Benefactors

We all want to be benefactors, that person who helps others out. But we also know that there is a responsibility with this. The beneficiary should be a person who truly needs help. No one wants people to mooch off of them, so those who benefit should do so by the direct choice of the benefactor.
A prodigal is someone who wastes what he should be investing until he has nothing left. There are numerous ways this happens, usually through the bad habit of seeking immediate pleasure. The only cure for prodigal behavior is the pain that comes with lack or maturity that comes from experience. A person who enables such a person and denies him the instruction of hard knocks, is also a prodigal. And so the cycle of having a society of prodigals becomes a pyramid scheme that works its way to the top. Of course prodigals shouldn't be confused with people who have a run of bad luck or need training in management. People in these two categories need help. These kind of people tend to give their benefactor honor. This is right and just. Prodigals feel entitled to help.
There is a type of tyrant called a Despot. He is a person who wants to look like a liberal benefactor really bad but he has no money of his own. A Despot will forcefully take from those who have earned and give to beneficiaries as though he was giving it out his own earnings. He wants everyone to love him but has taken his riches wrongfully. This has always been a despicable behavior. Any similarities to today's politicians?

Science

I am in the third book of metaphysics by Aristotle and am learning a few things about the way the ancients thought and he did. Not much different from today. So far he has spent quite a bit of time explaining the difference between general knowledge for utility or things that make life better and then a different kind of knowledge called “the wonder” about how things came to be. He says that some think that functional knowledge is all that is necessary and the rest left for God. They claimed that God chose not to reveal certain things so we would not attain his level. They taught that studying things in detail was a waste of time. Aristotle thought it was ridiculous. Why would a God be jealous about us knowing anything when he has everything to begin with? It just doesn't make sense. So it is up to us to ask why and discover. This doesn't upset God in the least. We have a questioning nature for a reason.
I like the fact that Aristotle separated mystical things from real things. This brought us into civilization. We have sciences that are studies and we have the scientific method which is a way to prove things conclusively. Just because something is studied and there are theories doesn't make any of the theories fact. So we can study nature, and things observable or we can study God the source of all things. Since we are lower and are under physical laws, we can only study what he reveals to us. Everything on the earth is up for grabs for us to study, but the origins can only be theorized. The fact that natural things are organized and function leads to the conclusion that there is an intelligent and superior being behind it all.
Well, I should write something political since it is the season and so next time….

Gay Marriage

We drew the coolest house. It had an exercise room, a theater  a common living room and our pads at each end. Yes it was my best friend, and we were sure it was what we were going to do when we grew up. It is normal for people no matter what gender to cohabit for a time. Sometimes brothers  or sisters stay in the house they grew up in. Is there a change in rights if the two people have sex? I don’t see it. Sex induced rights don’t exist.  Two friends or two sex partners; both couples have the same rights don’t they? Isn't unjust hatred toward anyone wrong? Of course had my friend and I built the house, we would have rights to our part of the investment. It doesn't take marriage to get that.
Marriage is a community thing. We invite guests and our religion supports it. The only reason law has been involved historically is to protect a dependent wife. If she stays home to raise the children and forgoes her career, she has freed her husband up to earn. Dowry rights of half the assets is compensation for her loss of earnings. The law makes things just. Obviously there isn't housewife insurance and so insurances have a family allowance. Rolls are reversed sometimes and a Mr. Mom can get on insurance also. It is this the gay community wants to get in on. If two same sex people who cohabit have sex, do they suddenly become eligible to all the benefits the law gives a housewife? Can living in dorms make students eligible for housewife benefits? I am not against gay people. The concept of special sex induced rights just doesn't make sense.

Ballot proposals.

Before giving political opinions, I need to explain the difference between philosophies. Our founders examined democracies of the past and found it to be a bad form of government. This is because the side with one more person was allowed to trample the rights of the minority. The founders formed a republic so we would elect educated people who would examine issues closely and make sure all sides were represented. This is the basic difference between democrat and republican. The democratic view is a winner takes all view and the republican view is to protect the rights of the minority. The concept of minority rights has nothing to do with race. With this in view, I am not a fan of ballot proposals because special interests who take money from out of state can advertise and convince people to bypass our legislature. It is like allowing engineers to build a bridge verses having every detail voted on. It would be a dangerous way to do it.
So concerning the Michigan ballot proposals I am voting no on all of them. I have read each of them and there isn't a single one that isn't bypassing our legitimate legislature. Each issue should be put before our elected officials so the minority view can also be represented. I can expand if you comment...

The Law and legal plunder

Been reading a book called “The Law”. It is the best discourse I have read on the purpose of having laws. It was written in the eighteen hundreds by Fredric Bastiat. Some French at that time had a great admiration for America’s freedom since the French revolution had brought in socialism and they felt enslaved by different masters. "Democracy in America" is another good book of that era.The French would have one tyrant, a king and he would be replaced by many tyrants due to revolutions. I always liked the Tale of Two Cities and it had scenarios from that period. One group would take over and then another. At what point does law violate good morals and become unjust? That is the subject of the book.
Aristotle said that Politics is the best study a man can apply himself to since it affects the ability of each individual to fulfill the dreams of his heart. Ethics is a broad subject but here are a few simple principals concerning ownership and freedom; The only way for someone to be considered generous is for him to give of his own sustenance. There are those who like to appear generous and take things by force and give to another person. This is what is called despotism. A person who wants acclaim for giving someone else’s goods is a despicable person. Someone who uses his sustenance up for immediate pleasure with no forethought is considered a prodigal. Anyone who supports such a person is also a prodigal in Aristotle’s eyes. We use the term enabler. Prodigal behavior can be corrected when the person experiences displeasure or matures. Those that keep them comfortable are doing them a disservice and they never learn the lesson that pain gives. There are also people who do what is right and experience bad luck. Being able to tell the difference is best done on a local level. The closer the giver is to the situation, the better he is at deciding if the person is worthy of help or if he needs to learn first. The beneficiary will owe that person honor and respect, otherwise he shouldn't be helped. To treat someone with contempt who contributed to you is a grave injustice.
A law must have force behind it or it is nothing more than a suggestion. Laws are made to protect a person from being murdered, enslaved or stolen from. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness respectively. According to Bastiat, it is impossible to use law for benevolence without legalizing theft. He called it legal plunder. If you take what a person has earned freely, you have also violated his freedom. Liberty and forced benevolence are contrary to each other and cannot exist together. He saw only three choices; Everyone plunders everyone, a few appointed plunderers do the job and distribute how they see fit, or we have freedom to keep what we earn. He also said that throughout history, when a system of plunder is in place, revolutionaries usually just fight to gain control of the system for themselves. This fact makes it hard to uproot a socialist system of plunder once it is in place.
How does this apply to today’s complex system? I have never been much of a groupy or a lemming. Decisions have to be made according to principle rather than hysteria. In some things such as highways, interstate and international travel and some economic regulation is necessary. There are promises made through entitlements and we have a welfare system. My family was on welfare due to hardship while I was a teenager but we all worked our way out of it. It should be a temporary thing. Work is the solution and jobs. I will try to address specific subjects in the future. Whatever we do should be agreed on by both parties. The person who is good at bringing them together rather than being divisive is the right person for the job as a leader. He will take the time to articulate his view and get others on board respectfully.