Zeitgeist is a German expression meaning "spirit of the age" and this is the irrisistable force guiding the upcoming election. Barack Obama has given this spirit a rather mundane and cliched name - "change". I ask change from what - to what? As I will illustrate - I feel that the Zeitgeist demands change from individualism to collectivism.
You may guess from the tone of this article that I've conceded that Barack Obama will win the presidency this Tuesday. It just seems so inescapably destined to be. I remember as a 12 year old kid - imagining how cool it would be if an African-American would one day be elected president. I imagined him as a man of great intelligence and vision. I imagined a communicator so great that he could rally Americans of all walks of life and background to a common vision and usher in a new age. And of course he would be a democrat. I remember imagining what this man looked like and sounded like - and that man as I imagined him way back in 1986 was exactly like the man we see an eyelash away from the oval office today.
I imagined that this would be such a great day for America. Today it seems that day has come and in so many ways, it is exactly as I imagined yet, yet now I have such mixed feelings. Part of me is filled with inspiration and optimism. Like most conservatives, I feel that Barack Obama is a man of great ability and a man of integrity and principle. The only real differences is that I do not share some of his core values. This message of change which would have sounded so wonderful to the 12 year old Bromby deeply the troubles the 33 year old Bromby.
Obama had spoken about the founding fathers and how they had inadvertently left out of the constitution any provisions related to the redistribution of wealth and the institution of mechanisms in the state to support thed middle and lower classes. My contention is that the founding fathers explicity left that out for a reason. They did not want America to be Europe, otherwise why did they leave Europe ot begin with?
The Zeitgeist's attacking point is the cynicism around the American Dream. For centuries Europeans have sneered at the ideal of the rugged individualist. The Europeans have upheld the ideal of the sophisticated collectivist. Rugged individualism produces some very likeable and heroic individuals, but it also created rugged individuals are less that palateable for the elitists at home and abroad. Rugged individualism also means people who ride gas guzzlers, dune buggies, snow-mobiles and go fly-fishin', bow huntin' - or even shootin' wolves from a helicopter.
For the New Yorker whose existence revolves around late night Starbucks and shoe shopping on 5th avenue - the death of individualism isn't such a big loss.
Perhaps we will move to a more European way of life. Longer vacations, better benefits and broader state control of nearly all major industry. Perhaps humans who aspire for greatness are a thing of the past - perhaps humans are best to simply aim just a shade above mediocrity - rather than trying to rock the boat with "too much success". Maybe if you work a little harder - and fare a little better - you'll have two cars instead of one - and for the priveledged few- one of them wil be a beamer!
Who needs more than that really - as long as we have long lunch hours- 8 weeks of vacation and our predictable steady income - and the personal satisfaction of achieving just above mediocrity? The very idea of achieving greatness in your lifetime becomes such a trifle - such a small thing to sacrifice for the greater good.
Will we elect to become a 'defanged' society - where humans will effectively be taken out of the fight? The state will continue to expand its role of keeping us out of the cold, fed, entertained and occuppied - while we comfortably produce at the capacity that genetics have endowed us. Trudging along never feeling the urge to push the boundaries of our abilities - never aspiring to expand and grow, never having to compete for our paycheck or live fear of downsizing.
Should you endeavour for something beyond the mediocre - there is still one avenue for individuals who want more than mediocity - who actually endeavour for power and greatness. Those inviduals have one place they can go. They can enter the world of politics and become part of the state. The greatest and most powerful posts in the world no longer lie in the hands of men of industry- and wealthy capitlists. Oh no - power this great is far too important to be in the hands of mere private sector individuals. This is no longer power that can be earned through risk, hard work and ingenuity.
Only the state has this kind of power - and it is reserved for the political animals - the pull pedlars. The men of little productive value - but with magnetic personalities and the knowledge of the various levers within the statist system. The ones with the favours and connections within the massive state to get things done.
This is what you are asking for when you ask the government for change. You want the state to reign the evil greedy private sector. This may work for you - but it doesn't work for me. Even if it does achieve the utopian vision of a mediocre, benefit rich society as described above - it is too high a price to pay for the death of the individual. I love the world where a man born in poverty, can use his mind and body to achieve greatness and power and stare eye to eye with the state - rather than always being at the heel of government power.
This is the world you have chosen - and I will live in it, but I will definitely mourn for the ideal world that has been lost.
Perhaps in another century - the Zeitgeist will be that of the individual rather than the collective - I just wish it would have been my century.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
Bromby's 7 Rules for Living
These are Bromby's fundamentals for living. I'm passionate about these. I may turn this into a book someday - but for now I think you can get the same impact from these bite sized chunks.
1. Own your problems - all of them- even if they are not your fault - even if they are beyond your control. You cannot evade reality - and only when you own the hard facts of your reality are you empowered to do anything about them. Do whatever is necessary to make your reality better - do not appeal to others to improve your situation. Do not expect government, friends, colleagues or favours to give you the life that you want. This is the path of the victim or the parasite - be neither. Take every action necessary to improve your situation and don't take shortcuts.
2. Resist the allure of easy gains - they are an illusion. We have all heard of situations where people have become rich or successful quickly or with little effort. Either through schemes, political pull or fraud. Remove all such notions from your mind. Aggressively vanquish the mirage of easy wealth from your thinking - it is a waste of valuable mental energy.
3. Don't play the lottery. A one dollar lottery ticket every week is far more costly to you than the ticket itself. The real cost is mental and creative energy you spend during that week imagining all the wonderful things you would do with that money. Again this is the allure of effortless wealth robbing you of your vital ambition. You need to stay hungry. Vigilantly remove all other options for wealth so that the only possible avenue for wealth is the only one that is not a mirage.
4. Live to create value. A human's most noble pursuit is productive activity that creates something (either tangible or intangible) that is of value to others. Strive to expand and refine your capacity to create value. If you can create millions of dollars in value for others - you will be paid with millions of dollars. All other avenues to wealth are an illusion.
5. Revel in your ambition. I've seen many would-be entrepreneurs fade and vanish because at some level they feel that ambition is wrong. It's a fundamental part of our culture to believe that great ambition is accompanied by inevitable destruction or atonement. We've seen it in every Shakespearian tragedy and Hollywood movie. It's a lie - you create your own reality. There is nothing immoral about creating something of value, and trading it honestly with other consenting individuals for a profit. I assert that in fact nothing is more moral.
6. Don't be paralyzed by the urge to 'give back' before you have anything to give. Take comfort in the fact that you are creating something of value and being self sufficient so that you are not a burden on others. Later you will contribute to socitey in a bigger way by employing others. Eventually you will be in a position to be philanthropic in a truly substantial way.
7. Be good to yourself. You aren't a machine - if you don't enjoy yourself you'll burn out. This isn't just a footnote to soften the impact of the previous six points. This is an imperative and the fundamental reason to following the other six rules. These rules for living are not about making a better society, improving the economy or pleasing your parents. This is all about you and only you. Make your life the life you want it to be and enjoy the entire journey - not just the destination.
- Bromby
1. Own your problems - all of them- even if they are not your fault - even if they are beyond your control. You cannot evade reality - and only when you own the hard facts of your reality are you empowered to do anything about them. Do whatever is necessary to make your reality better - do not appeal to others to improve your situation. Do not expect government, friends, colleagues or favours to give you the life that you want. This is the path of the victim or the parasite - be neither. Take every action necessary to improve your situation and don't take shortcuts.
2. Resist the allure of easy gains - they are an illusion. We have all heard of situations where people have become rich or successful quickly or with little effort. Either through schemes, political pull or fraud. Remove all such notions from your mind. Aggressively vanquish the mirage of easy wealth from your thinking - it is a waste of valuable mental energy.
3. Don't play the lottery. A one dollar lottery ticket every week is far more costly to you than the ticket itself. The real cost is mental and creative energy you spend during that week imagining all the wonderful things you would do with that money. Again this is the allure of effortless wealth robbing you of your vital ambition. You need to stay hungry. Vigilantly remove all other options for wealth so that the only possible avenue for wealth is the only one that is not a mirage.
4. Live to create value. A human's most noble pursuit is productive activity that creates something (either tangible or intangible) that is of value to others. Strive to expand and refine your capacity to create value. If you can create millions of dollars in value for others - you will be paid with millions of dollars. All other avenues to wealth are an illusion.
5. Revel in your ambition. I've seen many would-be entrepreneurs fade and vanish because at some level they feel that ambition is wrong. It's a fundamental part of our culture to believe that great ambition is accompanied by inevitable destruction or atonement. We've seen it in every Shakespearian tragedy and Hollywood movie. It's a lie - you create your own reality. There is nothing immoral about creating something of value, and trading it honestly with other consenting individuals for a profit. I assert that in fact nothing is more moral.
6. Don't be paralyzed by the urge to 'give back' before you have anything to give. Take comfort in the fact that you are creating something of value and being self sufficient so that you are not a burden on others. Later you will contribute to socitey in a bigger way by employing others. Eventually you will be in a position to be philanthropic in a truly substantial way.
7. Be good to yourself. You aren't a machine - if you don't enjoy yourself you'll burn out. This isn't just a footnote to soften the impact of the previous six points. This is an imperative and the fundamental reason to following the other six rules. These rules for living are not about making a better society, improving the economy or pleasing your parents. This is all about you and only you. Make your life the life you want it to be and enjoy the entire journey - not just the destination.
- Bromby
Monday, October 6, 2008
Private means us - Public means them - not vice versa
To borrow a page from the great Dennis Miller, this is going to be a bit of a rant.
In this horrible bailout mess - one thing scares me more than the actual financial turmoil. It's the fact that Capitalism is once again taking the blame for something that was in fact caused by government intervention. By the government endowing organizations like Fannie May and Freddie Mac with special powers this artificial housing bubble was created and billions were invested into the housing market - that would have otherwise been invested elsewhere.
It doesn't matter that Fannie and Freddie were not truly free market - but a hybrid public / private monstrosity. The fact of the matter is that the private sector and the principles of free market capitalism are taking the blame.
The answer as always is tighter controls, more regulation, more government intervention and less freedom. Another major win for the proponents of socialism. That fat turd Hugo Chavez has stoppen munching on that chicken drumstick long enough to say 'I told you so'. He boldly proclaimed that:
“Socialism is the only route to the salvation of the world.”
After that he put down the chicken drumstick and plunged his rotund face into a bowl of beet soup and was not heard from for the rest of the evening.
As much as I'm a staunch conservative - even John McCain disappointed by saying he planned to create a new government body that would add an additional much-needed layer of oversight. Brilliant! Because those first 15 layers of oversight didn't see this thing coming, I'm sure this 16th layer will catch all.
In the presidential polls McCain is leading in foreign policy, but overwhelmingly they show that Barack Obama has what it takes to create a strong economy. I need to ask this question to the readers because I have absolutley no clue. How did the democrats get the credibility in the economy? Did we actually cross the threshold where the general populous believes that socialism creates more prosperity than economic freedom? How on earth did they pull this over on the public - how did a US majority choose serfdom over freedom?
How did the left manage to convince us that individual power (private) was evil and government power (public) was good? The very foundation of the United States itself is upon that exact principle that the individual's rights were to supercede that of the state. The constitution was a document designed to subordinate the state to the will of the individual - not vice versa. It saddens me that people have become indignant to those who would excercise individual freedom. They have been hoodwinked into believing that public means "us" and "private" means them when in fact - it's the other way round.
In this horrible bailout mess - one thing scares me more than the actual financial turmoil. It's the fact that Capitalism is once again taking the blame for something that was in fact caused by government intervention. By the government endowing organizations like Fannie May and Freddie Mac with special powers this artificial housing bubble was created and billions were invested into the housing market - that would have otherwise been invested elsewhere.
It doesn't matter that Fannie and Freddie were not truly free market - but a hybrid public / private monstrosity. The fact of the matter is that the private sector and the principles of free market capitalism are taking the blame.
The answer as always is tighter controls, more regulation, more government intervention and less freedom. Another major win for the proponents of socialism. That fat turd Hugo Chavez has stoppen munching on that chicken drumstick long enough to say 'I told you so'. He boldly proclaimed that:
“Socialism is the only route to the salvation of the world.”
After that he put down the chicken drumstick and plunged his rotund face into a bowl of beet soup and was not heard from for the rest of the evening.
As much as I'm a staunch conservative - even John McCain disappointed by saying he planned to create a new government body that would add an additional much-needed layer of oversight. Brilliant! Because those first 15 layers of oversight didn't see this thing coming, I'm sure this 16th layer will catch all.
In the presidential polls McCain is leading in foreign policy, but overwhelmingly they show that Barack Obama has what it takes to create a strong economy. I need to ask this question to the readers because I have absolutley no clue. How did the democrats get the credibility in the economy? Did we actually cross the threshold where the general populous believes that socialism creates more prosperity than economic freedom? How on earth did they pull this over on the public - how did a US majority choose serfdom over freedom?
How did the left manage to convince us that individual power (private) was evil and government power (public) was good? The very foundation of the United States itself is upon that exact principle that the individual's rights were to supercede that of the state. The constitution was a document designed to subordinate the state to the will of the individual - not vice versa. It saddens me that people have become indignant to those who would excercise individual freedom. They have been hoodwinked into believing that public means "us" and "private" means them when in fact - it's the other way round.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The Bailout
In principle - Bromby is against it 100% but the repercussions either way are pretty scary.
If we are to learn anything from US history, it's that in these times of economic crisis politicians (typically from the left, but not always) make the argument that the free market is to blame and that stricter regulations are the answer. True conservatives (including Bromby) assert that it is in fact regulation and government intervention that create these monstrosities.
The financial institutions are the ones taking the blame as well as the 'free market'. My opinions on this matter are best expressed in this quote from the brilliant Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Centre. (full article)
“Most people believe the Great Depression was caused by an ‘excessively’ free market--and they regard the massive expansion of government intervention under FDR as its cure. But as many economists have demonstrated, it was government intervention that caused and exacerbated the Depression--from the massive tariffs of Smoot-Hawley to a series of disastrous interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve to antibusiness measures such as the National Recovery Act.
“Few acknowledged this at the time, however. The Great Depression--a failure of government intervention--was called a failure of capitalism, and was used to justify even more government intervention. We are seeing this same process repeat itself today.
“There is overwhelming evidence that our current crisis is the result primarily of government intervention in the economy, from the Fed’s inflationary policy of keeping interest rates artificially low to the creation and regulatory coddling of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to the government’s quasi-official policy of bailing out large financial institutions deemed too big to fail. But despite such evidence, this crisis is being blamed on too little government control of markets, and is being used to justify an even greater expansion of the state’s control over financial markets."
I have little doubt that increased restrictive regulation will be prescribed as the cure for this disaster as well, but instead of FDR administering the treatment it could well be the defining moment of Barack Obama's presidency.
- Bromby
If we are to learn anything from US history, it's that in these times of economic crisis politicians (typically from the left, but not always) make the argument that the free market is to blame and that stricter regulations are the answer. True conservatives (including Bromby) assert that it is in fact regulation and government intervention that create these monstrosities.
The financial institutions are the ones taking the blame as well as the 'free market'. My opinions on this matter are best expressed in this quote from the brilliant Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Centre. (full article)
“Most people believe the Great Depression was caused by an ‘excessively’ free market--and they regard the massive expansion of government intervention under FDR as its cure. But as many economists have demonstrated, it was government intervention that caused and exacerbated the Depression--from the massive tariffs of Smoot-Hawley to a series of disastrous interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve to antibusiness measures such as the National Recovery Act.
“Few acknowledged this at the time, however. The Great Depression--a failure of government intervention--was called a failure of capitalism, and was used to justify even more government intervention. We are seeing this same process repeat itself today.
“There is overwhelming evidence that our current crisis is the result primarily of government intervention in the economy, from the Fed’s inflationary policy of keeping interest rates artificially low to the creation and regulatory coddling of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to the government’s quasi-official policy of bailing out large financial institutions deemed too big to fail. But despite such evidence, this crisis is being blamed on too little government control of markets, and is being used to justify an even greater expansion of the state’s control over financial markets."
I have little doubt that increased restrictive regulation will be prescribed as the cure for this disaster as well, but instead of FDR administering the treatment it could well be the defining moment of Barack Obama's presidency.
- Bromby
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Stephen Harper Cuts Funding for the Arts
There is a lot of raucous uproar about the funding cuts to the arts in Canada by current Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Here's Bromby's opinion. This one steams me a little...
Bromby appreciates the arts, he has a degree in dramatic arts and a background in the theatre. The arts thrive because we live in a fairly prosperous society that enjoys being entertained and values art. Most of these people do not mind paying to be entertained or to pay for books, movies, music etc.
Good art has an audience and gets 'funding' from the people who appreciate it.
Bad art has no audience and needs 'funding' from people with pull in government.
Cutting funding to the arts does not hurt good art - it simply makes being a crappy artist an unsustainable career. We don't need more crappy artists.
OK 'crappy' is a subjective term - so then how is it decided who get funding and who doesn't? Are you telling me the government has a system of determining which artists are worthy of funding? People argue that just because art is not commercially successful, does not mean it doesn't have merit. The artist should be allowed to pursue the noble cause of art for art's sake, and the hard working store owner and police officer should foot the bill through their taxes for these delicate geniuses who are simply too precious to do real work.
People argue that the free market is cruel to artists - because it degrades the complexity of the artistic human soul to produce 'commercial' art. 'Commercial' simply means art that someone else would actually value and be willing to pay for. I hate to generalize but if no one would value it or pay for it- isn't that art simply bad? Why should hard working Canadians subsidize the decadent lifestyle of the artist pretentiously producing art for their own amusement and for the amusement of a minute group of elitists that feel the tastes of the general public are not sophisticated enough to appreciate it.
Art that is produced only for the gratification of the artist is masturbation - why not have the government subsidize that too?
- Bromby
Here's Bromby's opinion. This one steams me a little...
Bromby appreciates the arts, he has a degree in dramatic arts and a background in the theatre. The arts thrive because we live in a fairly prosperous society that enjoys being entertained and values art. Most of these people do not mind paying to be entertained or to pay for books, movies, music etc.
Good art has an audience and gets 'funding' from the people who appreciate it.
Bad art has no audience and needs 'funding' from people with pull in government.
Cutting funding to the arts does not hurt good art - it simply makes being a crappy artist an unsustainable career. We don't need more crappy artists.
OK 'crappy' is a subjective term - so then how is it decided who get funding and who doesn't? Are you telling me the government has a system of determining which artists are worthy of funding? People argue that just because art is not commercially successful, does not mean it doesn't have merit. The artist should be allowed to pursue the noble cause of art for art's sake, and the hard working store owner and police officer should foot the bill through their taxes for these delicate geniuses who are simply too precious to do real work.
People argue that the free market is cruel to artists - because it degrades the complexity of the artistic human soul to produce 'commercial' art. 'Commercial' simply means art that someone else would actually value and be willing to pay for. I hate to generalize but if no one would value it or pay for it- isn't that art simply bad? Why should hard working Canadians subsidize the decadent lifestyle of the artist pretentiously producing art for their own amusement and for the amusement of a minute group of elitists that feel the tastes of the general public are not sophisticated enough to appreciate it.
Art that is produced only for the gratification of the artist is masturbation - why not have the government subsidize that too?
- Bromby
Monday, September 22, 2008
Capitalism - the other "C" word
Conservative Ideals need to be defended on the intellectual level or we are doomed to failure. As implied by the title of my blog too many conservatives base their convictions on faith. The term 'compassionate conservatism' has arisen recently out of an undeserved sense of guilt many conservatives have in the face of an onslaught of finger wagging from liberals. As much as we feel firm in our convictions there is a nagging doubt inside that constantly asks- "are we really a bunch of big meanies?" This is an admission that we feel there is something fundamentally wrong with capitalism, that at its core it is a corrupt principle and a 'necessary evil' that we must accept until we find a better way.
It is this very notion that capitalism is inherently evil that we must do away with entirely. We cannot defend a principle that we feel is morally flawed, because we are already defeated before we enter the debate. Rather than evading the fundamental arguments against capitalism let us meet them head on, one at a time. Let's level with our critics.
Capitalism is a system where purely selfish activity is rewarded. I'm a business owner and the time, energy and creativity I pour into my business is for purely, indiluted selfish motives. There is nothing more engaging and satisfying than working on something that is completely your own, to have complete control of your own success and to be able to reap the rewards of it. I make enormous sacrifices in terms of the time and money I've invested in this venture. I've spent the last six years of my life on this and have had many months where everyone in the company gets paid except me. I have spent months where the 72 hour week is standard, and I've liquidated my savings and maxed out my credit on numerous occasions. I've risked financial ruin with nothing on my side except the conviction that what I was doing was of value and that it must succeed. There was no guarantee, no safety net. The risks and the rewards were mine alone.
There were years when my company showed a profit but the government has swooped in and taxed away any opportunity to grow my business by hiring sales and support staff. Yet I can honestly say without a hint of sarcasm that I did all of this selfishly. I did all of this because every experience, every failure and every victory is mine. This is at the heart of the spirit of entrepreneurship. The profit motive is a fundamental part of this, but it pales in comparison to the feeling of ownership. To know that this company is mine and that every dollar earned is truly earned is central to the morality of the entreprenuer. I would rather earn 1 dollar as an honest business owner, than two dollars as a salaried employee or ten dollars as an executive with political pull, or a 100 dollars as a worthless heir.
Also fundemental to this motivation is the fact that there is no limit to how much money can be made. If I can provide millions of dollars worth of value to clients who choose my product over others without deception or coersion, then I deserve the millions of dollars that they pay me - period. I want to be rich - and I want to earn it.
Let's stop apologizing for wanting to be rich. There is nothing vulgar about it. It takes courage to be honest with one's self and truly strive for what your want. Is there any wonder we are scorned by those who choose mediocrity and achieve it? I am an entrepreneur for my own selfish reasons - not for the betterment of society. The fact that my company benefits society by creating jobs, paying taxes and providing a needed service is great, but it is not the reason that I do it. I am not the government's "partner in the private sector". I am not a resource for them to draw upon to help bureaucratic bigshots repair social ills. I am not doing this to 'give back' to society.
Liberals view corporations as some kind of natural resource that has sprung into existence as if from nowhere - like oxygen or water, and should be 'reigned in', tamed and controlled by the government for the greater good. From the point of view of the entrepreneur this is a vile and offensive notion. It is this viewpoint that sparked the bolshevik revolution allowing the state to nationalize private enterprise and murder millions of middle class business owners. Marx's use of the term 'owners of the means of production' made it sound like the business owners were appropriating a resource for themselves that belonged to all, like the fat kid in grade school taking too long at the water fountain.
Corporations are private property, created by the productive work and risk of capable individuals. Some corporations rise to power through a grotesque relationship with government where special laws and favours are granted to certain parties effectively creating a monopoly and destroying competitors. This is not free enterprise, though free enterprise always takes the blame for such monstrosities. This is not the fault of the corporation, but an illustration of the evils of government intervention. Only governments can create laws. Private individuals (and corporations) do not have ability to create a law to do things by force - so the only way we have of dealing with people is through mutual consent. To paraphrase Ayn Rand - money is not the root of all evil, money is a contract between two honest parties to exchange something of value. When given the alternative to achieve one's goals through mutual consent (trade) or brute force (government & laws) there is only one moral option.
- Bromby
It is this very notion that capitalism is inherently evil that we must do away with entirely. We cannot defend a principle that we feel is morally flawed, because we are already defeated before we enter the debate. Rather than evading the fundamental arguments against capitalism let us meet them head on, one at a time. Let's level with our critics.
Capitalism is a system where purely selfish activity is rewarded. I'm a business owner and the time, energy and creativity I pour into my business is for purely, indiluted selfish motives. There is nothing more engaging and satisfying than working on something that is completely your own, to have complete control of your own success and to be able to reap the rewards of it. I make enormous sacrifices in terms of the time and money I've invested in this venture. I've spent the last six years of my life on this and have had many months where everyone in the company gets paid except me. I have spent months where the 72 hour week is standard, and I've liquidated my savings and maxed out my credit on numerous occasions. I've risked financial ruin with nothing on my side except the conviction that what I was doing was of value and that it must succeed. There was no guarantee, no safety net. The risks and the rewards were mine alone.
There were years when my company showed a profit but the government has swooped in and taxed away any opportunity to grow my business by hiring sales and support staff. Yet I can honestly say without a hint of sarcasm that I did all of this selfishly. I did all of this because every experience, every failure and every victory is mine. This is at the heart of the spirit of entrepreneurship. The profit motive is a fundamental part of this, but it pales in comparison to the feeling of ownership. To know that this company is mine and that every dollar earned is truly earned is central to the morality of the entreprenuer. I would rather earn 1 dollar as an honest business owner, than two dollars as a salaried employee or ten dollars as an executive with political pull, or a 100 dollars as a worthless heir.
Also fundemental to this motivation is the fact that there is no limit to how much money can be made. If I can provide millions of dollars worth of value to clients who choose my product over others without deception or coersion, then I deserve the millions of dollars that they pay me - period. I want to be rich - and I want to earn it.
Let's stop apologizing for wanting to be rich. There is nothing vulgar about it. It takes courage to be honest with one's self and truly strive for what your want. Is there any wonder we are scorned by those who choose mediocrity and achieve it? I am an entrepreneur for my own selfish reasons - not for the betterment of society. The fact that my company benefits society by creating jobs, paying taxes and providing a needed service is great, but it is not the reason that I do it. I am not the government's "partner in the private sector". I am not a resource for them to draw upon to help bureaucratic bigshots repair social ills. I am not doing this to 'give back' to society.
Liberals view corporations as some kind of natural resource that has sprung into existence as if from nowhere - like oxygen or water, and should be 'reigned in', tamed and controlled by the government for the greater good. From the point of view of the entrepreneur this is a vile and offensive notion. It is this viewpoint that sparked the bolshevik revolution allowing the state to nationalize private enterprise and murder millions of middle class business owners. Marx's use of the term 'owners of the means of production' made it sound like the business owners were appropriating a resource for themselves that belonged to all, like the fat kid in grade school taking too long at the water fountain.
Corporations are private property, created by the productive work and risk of capable individuals. Some corporations rise to power through a grotesque relationship with government where special laws and favours are granted to certain parties effectively creating a monopoly and destroying competitors. This is not free enterprise, though free enterprise always takes the blame for such monstrosities. This is not the fault of the corporation, but an illustration of the evils of government intervention. Only governments can create laws. Private individuals (and corporations) do not have ability to create a law to do things by force - so the only way we have of dealing with people is through mutual consent. To paraphrase Ayn Rand - money is not the root of all evil, money is a contract between two honest parties to exchange something of value. When given the alternative to achieve one's goals through mutual consent (trade) or brute force (government & laws) there is only one moral option.
- Bromby
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
My Favourite DJ?
The moment the DJ with a turntable replaced the electric guitar player as the dominant musician of popular music, is about the moment Bromby checked out of the music scene.
I feel pretty old when I hear people a decade younger than me talk about their favourite DJ. My honest reaction is "You mean there are other DJs besides Jazzy Jeff?!?!?!"
No matter who your favourite DJ is I guarantee that Angus Young & David Gilmour would dominate them in a bare-knuckle bar brawl.
I also heard some dudes talking about how Trent Resnor from Nine Inch Nails is ten times the musician that Paul McCartney is. I noticeably winced while resisting the urge to 'correct' them.
- Bromby
I feel pretty old when I hear people a decade younger than me talk about their favourite DJ. My honest reaction is "You mean there are other DJs besides Jazzy Jeff?!?!?!"
No matter who your favourite DJ is I guarantee that Angus Young & David Gilmour would dominate them in a bare-knuckle bar brawl.
I also heard some dudes talking about how Trent Resnor from Nine Inch Nails is ten times the musician that Paul McCartney is. I noticeably winced while resisting the urge to 'correct' them.
- Bromby
Monday, September 8, 2008
Hey Atheists - Put away the pitchforks & torches!
Bromby is an atheist, yet I just can't hang around other atheists. I think that the pseudo sense of superiority that most atheists feel they have over Christians is laughable. The arrogance, militance and ignorance these so called rationalists exude far exceeds those very qualities that they claim is the sole domain of the religious right.
Don't get me wrong, I've met my share fundamentalist religious twits. I strongly disagree with evangelical Christians on many issues like gay marriage, abortion rights and especially the teaching of creationism as science. However given the choice between living in a neighbourhood filled with honest, hard working church-going folk or the militant, uber-pretentious new atheists that's a no brainer.
Many of the atheists out there are philosophically lazy. I can congratulate them on the fact that I feel they've come to one correct conclusion in that reason is superior to faith. However atheists seem to stop the rational thought process there. They reason that because the religious are wrong about that critical premise of faith, the rest of their convictions: moral, political and other must also be wrong. Capitalism and conservatism are guilty by association, because these along with Judeo-Christian morals are fundamental values of the religious right. Quite often, atheists are simply amoral people who reject religion strictly because it clashes with their complete lack of values. I for one feel it is possible to be atheist and completely moral, but very few manage to strike that balance.
Richard Dawkins is the new messiah of the atheists, as people are gobbling up his new militant view condemning Christianity & religion in general. I wish I could say that I read his book, but I don't need a 500 page volume to convince me that God doesn't exist. All this book serves to do for atheists is put them in a self induced trance reinforcing their feeling of superiority and depicting the religious and unreasoning subhuman creatures and giving them permission to despise them. Scapegoat anyone? The level of indignance towards the faithful is quite unsettling. I'm asking atheists out there to chill out a little and come down from that high horse. We all have memories of some religious figure in our lives who was less than saintly, whether its some mean psychotic nun we remember from school days or an authoritarian parent of a friend. That's no reason to generalize all religious people as (ahem) devils. From my experience Christians can be really terrific, and surprisingly laid back people, while atheists can be pretty wound up and smug. To contrast with the demonic image many atheists have Bromby will also point out: Christians flirt, Christians get drunk, Christians can tell a mean dirty joke, Christians can party, Christians rock & roll (although sadly sometimes that means Christian rock), Christians definitely work hard, Christians love life and their families.
If that somehow clashes with the one dimensional portrait of a gun-toting, bible thumping, authoritarian, kool-aid drinking persona you have in your mind perhaps you need to expand your universe a little.
I may have an ulterior motive in writing this. I vote conservative - because the principles of capitalism, liberty and the free market are too valuable and rational to discard simply because it is also prized by the religious right. If you atheists are advocates of reason and objectivity as you claim to be, you should also come to the conclusion that Bromby did and become secular conservatives. If you have any questions, just drop me a line in the comments section.
-Bromby
Don't get me wrong, I've met my share fundamentalist religious twits. I strongly disagree with evangelical Christians on many issues like gay marriage, abortion rights and especially the teaching of creationism as science. However given the choice between living in a neighbourhood filled with honest, hard working church-going folk or the militant, uber-pretentious new atheists that's a no brainer.
Many of the atheists out there are philosophically lazy. I can congratulate them on the fact that I feel they've come to one correct conclusion in that reason is superior to faith. However atheists seem to stop the rational thought process there. They reason that because the religious are wrong about that critical premise of faith, the rest of their convictions: moral, political and other must also be wrong. Capitalism and conservatism are guilty by association, because these along with Judeo-Christian morals are fundamental values of the religious right. Quite often, atheists are simply amoral people who reject religion strictly because it clashes with their complete lack of values. I for one feel it is possible to be atheist and completely moral, but very few manage to strike that balance.
Richard Dawkins is the new messiah of the atheists, as people are gobbling up his new militant view condemning Christianity & religion in general. I wish I could say that I read his book, but I don't need a 500 page volume to convince me that God doesn't exist. All this book serves to do for atheists is put them in a self induced trance reinforcing their feeling of superiority and depicting the religious and unreasoning subhuman creatures and giving them permission to despise them. Scapegoat anyone? The level of indignance towards the faithful is quite unsettling. I'm asking atheists out there to chill out a little and come down from that high horse. We all have memories of some religious figure in our lives who was less than saintly, whether its some mean psychotic nun we remember from school days or an authoritarian parent of a friend. That's no reason to generalize all religious people as (ahem) devils. From my experience Christians can be really terrific, and surprisingly laid back people, while atheists can be pretty wound up and smug. To contrast with the demonic image many atheists have Bromby will also point out: Christians flirt, Christians get drunk, Christians can tell a mean dirty joke, Christians can party, Christians rock & roll (although sadly sometimes that means Christian rock), Christians definitely work hard, Christians love life and their families.
If that somehow clashes with the one dimensional portrait of a gun-toting, bible thumping, authoritarian, kool-aid drinking persona you have in your mind perhaps you need to expand your universe a little.
I may have an ulterior motive in writing this. I vote conservative - because the principles of capitalism, liberty and the free market are too valuable and rational to discard simply because it is also prized by the religious right. If you atheists are advocates of reason and objectivity as you claim to be, you should also come to the conclusion that Bromby did and become secular conservatives. If you have any questions, just drop me a line in the comments section.
-Bromby
Friday, September 5, 2008
Why The Daily Show Sucks
I found this little uncredited nugget on the web :
The Daily Show in a nutshell:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Clip of Bush pausing mid-sentence while delivering a speech.
Shot of Stewart with eyebrow raised.
Audience screams for twenty-nine minutes.
------------------------------------------------------------------
this gave me a chuckle and I ended up screaming for twenty-nine minutes after reading this.
- Bromby
The Daily Show in a nutshell:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Clip of Bush pausing mid-sentence while delivering a speech.
Shot of Stewart with eyebrow raised.
Audience screams for twenty-nine minutes.
------------------------------------------------------------------
this gave me a chuckle and I ended up screaming for twenty-nine minutes after reading this.
- Bromby
Premature Philanthropy
Who doesn’t love philanthropy? Great recent examples are Warren Buffett and Bill Gates who are giving Billions to Africa out of their own free will. I mean even the most cynical leftist would have to applaud that. Actually leftists are remarkably dismissive of the phenomenon (are you shocked?).
1. Why did Warren Buffett wait so long – I mean he had the luxury of enjoying his wealth his whole life – why is he only giving the money away now?
2. Bill Gates made his money through an evil monopolistic corporation and he’s just trying to alleviate his well deserved guilt by giving a token gesture to Africa
Wow – the left has found a way to take the joy out of even the most altruistic of gestures. According to them the wealthy can’t claim any credit for being philanthropic because they are doing so from a position of strength and convenience. The ultimate leftist ideal for philanthropy comes in the form of someone who is not wealthy or productive, yet manages to divert wealth to those people (and causes) in need.
Ladies and gents, allow me to introduce the premature philanthropist, AKA the social activist. Why wait till you've earned a fortune before being a philanthropist when you can do it right now? Why go through the bother of actually earning money to give away when its so much easier to act like a big shot and give away other people's money?
I’ve met a fair share of people barely out of college who have the title ‘activist’ on their business card. Yep – they actually have business cards and people are paying them. How do these college grad slackers get cooshy jobs and the ability to divert wealth to the needy? Are they just that much smarter than the rest of us? Do they have a brilliant mind for investing, or do they run a business on the side? Maybe they work full time by day and dispense wealth by moonlight – like a caped philanthropic crusader!
Nope – these guys are philanthropic, but they are being generous with your money not their own.
To be fair not all activists get a cooshy activist position appointed to them by a politically funded ‘think-tank’ most of them are the professional protesters. Whenever you catch some protest rally on TV you can quite often see the same dour faces over and over – no matter what the cause. “If there’s something to protest I’ll be there.” Protesters have a lot of time on their hands and for a variety of reasons and most do not need to work for a living. By definition this makes them an upper class. Whether they collect some sort of government check, or if they’ve inherited money – they don’t have to work and you do. These are the guys that want to decide how your money should be spent, and almost always they want you to give more of it.
The premature philanthropist can come in many forms: the white collar politically funded think tanker, the do-gooder government bureaucrat or the bottom feeding protester. All of them demand that more of your money go to the government and all of them have their own unique and wonderful ideas of how it should be distributed. And should that end be achieved they also want to receive the credit for it. They want all the perks of philanthropy without having to do any productive work.
From my experience the wealthy and productive are very giving people. In fact it gives productive people great joy to give to a cause that they value. However the left wants to destroy that pure joy of philanthropy. When the act of giving no longer becomes a voluntary act – it becomes our duty and we are no longer allowed to take credit for it. We also lose the choice in how that money is spent – it can be given to any number of social causes that we don’t care for or agree with.
Bromby submits the following:
If you lower taxes – wealth and prosperity will increase, and so will philanthropic giving – except that it will be voluntary. Most rich people are very sentimental and grateful people and they want the world to be a better place. From my experience you don’t become wealthy by being Ebenezer Scrooge. The truth is that the majority of middle and upper class individuals give significantly to charity in addition to the huge sums of money they pay in taxes. By choosing where you money goes people are likely to give to organizations that can make your philanthropic dollar go the farthest rather than entrusting that job to the (ahem) government.
- Bromby
1. Why did Warren Buffett wait so long – I mean he had the luxury of enjoying his wealth his whole life – why is he only giving the money away now?
2. Bill Gates made his money through an evil monopolistic corporation and he’s just trying to alleviate his well deserved guilt by giving a token gesture to Africa
Wow – the left has found a way to take the joy out of even the most altruistic of gestures. According to them the wealthy can’t claim any credit for being philanthropic because they are doing so from a position of strength and convenience. The ultimate leftist ideal for philanthropy comes in the form of someone who is not wealthy or productive, yet manages to divert wealth to those people (and causes) in need.
Ladies and gents, allow me to introduce the premature philanthropist, AKA the social activist. Why wait till you've earned a fortune before being a philanthropist when you can do it right now? Why go through the bother of actually earning money to give away when its so much easier to act like a big shot and give away other people's money?
I’ve met a fair share of people barely out of college who have the title ‘activist’ on their business card. Yep – they actually have business cards and people are paying them. How do these college grad slackers get cooshy jobs and the ability to divert wealth to the needy? Are they just that much smarter than the rest of us? Do they have a brilliant mind for investing, or do they run a business on the side? Maybe they work full time by day and dispense wealth by moonlight – like a caped philanthropic crusader!
Nope – these guys are philanthropic, but they are being generous with your money not their own.
To be fair not all activists get a cooshy activist position appointed to them by a politically funded ‘think-tank’ most of them are the professional protesters. Whenever you catch some protest rally on TV you can quite often see the same dour faces over and over – no matter what the cause. “If there’s something to protest I’ll be there.” Protesters have a lot of time on their hands and for a variety of reasons and most do not need to work for a living. By definition this makes them an upper class. Whether they collect some sort of government check, or if they’ve inherited money – they don’t have to work and you do. These are the guys that want to decide how your money should be spent, and almost always they want you to give more of it.
The premature philanthropist can come in many forms: the white collar politically funded think tanker, the do-gooder government bureaucrat or the bottom feeding protester. All of them demand that more of your money go to the government and all of them have their own unique and wonderful ideas of how it should be distributed. And should that end be achieved they also want to receive the credit for it. They want all the perks of philanthropy without having to do any productive work.
From my experience the wealthy and productive are very giving people. In fact it gives productive people great joy to give to a cause that they value. However the left wants to destroy that pure joy of philanthropy. When the act of giving no longer becomes a voluntary act – it becomes our duty and we are no longer allowed to take credit for it. We also lose the choice in how that money is spent – it can be given to any number of social causes that we don’t care for or agree with.
Bromby submits the following:
If you lower taxes – wealth and prosperity will increase, and so will philanthropic giving – except that it will be voluntary. Most rich people are very sentimental and grateful people and they want the world to be a better place. From my experience you don’t become wealthy by being Ebenezer Scrooge. The truth is that the majority of middle and upper class individuals give significantly to charity in addition to the huge sums of money they pay in taxes. By choosing where you money goes people are likely to give to organizations that can make your philanthropic dollar go the farthest rather than entrusting that job to the (ahem) government.
- Bromby
Monday, September 1, 2008
GIVE
There is a subtle misuse of language that has been bothering me a lot lately. Recently the just-nominated Barack Obama used it again when he spoke about (paraphrasing) "the old disproven conservative doctrine that if you give more to the richest, wealth in turn will trickle down to everyone else.” I hear it again when Canada’s Liberal Leader Stephan Dion talks about how our current conservative government is giving the wealthiest Canadians billions of dollars in tax breaks – rewarding the members of society who need it the least.
Sigh. Politics...
My problem is with the use of the word ‘give’. I don’t have a dictionary handy, but let me try to feel this definition out myself. To give means to effectively pass ownership of something to another party. It is of course implied that the first party must have ownership of that thing in order to pass it on to that second party. Simple right? I can’t give something to you that belongs to someone else, and I certainly can’t give you something that is already yours.
Yet when the government reduces taxation on a certain group of people- why is that the same as ‘giving’ them money? Doesn’t that just mean that they are stealing less of the money that they earned honestly and fairly? If some guy breaks into your house and steals your laptop, television and DVD collection, but he lets you keep your jewellery – did he effectively ‘give’ you that jewellery? According to liberal linguistics he did. According to liberals the thief just gave you jewellery that could have been used for the common good. Apparently you weren't that needy, after all you're the type of guy who can afford jewellery in the first place!
This goes beyond the government's Robin Hood mentality of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. I mean even Robin Hood admitted that he was stealing. Now the language has flipped so that if Robin Hood doesn’t clean you out completely for the good of the granola munching twits in Sherwood Forest he’s effectively ‘giving’ you the stuff he didn’t steal. So does that mean we have so say thanks?
Thanks for stealing my car, but not burning my house down.
Thanks for kicking me in the stomach instead of the crotch.
This is a frightening perversion of the word 'give' to mean something completely foreign to what it really means. We have to be vigilant on this use of language because it becomes accepted by the public so quickly. The fight for your personal liberty needs to be fought on an intellectual level first.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on other ways our language is being distorted.
- Bromby
Sigh. Politics...
My problem is with the use of the word ‘give’. I don’t have a dictionary handy, but let me try to feel this definition out myself. To give means to effectively pass ownership of something to another party. It is of course implied that the first party must have ownership of that thing in order to pass it on to that second party. Simple right? I can’t give something to you that belongs to someone else, and I certainly can’t give you something that is already yours.
Yet when the government reduces taxation on a certain group of people- why is that the same as ‘giving’ them money? Doesn’t that just mean that they are stealing less of the money that they earned honestly and fairly? If some guy breaks into your house and steals your laptop, television and DVD collection, but he lets you keep your jewellery – did he effectively ‘give’ you that jewellery? According to liberal linguistics he did. According to liberals the thief just gave you jewellery that could have been used for the common good. Apparently you weren't that needy, after all you're the type of guy who can afford jewellery in the first place!
This goes beyond the government's Robin Hood mentality of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. I mean even Robin Hood admitted that he was stealing. Now the language has flipped so that if Robin Hood doesn’t clean you out completely for the good of the granola munching twits in Sherwood Forest he’s effectively ‘giving’ you the stuff he didn’t steal. So does that mean we have so say thanks?
Thanks for stealing my car, but not burning my house down.
Thanks for kicking me in the stomach instead of the crotch.
This is a frightening perversion of the word 'give' to mean something completely foreign to what it really means. We have to be vigilant on this use of language because it becomes accepted by the public so quickly. The fight for your personal liberty needs to be fought on an intellectual level first.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on other ways our language is being distorted.
- Bromby
Friday, August 29, 2008
Bromby’s Mystical Journey
People, especially those with a passion for ideas find something alluring about the mystical. This allure comes from the feeling that life is to complex and the universe too intricate and mysterious to understand and that the rational capability of our minds can only take us too far. Somehow we feel we are inherently flawed and our ‘stupid minds’ (to quote Ed Wood) can never truly understand reality.
Instead we turn to the murky world of the mystic, it beckons us like a spectral finger from beyond the smoky veil of the unknown. Beyond this veil we are prone to suspend our rational mind as laws of objective reality no longer apply. We become faithful creatures rather than rational creatures. We look east to the ancient religions and new age mystics because in this world the grinning unshaven dude in filthy robes isn’t ridiculed, he is revered. His strange & almost childish musings are not refuted because they are unproven, but are actually accepted precisely because they cannot be proven.
Bromby throughout his adolescence being very interested in ideas, was especially interested in the biggest questions that lurked beyond that curtain of the knowable. As a result Bromby explored religion. Starting with Christianity and moving through eastern mysticism and even the ideas of Islam.
Let’s start with the west’s favourite mystic, Jesus. Honestly I’m not too crazy about this guy. Even the secular folks in the west seem to revere him as a great mind and a great heart even if they don’t buy into his divinity. In a nutshell, he preaches pure selflessness, meekness, poverty and self sacrifice to the good of others as the ultimate virtues.
Next is the hugely popular Bhudda. I really liked this guy because I found his insights into the human condition to be truly enlightened. However central to his world view is the idea that life is about avoiding suffering. This makes a lot of sense, but his solution is to detach yourself from that which causes suffering. Free your mind of want, because the pain of losing what you desire or not achieving it is too great. Don’t love someone because losing them will cause suffering. Frankly this is a cowardly view of reality. That’s why the most enlightened Bhuddist monks escape from reality and live in seclusion. I don’t mean to sound simplistic, but that’s a waste of a life. The greatest rewards are achieved by passing through the temporary state of suffering rather than avoiding it. Don’t be a chicken – life can be rough but sometimes you just gotta go for it.
The other big one is Islam which literally means ‘to submit’; specifically to submit or surrender your own will to the will of god. Islam literally means the ultimate surrender of the self and the ego.
All of the mystics come to the same conclusion – the subordination of the ego, the will and ultimately the self. Even those who are not mystics proclaim that selfishness of people is the greatest evil that is destroying the world. Ultimately this creates a population that is easy to lead because they are utterly convinced that any attempts to think for themselves will end in ruin. Any true answers about anything important must come from outside of ourselves because we are tainted by selfishness and can't be trusted. The true answers come from somewhere (or someone) outside ourselves, the more murky and nebulous the source of information, the better.
Today a new hugely popular mystic has emerged in Eckhart Tolle, author of the bestselling “A New Earth”. He presents the same mystical teachings, but repackages them and presents them to a whole new audience. Different messenger, same message. Rather than a freaky looking mystic from the east its a hobbit-like German fellow with a tiny goatee. Somehow the more benign and harmless looking folks are best suited to deliver this ancient, but devious message: The ego is the cause of all human misery and suffering.
Bromby is going to posit this statement – discuss amongst yourselves.
Perhaps it is not the ego that is the cause of human misery but the feeling helpless of guilt and duplicity created by trying to fight that which is part of our rational nature. Just because we have an ego and we value ourselves does not mean we are anti-social. Valuing other people is also in our rational nature, but it needn’t come at the expense of valuing one’s self.
-Bromby
Instead we turn to the murky world of the mystic, it beckons us like a spectral finger from beyond the smoky veil of the unknown. Beyond this veil we are prone to suspend our rational mind as laws of objective reality no longer apply. We become faithful creatures rather than rational creatures. We look east to the ancient religions and new age mystics because in this world the grinning unshaven dude in filthy robes isn’t ridiculed, he is revered. His strange & almost childish musings are not refuted because they are unproven, but are actually accepted precisely because they cannot be proven.
Bromby throughout his adolescence being very interested in ideas, was especially interested in the biggest questions that lurked beyond that curtain of the knowable. As a result Bromby explored religion. Starting with Christianity and moving through eastern mysticism and even the ideas of Islam.
Let’s start with the west’s favourite mystic, Jesus. Honestly I’m not too crazy about this guy. Even the secular folks in the west seem to revere him as a great mind and a great heart even if they don’t buy into his divinity. In a nutshell, he preaches pure selflessness, meekness, poverty and self sacrifice to the good of others as the ultimate virtues.
Next is the hugely popular Bhudda. I really liked this guy because I found his insights into the human condition to be truly enlightened. However central to his world view is the idea that life is about avoiding suffering. This makes a lot of sense, but his solution is to detach yourself from that which causes suffering. Free your mind of want, because the pain of losing what you desire or not achieving it is too great. Don’t love someone because losing them will cause suffering. Frankly this is a cowardly view of reality. That’s why the most enlightened Bhuddist monks escape from reality and live in seclusion. I don’t mean to sound simplistic, but that’s a waste of a life. The greatest rewards are achieved by passing through the temporary state of suffering rather than avoiding it. Don’t be a chicken – life can be rough but sometimes you just gotta go for it.
The other big one is Islam which literally means ‘to submit’; specifically to submit or surrender your own will to the will of god. Islam literally means the ultimate surrender of the self and the ego.
All of the mystics come to the same conclusion – the subordination of the ego, the will and ultimately the self. Even those who are not mystics proclaim that selfishness of people is the greatest evil that is destroying the world. Ultimately this creates a population that is easy to lead because they are utterly convinced that any attempts to think for themselves will end in ruin. Any true answers about anything important must come from outside of ourselves because we are tainted by selfishness and can't be trusted. The true answers come from somewhere (or someone) outside ourselves, the more murky and nebulous the source of information, the better.
Today a new hugely popular mystic has emerged in Eckhart Tolle, author of the bestselling “A New Earth”. He presents the same mystical teachings, but repackages them and presents them to a whole new audience. Different messenger, same message. Rather than a freaky looking mystic from the east its a hobbit-like German fellow with a tiny goatee. Somehow the more benign and harmless looking folks are best suited to deliver this ancient, but devious message: The ego is the cause of all human misery and suffering.
Bromby is going to posit this statement – discuss amongst yourselves.
Perhaps it is not the ego that is the cause of human misery but the feeling helpless of guilt and duplicity created by trying to fight that which is part of our rational nature. Just because we have an ego and we value ourselves does not mean we are anti-social. Valuing other people is also in our rational nature, but it needn’t come at the expense of valuing one’s self.
-Bromby
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
