started off to be novel, but is looking like disco in it's final days... re-hashing the same old formulas to the point of desperation, slowly sucking the intelligence from it's audiences by it's lack of substance. I have become devoted to Netflix, the Internet, and a new idea... reading books! That's all due to the fact that 80% of what's on cable television is crap.

Perhaps digital technology is partly to blame for the lack of good programming. They say newspapers are dying, in part due to online blogs/news as a substitute. Similarly, I can see Netflix and DVR systems competing with network programming/advertising enough to force them resort to cheap productions like reality TV. More choices are good. I just am anxiously waiting for a new meme to come along!

Disco sucks! Er, no Reality TV sucks!

Libertarians are the most american.

For a long time, I've felt torn whenever elections come along. I never lean strictly Republican, nor Democrat. I've always felt like I'm voting for the lesser of two evils. After learning more about political philosophy, I've realized this conflict comes from my convictions as a Libertarian. Libertarians are the black sheep of our two-party system. There are few libertarians in elected office, because they never get mainstream party support. Most Americans don't even know what a libertarian is. The two party system is a contradiction, but supports itself nevertheless by polarizing people: godless collectivist democrats vs. religious capitalist republicans. The problem with both sides is that they would have the State force their ideals upon the individual.

Libertarians have one purpose: personal liberty. Some would call this anarchy, and while libertarians are on the spectrum of anarchy they don't believe in no-government, just minimal government. You need basic government to protect individuals from oppressors, both foreign & domestic. The libertarian asks only two things from government: 1) Justice 2) Defense. If someone robs, scams, or breaches contract with you - they have violated your liberty because your property is an extension of your self. So, a justice system serves liberty. Defense protects our liberty from the Hitlers and Stalin's out there who would invade us & burn the constitution that guarantees our liberties.
Libertarians are the furthest away on the political spectrum from authoritarian oppression, whether it be communism, fascism, or democrats or republicans. The U.S. constitution and the ideals of our founding fathers were based on libertarian values. We have lost our way. The fiat currency system and 16th amendment (ratified 1913) have allowed government budget & size to grow obscenely. The political-right would regulate your personal choices it deems immoral, and the political-left would regulate your economic choices it deems unfair.

Neither republicans nor democrats are the friends of libertarians. Our only hope is that we infiltrate these parties with liberty-minded individuals, such as Ron Paul in the Republican party. Speaking of republicans.... they have truly lost their way. These "neo-conservatives" or as I like to call them, "Zionist Oil Mafia", have become as much big-government spenders as the left! Meanwhile, the democrats are trying to "stabilize" the economy. These "representatives" all forget - the economy is the aggregate of our individual labor, production, and trade... not something to be protected by the government. The government would not exist if not for our individual productivity.

This is a great country, but it could be greater. This election past November called for "change". I know that Americans desperately want a new vision and leadership. They want ideals they can grasp and find inspiration in.... they just don't know where to look. There is little or no enlightened leadership in Washington or our culture today. Americans won't find enlightenment on E! or American Idol. Perhaps it's time we rediscover those who were enlightened in our past: John Locke, Thomas Paine, Henry David Thoreau. Perhaps, that is the silver lining in the cloud of an economic depression. All major political upheavals happen after depressions, when hard times force people to re-evaluate everything. Perhaps this keynesian-stagflationary-armageddon that congress is brewing by printing hundreds of billions of dollars will awaken the American yearning for revolution. (They should be reading Friedman, not Keynes). Or perhaps it won't happen until World War 3 begins if the depression leads to government upheavals and idealogical splits (if it happens, I'm betting it'll be around 2013).

All we, the enlightened libertarians, can do is try to spread the ideas and remind fellow americans of these essential truths...

Outlaw French Fries

You'd think the above proposal is preposterous, but there are those who would actually make arguments to restrict your liberties for your own protection. Maybe it's not french fries... maybe it's forcing you to wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle. Maybe it's censoring what you can watch on T.V. Maybe it's preventing you from ending your life if you are painfully ill. So why not outlaw french fries since they're bad for you too?

Government is not our mommy. When it tries to be one, it is weakening the integrity of our culture. Society could be compared to a learning and evolving entity, comprised of memes rather than genes. Can culture be enlightened when it is shaped by laws rather than individual choice? No, it can't and here's an analogy following the meme-gene comparison. Salmon farms/fisheries are known to breed weaker and less healthy fish than wild salmon. The best fish are tainted by the weak and sick fish. Similarly, when government tries to force the right choices on us - our culture and society is weakened itself. That's why I voted against Proposition 8, but still... the government must let society enlighten and monitor itself, not a "Supreme Court". Government is not our cultural mommy.

Government fat. I work in a bureaucratic environment, so I've come to see the vicious circle of how bureacracies grow like parasites on the taxpaying society. It supports it's own existence by creating legistlation which in turn justifies it's growth (finding new ways to "govern" people). Our government approaches the current economic problems with the same mind. Congress is revving up the money printing machine to support it's current programs, rather than reduce the wasteful programs. I don't think many legislators outside of Ron Paul understand economics very well.

Let's take french fries... since we're on the topic. Think of the US dollar like a french fry. Now, imagine I offer you 10 french fries for your tasty hamburger. You say... "No way, my burger is worth at least 20 french fries!". If I were U.S. Congress, I'd say "No problem... " then I'd cut my 10 french fries in half & slide them to you "There's 20 french fries, now give me that burger!". Now, replace burgers with oil or gold and know what this bailout+stimulus packages will do to prices. The dollar is being sliced into smaller pieces.

Even worse, the government had the poor judgement to give the printed money to corporations who've been the shame of our economy: banks and automakers. Recent history review: Step 1) People are foreclosed on by banks and become homeless. Step 2) Government gives money to banks. Something is very wrong here. If the government wants to print money, they could at least distribute it to the taxpayer directly to devalue the dollar more fairly. Obama is sure to have a controversial and difficult presidency. I expect to see socialistic memes like welfare programs on the rise.

I leave you with this interview from Ron Paul who reiterates these ideas...