“Go Forth and Multiply”, the Declaration of War on Reason

This is going to be a long ride… but I hope anyone who chooses to read it, will find it worth the trip… “The night is dark, and full of terrors”, as they oft say in Game of Thrones. Tonight, I would like to argue, that the violent conflicts surrounding religious fundamentalism world wide, are not the result of economic, political, or military conflict, but actually result from the sexual behavior, of members of all of the worlds major religions. “If god wills it”, and “Go forth and multiply” are outright declarations of war against reasonable, honest, hard working people.

If you don’t use condoms, and are still a human being with only limited control of their sexual impulses… A very convenient phenomenon will emerge, god will “will” you, to have many children. If, on the other hand, you are a reasonable person, who considers the consequences of your actions… You will choose to have very few children, only ones you can support and feed.

Why is this a war? The worlds major religious philosophies are literally designed to starve out decent, kind hearted, reasonable people. If people of faith keep having children they can’t feed, who do they rely on? Charity, State, or Church. Thus, all the people immediately surrounding communities of faith are forced, through empathy, violence, or social structure to feed their children. Rational people previously considering one child, now can’t afford any, because they have to pay for the five “god willed”.

Through the force of their lack of sexual self control, the major religions of the world, will bleed the earth dry. “We have dominion over all the beasts… god said so”… Really? Well, science doesn’t support his claim. Science would suggest that we are one of the beasts, and if we don’t maintain our habitat, it will eventually cease to sustain our existence. Pretty big difference there. One with violent consequences that will involve millions of people starving or declaring war.

If there was a sense of community in the world… Would people who take the word of god so literally, that they produce children they can’t feed, based only in faith… be the ones this community was hoping would have 5 children? I would like to assert… Of course not.

This is why atheists have so often tried to extinguish religion… but I would argue in doing so, they made evil entity number 2, the state, their new gods. You can’t stop someone from believing in nonsense, you can only make it illegal to believe nonsense. So, when atheists chose socialism as the answer to the tyranny of religion, they made their greatest mistake in recent memory. Two fundamental flaws exist in the concept that state force, should inspire our sense of community.

One, is that as the philosophy of socialism was founded, the most sympathetic, and often poor people, were elderly. In setting up the “safety net” with primary concern for the elderly, rather than the young, however, an interesting problem emerges… Elderly people, are likely to be poor… but the people who live the longest, and thus gain the most from retirement and health care programs, are wealthy majorities. If you were poor or middle class, at a young age, you will be poor when you are elderly… but you’re also, far more likely to be dead. Thus, the “safety net” pumps money from poor to rich, and blue collar to white, not the other way around.

The second… Hiding religious philosophy doesn’t change birth rates. In forcing the state to unify, to take care of everyone… socialism literally lashes the reasonable people, to the literalists, forcing them into a life of servitude to believers in god, as they inevitably become a smaller and more dislike minority worldwide. The State, and the Church, have declared war on reason. They have declared war, on being a decent human being, who lives within their means… and it must stop.

How? What tool remains to save us? Secular Charity. In forcing the various literalists of the world to ask for charity, because of their mistaken life choices, we show the way for their children to rise above dogma, and be someone with the capacity to give, and contribute, rather than someone constantly at the mercy of the compassion of others.
Many people forget what the root of the theory of capitalism is… “Most of us are smart, and kind… We’ll figure it out, without a central authority”. This is why I am often disheartened to see fellow atheists look to the state to solve problems. It is not the answer, it will only re enforce the emerging pattern; literalists, of all faiths, are out reproducing, everyone else. In desert regions, with virtually no food, the warfare aspect of this becomes all too evident. If the various religions weren’t so good at killing one another, they’d be starving to death, because they have completely unsustainable population growth.

I am not talking about “capitalism” as currently practiced by western governments, with central banks giving 0% interest loans to whoever the government feels like sponsoring next. I’m talking about the theoretical framework capitalism provided for looking at the world. Neither the state, nor the church can force me to raise the child, you chose to have. If I do so, it should be out of my own good nature, and free choice. Capitalism insists, that people are basically good, and without a church, state, or any central authority, they will help one another, and the best among them will naturally find status, and resources.

In a polite reasonable society, if you wish to move towards theocracy, liberal democracy, socialism, or communism… You must first begin your argument, by insisting that human beings are inherently evil, and they can’t be trusted. You must then prove, that religious, or state authorities, have a better track record of non violence than civilians. If intellectuals insist on this distinction through shame, and ridicule, it will only be a matter of time, before everyone begins the argument with “What are we going to put in place of a central banking system, and democratic governance by force? How can we find peaceful solutions to these problems without a violent central authority?”

I think the answer lies in not for profit, government by voluntary contribution. Free online public education, and expensive private education, that everyone knows is a lot better. Personal public retirement accounts which naturally transfer to dependents, or a charity of choice upon early death. Local public hospitals, again funded by voluntary contribution, to avoid the moral hazard of forcing everyone to pay for drunks, smokers, and fatties by force.

Whatever decisions we make… I think it’s important to remember the framing of the argument for capitalism. If you want to argue for a central authority, Christian, Muslim, Democratic, or Authoritarian, you must start by admitting “I think civilians are inherently evil… and left to their own devices, they would destroy themselves… I think my authority will save them”. I imagine this view will be very unpopular, as it always has been among the vast majority of common, reasonable people.

Why do most communes fail, and why should all religions fail? Sexual behavior, and jealousy. No one wants to live in a world, where they contribute equally, share resources… and then only a small number of religious, charismatic, or attractive people, have all the sex and children. Except, of course, that small number of attractive, charismatic, or religions men and women.

Socialism, and religion, by forcing reasonable people to pay for the greedy, have always been forces violently opposed to reason. The concept that I am my brothers keeper, enslaves the good to the evil, the hard working, to the lazy, and the sharp to the dull. Modern “capitalism” is no better… Certainly people of inherited wealth would love to divide up control over their fellow humans as well, and when‘s the last time someone got rich inventing something?

Theoretical capitalism however; The concept of only trading with, and only letting people acquire wealth, who make peaceful contributions to society, the concept of letting people who contribute a little more, have a little more sex and children, and the concept that civilians would be more likely to do this freely, than by force… are better than their alternatives, and more popular, at least in my mind.

Of course, in my mind, this is a war, reason can win.

Peace and love friends…

That Fool Dave Saves the Guns

“The man who would trade liberty for security, deserves neither liberty nor security, Benjamin Franklin said that… Yeah… well… Fuck Benjamin Franklin! That fat slave owner” Jim Norton.

Great one liner, and I laughed at it, because I agreed with it. He was talking about the TSA, and people who complain about scans/pat downs… I don’t think it’s “out of control”… As he said “People are willing to blow themselves up dick first”, and no one really knows how to deal with that. A plane is an enormous weapon with a guaranteed concentrated group of people.

That said, I don’t mind the TSA… but, I also don’t think Americans will ever let someone hijack a plane again. Now that intentions are clear, we’re cowboys at heart still, and I like that about us… I like that a terrorist now has more to fear from the passengers, than the authorities. I could live without the TSA, I think we’d do fine.

I feel the same way about guns… but unlike the TSA, which I can endure. I don’t want to endure harsh national gun restrictions… Why?

In my mind, the major conflict over gun rights is a conflict between a rural way of life, versus an urban one. People often forget that rural areas have an enormous brain drain, called cities. The best and brightest move out, leaving often poor uneducated communities. What is the one thing these communities typically have to offer a wealthy or intelligent individual?

Freedom… I know it sounds tacky… but I don’t mean it that way, I mean it in a very literal technical sense. If you have a good job, and want to live outside of the city limits, you can own land… Real land, vast tracks of open space.

Aside from runways, paragliding, kayaking etc… What’s one of the coolest things you can do when there’s no one around to put in danger? Any of you liberals, not thinking about guns or explosives right now… Have you ever seen “Mythbusters”, because they make owning high powered rifles and grenades look like a lot of fun for people in the middle of nowhere.

Rather than immediately thinking “Well, that’s violence on TV”… etc… Just recognize that there are 2 incredibly under discussed advantages of living in a rural area, with weak substance laws, and strong privacy laws. You can conduct experiments, and you can blow stuff up.

Both of these rights are absolutely crucial… Why? The first is obvious… Tesla… We’d put him in jail today, in a heartbeat. This is what is stifling economic growth, worldwide. “The man who shook New York” would have been his terrorist brand before he was executed today, and it’s a tragedy.

Why blow stuff up, shoot high powered rifles, or buy an old tank? Because some people, think it’s fun. Deep in the minds of most men, and plenty of women, is a child that wants the coolest, biggest toys. Some want a kite to hang from, or parachute, or rubber band… but if you want to mess around with a rocket launcher, in the middle of nowhere, more power to you.

Does this mean there should be no gun laws? Not at all. The same rocket launcher is, and should be, illegal in any city where people gather by the tens of thousands. Gun laws should limit people to hunting weapons, 6 shooters, and shotguns in major cities, freely, by choice. That said, we shouldn’t take away a human beings right to be left alone, with awesome toys, in the middle of nowhere… until they actually get violent. Being left alone, doesn’t include protecting rapists or wife beaters of course, but that‘s another issue.

It does include letting Tesla be Tesla. It does include letting Hunter S Thompson play with awesome guns on his 60 acre ranch. Let the places in the middle of nowhere who have nothing to offer but privacy, and lax legislation, continue to offer it, provided they never encourage actual violence. Let the middle of nowhere be a refuge for experimentation and madness.

Why else is this important? Well… I’ve never killed a child with a flying killer robot… Have you? I reckon 99% of Americans have never killed a child with a robot. I bet there are people on 30 acre ranches right now playing with flying killer robots, and almost none of them killed any children with their toys… You know who has killed a lot of children with flying killer robots? Employees of the United States Government.

The reason you should never trade the slightest bit of liberty for security… Is that civilians are always less dangerous than members of government. We almost only call on government when a situation escalates to violence, because they are the best at it. In almost all Western societies save America, the government has a monopoly on the tools of violence. Our backwards approach to regulated militias, has allowed normal civilians of means, to choose to purchase tools of self defense of almost military grade. This is not a threat to our security, it is a display of our security.

If you live 100 miles outside of town, and a group of rapists, murderers, or thieves, sneak on your property, it is perfectly legal to kill them, and then call the police here. Why? Almost all of European civilization thinks this is crazy… but isn’t that how people who would organize themselves into gangs and bandits want it?

Imagine you’re desperate, poor, angry, and on the run from police… Wouldn’t it be great if everywhere in the country there wasn’t a patrol car, you were the best armed person? Wouldn’t it be great if your stolen or black market assault rifle, was always pitted against a kitchen knife as soon as you got 10 miles away from a sheriff?

In a city, letting someone “defend property” with weapons that could win against 5 intruders with pistols… sounds crazy…. Because it is… the second you get a hundred miles away from a major city… It’s not crazy… It’s risky… You could shoot yourself accidentally. If you store guns improperly someone could steal them, they could blow up, or be used by a member of the family… but if you ever get assaulted, or invaded… and the police are 20 min away, that’s risky too. If people choose one risk over the other, that’s up to them.

Finally… Mental health. There has been a lot of talk about mental health threats, and what we can do to limit gun ownership among crazy people. This is very dangerous. If doctor patient confidentiality is to be violated to enforce gun laws, gun owners will immediately begin to justifiably fear seeking help for mental illness. This is an enormous moral hazard, that I virtually guarantee would have a negative impact on gun violence. Just the discussion of making mental health gun laws, is making a gun owner thinking about getting help, reconsider, right now.

Please don’t discourage young hunters who get depressed from seeking help they might desperately need.

So… That’s how I would save guns. Strict local and aerial laws… virtually no control in small communities. Leave people who want to be left alone, alone. Don’t bring your high powered weapons to a baseball game, buy them in the desert/forest, shoot them in the desert/forest, or visit someone doing the same. If you do that… no one should ever have a problem with you.

Just to be clear. I am not, nor really intend, to be a gun owner. If I was, I’d buy a shotgun or six shooter… but I occasionally like the idea of moving into the middle of nowhere… and if I did that… I could totally see myself playing with some crazy toys. Making an electric helicopter, designing solar concentrators, even setting up a real life Borderlands 2 style obstacle course and shooting range… Why not take advantage of the fact there’s no one around?