I've been thinking for a long time that it would be great to have a place to express some views - perspectives which arise from a growing frustration that the world doesn't seem to operate on common sense principles. It matters. It matters that we don't demand sensible actions from one another because in extreme cases; lives are destroyed.
I've called this blog The Rationalist View but at its core, I'm really just talking about common sense and consistency.
For example, we have major religions that can't possibly coexist with one another since they, in certain cases, have diametrically opposed axioms. I like to tell the story of my Muslim taxi driver who explained to me how he bought his vehicle. He said that his friends got together and lent him $20,000. In order to repay them, he gives them $800 per month for three years. I asked him, "I thought it was against your religion to charge interest?" He told me it is against his religion to charge interest and that his friends aren't charging him interest. [You don't have to be a mathematician to figure out that he is clearly paying interest]
So I then asked him, "Is it true that you can divorce your wife simply by saying, 'I divorce thee' three times in her presence?" He said yes, I can divorce my wife that way.
Finally I told him that he and I have the same God (I was baptized Catholic), and I asked him, "If God came down into this cab, what do you think he would say about the fact that in your religion, you can't charge interest but can get divorced, but in my religion, it's the exact opposite?" He just looked at me in the rear-view mirror and didn't say anything.
What would God say?
I think he would say we're crazy. That the only real rule is the golden rule and that he is ashamed of the people who use organized religion to control others by propagating arbitrary rules that are really meant to maintain power.
Another important debate we have is about abortion. We spend a great deal of time attempting to justify our positions about when life is created and present in the womb. In reality, isn't it obvious? Before the sperm meets the egg, nothing happens in nine months. The moment after the sperm meets the egg, a process starts which results in a baby being born nine months later. It seems absolutely obvious to me that life begins at conception.
Assuming life begins at conception, is there an acceptable time at which one can terminate it? Let's work backwards. If someone took a knife and plunged it into the swollen belly of a woman, 8 months and 3 weeks after conception, would he be murdering the unborn child? Most of you would say a resounding YES. How about at 7 months? Of course.
Is there any time after conception that it stops being murder? If life starts at conception and it's murder at the very end; why isn't it murder just after the very beginning?
We don't need to be arguing about whether life begins at conception and at what point during a pregnancy it's OK to murder our children. We can do so much better. Last time I checked, we were at the top of the food chain. We have the benefit of science and intellect at our disposal. We have invented numerous ways to prevent conception - we call it birth control.
So here is the idea - let's promote birth control and talk to our kids until we're blue in the face about the significance of sex and the importance of birth control. Then we won't need to murder our progeny because we will have managed our reproduction so well that murder will no longer be required and we can stop embarrassing ourselves in a nonsensical debate about when life begins.
Oh...but those organized religions. They tell us that God doesn't approve of birth control. They tell us that we can't stop the creation of life using birth control (even though they can't stop their flock from institutionalized murder via abortion when they are inconvenienced with an unwanted pregnancy). This from the same people who have documented in the old testament that God's way was "an eye for an eye" but many years later in the new testament, God changed his tune (via Jesus) to "turn the other cheek." The God in their books clearly has an amazing propensity to change his mind radically. Pretty surprising for an all powerful, supreme being.
Could it possibly be that the organized religions just want to make sure that they are building the biggest flock over the long-term? With no birth control and no abortion, mankind would probably be able to fill the earth with Muslims, Catholics, Jews...take your pick. That way, someday, their religion would win the war to control the most human beings simply by reproducing faster and maintaining the brainwashing mechanism of arbitrary rules that are allegedly handed down from God. Sorry if I sound cynical, but I am.
While our religious institutions are a problem, at least we have enviable political institutions. In the United States, we have a two-party system. You can either be a democrat or a republican (there are a couple of other choices but they don't count 'cause you can't get elected or have any impact). How does one determine what party they belong to in America? Let's take me, for example.
I was born the son of a democratic precinct captain in the City of Chicago under Mayor Richard J. Daley. That means I was a democrat, like it or not, until adulthood. Then what happened? As it turns out, all that studying, working hard and some good fortune made me economically successful. Of course, I then started voting for republican candidates, since it is (or used to be) the party of low taxes.
However, in my case, I am burdened with some other views. I happen to favor a minimum wage as a safety net for those who have zero negotiating power with their employers (democrat). I also favor free trade since that is the only way to unleash the egalitarian power of comparative advantage (republican). I think unions have a right to organize (democrat) but I am very much against "card check" rules and an imposed arbitration after only 60 days of dispute (republican).
You get my drift - I don't fit neatly into either party's platform. The more I think about it, there is no way anybody can. However, if you want to get elected, you must. Therefore, you compromise and polarize. You adopt the unfavorable positions but pretend not to notice. It's incredibly destructive. To remain on the team and have any hope of passing legislation, you must tow the party line completely or you will be ostracized (ask Sen. Joe Lieberman).
Conclusion: The two-party system is terrible - it polarizes people and damages the ability to compromise.
So why does it exist? Why in America are there any parties? Can't we have an open election in which the five people who submit the most signed petitions (or some electronic equivalent) get to be on the ballot and we then vote for who we want. All legislators can form their own view on all issues rather than being pressed to tow the party line - a line that is heavily determined by organizations that are totally biased for themselves and against the greater good.
We can do better.
I can go on (and will in future posts) about the "party of the people" (democrats), that support numerous policies that in fact, keep the most vulnerable human beings down. Positions on free-trade, education vouchers, farm supports, etc.
I will talk about the teacher's unions that purport to be pro-student but at every turn, kill initiatives that might inject competition and efficiency into the education system and improve outcomes for students.
I will talk about the one course every child should take from sixth grade on - economics. It is about resource allocation and efficiency and an understanding of it will debunk so many fallacies for a lifetime.
We can discuss man's penchant for forming groups at every turn (from the moment they walk into a party, to unions, to political parties, to street gangs). This "ganging" habit of mankind is perhaps, our most destructive habit of all. Individualism anybody???
There is an endless supply of examples which highlight opportunities for societal improvement through rational thought.
