Friday, May 27, 2011

LOLz... the political simulation game that I'm playing right now is so relevant.  It even has an "RH Bill" issue that I need to decide on.

I'm pro-RH, but since this is my nation, I chose to simply dismiss this issue because I don't believe in using taxpayer's money to subsidize other people's condoms.  Socialism is an Epic FAIL.  As a matter of fact, my 0% income tax reflects my philosophy of, "Do WTF you want with your own money!"

If I am anti-Socialist, then why am I pro-RH?

Well, let me discuss this issue from a point of view of a computer programmer.  Programmers are systems thinkers who approach problems as parts of an overall system.  When implementing a solution to a particular problem, we programmers usually have to choose between two solutions: the elegant solution or the kludgey solution.

Elegant solutions take time and are very costly to implement, but the end result is beautiful code that feels "correct".  Elegant solutions often involve rewriting everything from scratch to free yourself from the limitations of badly-written code (i.e., if your site is too slow, don't use Drupal; use a lightweight framework instead lol).  Kludgey solutions, on the other hand, might take only a dozen lines of code to implement, but you need to accept the maintenance headaches and side-effects that it would bring.

Going back to the RH bill issue, we see that our Philippine government is attempting to solve the problem of poverty via population control.  The RH bill subsidizes Filipinos by providing free condoms and health care.

I don't agree with the RH Bill because it's a kludgey solution.  The elegant solution is to abolish all taxes and state subsidies (including free education, health care, and food subsidies), abolish the minimum wage law, rewrite the constitution to encourage foreign investments, and dismantle the government such that only the absolute minimum is left.  Filipinos can buy condoms and birth control pills using their own money.  If they want to make babies, then go ahead-- let them go forth into the world and multiply.  Let them multiply as many times as they like but they shouldn't expect the government to feed and take care of them.  They're on their own.

The problem with our present system is that the government subsidizes the needs of the people.  It can't subsidize effectively because money doesn't grow on trees.  To put it bluntly, the Philippines is poor and can't provide the needs for all people.  Allowing the population to grow fast and letting the government subsidize them isn't sustainable; it will lead to system failure because we'll run out of resources.  Just like a badly-written program with memory leaks, the Philippines will crash if you let it run with sustained and increasing load.

I can't understand why the Roman Catholic church is so opposed to this bill.  They keep on preaching about the morality of sex and on how birth control pills are abortifacients, but do you hear them propose an alternative solution to the country's problems?  Is the Catholic Church willing to subsidize the needs of Filipinos instead?

Thus, in lieu of an elegant solution that would abolish Socialism in the Philippines, I pragmatically accept that the kludgey and doable solution is to control the population using the current Socialist structure of our government.  Restructuring the government may be the correct elegant solution, but expecting it to happen immediately is impractical.  Let's pass the RH Bill instead.  Let's fight Socialism with Socialism.

Anyway, here's the political simulation game that I mentioned earlier:

The Issue
A study has shown that an increasing proportion of teenagers in SimonCPU are falling pregnant.
The Debate
  1. "We need comprehensive sex education to be mandatory in all schools," says Peggy Thiesen, a teacher while tidying away some diagrams that make your eyes water. "The plain fact is that teenagers will experiment with sexual intercourse despite what society or their parents wish. So I say give these kids free contraceptives, and make them fully aware of the consequences of their actions. Information is what they need, not condemnation. If they ignore it then hey, it's their own damn fault."

  2. "If you give them contraception it'll just encourage them to do... terrible things," says Tobias Steele, a religious parent and member of Moral Minority. "And what's with giving them so much information? There's even diagrams for goodness sake! Have they never heard of 'monkey see, monkey do'? They'll just go and try it out, mark my words! The solution is simple: girls should be kept at home and away from the monkey house of lustful impetuousness and young males until they are of marriageable age. Teaching teenagers abstinence and chastity is the key, not giving them step-by-step manuals."

  3. "However sex education is taught, it is still social engineering and so undermines parental authority," says conservative newspaper columnist Akira du Pont. "My own son learned about something called 'homosexuality' the other day! For shame! We all know it should be Adam and Eve, not Adam and... Geoff? Anyway, my point is that sex education should be dropped from schools and instead taught by parents the way they see fit. That way children will get consistent messages and parents, not society, will cop the blame if any of their kids fall pregnant."

  4. "No-one's asked me my opinion yet," says Catherine Gratwick, a teenage mother as she bottle-feeds her baby. "I think it's perfectly obvious what the cause of teenage pregnancy is - teenage boys! My son's father is the one that got me into this mess. He's the one who pressured me into having sex, but all the education is focused on the girls. Teenage fathers should be made responsible for their actions for once and be made to join the military so they can send their wages back to pay for their children's upkeep. If that's not a deterrent, then I don't know what is."

  5. "I think we've missed the fact that maybe this teenage pregnancy phenomenon is not such a bad thing," says Thomas Steele, a famous demographer. "We need the population to grow, we need more people of working age, we need more tax for public services, et cetera. There are plenty of sound demographical reasons why we should be encouraging women to have families. By all means educate them about the dangers, but I don't think we ought to discourage teenagers from procreating - it's nature's way you know."
The Government Position
The government is preparing to dismiss this issue.

Saturday, May 21, 2011

I don't know if I should be happy or not.  In the political simulation game, my nation has been reclassified from "Benevolent Dictatorship" to a "Capitalist Paradise" because of my policies.  Dictatorship was waaaaaay cooler. Hehehe... Anyway, here's my current nation.  I'm quite surprised that it accurately reflects my view of an ideal society (except for that deforestation part though; also, it's quite obvious that I'm not a pacifist hehe):
The Empire of SimonCPU is a large, economically powerful nation, remarkable for its complete absence of social welfare. Its hard-nosed, hard-working population of 88 million are either ruled by a sleek, efficient government or a conglomerate of multinational corporations; it's difficult to tell which.

There is no government in the normal sense of the word; however, a small group of community-minded, pro-business individuals concentrates mainly on Law & Order, although Commerce and Defence are on the agenda. Income tax is unheard of. A powerhouse of a private sector is led by the Book Publishing, Automobile Manufacturing, and Information Technology industries.

Protesters are up in arms over new nuclear power stations, long arduous trials are held for the most trivial of offences, councils up and down the country wrangle over legal matters, and the armed forces are locked in an expensive and bloody war abroad to stamp out possible terrorists. Crime -- especially youth-related -- is crippling. SimonCPU's national animal is the Dragon, which teeters on the brink of extinction due to widespread deforestation, and its currency is the Bit.

Friday, May 13, 2011

In software testing, the term "boundary case" is used to refer to the behavior of a system when one of its inputs is at or just beyond its maximum or minimum limits. I'm testing my ideology for bugs right now. If it's still functioning when used with boundary cases, it means that it's a good ideology.

In the previous post I asked myself, how can we protect animals without needing the government to do it? I think the answer is advocacy.

Blah, blah, blah, insert text here.

Why do I think that anti animal cruelty laws don't make sense? Well, I believe that it doesn't hold up to boundary cases. I mean, it's kindda silly why it's wrong to maltreat animals but it's perfectly alright to kill them. To me, there's nothing more cruel than killing an animal.

Last year, I saw a documentary that showed how the government rescued a pack of dogs that was about to be turned into dog meat, or "azucena". Guess what happened after the government rescued the poor dogs? They euthanized them. In short, they rescued the dogs in order to kill them.

I love dogs, and I believe that we shouldn't eat them. But hey, it's my belief... Neither I nor the government has the right to impose this belief on others. The best that we can do is to influence others not to eat dogs through advocacy.

Why is an anti animal cruelty law silly? Well, let's test it using boundary cases. Why single out dogs among other animals? What makes them so special? Does this thing that make them special have an objective basis? Why not ban pork or beef meat? If you ban dog meat, it means you need to ban all types of meat as well. Why not ban fish too? They're also animals. Why ban animals only? What makes them so special? Plants are living things too. Why not ban plants too?

I'm sure there's a logical fallacy in there somewhere, but I'm too sleepy... Weeeeeeee...

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

I'm playing a political simulation right now.  It's a simple game where you get to decide on what actions to take in order to create a nation of your own liking.  Right now, I've managed to create a Benevolent Dictatorship society with superb civil rights.

I'm having trouble reconciling an issue with my ideology though.  I've always believed that government should stay out of people's lives in order to move the country forward.  Based on this principle, I have trouble deciding if the government should pass anti-cruelty laws.

I mean, should the government have the right to coerce people in order to prevent animal cruelty?  If animals are non-sentient private properties, it follows that animals don't have rights.  Therefore, should the government stand idly by as you burn your cat alive?

I think the most logical answer is YES.

The government doesn't have the right to tell people what to do with their own property but it's society's job to prevent animal cruelty.  Blah, I'm still not convinced.  I think I should read more about this issue... blah blah blah...

Below is the issue that I'm talking about:

The Issue
Several animal rights groups have protested the continuing use of fur as a material for clothing.
The Debate
  1. "This is an outrage!" cries Samuel Steele, president of the Be Nice To Animals society. "The manufacture of fur apparel is unethical, cruel, and disgusting! People just don't seem to realise that millions of animals die each year in fur farms, crammed into tiny cages and suffering the most terrible treatment just so someone can look appealing and rich! This is a sick practice and must be stopped! The same can go for leather shoes and snakeskin belts too."

  2. "You can't mean that, surely?" snorts Elizabeth Dredd, adjusting his hat, made from real Dragon hide. "It's the people's choice what they wear. I don't think it's fair that the majority of the public should be deprived of fur clothes because some people are a bit queasy. In fact, if the government would allow us to stock rarer animals, we could produce even finer products. In the end, it's up to the consumer, don't you think?"
    This is the position your government is preparing to adopt.
The Government Position
The government has indicated its intention to follow the recommendations of Option 2.