In Defense of Truth

Source: http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/in-defense-of-truth/

APRIL 15, 2010

If world governments allowed economic freedom to flourish and if the stupid environmentalists and their nihilist cohorts (e.g., the secular humanists, freethinkers, and religious people) stayed at bay and kept their stupidity a private matter, there would have been a new technological and scientific renaissance on earth.
I had an online conversation with one of the members of the Filipino Freethinkers, a neo-mystic collective group I passionately


Science is the by-product of man's use of reason.

call Filipino Free-Farters. I appreciate the zeal and politeness of this Freethinker named Pecier Decierdo, who’s one of the many bloggers of the group.

Pecier Decierdo’s comment on one of my blogs gradually turned into a full-blown conversation— a debate— about such issues as reason, science, philosophy, and the infamous Reproductive Health bill.

First, let me tell you that this stems from the plagiarism issue that involves one of the new writers of the Freethinkers. The FF writer named Karlo Espiritu produced a well-written and highly celebrated blog posted on the group’s website on March 27 entitled What’s So Wrong With Objectivism. Many ecstatic members of the Freethinkers were fooled into believing that Mr. Espiritu really authored his cause célèbre article, but their knee-jerk fanfare was only short-lived until I posted my own blog detailing how their favored blogger creatively copied the works of some professional writers and bloggers online. The rest is history.

I was surprised that some of my commenters who were obvious apologists of plagiarism didn’t call me pathetic, desperate, hateful labels like “day dreamer,” “stalker,” “bum,” etc.

In my conversation with Pecier Decierdo I stated my observation of the Filipino Freethinkers:

Any organization that upholds tolerance and compromise as an ‘ideological’ base would sooner or later transform into a battlefield of conflicting or competing systems, ideas, beliefs, or ideologies. And such an organization is an invitation to an open clash between competing belief systems, wherein victory is determined by the number of heads and not by rational moral principles and the value of truth. And it would be the loudest group or the gang with the biggest number of followers that would sooner or later take control of that compromising, nihilist, and tolerant organization.

The situation I have outlined above already took place in your nihilist group. And I suspect that the “victorious” ideological system existed from the very first day the FF was conceived. Did you not notice the political advocacy of the Freethinkers? They are the loudest, most ardent, and most passionate supporters of the Reproductive Health bill authored by the socialists in Congress. Can you tell me if this collective advocacy of almost all members of that group does not represent the totality of their common belief, ideology, or philosophical system? They claim that this socialist RH bill must be enacted into law to serve the interest of women and the poor, yet they refuse to see that this legislation is an affront to individual rights. They claim that health care is a right, yet it seems that they don’t really understand the very concept of right. Right is a man’s freedom of action, which is not synonymous to freedom to act by government permission. You have the right to health care services, but you don’t have the right to tell your doctor to treat you for free or ask the government to provide free health care services to the poor at the expense of those who produce wealth and work very hard for their own survival.

Yet it appears that it is their absolute adoration of science and math and gap-minder and statistics that is blinding the most passionate members of the Freethinkers who claim that the United Nations-backed data on overpopulation is scientific, thus it must be taken as an absolute fact. Like the socialist proponents of the RH bill, most Filipino Freethinkers strongly believe that there is an undeniable symbiotic relationship between poverty and overpopulation. If they’re so concern with poverty, why don’t they try to understand the very root of this social and economic phenomenon? Why don’t they try to grasp the very source of wealth, which is man’s mind, and what makes it possible? Wealth is not produced by manual labor alone.

I say that the psycho-epistemology of the Freethinkers is the carbon copy- a reincarnation- of the collective mentality of the nihilist mystics in the Dark Ages. Yes, when it comes to the issue of over population and poverty, their intellectual ancestor is none other than Thomas Robert Malthus (1766 – 1834) who conceptualized a tribal economic idea that man’s capacity to procreate is the enemy of his survival. Why am I saying this? It is Malthus who popularized this evil idea that is still being regarded as scientific today: “The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.” And this idea is what is now being embraced by the strongest advocates of population control.

Malthus wrote his thesis against population at a period wherein the technological and scientific wonders that we enjoy today were still beyond man’s imagination. And this is the kind of mentality that is now at work at the very core of the Filipino Freethinkers’ collective.

However, Pecier Decierdo disagreed with my observation about the Freethinkers, saying “This scenario will only be true if all the agents in such an organization are impervious to reason.”

He also wrote the following: “I believe in the power of reason, good philosophizing and science — I believe it has the capacity to brighten up this dark world of ours. We at FF are all truth seekers. We come to FF to share our ideas and to present our opinions for the scrutiny of our fellow freethinkers. We come at FF not to find agreement, but to be disagreed with. As such, we are always open to the ideas of others. If a certain position is the most rational one, it is our hope that the greatest number of people will be won by that position.”

Here’s my reply:

But they are [Filipino Freethinkers] impervious to reason. In fact most of them don’t even know the real concept of reason. I stated very clearly my analysis in my blog Filipino Freethinkers Versus Reason, wherein I wrote the following:

“A true advocate of reason truly understands that contradictions cannot exist. In order for Man, who is the standard of value, to live and exist, he needs a society that does not contradict his nature and respects his inalienable individual rights. Thus, for a society to be free, it has to embrace a certain type of socio-economic system that is consistent with man’s nature and rights. Man’s nature suggests that he cannot exist in a society that regards him as a sacrificial animal. Man’s rights also suggest that he has to live in a society that embraces rational principles and objective moral ideals. This is how the United States of America developed and became the most prosperous nation in the world. You cannot defend reason with your progressive, egalitarian, liberal ideologies. It is utterly wrong and even immoral for the members of this Filipino Free-farters group to claim they advocate for reason and science if the ideas, which they passionately propagate were against individual rights, liberty, reality and the ideals of a free society.”

Reason, science, and logic have become the mantra of the FF. Reason is not one sided. When you use reason, you should use it in a holistic way. Reason is not simply about converting to atheism. It is a process which man should use to grasp reality. He could use reason to answer the fundamental questions of his existence: Where am I? How do I know it? What should I do? And we would be able to understand the very essence, significance of this process to our lives and existence if we embraced the right, rational philosophy. And philosophy is the science that studies the existence of man and his relationship to reality or existence.

Ayn Rand said it so clearly: “No matter what conclusions you reach, you will be confronted by the necessity to answer another, corollary question: How do I know it? Since man is not omniscient or infallible, you have to discover what you can claim as knowledge and how to prove the validity of your conclusions. Does man acquire knowledge by a process of reason — or by sudden revelation from a supernatural power? Is reason a faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses — or is it fed by innate ideas, implanted in man’s mind before he was born? Is reason competent to perceive reality — or does man possess some other cognitive faculty which is superior to reason? Can man achieve certainty — or is he doomed to perpetual doubt?”

When it comes to Malthus, Pecier Decierdo wrote: “In my opinion (I am a physics major, I’m no expert in economics or demography), Malthus’ thesis is indeed not applicable to the present day, because in the language of economics, human civilization has escaped its “Malthusian trap” ever since the Industrial Revolution (IR). Since the IR, production increased at a rate that greatly exceeded the increase in population. This lead to a surplus of goods, which developed nations and the wealthy enjoy today. However, back in his day, Malthus was correctly, and scientifically so. This is because back in Malthus’ day, advanced technology was not yet at man’s disposal.”

Here’s my reply:

No, you’re wrong. If you claim to have embraced reason, you should have understood the fatal flaw of your statement. Do not rationalize. When you said that Malthus was “correct” and “scientific” during his days, then you are trying to pervert the meaning of truth and science. Truth and science are absolute. They have a universal impact. What you’re trying to imply is the nihilist/relativist view that “What is true today may be wrong tomorrow.” If that’s the case, then that’s not true and scientific. This is the reason why we must always base our judgment on reality. And the process to attain truth and science is reason, to be guided by a rational philosophy. One plus One should always yield the answer TWO at any time, space or place. The law of gravity is present on earth because of the atmospheric nature of our planet. This means that there is an order in the universe. How did man get to outer space? Through the fundamental process of reason, by studying reality and the nature of the universe, a process which yielded what we know today as science.

As expected, Pecier Decierdo strongly defended his position on the RH bill. Record shows that most, if not all, of the Filipino Freethinkers strongly support this legislation authored by some socialist politicians in Congress.

He strongly believes that the RH bill “will give women and their husbands the right to attend to their own reproductive health.” He added: “The right to choose the size of one’s family and the spacing between the births of one’s children (that is, the right to family planning) does not exist in the Philippines today. Even more importantly, the right to correct and scientific information regarding proper contraceptive methods is something that does not exist in the Philippines today. It is the hope of most members of FF that the RH bill will give women the powerful right to gain control over their reproductive capacity through proper eduction regarding family planning.”

Pecier Decierdo also wrote: “However, we must always take note that the planet earth has a limited carrying capacity. That’s a scientific fact. Do a little research if you are not convinced. While it is true that human ingenuity creates goods and adds value to raw materials, the fact stands that the earth can support only so many people. As such, before we invent a way to build human settlements on the Moon or on Mars, we must be conservative in our use of the earth’s limited resources. Such ecological conservatism is in our best interest as a civilization, for after all, what’s more important than our own survival?”

Here’s what I said:

First, you have raised a number of issues here. Based on that statement I understand that since the planet earth has a limited carrying capacity, then we must support government programs that are aimed at controlling population. This is how I understand that statement since I believe that it is related to the issues of Malthus and the RH bill. Yes, it is true that the earth has a limited carrying capacity, but I don’t believe in your idea of “ecological conservatism.” It does not follow. That’s a non sequitur fallacy. Do you really understand the goal of the environmentalists who are all “ecological conservatives”? They call for the preservation of nature yet disregarding the fact that it is a requisite for the survival of man. Meaning, we must use and exploit earth’s resources to survive. They oppose every kind of new technological and scientific development for the sake of preserving nature itself. They oppose nuclear programs for the reason that it harms the environment and human beings. They oppose scientific activities for the reason that it harms certain types of animals that are being used in the laboratories. They oppose the cutting of trees for industrial and economic development for the reason that it harms the environment. Yes, they are opposed to the advance of this civilization.

Now I don’t believe in shrinking resources. There are shrinking resources because man’s freedom is shrinking. What do I mean by this? If world governments allowed economic freedom to flourish and if the stupid environmentalists and their nihilist cohorts (e.g., the secular humanists, freethinkers, and religious people) stayed at bay and kept their stupidity a private matter, there would have been a new technological and scientific renaissance on earth. Technological and scientific development is only possible in a free society. By free society I mean an informed society. A society that does not regard man as a sacrificial animal or the means to the ends of others. And we would only be able to achieve a free society if men truly understood the real essence and concept of reason.

When you use the term “ecological conservativism” I saw the sheer contradiction in your philosophy or belief system. I stated very clearly my opposition to this view in my blog entitled The Psychology of the Anti-Population Cult. But let me relate this point to your view of the RH bill which you strongly support.

In my blog The Psychology of the Anti-Population Cult, I stated the following:
“Observe also that the overpopulation issue serves as the melting point of all the altruists, collectivists, and ecologists or environmentalists. The environmentalists claim that the enemy of nature is man, so there is a need to control population growth. The socialists proclaim that since earth’s resources are scarce, the government must do something to limit “population explosion.” Both these two groups of mystics are altruists. Their mongrel philosophy, which they consciously or unconsciously hold, upholds the virtue of self-sacrifice, self-abnegation, and self-immolation. They declare that they are for the welfare of the world and men, but they are unaware that the belief system, which they dogmatically embrace, is anti-Man.

“Overpopulation is the problem,” they say, but they reject the fact that population is a private matter only left to private individuals and families. “Overpopulation is linked to poverty,” they claim, but they refused to understand the very source of poverty. If these altruistic people are concerned with suffering and human poverty, they should have the patience to discover their cause. They should ask—Why some countries continue to progress, while others do not. Africa and certain nations in Asia are being used as the poster card of global poverty. But why most people in Kenya cannot even build a deep well to solve widespread thirst and hunger? Why most people in Africa cannot even develop a practical system of agriculture as a way of solving mass starvation? Why is that the Philippines still had to rely on foreign relief during the past natural calamities that devastated the nation. “Why is it that most Filipinos are poor in spite of the fact that we’re rich in natural resources?” most people in this country wonder. The difference between the developed and underdeveloped nations is a matter of philosophy.”

“The anti-population advocates should ask not why America became a superpower nation, but how it reached it current status. The communists claim America became a global power because of imperialism, disregarding the fact that Soviet Russia had also conquered nations and killed millions of its own people. America is a product of philosophy, while the rest of the world is a product of history. America, the first free society on earth, was based on the philosophy of Aristotle—that man has inalienable rights to his life, property, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is the first nation on earth that recognized individual rights, and it is this concept that led to the development of rational ideas and principles that spread throughout the world. This is why our Constitution recognizes individual rights. But most of you would argue, “but America was built by immigrants!” Yes, but what kind of immigrants? The brilliant minds of the world, the creators, the scientists, the innovators, the thinkers, and all those who loved life and achievement, migrated to the United States over the past 200 years because it was the only nation that permitted them to practice their profession without the risk of being sacrificed to society or the “common good.” America was based on the premise that man is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others.”

“Both the anti-population advocates and the environmentalists demand for more government powers. They believe that population growth would lead to what most of them fear—a so-called Malthusian catastrophe. This anti-population philosophy devised by Thomas Malthus in the early eighteenth century, which was imbibed by Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich and the rest of the modern-day environmentalists and the so-called population experts, postulates that “the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.”[viii] Despite the fact that it was developed about two centuries ago, this Malthusian theory still poisons most modern-day population intellectuals. Malthus wrote his thesis for irrational men at the time when such things as genetic engineering, wireless technology, high-end machines and apparatuses, innovative architectural engineering, among many others were still beyond the imagination of man. Malthus, his followers, and fellow thinkers believed that man is a helpless being who cannot improve his status on earth.”

And then you said: “I completely disagree with you — the RH bill will do the exact opposite, it will give women and their husbands the right to attend to their own reproductive health. The right to choose the size of one’s family and the spacing between the births of one’s children (that is, the right to family planning) does not exist in the Philippines today. Even more importantly, the right to correct and scientific information regarding proper contraceptive methods is something that does not exist in the Philippines today.”

Here are my answer to that statement:

First, reproductive health is not a right. In my blog entitled Reproductive Health Care is NOT a Right I stated the following: “Health care is not a right! We’re not born with a right to a ride in Enchanted Kingdom. We’re not born with a right to enslave other people by coercing them to contribute something for the benefit of the majority. We don’t live—and we’re so lucky that we don’t!—in a statist or socialist society, where a so-called presidium has the monopoly of all social, economic and political powers, including the authority to allegedly provide all the needs, be it health care, education, housing, and some other basic necessities, of all its communal members to survive. I do believe that this “man-is-his-brother’s-keeper” scheme is impractical and evil at best. No, we cannot contradict reality. If the RH bill is so good, why criminalize those who want to opt-out? Why impose penalty on the employers who don’t want to be reduced to mere slaves? Why do the Leftist politicians who proposed this bill have to force some people to contribute to what they call the “common good” if their proposition is for the good of everybody?”

“One of the greatest fallacies ever invented to corrupt man’s mind is the distortion of the concept of “right!” That which you passionately call or claim as “right” means the “right” by, for, and of the socialists or the communists. There’s a big difference between a right and a privilege. A right is one that is incumbent upon an individual since birth. You have the right to exist, but you don’t have the right to command your neighbor to feed you. You have the right to education, but you cannot demand that you be spared from school fees to obtain a degree. You have the right to medical services, but you can’t tell the doctor, who spent a lot of money and years of his/her life studying medicine, to treat you for free. The proper concept of “right” means the right of every individual to choose and to reject self-destruction. Such a right cannot extend to enslave your neighbor. It simply means a right to choose or not to choose.”

Second, when you said the RH bill “will give women and their husbands the right to attend to their own reproductive health”, don’t you think that’s not provided under the current set up? The RH bill aims to redistribute wealth. Any human being that claims to be a defender of reason and freedom will not support that socialist legislation. Did you read the bill? Now I tell you what’s wrong with that bill.

FIRST, under Sections 21 to 22 of the bill it is stated that failure by employers to provide RH services for their employees would constitute an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. Again, if the RH bill is so good, why criminalize those who want to opt-out? Why impose penalty on the employers who don’t want to be reduced to mere slaves? Why do the Leftist politicians who proposed this bill have to force some people to contribute to what they call the “common good” if their proposition is for the good of everybody?

SECOND, all the nice-to-hear coverage of the bill– (1) Information and access to natural and modern family planning (2) Maternal, infant and child health and nutrition (3) Promotion of breast feeding (4) Prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications (5) Adolescent and youth health (6) Prevention and management of reproductive tract infections, HIV/AIDS and STDs (7) Elimination of violence against women ( Counseling on sexuality and sexual and reproductive health (9) Treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers (10) Male involvement and participation in RH; (11) Prevention and treatment of infertility and (12) RH education for the youth– are PROVIDED UNDER THE CURRENT SET-UP, and that there are existing and open government agencies that can deliver these services.

For instance, departments and agencies under Section 4(n) like the Department of Health, Department of Education, including public clinics, and other specialized government health centers like the Lung Center of the Philippines, Health Center of the Philippines and government hospitals, can be given additional or even special functions only to comply with the supposed social welfare mandate of this bill. All of the alleged welfare state boons are guaranteed under our present set up. In other words, there is no need to enact this so absurd legislative proposal. However, it is important to note that this bill includes a “pass-on provision.” It’s proponents seek to shift the burden of paying for the RH services to employers. By virtue of their success and economic status, employers are being offered to a sacrificial altar to satisfy the reproductive health care needs of a particular group of people. This trend simply means that need now is a claim on slavery.

THIRD, Overpopulation cannot be legislated. Overpopulation is, indeed, a problem but it cannot be legislated. This attempt to legislate population is tantamount to reducing it to mere statistical problems, which can be solved by orchestrated government actions and social edicts. Population is not synonymous to goods, which are determinable by statistics. In a capitalist society, a regime can only increase the domestic production output by letting the capitalists perform their job. But population is a different matter. A proposal to legislate population is an attempt to invade every household in this country. There’s only way to solve population without the use of government’s arbitrary powers, and this is through voluntary education. Like I said, there are government agencies that can perform this function, and I’m certain that there are also private organizations and non-profit institutions willing to help the government fulfill its goal. History tells us that most socialist states that attempted to legislate their population resorted to force and even mass killing. Socialist countries like Sweden used sterilization or eugenics programs to control the growth of its population. This only means that if you allow your government to rule your lives, the use of arbitrary powers and force is inevitable.

FOURTH, overpopulation is not the main problem. It is true that population is increasing, but I don’t believe it can be legislated. It appears that the main reason of the bill’s supporters is the unfounded fear that overpopulation is somewhat linked to poverty. This contention is debatable and the burden of proof rests upon those who claim that overpopulation is the problem. It is wrong to totally attribute poverty to overpopulation, considering that fact that there are even worse social problems confronting this country, like corruption, people’s stupidity and faith-based fanaticism, and most especially massive government intervention. Almost all crises that took place in this country were caused by excessive state interference. Population must not be used as a scapegoat to correct an evil with another evil. We can’t solve poverty by expanding the powers of the government. Only Capitalism can save this country from poverty, and I have clearly and explicitly stated the reason why in my previous blogs. Population is not the culprit. It cannot be controlled with the use of political edicts. It can only be managed through proper education—by giving every family the right to choice and proper information.

FIFTH, it is dangerous to our rights and freedom. Can’t you see that the main target of most statist/socialist bills are the producers of wealth, while the main excuse or justification for forcing them down our throats are the poor? Yes, nobody is defending the rights of employers and doctors in this country. Well, who likes to defend the rich? Ellsworth Toohey of The Fountainhead, who’s the philosophical figure of the bill’s proponents and supporters, is right in saying that—“It is always safe to denounce the rich.” In fact, some “rich” people even support their own destroyer.

We all know that the country’s medical field is experiencing an ongoing brain drain. This is not a myth. Most doctors, nurses, and other health care providers would like to leave the country any time now had they been given the chance. Just imagine if this bill were passed, I believe we should expect a massive exodus of not only health care providers, but the people who produce as well.

Now some politicians are proposing to implement a universal health care system in the country, a proposal that is more dangerous than the RH bill. And I predict that this universal health care proposal would unite the religionists, who oppose the RH bill, and the bill’s supporters.

@ Pecier Decierdo, I have to say that I appreciate your time and effort in exchanging ideas with me. I’m delighted to know that there’s one FF member who values ideas and philosophy. I can judge it from the way you argued your case, though I disagree with some of your views, which I consider to be against my convictions (my political beliefs, philosophy, and my morality), that you regard ideas as important to our lives and existence. That ideas relate to reality. That without ideas we cannot possibly deal with reality as ‘rational’ human beings. Actions without ideas would only result to breach of one’s nature and rights and reality. This is how I value ideas, and this is what I learned from the woman who taught me that ideas matter, that my life is an end in itself, that my mind is valid, and that reason is my only absolute. This is the woman who told me the following: “Accept the fact that you are not omniscient, but playing a zombie will not give you omniscience—that your mind is fallible, but becoming mindless will not make you infallible—that an error made on your own is safer than ten truths accepted on faith, because the first leaves you the means to correct it, but the second destroys your capacity to distinguish truth from error.” If this is what others call “cultism”, fine! But I resent people who blindly proclaim that ideas are simply words or jumbled sounds that do not have any relation to reality. It is not ideas that these nihilist, hippyish people tend to attack, but my life, my values, my existence, and all the things I love and value in life. Have you ever asked yourself what kind of society these people are going to enshrine with their anti-idea, anti-reality mentality? Dictatorship! But they wouldn’t be the cause or leader of this “dictatorship” or “tyranny”; they would only serve as blind instrument by any scheming collectivist/statist demagogue or ideologue who is the only beneficiary of an anti-man social system- a society that glorifies collective good or common good as the standard of value and condemns the ‘Individual’ as the means to the ends of others or the State.

/Editted: I removed the tags because you must follow the proper way of adding tags. Thank you for your consideration.