Moral & Intellectual Virtues

Moral Virtues

This is the case with the other moral qualities.  They are, in the main, means or point of balance between two extremes, each extreme being a vice either of excess or defect.  Modesty is thus the mean between pride (resulting from too much vanity) and humility (resulting from too little); ambition, between greed (excess) and sloth (defect); and so forth. 

It is in the nature of moral qualities that they are destroyed by deficiency and excess, just as we can see (since we have to use the evidence of visible facts to throw light on what is invisible) in the case of bodil health and strength.  For both excessive and insufficient exercise destroy one's health, and both eating and drinking too much or too little destroy health, whereas the right quanitiy produces, increases and preserves it.  So it is the same with temperance, courage and the other virtues.  The man who shuns and fears everything and stands up to nothing becomes a coward; the man who is afraid of nothing at all, but marches up to every danger, becomes foolhardy.  Similarly, the man who indulges in every pleasure and refrains from none becomes licentious; but if a man behaves like a boor and turns his back on every pleasure, he is a case of insensibility.  Thus temperance and courage are destroyed by excess and deficiency and preserved by the mean. (Book II, ii)

We have now said enough to show that moral virtue is a mean, and in what sense it is so: that it is a mean between two vices, one of excess and the other of deficiency, and that it is such because it aims at hitting the mean point in feelings and actions.  For this reason it is a difficult business to be good; because in any given case it is difficult to find the mid-point--for instance, not everyone can find the center of a circle; only the man who knows how. So too it is easy to get angry--anyone can do that--or to give and spend money; but to feel or act towards the right person to the right extent at the right time for the right reason in the right way-- that is NOT easy, and it is not everyone that can do it.  Hence to do these things well is a rare, laudable and fine achievement. (Book II, ix). --Aristotle (Ethics).   

Although much of the Nicomachean Ethics is dvoted to the analysis of this docrine of the "golden mean" (as it has come to be called), Aristotle's most memorable illustration of it is to be found not in the Nicomachean Ethics but in his Rhetoric, in the description of the three main stages of life as represented in the Youthful Man, The Man in His Prime, and the Elderly Man.  In terms of major virtues, the Youthful Man represents excess, The Main in His Prime represents the mean, and the Elderly Man the defect. 

Intellectual Virtues

If the mean is a relative thing that differs for different people (and even for the same people in different situations), so that no precise rules can be laid down as to what it might be at any one time, how does one go about determining it? Aristotle replies that it requires knowledge and wisdom, and thus to attain happiness we need to attend not only to the moral virtues but to the intellectual virtues (prudence, foresight, wisdom).

However, what Aristotle now says about the attainment of these intellectual virtues is discouraging, for it soon becomes apparent that if he is right, only few of us can hope to achieve true happiness.  For the perfection of the intellectual virtues, although indispensable in keeping the passions in check, is described as having a value and purpose all its own. The goodness of intellect that makes possible the goodness of character, which brings happiness, is itself, intrinsically finer and higher than anything else available to us. 

*Does this mean the "good life" is only available to the very few? (those who have intellect, health, family, wealth)

*Does this mean there is only one true road to happiness?

*Doesn't a carpenter, a reformer, a teacher, a clerk, a farmer deserve to attain true happiness?

Apparently, the happiness the virtuous man is to seek is not anyone else's but his own.  I am obliged, says Aristotle, to look after only myself.  Aristotle does indeed instruct us in altruistic virtues such as honesty, generosity, friendship, etc. but their justification is not that they will increase the general happiness but that these things are desirable for the individual to have.

Yet we can see that if it is true that in order to attain happiness one must cultivate and realize certain potentialities, then such happiness can only be obtained by attending to oneself.  And if such happiness if realized, society could not help but benefit.

Whose good ought I choose in case of conflict?

Bernie Sanders: Reading Past the Campaign Slogans (Part 2)

1. Minimum Wage: "Wednesday, July 22, 2015, Sanders introduced a bill to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour over a period of five years, called the "Pay Workers a Living Wage Act." You can view the press release here, the summary here, and the full bill here.

This bill proposes the follow wage adjustments:

+ Minimum wage - $9 in 2016, $10.50 in 2017, $12.00 in 2018, $13.50 in 2019, and $15 in 2020.
+ Tipped min wage - $3.15 in 2016, then increased $1.50 each year until matching standard minimum.
+ Youth min wage - can be no less than $3.00 less the standard minimum.

Business are expected to adjust their finances to cover this cost." (Source)

Question: Why does no one mention the elephant in the room? Inflation. 

1972: Dollar removed from gold standard
Average costs:
Car: $4,500
Home: $40,000
Gallon of gas: $.36
Visit to the doctors: $25.00
Average nominal salary: $8,424

Today: [price || percentage increase]
Car: $32,495[5] || 722%
Home: $208,000[7] || 520%
Gallon of gas: $3.48[8] || 966%
Visit to the doctors: $220[9] || 880%
Average nominal salary: $49,486[10] || 587%
http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/02/history-u-s-dollar-inflation-infographic/ 

"So let's take this claim apart. Suppose some menial job is now offering $15 dollars an hour. That does increase the employment pool because more people will want to apply for it. But what that really means is that some people who would have never dreamed of doing that job, because they were too overqualified for it, now don't really care about that, they just want the $15/hr. So, now the low-skilled people who would normally be competing among themselves, are now competing with much more educated high-skilled people for the same job. And so the people who are the most vunerable, who have the least skills are even LESS likely to find entry jobs. How does this help the people at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder?" -Tom Woods

Inflation Calculator

So, if the buying power of the dollar has decreased, yet the Federal Government wants to mandate a higher minimum wage without taking into consideration how inflation affects the economy (a hidden tax), this will force businesses to raise the cost to produce goods and provide services.  These cost increases affect the lower-income and middle-class the most.  Higher Minimum Wage + Higher Costs for Goods = No Significant Net Benefit.  As well, mandating a minimum wage increase will deter many companies that hire those employees to cut back on hiring new employees who have little skills and need those jobs the most.

Bernie Sanders: Reading Past the Campaign Slogans (Part 1)

Going past the campaign slogans of the self-proclaimed Socialist Democrat {Part 1}

[Image credit: http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Bernie-Sanders.jpeg]

A Bernie Sanders supporter sent me an article recently wanting to explain how Bernie Sanders proposes to "pay" for "everything", assuaging my fears and recent points doubting the feasibility of the $18 trillion dollar plan.  This actually got me reading a lot of documents I would have not been reading otherwise - but, I understand I need more knowledge ammo if I'm going to debate Bernie Sanders supporters. Oh, and the article does not explain how Bernie is going to pay for $18 trillion in new programs, it says this: "Sanders has been somewhat less-vocal on how he plans to financially support all his amazing positions without running the Federal Government into the ground..." Can I get a what-the-hell? That's NOT a very smart way to introduce your article, but anyway, here are a few good pieces of information I found today.

1. On Carbon Taxes: The article states, "The carbon tax imposed by these pieces of legislation (Climate Protection Act, Super Pollutants Act, and the Sustainable Energy Act) would be more than enough to provide the funds for these initiatives, with the specifics being a $20 carbon tax per ton of carbon emissions that will rise by 5.6 percent over the course of 10 years."

From the CBO's PDF document called "Effects of a Carbon Tax on the Economy and the Environment". "The Burden of a Carbon Tax - that is - the hardship caused by price increases for fossil fuels and emission intensive goods and services and by the reduction in wages and returns on investments would fall disproportionately on these groups:

1) Low Income Households (because of the increase in the cost of goods)
2) Workers and investors in emission-intensive industries and
3) People in regions of the country that rely on emission-intensive industries for their livelihood or use emission-intensive fuels to produce power.

The high prices resulting from a carbon tax would tend to be regressive - that is, they would impose a larger burden (relative to income) on low-income households than high-income households.  The reason is that low-income households spend a larger share of their income on goods and services whose prices would increase the most, such as electricity and transportation. "

"Lawmakers could balance these trade-offs (see part about tax swaps, etc) by choosing to use the revenues in more than one way. For instance they could allocate some of the revenues to offsetting costs to hard-hit households and the rest to reducing economy-wide costs. By one estimate, offsetting the cost of a carbon tax for households in the lowest two/fifths of the income distribution would take less than 30 percent of the gross revenues ; offsetting the costs for households in the lowest one/fifth would take roughly 12 percent."

So, after reading the document, it basically says depending on how they use the revenues from the CO2 tax, it could equalize the negative effects it has on the economy and maybe surpass it, but at first it would have more negative effects than positive, seeing as the economy and businesses would need to make huge adjustments and build new ways to produce electricity, etc.

2. Single-Payer Healthcare: The article states, "Perhaps the single most memorable aspect of Sanders’s platform is the fact that he wants to expand Medicare to every American in this country. Sanders justifies this by pointing out how we pay much more for a lower-quality system than other countries with a single payer plan."

"Single-payer systems cause shortages of general physicians and specialists and reduce access to medical technology. As an example, Heartland Institute Senior Fellow Peter Ferrara has noted only one-quarter of women in the United States diagnosed with breast cancer die of it, whereas the corresponding death rates are 35 percent in France and 46 percent in Britain, two nations with single-payer health-care systems.

Single-payer systems are notorious for long waiting lines and limited access to care. Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institute notes, “Forty percent of the population in Canada does not have a general practitioner because there are so few doctors. Even though they have theoretical entitlement [to health care], they can’t get it.” Such long queues force citizens in single-payer systems to seek care in the United States." [https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-dangers-single-payer-health-system]

As well, I found this interesting tidbit no one seems to mention: "In 2011, the Vermont state government enacted a law functionally establishing the first state-level single-payer health care system in the United States. Green Mountain Care, established by the passage of H.202, creates a system in the state where Vermonters receive universal health care coverage as well as technological improvements to the existing system.

On December 17, 2014, Vermont Democrats abandoned their plan for universal health care, citing the taxes required of smaller businesses within the state.[1]" 

[ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_health_care_reform.]  Hmmm, Bernie never mentions that.

3. Fixing America's Infrastructure:  To me, this sounds great at first. Who doesn't want to fix America's crumbling bridges and roads?

"Tuesday, January 27, 2015, Sanders introduced legislation to create 13 million jobs, called the "Rebuild America Act." You can view a press release here, a summary of the bill here, and the full bill here.

The bill proposes to spend $1.6 trillion on rebuilding America's roads, bridges, railways, airports, waterways, ports, national parks, and electric grids from 2015 to 2022. Funding for this proposal appears to come in the establishment of a National Infrastructure Development Bank to give out loans."  Source.

Cost: $1.6 trillion. (Here is a visual representation of what a trillion looks like) Bernie Sanders doesn't propose any new taxes to pay for this, but the creation of a new government owned bank called the National Infrastructure Development Bank.  The qualifications to run this bank are a) to have public sector experience and b) to have private sector experience. That's it. That's all it says.  The bank will "borrow on the global capital market and lend to regional, State, and local entities and commercial banks for the purpose of funding infrastructure projects, and "Purchase in the open market any of the Bank's outstanding obligations at any time and any price". 

In simple terms, this just means more debt!

"Racist" Facts White People Dare not Talk About

Yes, Blacks CAN be Racist

Before I begin, I have to give a "trigger-warning" (ha!) disclaimer; racism is the most taboo and policed of all thoughts in this "tolerant" country and is extremely difficult for people to openly discuss the topic without the discussion disintegrating into total logical chaos and ad hominem attacks. I posted this topic for this very reason as to see what kind of debate could take place. Also, for my black and minority friends and followers, I also have to give a disclaimer because some will inevitably take a conversation like this personally when in reality I am trying to address the larger issue of Cultural Marxism and Critical Race Theory. The topic of black racism is the most taboo subject of all. I find it absurd and frankly distressing that our society teaches and condones the fact that only whites are capable of racism and that whites are responsible for "institutionalized racism". This is clearly false, and there are numerous examples to illustrate this, some I will quote later.

Clearly, no one denies the history of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, etc. But the fact is, we have come a long, long way since segregation was the law of the land and the US has done more than almost any other country to equalize the opportunities for blacks and minorities. The US has instituted affirmative action, The Civil Rights Act, The Fair Housing Act, School Integration (Brown vs. Board of Education), and the first anti-discrimination laws were passed 30 years before the Civil Rights act of 1964 during the New Deal. Congress passed Title VII, ending discrimination in employment. Section 703(a) forbade any employer to “limit, segregate, or classify employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment” based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. President Johnson issued Ex. Order 11246 which established color-blind hiring rules for federal contractors. We have grants, scholarships, minority fraternities and groups in universities. This has effectively equalized opportunities for minorities and leveled the playing field. I have never witnessed anyone – employer, teacher, clerk, etc. - deny service or equal opportunity to blacks or other minorities. I have, and I know you have, had perfectly normal and great professional and personal relationships with people of color where race was really never a thought in our minds. I believe this is the norm in 2015.

Growing up in the last 30 years in America, I never really thought about race much because I was taught everyone was equal, had the same god-given rights, and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I was shocked after discovering numerous examples of overt hatred of whites (which I will share below) and shocked further still after attempts to broach this subject I was met with the same response in varying degrees of malice and indoctrinated hatred of the “white male oppressor” theme. Where was this coming from I asked? What is going on here? I had come to think race relations were improving in the US, so why can't a meaningful conversation take place without the argument that minorities are still, after all I have listed “systematically and institutionally oppressed and disadvantaged on all levels”? It is apparent that the US has done more to insure that blacks and minorities are in fact NOT “systematically and institutionally oppressed and disadvantaged on all levels.” These are the questions that led me to discover Critical Theory, Cultural Marxism, and the insidious effect this type of thought has on the "oppressed minorities" in the "evil Capitalist West".

The famous quote from MLK: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Malcom X: “I am not a racist. I am against every form of racism and segregation, every form of discrimination. I believe in human beings, that all human beings should be respected as such, regardless of their color.” 

In stark contrast: “From his adoption of the Nation of Islam in 1952 until he left the organization in 1964, Malcolm X promoted the Nation's teachings. He taught that black people were the original people of the world,[71] and that white people were a race of devils.[72] In his speeches, Malcolm X said that black people were superior to white people, and that the demise of the white race was imminent.[73]” This is the very definition of racism. (“Racism: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.”) Malcom X is held in extremely high regard in the black community.

"In January, (1991) Minister Dr. Khalid Abdul Muhammad of the Nation of Islam gave a talk at Columbia University sponsored by the Black Students Organization. He spoke of “Columbia Jewniversity” and “Jew York City” and argued that the blacks who attacked the Central Park jogger were in jail because of a “no-good, low-down, nasty white woman.” He said that the government had killed Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, and that blacks were the fathers of civilization. Whites, on the other hand, had produced nothing but “murder, bloodshed, destruction, misery, slavery, colonialism, racism, sexism, Zionism, and all forms of madness.” Minister Khalid’s visit was paid for out of the university’s mandatory student activities fee, and his remarks were reportedly met with great enthusiasm. His speech was certainly a tour de-force exercise of free speech...” (Paved With Good Intentions, Jared Taylor)

“On Sunday, the St. Petersburg/Tampa, Florida, chapter of the New Black Panther Party issued a tweet calling for the murder of white people.
“Kill these racist h**keys, these cr***ers, these pigs, these pink people, It has been long overdue!” the organization said on Twitter.
In a 32-page newsletter released in May, NBPP leader Malik Zulu Shabazz suggested that violence may be the most effective way to advance their agenda. (Posted by EU Times on Apr 21st, 2015).”

The city of Dallas, TX was searching for a new police chief in the fall of 1990. A black commissioner promised mass violence if the new chief did not meet his standards for racial sensitivity, “If you try to bring a 'good 'ol boy' in this system, we're going to be in the streets – physically, literally shooting folks,” he said. (United Press International, Omaha World-Herald, Sept. 20, 1990, pg. 10)

Louis Farrakhan: “The Mother Wheel is a heavily armed spaceship the size of a city, which will rain destruction upon white America but save those who embrace the Nation of Islam.” -and this: “The Jews don’t like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that’s a good name. Hitler was a very great man.” -Louis Farrakhan 

Here are some excerpts from an opinion piece written by a black student in the college newspaper of Penn State University:

“After looking at all of the evidence there is only one conclusion: white people are devils…. I believe that we must secure our freedom and independence from these devils by any means necessary, including violence…. To protect ourselves we should bear arms (three handguns and two rifles, maybe an M-16) immediately and form a militia…. So black people, let us unite, organize and execute.”

Execute? What accounts for words like this from a young black man attending a well-known university? Why would someone who grew up in an era not only of civil rights and integration but also of affirmative action write these things?" (Chino Wilson, “African Americans Should Not Trust 'Devilish' White People,” The Daily Collegian (Penn State University), Jan. 28, 1992.)

After reading these examples, (there are more, but I am trying to be brief) how can anyone say black racism is “impossible”? How is it acceptable for anyone of any race to advocate violence in such a way, use racial slurs, with absolutely no reprecussions. In Critical Race Theory, if a white priveliged male said these things there would be an international news sensation and calls for firing, violence, and social ostrisizing! Look at the original comment response that started this thread. I believe this is a response created from years of reinforcing and teaching in universities Cultural Marxism, an idea that breeds hatred, self-segregation, and group think that is a now knee-jerk level response to anyone wanting to ask serious questions about race relations at present. I refuse to self-censor myself at the alter of political correctness. 

Amiri Baraka was famous as one of the major forces in the Black Arts movement of the 1960s and ’70s, which sought to duplicate in fiction, poetry, drama and other mediums the aims of the black power movement in the political arena. One wonders what influence a poem like this has on the mindset of a person: 
 

“[Y] ou can’t steal nothin from a white man, he’s already stole it
he owes you anything you want, even his life.
All the stores will open if you will say the magic words.
The magic words are: Up against the wall mother fucker this is a stick up!
Or: Smash the window at night (these are magic actions)
smash the windows daytime, anytime, together, let’s smash the window
drag the shit from in there. No money down. No time to pay. Just take what you want.”

(Quoted in Anne Wortham, The Other Side of Racism, Originally in The Black Poet, ed. Dudley Randall, p. 226)

I am disturbed at the silence (well, not really- they are run by the MOT) in the media when it comes to this topic. I am also deeply concerned about the level of censorship, political correct policing of thoughts in today's universities and academia. No topic, no matter how difficult, can ever be addressed if it is ignored. Every other racial group can freely advance its interests at the expense of others, but whites are forbidden to organize and work for their own interests, and are expressly forbidden to talk about race. My question to you is: Why is this topic forbidden? Why are white people in 2015 responsible for “The sins of the father”? If there is a body of thought that shows all the signs of doctrinaire rigidity, willful ignorance, and even duplicity, it is what is thought and said about race. In blaming “institutional racism,” it attempts to transfer responsibility to an entire society, even when there is no intent to discriminate. It does away with the idea of individual responsibility, while essentially declaring all whites guilty.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/black-americans-react-to-farrakhans-call-to-stalk-and-kill/

Hidden Influence: The Rise of Collectivism (2015 Documentary)

Bulletin from the MOT (Ministry of Truth)

When I comment on YouTube videos concerning Muslims, Islam, etc. I often come upon the statement that Islam (Arabs) created the mathematical concept "Zero" and preserved tomes and tomes of knowledge and history, thus helping the free world continue on the spectacular path to the Enlightenment and Modern Society. This is completely false.

From Vox Popoli: A history lesson originally written by John Wright [OP]:

"Within twenty-five years after the death of Mohammed, the southern and eastern reaches of the Byzantine Empire, all Christian lands, and all fertile, were reduced by terror and sword to a wasteland. Te Jewish colonies of Yemen were conquered. Libya and much of Egypt to this day retains this character. All seven of the Churches mentioned by name in the Book of Revelation were conquered.

The Mohammedanism, like the Stalinism who came later, demand history be abolished, and are responsible for the burning and loss of nine tenth of the known lost ancient manuscripts of history. The destruction of the Stone Buddha statues in Afghanistan, or the famous museum in Babylon, was not a mistake or the act of some odd extremists: it is a central part of mainstream Sharia. Christian churches and relics are destroyed whenever they fall into Mohammedan hands: to this day, the Church of Saint Sophia in Constantinople is used as a mosque, in triumphant mockery of the defeated Christians.

You have no doubt heard that there was a Golden Age of Islam, where Muslim scholars preserved the works of Aristotle and the ancients, invented the zero, or made great strides in astronomy and mathematics. This is all an outrageous lie, the precise opposite of the truth. There were certain Spanish scholars, mostly Jews and Christians, conquered by Muslims, but who preserved the ancient texts despite the Muslim program of destroying them. The Byzantine Empire preserved what we have of ancient learning, and scholars fleeing the downfall of one Byzantine theme, province, or city after another in the relentless onslaught of Mohammed reintroduced them into the West. The Moslems not only were not the preservers of the knowledge of the ancient literature, they were the main force destroying it."

For further reading, The Closing of the Muslim Mind is an excellent in depth history of the two factions of Arab philosophical thought and how the fundamentalist Ashar'ite sect triumphed, thus preventing Islam from embracing Logic, Science, and Philosophy.