The Philosopher

Disclaimer: I don’t fully endorse what you are about to read because I don’t believe it can happen in a practical world and frankly there are usually better means in achieving peace and equality within this world than total racial segregation. Please take what this blog post as something that is theoretical and unrelated to the segregation to civil rights era. How segregation is preceived in a practical world is horrible and shouldn’t be applicable in any circumstance. I am sorry if my post offends anyone, I really don’t intend for that, but…. still hear me out on the theory. 

In my law class we are learning about the major court cases in american history, and Plessy v. Ferguson really stood out to me. Plessy v. Ferguson was the court case that the Supreme Court cases passed in order to segregate the schools between blacks and whites. It ruled under the doctrine “Separate but Equal.” When our class first went over this court case it really intrigued me, because essentially when this court case came up, my mind thought of a weird scenario of total world segregation and how that could lead to an almost total equality and therefore lead to a somewhat peaceful society. (Cause that’s what my mind does) And I can kinda understand how segregation can lead to equality. The existence of different races promotes inequality and either the eradication of different races or segregation of those races can FULLY solve the problem of inequality. (Wow… I sound like a white supremist.)

So think about this. A total segregated world, in which there is a specific amount of land is set aside for a certain race and none of these lands are able to communicate each other, so that we achieve total segregation. One could argue that race is the prime factor of inequality and that inequality is the prime factor of all the unfairness in the world. The diversity of races caused slavery, racism, and the unfair bias in the criminal justice system. Total solvency for these problems would be total segregation. If the world was segregated by race or even by class maybe, most of the problems that are present in today’s world. Segregation is just separate unification, and when everyone is the same, everyone is then equal.

Always love to hear the opposing viewpoint (Because there is always an opposing view point.) And if you can also follow me on tumblr for future posts. 

Now the number one argument I usually hear with the whole Palestine and Israel issue is the whole “who was there first” argument. And they prove this by linking to the covenant. And then the opposing view usually argues the rationality argument or the “Who the hell thought it was smart to put jews in an area full of muslims” argument (quoting a friend of mine that shall be anonymous). My opposing view is on a totally different standpoint. Now I think most people use the “The Covenant” argument mainly because they cross-apply right of a nation with the natural inherent rights of an individual. Which I believe is an illegitimate argument because there is no “birth of a nation” and “inherency of right for a nation”.

I usually open my argument against any stock Pro-Israel with cross-applying they argument to the United States. According to the “Who was there first” argument, The United States is illegitimately a nation because the first inhabitants were Native Americans. The United States wasn’t given this land, they took this land by force. And this directly counters the philosophy of natural rights. And the United States isn’t the only example of this. Imperialism is something seen prominently throughout history. 

We all believe  (well at least most Americans) that rights and property are inherent and given to us at birth. Every person has the right to life, liberty, and property, and all that jazz. Which is fine when you are talking about individual natural/human rights. But this can’t be directly correlated with nations, because there is no “birth of nation”. Among individuals, acquiring property is just only if it is acquired legitimately. And legitimately acquiring property is taking it in exchange for something or when an opposing actor is giving it to you as a gift. A nation in the other hand, empirically has never really done this often (only thing I could think of is Louisiana Purchase). Empirically, land has usually been acquired through a means of fighting or war. Nations have gone into foreign land and taken over other land with force countless of times. And I believe this is the standard in how any sort of land acquirement should be judged. I believe that a nation has land if they have taken it by force in regards to history. And personally this is why I believe that Israel is legitimate (and soon Palestine will be legitimate) because they took the land by force. Now I wish the circumstances were different and were more correlated with how natural rights are, but according to history, this can’t be. 

 

I would love to see counter arguments to this. Post a reply with what you guys have. 

Today, I am going to purpose a theory on human experience and growth. It is based on the Veil of Ignorance Theory by John Rawls, and it focuses on a “complete restart/control on human development.

In our current society, the race for perfection in human development should be concentrated within human ideals. The ideal defines the whole human and ideals are inherently bias. Bias is logically false, because it promotes choice with little reason or background. To have to the perfect ideal, we must eliminate this inherent bias within these ideals and thus create the perfect human.

                Lets implement this veil of ignorance upon this human before his conception and birth and give him/her the knowledge that it shall have an existence in a realm in which he will benefit and contribute to. Within this realm that he will soon be put into, he is unaware of what his social class will be, how much income he has, but what he will know is that his actions within this realm will affect the greater good. The greater good would be then his main obligation. He wouldn’t live for himself, but for the sake of others. The elimination of bias is present here because, the only choice for him to make is for the greater good. He essentially has no autonomy and no autonomy means no bias.

                Now lets implement this theory into every human being that would be born. Every human being would then have one ideal. To promote the greater good. Every single human would work to promote the prosperity of everyone else. In creating the perfect human, we have also created a perfect society.

I would like to see an opposition to this, because this was just something I typed up during my English class and sometimes I REALLY need something to do in there. 

Well I haven’t been blogging too much. School. What are you going to do?

Anyway, lately I’ve come to realization that “time” is a concurrent objective entity that is subjective to human perception. (That was just the long way of saying “Crap… There is a future. How the hell am I going to end up?) Well, I recently had a self evaluation, and judging from my horrible case of procrastination and my seemingly incurable case of laziness, I’m probably going to end up as CEO of Box, Inc. (And I’m not talking about the company that regulates and sells cloud based memory…). I have come to the realization that What we do now defines who we are tomorrow. Recently, I’ve seen many of my class mates start to form what they will become tomorrow, today. Becoming vice-president of an area wide organization is honestly a truly great accomplishment, or getting accepted to a prestigious ivy league school based on merit and leadership are truly great accomplishments. But I see an inherent problem in all of these accomplishments, (and just to be clear, this isn’t me being jealous, I just have this inherent goal in which I want to accomplish, but not “following the right path” in order to achieve it.) none of these accomplishments are mine.  You see, I’ve always had a dream to become someone big, someone who changes the world, but I never knew how I could essentially achieve this goal. I believe that this problem/goal is non unique, and that I have plenty of time to figure this out, but in a competitive world like the one in which I live in, the ones who start out on top first, also achieve greatness first. 

-The Philosopher

Lets face it… Drugs out of their proper usage is bad. Drugs, (in my belief) should only be used for medical purposes. Nothing more, nothing less. This is the main reason why I am personally against the legalization of Marijuana. Now I am not advocating that the the total usage of marijuana should be outlawed (Because Marijuana has some great medical purposes), but I am against legalizing it for everyday usage. My main argument is safety. The government’s sole obligation is to protect its citizens and ensure safety. If anything harms the citizens of the Unites States, the government needs to do everything in its power to stop that harm. The harm is Marijuana, therefore the government must not legalize it. It has similar effects as alcohol, and we all know how many death that takes up. (45,000 a year, just in DWI). One may argue, “OHHH WELL ALCOHOL IS LEGAL”. I agree it is. But look back in history young ignorant one. Look back at the prohibition era. When alcohol wasn’t legalized. The government actually wants alcohol to be banned. The only reason it isn’t, is because of the sheer stupidity of people. The causation of legalized alcohol is because of the many revolts of the people. The people wanted alcohol, so the government gave it to them. Alcohol and unsafety and marijuana are synonymous. The people wanted unsafety, so the government gave[or will give] it to them.
   

So in the spirit of the New Year, I’ve decided on partaking on a bit of a change. There are a couple thing I want to accomplish this new year and I’m actually going to be serious about. In previous years, I never actually had a “Resolution”. Well if you call “wanting to work out more” or “Asking out the girl that you starting to like a few days before the new year” a “resolution”. I seriously want to do something with my life. I was watching many Ted talk today (Winter Break and bored as hell. What else?) and it wasn’t the more popular and inspiring ones (Since I’ve seen most of them already. Sad? Maybe…). I was particularly watching the TED videos with Teen speakers. And midway of watching the guy that is the same age with me explain his science project about his new revolutionary way of locating pancreatic cancer in the body, I thought to myself. “WHAT THE HELL AM I DOING WITH MY LIFE?” The answer is something. But not everything. Not everything I want to do. I want to read books(something I haven’t done in ages), learn more Philosophy, love, create, become more wise, know what I want to do with my life, and all in all just become more successful… In this next year, I plan on doing all of that. Bet on it.