Money, as it is used today, is a very bad concept. The government uses money to control the citizens. The citizens have a debt to the government that they cannot repay. This is a very bad thing. There is nothing stopping the government from printing vast amounts of money, thereby devaluing the currency. Now for the real shocker: the US government already does this, through a little mechanism called the Federal Reserve. The government prints money and sends it to the banks. But wait, the process doesn't end there. The banks get to make up money. Most banks have very low reserve rates. The banks might only have perhaps 10% of the money that they owe at any given time. They do this remarkable magic trick by loaning money. The fractional-reserve banking system means that they only need to keep, say, 10% of the money they "have" in their reserves. The rest they can loan out. When those loans get paid back, however, the money gets put into the reserves, which means that the bank gets to loan out even more money. For example, if a bank "borrows" $100,000 from the Fed, the bank only needs to keep $10,000 in their reserves. They can loan the rest out. When that $90,000 get paid back, the bank can then loan out $81,000 (90% of $90,000). This process repeats itself many times, meaning that the bank actually got to loan out several time the amount they originally "borrowed" from the Fed. This means that a simple loan from the Fed leads to far, far larger amounts of money in circulation. This leads directly to inflation.
Now for another shocker: money is worthless. All that backs the currency of today is government fiat. This means that all that stops the government from printing more money and devaluing the overall economy is the goodwill of the government. This means that we have two choices: printing more and more money and causing terrible inflation, or not doing that. The latter would seem more preferable, but one must realize that the public would then have a debt to the government that can never be repaid. So in the end, both choices are bad. Money, as it is used today, is bad.
The question then arises: how can we achieve a monetary system that actually retains the benefits of both sides without the detriments? The benefit of the government printing more and more money is that the government gets to use a lot of money. The benefit of not doing this is that inflation is curbed. One possible solution is the government deciding the prices of every single object on the market, and keeping those prices. One problem with this is that it would difficult to figure out the logistics. Another problem is competition on the international market. Both of these problems could be solved by uniting the world into a single, global state.
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Shakespeare#3
THIS PLAY IS FAR TOO PREDICTABLE! Benedick and Beatrice confess their love, and Benedick challenges Claudio to a duel. I doubt that Benedick is even going to follow through with his challenge, because Hero and Claudio are probably going to get married. I don't like plays that are predictable, because they are cheesy. CHEESY=BAD! Besides, Don John is a bad character because he has no motivation other than the fact that he is a bastard. We cannot possibly know what he truly wants out of life, because all he wants are bad thing that lead to him suffering along with the rest of the world. He loses wars. He has to run away after he frames Hero. What does he want from life?! DON JOHN NEEDS MOTIVATION!
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Shakespeare#2
In scene 3, Shakespeare used the word 'note' a lot again. For example Balthasar says, "Note this before my notes: There's not a note of mine that's worth the noting."(2.3.56-57). I find it hard to believe that a character such as Balthasar would use words like that, especially when Benedick and others have already placed so much emphasis on it. It must be a conspiracy! Either that or Shakespeare was just using words to make the play sound better. (Ok, obviously it's the latter, but conspiracy theories are more fun).
Also note in scene 2, when Borachio is outlining his plan, he includes in the list of hoped-for outcomes the death of Leonato (see 2.2.29). Why is this, I wonder?
It is also interesting to note how Shakespeare places a certain emphasis on the difference between military life and civilian life, without describing the military life. In the first scene of the play, the characters are returning from a military action, so Shakespeare emphasizes the change a little bit at that time. Now, at the beginning of scene 3, act 2, he states it again, through Benedick: "I have known when there was no music with him but the drum and the fife, and now had he rather hear the tabor and the pipe;..."(2.3.13-15). It is interesting that throughout (most of) the rest of the play, Shakespeare scrutinizes the frivolity of civilian life, particularly that of the upper class.
Also note in scene 2, when Borachio is outlining his plan, he includes in the list of hoped-for outcomes the death of Leonato (see 2.2.29). Why is this, I wonder?
It is also interesting to note how Shakespeare places a certain emphasis on the difference between military life and civilian life, without describing the military life. In the first scene of the play, the characters are returning from a military action, so Shakespeare emphasizes the change a little bit at that time. Now, at the beginning of scene 3, act 2, he states it again, through Benedick: "I have known when there was no music with him but the drum and the fife, and now had he rather hear the tabor and the pipe;..."(2.3.13-15). It is interesting that throughout (most of) the rest of the play, Shakespeare scrutinizes the frivolity of civilian life, particularly that of the upper class.
Proof of God
P: God
G: Reality
Assume there is no God. If there is no God, there can be no proof. If there is no proof, there can be no reality.
If there is no God, there can be no proof because you can’t prove anything without making claims. You can’t claim anything without making assumptions. Assumptions are not consistent with the nature of proof. Therefore, there can be no proof.
If there is no proof, there can be no reality. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics both show that reality is defined by perception. Since perception is defined by belief and belief is defined by proof, there can’t be adequate reality. Also, there can be no inadequate reality because reality is an absolute concept.
Since there is reality, God must exist. If there is a God, then you can make claims without making assumptions, which means there can be proof, and therefore reality. (The definition of God is Inherent Truth. This is a good definition of God because if you prove something using an inherent Truth, all of reality is derived from that Truth, which means that the Truth is omnipotent.)
G: Reality
Assume there is no God. If there is no God, there can be no proof. If there is no proof, there can be no reality.
If there is no God, there can be no proof because you can’t prove anything without making claims. You can’t claim anything without making assumptions. Assumptions are not consistent with the nature of proof. Therefore, there can be no proof.
If there is no proof, there can be no reality. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics both show that reality is defined by perception. Since perception is defined by belief and belief is defined by proof, there can’t be adequate reality. Also, there can be no inadequate reality because reality is an absolute concept.
Since there is reality, God must exist. If there is a God, then you can make claims without making assumptions, which means there can be proof, and therefore reality. (The definition of God is Inherent Truth. This is a good definition of God because if you prove something using an inherent Truth, all of reality is derived from that Truth, which means that the Truth is omnipotent.)
Monday, November 13, 2006
Utopia1: Intro+Forms of Government
Utopia is the one thing human governments have been striving for since before Thomas More. Utopia is, in essence, the ideal state. That is why I shall, over the course of several articles, expound upon a theory I have held for some time pertaining to the seeming truth that a Utopia can only be achieved if the world is united into a global state, because otherwise we can neither attain world peace nor reduce economic competition to a productive level.
After we develop this global state, we get to the important part: setting up the government, which I believe should be decided upon before we try to unite the world. Various forms of government have been tested and tried over the years, and four in particular have come forward as important ones: Communism, Capitalism, Democracy, and a Parliamentary system. Note that these are neither mutually exclusive nor inclusive. Each one has its pros and cons. The duty of a Utopian government is to attempt to achieve as many of the pros and as few of the cons as possible. So, let's discuss the pros and cons of each governmental system. Communism is a way for a government to gain control over the basic trade structure and potentially ensure that the basic needs of all the citizens are provided for. However, many problems have been found in the basic setup of Communism. The lack of culture and the lack of motivation to do well or not do evil are the major complaints. In other words, Communism leads to fascism. Capitalism, on the other hand, is a way for the free market to take control, and the consumer grabs the reins. There is considerably more room innovation and entrepreneurial growth. However, there is never a guarantee of anything. This means that we want some government involvement in the market, but not too much. This is called Socialism.
However, Socialism isn't necessarily good, either. There isn't a bright line standard for what is enough or what is too much government involvement. This means that policies can change. When this happens, the private companies cannot always cope. They are forced to adjust, and they may not be capable of it. And there still isn't a guarantee that those with less money or purchasing power will be able to get the things they need. The ideal system, therefore, would be one where the citizens hold direct control over the distribution process, with some interference by the state.
Democracy is a way for the people to voice their opinions and influence major (and/or all) political decisions. This seems like a good thing right off the bat, but we have to realize that it leads to majority rule and potentially to the disenfranchisement of the minority. A Parliamentary system is a way for a few people to hold a large amount of power and use that power to serve their country. On the other hand, there isn't necessarily a guarantee that those in power will do the right thing. Thus, it is fairly easy to see that we need, in addition to a Democracy, some sort of constitution to assure that the minority will get enough representation and/or will not be disenfranchised.
After we develop this global state, we get to the important part: setting up the government, which I believe should be decided upon before we try to unite the world. Various forms of government have been tested and tried over the years, and four in particular have come forward as important ones: Communism, Capitalism, Democracy, and a Parliamentary system. Note that these are neither mutually exclusive nor inclusive. Each one has its pros and cons. The duty of a Utopian government is to attempt to achieve as many of the pros and as few of the cons as possible. So, let's discuss the pros and cons of each governmental system. Communism is a way for a government to gain control over the basic trade structure and potentially ensure that the basic needs of all the citizens are provided for. However, many problems have been found in the basic setup of Communism. The lack of culture and the lack of motivation to do well or not do evil are the major complaints. In other words, Communism leads to fascism. Capitalism, on the other hand, is a way for the free market to take control, and the consumer grabs the reins. There is considerably more room innovation and entrepreneurial growth. However, there is never a guarantee of anything. This means that we want some government involvement in the market, but not too much. This is called Socialism.
However, Socialism isn't necessarily good, either. There isn't a bright line standard for what is enough or what is too much government involvement. This means that policies can change. When this happens, the private companies cannot always cope. They are forced to adjust, and they may not be capable of it. And there still isn't a guarantee that those with less money or purchasing power will be able to get the things they need. The ideal system, therefore, would be one where the citizens hold direct control over the distribution process, with some interference by the state.
Democracy is a way for the people to voice their opinions and influence major (and/or all) political decisions. This seems like a good thing right off the bat, but we have to realize that it leads to majority rule and potentially to the disenfranchisement of the minority. A Parliamentary system is a way for a few people to hold a large amount of power and use that power to serve their country. On the other hand, there isn't necessarily a guarantee that those in power will do the right thing. Thus, it is fairly easy to see that we need, in addition to a Democracy, some sort of constitution to assure that the minority will get enough representation and/or will not be disenfranchised.
Shakespeare's wordplay
Shakespeare used words to his advantage. For example, in his play, "Much Ado About Nothing," he uses the word 'note' quite frequently. It is interesting to note that in Shakespeare's time, the words 'noting' and 'nothing' were homophones. The play emphasizes the way the characters notice each other and how it shapes their relationships. For example, in response to Claudio's inquiry as to whether he had noted Hero, Benedick says, "I noted her not, but I looked on her." (1.1.160). In some of the later acts, Shakespeare uses the word 'note' is other contexts, including referring to music and messages.
Also, as Benedick and Beatrice spar, Shakespeare points out how the English language can be used in humorous ways. For example, when Beatrice is talking with the messenger about Benedick:
"Messenger: I see, lady, the gentleman is not in your books.
Beatrice: No. An he were, I would burn my study." (1.1.76-78)
Just a few of the ways Shakespeare emphasized the different meanings of words.
Also, as Benedick and Beatrice spar, Shakespeare points out how the English language can be used in humorous ways. For example, when Beatrice is talking with the messenger about Benedick:
"Messenger: I see, lady, the gentleman is not in your books.
Beatrice: No. An he were, I would burn my study." (1.1.76-78)
Just a few of the ways Shakespeare emphasized the different meanings of words.