Solving the gay marriage issue in a way that satisfies both sides.

Having watched the gay marriage debate, it's become clear to me that neither side really understands freedom. I am part of a small (but hopefully growing) group who believes that the proper application of freedom yields a clear solution that both sides will be satisfied with.

What is freedom?

What freedom is:  It's the right to live as you want as long as you aren't infringing on other people or their property.

What freedom isn't: The right to have a government bureaucracy give you a certificate of approval and special benefits for the lifestyle you choose.

In the case of marriage, it is a voluntary cultural or religious activity and as such, having any law that changes how the government treats people because of their involvement in it is automatically a violation of freedom. Giving special treatment to somebody because of their religion or their involvement in a particular ceremony is just as much against the first amendment as banning it.

Imagine if the government decided to handle other religious and cultural matters the same way they do with marriage. Each religion would have to petition the government for approval of their baptism (and baptised people would be treated differently by the government than non-baptised). Then we'd have a big equality argument where non-christians would also want the benefits of being baptised but others would object because it would violate the sanctity of baptism.

Or perhaps the government should provide a tax break for Thanksgiving turkeys. After all, those are an important part of our culture, so there should be government support for them. However, it would have to be a bureaucrat-approved Thanksgiving turkey. We would then have our national argument about what constitutes a proper Thanksgiving turkey. Vegetarians would say "Hey, we're not getting equal treatment," while others would say "replacing a turkey with a block of tofu really demeans an important American tradition."

In both of the examples, it is probably clear to the reader that the answer isn't to make sure that government gives special recognition to all groups. The answer is that the government should just stay out of it completely. Why not apply the same to marriage?

So what would marriage be without government?

Marriage becomes a private contract between individuals. Terms about what people are expected to do, what the conditions are for divorce, and other such can be set by the people getting married instead of by the government.

For the LGBTQ community, they now have equal treatment. The government isn't setting one group above another or blocking anyone from doing what the others can.

For those who oppose gay marriage, the answer is a little more complicated. One of the strong objections they often bring up is that allowing gay marriage on its own isn't the problem, but that it's the first step toward criminalizing their religion. We can see examples in Europe where this issue results in the government violating free speech (for example: http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1057006.html). However, if the approach is to just avoid special treatment for any group, this is much less likely to happen than when we have government dictating our morals.

The other objection usually given against gay marriage is the belief that marriage comes from God and is supposed to be on his terms. If that's the case, then the last thing you should want is for the government to replace God's terms with their own. Get the government out entirely, and then your religion can determine marriage terms based on what you believe God wants them to be instead of what a bunch of congressmen says that they are.

Conclusion:

Like so many other problems, this one exists because of a lack of freedom. Implement freedom fully by removing the government from matters in which it doesn't belong, and the problem is solved.

Why third-party votes matter more than others

        When I tell people that I will probably vote third party, I typically get an eye-rolling or a "Okay, just throw away your vote" sort of response. To me, this is a very short-sighted perspective.
As with last election, the country finds itself asked to choose between candidates who are nearly identical on all important issues (though not comprehensive, this video gives a pretty good demonstration of the fact: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/118098.html). 
When I raise this point and get at least partial agreement, there are three responses I hear:

1. Vote for the lesser of two evils: Basically, they say that if we can't get someone good, at least vote for the best candidate who has the chance.

2. Don't vote: This is advocated as a moral stand where you are not giving your consent to either of the big candidates. Even though several people that I otherwise respect advocate this view, I have never heard a convincing case as to why this will actually make any difference, so I don't support it, myself.

3. Vote third party: Yes, I am aware that this won't change who wins the current election, but does that mean it doesn't have any effect?

If you always vote for the big two, then your vote is taken for granted:
Democrats, will you ever vote Republican? Republicans, will you ever vote Democrat? I didn't think so. That means that your vote is free. That means that your party can do whatever it wants, break whatever promises it makes, and even follow the exact same plan as his predecessor from the other party (like our current president has done) because they're secure in knowing that you'll continue to vote for them.

A third party vote says "Neither of you are acceptable to me. This is what it would take to get my vote." Sure, if the Libertarian Party (or whatever group you like) only gets one percent of the vote, they can be mostly ignored, but what about when they get five percent. Many presidential elections could be turned with a five percent change in the vote, and suddenly, the Libertarian demographic would be one that the big two would start trying to appeal to. Instead of deciding whether to increase spending by 1.4 trillion or 1.6 trillion, they might actually discuss reducing spending. Instead of quietly ignoring the fact that when two countries are at war, we often provide money to both, the idea of giving money to neither might actually be raised.

Ultimately, no matter how you vote this election, the country will move in generally the same direction for the next four years. But with a third party vote, you just might be able to have a little influence in the years after that.
 

Questioning Motives

Suppose you walk into your living room one night to catch a man who just broke your window and was walking through the room with muddy feet. You ask what he is doing, and he responds, “I just came in to clean your carpet.”


Would you respond by saying, “Oh, I see that your intentions are good. However, you should have done a better job. Your muddy feet are a major oversight, and I see that you forgot to bring carpet shampoo.”

I hope you wouldn't respond that way (except maybe in sarcasm). If somebody does something harmful and claims an utterly absurd reason for doing so, typically we question whether the motivation they gave us is actually true.

Unless, that is, it's the government making the claims, in which case most people always assume that the officials are 100% truthful but maybe didn't do as good of a job as they should.

I am writing this after seeing two major examples of this flawed reasoning being applied. The first is with the Fast and Furious scandal, which is where the US government arranged to have 2000 guns sold to Mexican drug cartels.


Fast and Furious:
What they told the public once this was uncovered was, “We were going to track the guns as part of a plan to find and eliminate the heads of the drug cartels. We just lost track of most of the weapons.”

The response from most of the public, including many who are critical of the government was “Well, you didn't do a good job on this one. Shame on you.” What they should have done was say, “Wait, does this even make sense?”

First off, I can't get a clear picture of how exactly these guns were supposed to be tracked. It clearly wasn't by a carefully installed GPS system, or as soon as they started losing track, they would have realized that the plan had been figured out. Second, how the heck is this going to help you find the leaders of the gangs. Stop reading for a few minutes and really think about the specifics of that. Is it because they assumed that the guns were all being bought for a few leaders? (“When I go on a raid, I always carry at least 50 rifles. And as the leader, I like to risk my neck in dangerous operations that I could easily order my subordinates to do.”) I did some research trying to find any explanation of exactly how this strategy could possibly work, but as far as I could tell, nobody even addressed the question.

I don't claim to know what the motive was, but this follows the exact pattern of the theoretical example above. Somebody claims an intent that doesn't possibly work with their action and results in the exact opposite (because, of course, now the cartels are more powerful). We don't know if the criminal in the example above had intents to rob, kidnap, or murder. We don't know if he was just cold and wanted somewhere warm to sleep for the night. But we can be pretty confident that he wasn't in to clean your carpet.


Supreme Court's Obamacare Decision:
The sad thing is that there was another example this week with the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. For a moment, suspend your opinion on whether Obamacare is good or bad, as this is focused on the reasoning of people. Chief Justice Roberts voted in favor of the individual mandate, which angered some of Obamacare opponents, but then he got a lot of praise from other Obamacare opponents in articles such as this one: http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/9398-why-chief-justice-roberts-made-the-right-long-term-decision-with-obamacare/

Why is he getting praise? Because he spun the penalty for not buying insurance and presented it as a tax instead of a fine. Thus, people are saying “Good job, Roberts, you managed to set a precedent where requiring citizens to buy stuff is still considered unconstitutional.” Do you want to know what would have been more effective in setting that precedent? Declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional like these people wanted him to do in the first place.

So, in other words, by putting a different spin on the definition of terms, he got praise from people who opposed his actions. And, of course, with a few more seconds of thinking, you realize that he said that it's constitutional for the government to tax you for not buying a consumer product. How exactly is that different from an individual mandate? If the government wants to force you to buy a GM car, it can just set the “tax” for not buying one so high that everyone will buy. So basically, the people that would have blasted him for saying that the individual mandate is constitutional are now praising him for providing a way for the government to get the exact same thing.

The obvious conclusion: Roberts supports the individual mandate. Please, people. Learn to question motives a little bit.

The Josh Theory of Awesomeness

Whether it's books, games, movies, plays, or any other kind of entertainment, how do you create something that's truly amazing and memorable? The key is to apply what I call the "Theory of Awesomeness".

To properly present it, I'll have to start by explaining the prevailing view: what I call "The Checklist Method". The checklist method is the idea that there are certain elements to a good piece of entertainment and to create a masterpiece, you try to include as many of these elements as possible. For a book or a movie, it would include items like good characters, detailed setting, surprise twist ending, humor, romance, tragedy, etc. For video games, it's more along the lines of solid gameplay, interesting story, good graphics, good sound effects, and so forth. These lists can get quite long, especially if you start discussing what works well in a particular genre. Even reviews are often based around the Checklist Method, rating each element separately then taking the average.

The Theory of Awesomeness takes a different approach: Each piece of work must start with an idea or a set of ideas that are really interesting or entertaining. The success of your work is based more on the execution of your few brilliant ideas than the presence or absence of the various checklist items. I'll use some examples.

I recently read a book (I won't name it, since my comments here aren't particularly favorable) that did a great job of hitting the items in the checklist method. Solid characters, interesting setting, a properly foreshadowed twist ending, violence (standard in Fantasy), romance, a range of emotions, etc. It was fairly enjoyable but not particularly memorable.

I'll contrast it to Harry Potter (the books. Not the movies). The Harry Potter novels have numerous plot holes, tons of "Well, why didn't you just do this?" moments, and some of the worst deus ex machina I've ever read. And yet, I love them. They're far more flawed than the previously mentioned book, and they don't hit as many of the checkboxes on what supposedly makes a good story, and yet, they're far better overall.

The reason is because there are a few things that J.K. Rowling does masterfully. Though Potter's in a fantastic, magical world, most of his experiences are just enough like what the reader experiences that they can closely relate. Her characters strongly radiate their personalities to the point where the reader feels exactly how she wants them to about each person (i.e. how many people didn't have an overwhelming desire to strangle Dolores Umbridge during the fifth book?). There are a few things in those books that are done so well that most readers either forgive the flaws, or they don't even notice them.

If you want examples from other mediums, consider Tetris (Great story? No. Great graphics? No) or Monty Python (The only checklist item it hits is humor). Both are extremely well-known and well-liked, much more so than most works that have done a far better job hitting the checklist points.

Does that mean that the checklist theory has no merit or that once you've found your awesome points that you can just ignore everything else? No. The checklist items are common elements often contained in a great work, and generally, they should be analyzed for possible inclusion in your own piece. The deciding factor is how they affect the aspects of your work that make it really good. I've seen comedies with a good, emotional story where I felt that they were improved by it, but trying to do that with Monty Python and the Holy Grail would have just handicapped their ability to be funny. I love the fact that the Wheel of Time novels have a detailed, in-depth world where each nation has distinct culture, history, traditions, and even speech patterns, but trying to put the same into Harry Potter would have just added a lot of text that would distract from what made the books great. Even the fans who can't get enough would probably prefer that to all come through a separate volume, rather than being included in the main text.

The key is to identify your point(s) of awesomeness. If you go out with the idea of "I want to make an RTS game" or "I want to write an Urban Fantasy" and you just start working on the checklist, you might make something good, but I don't believe that you can ever create a masterpiece. Rather, your starting point should be "Here's my awesome idea. How can I make it work really well?" Most of the time the checklist items will work in your favor, but sometimes they'll undermine you or at least, bloat your work with stuff that the audience isn't all that interested in.

Girls' guide to dating

Common situations and the three appropriate responses for each:

Situation A:
A guy asks you out on a date.

1. If you like him, then say “Yes.” If you like him but happen to be busy at the requested time, help him reschedule immediately
2. If you dislike him or if he just isn't your type, say “No” or something with a synonymous meaning.
3. If you despise him and are looking for opportunities to make him suffer immensely, act really nice but tell him that you are busy. Continue putting him off until he quits asking.

Situation B:
Your phone shows that you are getting a call from a guy who recently took you out on a date.

1. If you want to go out again, answer the phone and when he asks, concur with his request.
2. If you don't want to go out again, answer the phone, and when he asks, say “No” or something with a synonymous meaning.
3. If you believe that he is a plague on mankind and you would like to crush his willingness to ask girls out so that he will never have children, don't answer the phone or return his call. Continue to repeat this until he quits calling, so that you can drag the suffering out as long as possible.

Situation C:
The date is ending, and the guy is walking you to your doorstep

1. If you would like to go on another date, say “I would like to go out again,” or something similar.
2. If you would not like another date, thank him politely, then enter your dwelling (reference Situation A if he asks you out again).
3. If you have joined a cult of Satan-worshipers whose goal is the emotional destruction of mankind, and you wish to be a devoted follower, then thank him profusely for the date. Tell him how much fun it was and give him an affectionate hug. For bonus points, invite him in and introduce him to your family. After that, when he calls for another date, act like you really want to go but continue putting him off until he gives up. If you're convincing enough, you can sometimes draw out the torture for a couple weeks.

Santa

There are a few well-known serious talks that parents have to have with their children. One that I've been wondering about lately is the "Santa isn't real" talk.

My siblings and I dodged that one simply because my parents never taught us that he existed, so we were enlightened from an early age. For those whose parental lying necessitates this kind of talk, I wonder if there needs to be a guidebook that handles the best way to approach the subject and how to deal with common questions or concerns. Here are a few excerpts from what I think those talks must usually be like:

Kid: Why didn't you tell me that it was you buying those gifts?
Parent: Because we believe that gratitude should be reserved for enigmatic fat men and not actually given to those who deserve it.


Parent: We told you about Santa to make you more excited for Christmas.
Kid: Yeah, but that just raised false hopes. Had I known that my Christmas presents would have been capped by your budget, I wouldn't have expected so much, and thus, wouldn't have been nearly as disappointed.
Parent: We're preparing you for the future. You'll constantly go through cycles of convincing yourself that life doesn't suck only to be proven wrong.
Kid: So you only told me about Santa to make the disappointment that much sharper when I didn't get what I wanted?
Parent: You'll thank us for it when you're older.


Kid: So it turns out that I would have gotten all of those gifts regardless of if I was bad. That means I no longer have any motivation to do good, right?
Parent: Well we might not get you gifts if you behave too badly.
Kid: Should I use your past regard for the truth as my means to analyze that statement?


Kid: Now exactly why did you lie to me about Santa?
Parent: Well, we believed that it was important for you to be excited about Jesus' birth, but we decided that Jesus was too boring, so we fed you some BS about a magical philanthropist so that you would be excited about the holiday.
Kid: So Santa was just a mask for the much less exciting Jesus.
Parent: That is right.
Kid: Can you just skip to the end and tell me about the really boring person that Jesus is masking?


Kid: Once you decided to lie to make me excited about something, why did you choose Santa? Telling me that Star Wars or Lord of the Rings was real would have been much cooler and not been so easy to disprove.
Parent: Santa is a major part of our culture.
Kid: Wait a minute. Your behavior has nothing to do with what is intelligent, makes sense, or will improve your life or relationships? It's just blindly following your culture?
Parent: Well, I guess when you put it that way...
Narrator: And with a sudden depressing insight, the child now understands the cause of so many of the world's problems.

Waiters

Holding to my values can be an exceedingly difficult task. One value I'd like to call my own is "vote with your money". Purveyors of this phrase suggest that if you dislike the behavior of a business, you can facilitate its failure by not spending your money there.

To understand why I have difficulty holding to my values, the fact must be understood that I find food to be extraordinarily pleasing. Gluttony is such a major part of my life that if the Lord hadn't blessed me with high metabolism, my personal gravitational pull would have disrupted the earth's orbit by now.

Many years ago, some brilliant chap devised a scheme to make a business that appeals directly to people like me. He called his creation a "restaurant" and he themed it entirely around food. The finest chefs in the land were brought forth and spent their days concocting substances designed to provide maximum happiness to any human who inserted them into his mouth and proceeded to consume them. Truly there never was a greater source of joy among all the people.
As with all good things, though, these restaurants began to be corrupted. For when the unwashed plebeians entered, they came bearing disturbing ideas. The heretical notion was put forth that the experience surrounding the eating was of greater importance than the eating itself, and fearing the wrath of the masses, the restaurants succumbed.

One of the proclivities among these miscreants was laziness: another--inefficiency. The real horror came when they combined the two.

"Why should we get our own drinks," they asked, "when another person can get them for us."
"Is it truly necessary that we order our food when we're ready? Or should we wait for a person who isn't even sharing our meal?"

And worst of all. "I really hate having to make the decision on when to leave. Wouldn't it be best if some uninterested party made that decision for us?"

And thus the waiter was conceived.

The purpose of this waiter is to force those who come seeking delicious nourishment to wait. Would you like a drink? You'd better wait for the waiter to come inquire of you which liquid you covet. Even though you could reach the drink dispenser yourself with a single-digit number of steps. Have you beheld the food that you would like to order? Well, you'd better wait for that superfluous human to come by and ask you.

What if you would prefer a fork for your sushi because you've found yourself to be incompetent in the ways of chop sticks. Instead of surreptitiously slipping over to the fork area and acquiring one of the aforementioned devices, you have sit dejectedly until the waiter walks by and inform him that you wish to offend the culture of the restaurant and use American utensils.

Eventually, these inconveniences are set aside as you have both the glorious vittles and the instruments with which to eat them. The next fifteen minutes are splendid, apart from the minor bout of dehydration because your cup is empty and you aren't allowed to refill it. At the close of this part of the process, the restaurant has fulfilled the measure of its creation, and your most appropriate activity would be to vacate it.

But, alas, the waiting isn't over yet. You are once again forced to wait for the waiter to bring you the bill, at which point you cast your credit card at him and wait another five minutes before he returns with a receipt to sign. And here is the part where things get truly abominable: You are expected to pay extra money to this person who lengthened your visit. They call it a 'tip', and if the waiter has only mildly damaged your eating experience instead of utterly destroying it, you are expected to make it's value 15% of your food purchase. It is, after all, much more difficult for this person to carry a twenty dollar steak than a three dollar plate of mashed potatoes, so the tip must be inflated appropriately.

It is here that my values are challenged. "Vote with your money" is my theory. By bestowing my hard-earned lucre on this person, I uphold their position. Clearly then, it's vitally important that I give no tip. In fact, to ensure that a revolution succeeds as I desire, I should eat out as often as possible, always withholding my tip.

But then I have a realization: it goes something like this: "Josh, you make video games for a living. You go to a nice office full of cool people who treat you well. Here is a poor sap who spends his days dealing with annoying people like you. He's probably struggling to make ends meet. He works evenings which has brutal effects on his social life. In addition, the restaurant pays him roughly the amount it costs to buy the gas to drive home. Give him some frikkin' cash, you incorrigible miser."

So I do. Perhaps one day, I'll develop the skills necessary to be a jerk, but until then, waiters, you'll get your tip.