TaN: It is bad enough that we must have a law to deter/”discourage” wrongful acts; now, we see laws being enacted that mandate doing beneficial acts. Enacting laws that mandate people to perform “beneficial” deeds is a contradiction to the principle of “One should or cannot legislate morality”. This is a reaction to a news article reporting that a law is being sought to compel people to perform certain “moral” acts.
This is Machiavellianism and it is cannot be tolerated. People must want to do good deeds on their own volition and never under threat or coercion.
One of the fundamental rights of man is the right to choose. It is God-given (when He bestowed on us Free Will) – or, if you do not believe in a Higher Authority, it is a natural and inalienable right. Our right to choose include the right to do what is right or what is wrong. However, to prevent anarchy, there are rules (in the form of laws and regulations, through the Social Contract, with corresponding penalties and punitive actions for truants and recalcitrants) that are agreed upon in order that we exist harmoniously and orderly.
Using laws to enforce good behavior is not only a violation of the above-mentioned principle (on legislating morality) but violates our right to choose, to liberty, and to autonomy. Furthermore, especially in cases of cross or intercultural situations, the philosophical principle of cultural relativism is likewise violated – where no culture is deemed to be superior to another, that we cannot superimpose our morality onto another culture (no matter how “backward” or technologically behind).
The proper – but more tedious and more difficult – method is to teach every individual of society, during their formative years, the correct set of morality and ethics. This way, all the rules and regulations and laws become redundant and useless. People will know how to behave and co-exist with each other.
TaN: The controversial RH bill of the Philippines is totally and utterly redundant, inane, without consideration whatsoever for real and safe solutions to a perceived problem in demography. If what the esteemed Philippine STAR columnist Babe Romualdez wrote, in his Dec 16, 2012 column entitled “RH bill: It’s only the beginning“, is true (as he cited a position paper allagedly from UP economics professors), then the RH bill will have little or no (MORAL) impact. To quote from the article:
“… Citing data, the UP professors say the poorest (who have more unwanted children), actually, prefer smaller families, but they are unable to achieve this, because they lack information and access, to family planning methods, other than the (“accident-prone”) natural method, of contraception. More and more women are, also, dying, because their bodies are ravaged and their lives are endangered, by closely-spaced pregnancies, with 15 Filipinas dying, every day, due to childbirth-rlated causes.”
Given this argument, it is very alluring and tempting to adopt the UN Depopulation Agenda (let us face it and call a spade a spade, whatever you may wish or choose to call it, it is clear and simple depopulation – particularly when it comes to the poorest of the poor who are seen as economically unproductive and more of a burden than valuable human resources (read: corporate assets) where wealth (from their labor) can be extracted to be added to the obscene accumulation of the uber rich and elite 1%) and hail is as THE solution to global poverty and scarcity of resources.
The truth of the matter is that there is enough resources – especially food and water – for everyone if the TRUTH is told and natural resources are shared and utilized responsibly and sustainably (but not the way as defined by the rich and powerful and controllers of wealth and power, through their patents, their copyrights, their intellectual property rights, through their laws, through their international treaties and agreements, through their ownership of land and of factors of production, among others) there is enough to go around for all even with a global population greater than the current. Contrary to popular belief – and being perpetuated mostly by those in the depopulation agenda and parroted by the unsuspecting and gullible “believers” and by most of mainstream media – “meager” as global natural resources may be, the only reasons for the (artificial) food and water crises are: wasteful consumption (encouraged and promoted by Big Business via the consumerism propaganda and mentaility) and inappropriate and immoral distribution and allocation of production (such as diverting much of corn and of soybean – even if both as mostly toxic GMOs – to animal feeds and to biofuels, instead of addressing global poverty and hunger.
To tie all this to the controversial RH bill, in the words of William (“Bill”) Gates III when he spoke before a live audience at Ted.com (quote), “…now, if we really do a great job, on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that, perhaps, by 10 or 15 percent“, what more is there to be said?
If we not only restrain or restrict but totally cease and desist all energy-hungry and -intensive human business (read: corporate) activities. This is also to be in tandem with proper freshwater utilization – where we waste valuable potable or drinkable water on washing cars, trucks, pavements, floorings, roads, and (especially) industrial utilization and all other uses where it does not require the water to be safe for health and nutritional reasons. Remember, the estimated global freshwater volume that is readily accessible and usable is a mere 0.9% of 3% – which comes to 0.027%.
Think about it.
TaN: The Mayan Calendar and the End of the World are two very different things. First, the end of a calendar is different from the end of a year. The argument that year 2012 ends in a few days does not mean that it is the end of the calendar. It is just the end of a year in the calendat.
Second, the end of a calendar does not mean the end of the world. It is just that…the calendar has ended.
Third, the end of the world does not mean the end of the everything. Take note that the term used is “world”. “World” is subjective and can be applied to a host of things and in a myriad of ways. There is the expression, “living in one’s own world”. Everyone has a world of one’s own. When we die, it is the end of our world. Ergo, the world ends many times throughout a single day.
And then there is the matter of the time difference between different geographical locations. When it comes to the measurement of age – the “end of the world” of the Mayan Calendar – the date should be based on the date and the time at the point of origin. In this case, since the calendar is Mayan, the supposed “End of the World” Day of Dec 21, 2012 should be taken from the geographical location of the Mayan civilization.
To illustrate, if a pregnant woman gave birth on a flight from Asia and crossing the international dateline but the baby dies after crossing over. Would this mean that the baby died even before he was born although the birth is a live birth? No, the age of the baby will be a few minutes to a few hours old – because it will be based on where the airplane is at the time of birth. Thus, the true “End of the World” would be the day when the place where Mayans lived turns/welcomes Dec 21, 2012.