Doc Thought

A senator has forwarded a bill that would exempt the olympians from taxes on their meritorious oppression of the differently abled competitors.  I mean, their winning prizes. This is strange coming from Washington. If sacrificing is good, why would we want to prevent the Olympians from 'giving' even MORE to their country?   Those tax dollars go (at about 20 cents on the dollar) to welfare recipients.  Surely we aren't so cruel as to think those coddled athletes need their fancy gifts more than a welfare recipient needs his or her food stamps?   Now, taxation money is going to pay the bills of every soul that walks through hospital doors.   We don't think that healthy, probably rich, athletes should selfishly keep their Olympic money without handing over their fair share to help save peoples lives do we? Our post office provides a crucial service with our tax money.  They even, helpfully, let everyone know about that letter and package carrying service using o

It is said that our people must be moral for the country to survive. Our decline has to do with the sinfulness of man and the decline of American morality. We hear these things all the time. Here is the issue at the very bottom of this mess: The fundamental right that each individual has to his life, the protection of which (and its derivatives) was THE idea at which our government was aimed at protecting from the force of other men and the force of the government, the fruit of which was the prosperity of the American experiment --- that right, of Man to live AS man - to be unchained in his attempts to secure his survival AS man --- that right can not be set on top of a Morality of altruism. If you mix a keen political passion for individual right to life (and thus produced property) with the ethics of self-sacrifice, you get, from the first, the glories and achievements but, from the second, the absurdities, and contradictions, and obscenities of America's history down t

Kant is evil because his epistemology divorced man's mind from an objective reality.   Kant could have said anything at all on ethics and politics, the damage was already done.  Since man had no 'real' objective apprehension of reality, it was laughable to proceed to prescriptive aspects of philosophy.  His disciples, and those influenced by him, certainly fleshed this out into the destructive subjectivism and relativism that were and are the supports of collectivism.   Kant's fairly juvenile reformulations of the ubiquitous golden rule are quite harmless and quite forgotten to the modern collectivist because they floated away, weightless, when Kant's metaphysics and epistemology severed man's mind from an objective assessment of 'what is', and therefore from any rational force in prescribing what man 'ought do.'

False Position:  The government should provide equal opportunity for all citizens. Opportunity per se is too ambiguous (and it is meant to be by those you use it). It is right for the government to protect each individual from forcible breach of their right to life and the obtained trade value of their effort (property). The government has a true role in securing equal protection for each individual under the law. This would be seen as the government's rightful involvement in protecting individuals from forcible interference with 'opportunity' that the individuals would have otherwise secured for themselves by expenditure of their own time, thought, and effort. The provision of 'equal' opportunities for all however, as contrasted with the protection of individuals from forcible theft of their property, is absolute nonsense.   As do all these concocted 'economic rights,' government forcibly providing 'opportunity' in the sense of distributing