One man’s, “I came, I saw, I conquered,” is another cultures, “They came we showed them all of our treasures, and how we live as a community of spiritual - earth connected people, and they beat the crap out of us…”
It’s not that I am serious about that statement it’s just another point of view, one that would be drowned out in any city planning commission meeting or when they divide the states up into voting blocks and then you pick which candidate will best serve your communities interest. So tell me Arnold, how is buying a huge SUV or big truck, while taking money away from education, helping??
The good red road is an ass kicker, cause you are aware of all that is the sacred circle (different points of view) or contained in the medicine wheel. There is no argument here with you, and I am not trying to make one on this thread. I am just a humble man who is more than thrilled that you have signed on and are sharing your knowledge about surfboard building from a personal and experienced viewpoint.
If you don’t raise a fuss, I won’t…
Zoning laws are government regulated restrictions on how a particular piece of land can be used. The zones can be of any type, including housing, financial, and industry. These laws are at least partially an attempt to solve a very real problem. If people buy a house in a residential area, they do not want a loud or polluting factory to be opened next door to them. The problem is not the creation of a factory, per se. It’s the damage done to the original owners. A house becomes unusable if the sound, smell, or air quality around it is suddenly changed.
Zoning laws are a heavy-handed remedy for this problem, though. Nuisance laws have existed long before zoning laws, and remedy the problem more directly. Zoning laws are merely a method of increasing power in the hands of bureaucrats. They are a direct violation of property rights . Through the use of force, they can specify how people can or cannot use their property.
Nuisance laws, on the other hand, only apply when there is a conflict between two parties. They specify that if one person, by the legitimate use of their property, disrupts the legitimate use of property by another, he must cease and/or pay restitution. If however, the person who is claimed to be disrupting others was there first, practicing the same behavior, then he can continue. An example is a pig farmer who stinks up the surrounding area. If he lives out away from the rest of the world, he is not disturbing anyone. If others move out to live near him, and then complain about the smell, they have to live with it. He was there first.
Thus, an objective, proper standard of evaluation is possible under nuisance laws. Zoning laws, though, are necessarily arbitrary. If someone wants to start a factory in an area, and none of the neighbors who it would directly affect mind (and they may even want him to), he may still be disallowed by zoning laws. They are non-objective, arbitrary power. Inevitably the power gets abused.
The major abuse is called “city planning”. The bureaucrats decide that they can better our lives through central planning. They proceed to zone and re-zone areas, violating the rights of the citizens, and disrupting the lives of anyone who doesn’t fit into their plan. The goal or theme of the plans differ over time. Currently, the theme is “fighting urban sprawl”, which means forcing everyone to live in the city instead of in the suburbs, where there is more room, privacy, and scenery.
Capitalism whether it’s out of your neighbors garage or at the local surf shop…
Those who view the disparity between rich and poor as an indication of tragedy usually want to rectify the situation. But the only means to achieve egalitarianism in a world where each man has equal rights but unequal ability is to trample those rights. The only tool available is force . And no amount of force will make men more able, force can only make men less able. The only means of making “the poor” successful under capitalism is to destroy the rich. But because wealth is created and consumed individually, this won’t make anyone better off for long. You can kill or rob a successful man and live off of the fruits of his labor for a while, but you will have killed the tree, and once those initial fruits are gone, there are no more where those came from unless you find a new victim to rob. This is a pyramid scheme that can only end in death for all.
The truth is that the wealthier those around you are, the better off you are. This is very important. The more wealth your neighbors have, the more they can buy. The economies of scale drive prices down, increasing your standard of living, and decreasing your cost of capital so you can increase your productivity and further increase your standard of living. One man possessing enormous wealth does in no way negatively affect any other people, unless he uses that wealth as a means to initiate force.
The saying should be: the rich get richer and the poor get richer . Everyone gets richer under capitalism where they are free to do so.
Reason and Passion
The belief in the reason/passion dichotomy has a number of causes. The first is the belief that to be truly objective, you must be impartial and not influenced by emotion. If you feel strongly about an issue, it is taken as a sign that you cannot be rational about it. If this were true, it would be enough to sever reason and passion. Fortunately, reason need not be sacrificed to emotion And emotion need not conflict with reality.
A second cause of the reason/passion dichotomy stems from the mind/body one. It is the belief that the physical and mental world are separate and opposite. People consider passion as very worldly. It shows an emphasis on our lives and the world around us. It screams, “This is important!” Passion is powerful. We use it for emotions that are based on value-judgments. Whether it’s love or hate, joy or anger, we experience it in response to what is important in our lives.
Reason, on the other hand, is often considered abstract. As with the Scholastics arguing about angels dancing on the head of a pin, it is seen as interesting, but not particularly relevant. It is seen as “other worldly” and more of a form of amusement than anything practical. Philosophers through history have encouraged this belief by making a life out of pointless “reasoning”, all the while achieving nothing and not even practicing what they preach.
Reason and passion are not opposites though. In fact, they are complementary and properly go together. An emotion is a programmed, automated response to a particular value-judgment. The value-judgment is determined by reason. Properly, reason and passion align and mutually reinforce each other. A solid reasoning provides increased strength to the passion, removing any subconscious doubts. A strong passion provides perspective on what is important, and allows a more focused reasoning. It keeps you focused on what’s really important.
Passion without reason is a flight of fancy. It has no support from the mind, which leaves lingering doubts. An emotion can never be as strong when it defies reason. Reason fights against it, dissolving it over time. Those who claim they feel passion without reason are merely claiming that they are impervious to the effects of reason.
Reason without passion is equally implausible. If one really has acquired an understanding of something important, the passion should follow from the reasoning. Only when the “reason” is rationalistic, non-integrated and undigested can it be devoid of emotion. If someone claims that something is crucial to your life and well-being, but can’t get excited about it, it is a sign that he doesn’t actually grasp the idea.
From:
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com
