Some Thoughts on Planned Parenthood and Personal Responsibilty

01/25/2017 at 1230 am

I did a few things before work. I called the bank, did some dishes, ate some food, added something to the website, watched some TV. Mostly watched stuff about the rioting and woman's rally. I think that a lot of them want attention and social points. I am not sure what rights woman have lost in the past few months or years. At least as a whole. I'm sure some woman are doing well and some are not but I am not sure it is the government to blame solely for either case. I also do not know what President Trump can do to take rights away from all woman at once.

Discontinuing funding for certain programs like Planned Parenthood might be a good thing. Especially if it isn't effective, efficient or moral. My personal thoughts on abortion are complicated and I do not have a final word on it at the moment but I do know that a large amount of people think it is very, very immoral and don't want their money going toward this act. I do not think they should be forced to do so. But I also don't think anyone should be forced to do things that they find morally reprehensible when not doing it doesn't hurt anyone. If a woman gets pregnant, unless I had sex with her, it is not my responsibility. Or at least it shouldn't be. I shouldn't be forced to pay for abortions nor should I, or anyone else, be forced to pay for the child if the woman decides to have the baby. And I certainly shouldn't have to pay for the adult that arises from this.

Procreation is a responsibility and an obligation that people should not get into lightly or ignorantly but if they do it should not be put upon others. That does not mean that those people shouldn't be helped or that they should suffer. I believe that anyone can provide value, even if that value is simply friendship, which will compel others to help them. Charities have existed for a long time and a free market of charities could sustain the needy because the array of giving, when voluntary, could be vast.  An added benefit would come when people relying on the kindness of strangers would be compelled toward kindness in an effort to be taken care of.

So, are woman mad that some woman will have to pay for their own abortions? Or their own contraception? Condoms are cheap and if insurance companies don't offer female contraception, then that sucks and it would be great if they did. Regardless, it is still up to women and men to make sure they don't make babies if they can't take care of them. I also know that no matter what anyone thinks about abortion woman will get them. Woman have always found ways to abort fetuses and there are certainly cases where it makes medical sense. In a free market abortion clinics would probably exist and if people didn't like them they could make their arguments against it known and shop somewhere else.

Now, there might be an argument that easier access to abortions and contraception is good for the nation so far as it reduces unwanted children that will most likely end up in poverty. I think that it is hard to tell what the true rate of abortions would be if it were not subsidized and what effect that would have on the conception rate. People have always been having children they couldn't take care of and in the past some of them would die. Disease, childbirth, nature, infection, starvation and the like. This is not ideal and I'm sure it was hard on parents. I could see someone saying that force might be justified if it means that less people will suffer but I am not sure what the true cost of allowing force to be justified for these circumstances. This is another reason why people gave to charities and volunteered to help the needy, because they saw the suffering and wanted to help. When it is a local issue it seems to be easier to feel compassion and take action.

I also think that incentives and consequences matter to decision making. When the consequences of an action are reduced people, if already inclined, will continue or increase their rate of engaging in that action. When consequences are high people tend to engage less in them and ultimately every action has a consequence whether it gets passed around or distributed among many. Nothing is "free" in a personal sense or in a financial sense. We are limited by our biology and we are limited in our resources. Even the wealthy are limited by these things (less on the resources side, obviously).

A New Way to Govern: The Presidential Triangle

What would happen if we just elected both of them?
If 40% of Americans support each candidate then electing both would satisfy 80% of Americans, right? Probably not because people are insane but if the American people believe these two are qualified then wouldn't the best outcome be to elect both and force them to work together for the people?

If they can't work together then they aren't working for the American people, they are working for themselves. The people shouldn't care about the specific person anyway, but in the job they will do. It's not as if the president is a dictator and can simply do whatever they want so a dual presidency would add a level of balance both of power and of opinion. Shouldn't these people be paragons of cooperation and negotiation anyway? If they are then their work would be the outcome of balanced problem solving and they could hold each other accountable to what the other side of the aisle wants.


We should get rid of the GOP and DNC and have the American people vote on their top three choices for president. The top two become co-presidents and the third candidate would become the vice-president. It would be a triangle of decision making.

If nothing else this kind of experiment in governance would be entertaining, which seems like what the American people really want. The mainstream media is already a freak show so why not put the two freaks together and film the process?

 I am not sure if this has been tried in other countries or if it would tear the universe apart but I think change is important.

Or just not hire either and move their responsibilities to the people or to the other branches of the government. Shouldn't the general public be part of the checks and balances in a more defined and effective way? Governmental experimentation, with the goal of creating more accountability and effectiveness, should be valued to those who want change. 

Abstinence: Why I'm Not Voting

When it comes to the upcoming 2016 presidential election I can say that I am not planning on voting. I could argue that Hilary is a liar or that Trump is a joke but anyone who thinks these two are the best choice for the leader of anything are kidding themselves. These people are horrible and not worth the attention they are given. I wouldn't hire them if they were the only candidates and it seems that they are. Instead of going into tedious detail outlining the hypocrisy and corruption of two idiots, I will expound upon some common arguments against my position.

One inane argument I hear is that if someone doesn't vote they can't complain which is ridiculous. A person is born into a political system and if that system is corrupt, incompetent, or otherwise undesirable then that person has every right to both criticize that system and abstain from participating in elements of that system that they find morally reprehensible. If freedom is important then the freedom to abstain must be an option. When force is involved freedom is diminished and at the extremes, abolished altogether. Those who stifle free speech are purveyors of oppression.

“I don't vote. Two reasons. First of all it's meaningless; this country was bought and sold a long time ago. The shit they shovel around every 4 years *pfff* doesn't mean a fucking thing. Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around – they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with.”   -George Carlin

Another argument is the "lesser of two evils" argument. This has some logic to it because if someone is inevitably going to become president then it makes sense to acquiesce to the system and make a small contribution to whom you think will cause the least amount of harm. This is a consequentialist position and might be the right way to go assuming the assessment of evil is correct. I do not believe that this position is morally superior to abstaining, especially if the system and candidates are so corrupt that voting for either candidate is siding with an evil. Just because someone says it is a lesser evil isn't much consolation. When it comes to putting my name behind a person that has power over others, I will not back someone whom I deem corrupt no matter the outcome. Sometimes doing the right thing means not doing anything at all.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” ― Edmund Burke

I am not apathetic but I am pessimistic about the ability of politicians to do the right thing. While I care about the policies and power systems that affect the lives of the people I care about including myself I don't think that the government that I was born into is in any way rational, moral or effective. I think it is what it is made of; many self serving monsters.   

So, why not vote for a third party? To this I would say,"what's the point?" While it might be a way to skirt the social stigma of not voting at all, it is still adding credibility to the system as a whole. It says,"I want a president." And I don't want a president, especially one that says one thing before an election and then is woefully inept at enacting positive change due to the structure they would be in if they won, which they won't. No third party candidate will win so it is out of sheer optimism and self righteousness that one votes for a third party. 

Another thing. I reserve the right to change my mind. With more information, evidence and convincing arguments I may choose to alter my opinion on this matter and any other. Too many hold fast to bad ideas because of ignorance, corruption or cowardliness. We should all have the wisdom and humility to admit that we may not know or may be wrong and I may be wrong. But so might you. For me, the most important thing is freedom and the freedom to choose whom and what I put my name on defines my moral character. 

If you think it is moral to vote then you should vote but maybe your outrage should match the weight and consequence of your actual influence. One vote when filtered through the electoral college is diluted of nearly all it's power. The government is a massive power hungry machine and the president is only one part of the puzzle. If no one voted this year do you think there wouldn't be a president? I bet it would be business as usual at the White House. 

Thanks for reading!

P.S.

Great leadership doesn't need to force itself on you because it attracts those willing to follow. Great leaders seeks wisdom from those around them and admits fault when it is due. A great leader inspires respect because they give it to those that deserve it. The standard for those we put above ourselves should be high and our outrage should be at those that would impinge on our freedoms.


When was the last time a third part candidate won?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third_party_performances_in_United_States_presidential_elections

George Carlin on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxsQ7jJJcEA

Quote Sources:

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/i-don-t-vote-two-reasons-first-of-all-it-s/761194.html


http://www.openculture.com/2016/03/edmund-burkeon-in-action.html