Addendum: I just recently watched the movie again and the quote is actually, "I bow to no man." But I think it makes the same point.
Friday, December 26, 2008
"I Kneel Before No Man"
That's a quote from "The Chronicles of Riddick"; a Vin Diesel vehicle which is a sequal to "Pitch Black". The last few weeks I found myself saying that line to myself while watching movies about European Kings; as well as Christmas movies about Jesus; as long as it is a person telling me what to do I will not, nor cannot, obey any rule which abridges the right of any other person to the basic rights of property. As religious as I can be; if Jesus himself told me to take another persons property (including harming their body) I could not obey without a deep feeling of guilt. "Kneel before no man;" to me those are words to live by; no matter if he were elected by popular demand or annointed by God; "I kneel before no man."
Friday, December 12, 2008
Abortion
This seems to be a tough topic for people; as it is for me. However, it is also very clear. As soon as a child has a human body and mind, regardless of how well it works, that child has a right to it's body. The mother also has a right to her body; therefore she has the right to remove the child. But the current abortion procedure makes no attempt to remove the child without harming it's body; and therefore should not be legal. A procedure where the child is romoved and affords it every chance to survive should be legal. If every attempt is made to preserve the life of the child and it dies of natural causes outside the womb then it's rights have not been violated. Whether the fetus is viable or even if no such surgery exists; non-lethal removal of the fetus, giving it at least a chance to live, is the only answer for a true libertarian.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Down with the Federal Reserve!
An interesting bit about the Federal Reserves and its effects on inflation and recession from "For A New Liberty" by Murry N. Rothbard:
"The Federal Reserve and Fractional Reserve Banking
Inflating by simply printing more money, however, is now considered
old- fashioned. For one thing, it is too visible; with a lot of high-denomination
bills floating around, the public might get the troublesome idea that
the cause of the unwelcome inflation is the government’s printing of all
the bills—and the government might be stripped of that power. Instead,
governments have come up with a much more complex and sophisticated,
and much less visible, means of doing the same thing: of organizing
increases in the money supply to give themselves more money to spend
and to subsidize favored political groups. The idea was this: instead of
stressing the printing of money, retain the paper dollars or marks or francs
as the basic money (the “legal tender”), and then pyramid on top of that a
mysterious and invisible, but no less potent, “checkbook money,” or bank
demand deposits. The result is an inflationary engine, controlled by
government, which no one but bankers, economists, and government
central bankers understands—and designedly so.
First, it must be realized that the entire commercial banking system, in
the United States or elsewhere, is under the total control of the central
government—a control that the banks welcome, for it permits them to
create money. The banks are under the complete control of the central
bank—a government institution—a control stemming largely from the
central bank’s compulsory monopoly over the printing of money. In the
United States, the Federal Reserve System performs this central banking
function. The Federal Reserve (“the Fed”) then permits the commercial
banks to pyramid bank demand deposits (“checkbook money”) on top of
their own “reserves” (deposits at the Fed) by a multiple of approximately
6:1. In other words, if bank reserves at the Fed increase by $1 billion, the
banks can and do pyramid their deposits by $6 billion—that is, the banks
create $6 billion worth of new money.
Why do bank demand deposits constitute the major part of the money
supply? Officially, they are not money or legal tender in the way that
Federal Reserve Notes are money. But they constitute a promise by a bank
that it will redeem its demand deposits in cash (Federal Reserve Notes)
anytime that the deposit holder (the owner of the “checking account”) may
desire. The point, of course, is that the banks don’t have the money; they
Inflation and the Business Cycle 183
cannot, since the y owe six times their reserves, which are their own
checking account at the Fed. The public, however, is induced to trust the
banks by the penumbra of soundness and sanctity laid about them by the
Federal Reserve System. For the Fed can and does bail out banks in
trouble. If the public understood the process and descended in a storm
upon the banks demanding their money, the Fed, in a pinch, if it wanted,
could always print enough money to tide the banks over.
The Fed, then, controls the rate of monetary inflation by adjusting the
multiple (6:1) of bank money creation, or, more importantly, by
determining the total amount of bank reserves. In other words, if the Fed
wishes to increase the total money supply by $6 billion, instead of actually
printing the $6 billion, it will contrive to increase bank reserves by $1
billion, and then leave it up to the banks to create $6 billion of new
checkbook money. The public, meanwhile, is kept ignorant of the process
or of its significance.
How do the banks create new deposits? Simply by lending them out in
the process of creation. Suppose, for example, that the banks receive the
$1 billion of new reserves; the banks will lend out $6 billion and create the
new deposits in the course of making these new loans. In short, whe n the
commercial banks lend money to an individual, a business firm, or the
government, they are not relending existing money that the public
laboriously had saved and deposited in their vaults—as the public usually
believes. They lend out new demand deposits that they create in the course
of the loan—and they are limited only by the “reserve requirements,” by
the required maximum multiple of deposit to reserves (e.g., 6:1). For, after
all, they are not printing paper dollars or digging up pieces of gold; they
are simply issuing deposit or “checkbook” claims upon themselves for
cash—claims which they wouldn’t have a prayer of honoring if the public
as a whole should ever rise up at once and demand such a settling of their
accounts.
How, then, does the Fed contrive to determine (almost always, to
increase) the total reserves of the commercial banks? It can and does lend
reserves to the banks, and it does so at an artificially cheap rate (the
“rediscount rate”). But still, the banks do not like to be heavily in debt to
the Fed, and so the total loans outstanding from the Fed to the banks is
never very high. By far the most important route for the Fed’s determining
of total reserves is little known or understood by the public: the method of
“open market purchases.” What this simply means is that the Federal
Reserve Bank goes out into the open market and buys an asset. Strictly, it
184 Libertarian Applications to Current Problems
doesn’t matter what kind of an asset the Fed buys. It could, for example,
be a pocket calculator for twenty dollars. Suppose that the Fed buys a
pocket calculator from XYZ Electronics for twenty dollars. The Fed
acquires a calculator; but the important point for our purposes is that XYZ
Electronics acquires a check for twenty dollars from the Federal Reserve
Bank. Now, the Fed is not open to checking accounts from private
citizens, only from banks and the federal government itself. XYZ
Electronics, therefore, can only do one thing with its twenty-dollar check:
deposit it at its own bank, say the Acme Bank. At this point, another
transaction takes place: XYZ gets an increase of twenty dollars in its
checking account, in its “demand deposits.” In return, Acme Bank gets a
check, made over to itself, from the Federal Reserve Bank.
Now, the first thing that has happened is that XYZ’s money stock has
gone up by twenty dollars—its newly increased account at the Acme
Bank—and nobody else’s money stock has changed at all. So, at the end
of this initial phase—phase I—the money supply has increased by twenty
dollars, the same amount as the Fed’s purchase of an asset. If one asks,
where did the Fed get the twenty dollars to buy the calculator, then the
answer is: it created the twenty dollars out of thin air by simply writing
out a check upon itself. No one, neither the Fed nor anyone else, had the
twenty dollars before it was created in the process of the Fed’s
expenditure.
But this is not all. For now the Acme Bank, to its delight, finds it has a
check on the Federal Reserve. It rushes to the Fed, deposits it, and
acquires an increase of $20 in its reserves, that is, in its “demand deposits
with the Fed.” Now that the banking system has an increase in $20, it can
and does expand credit, that is, create more demand deposits in the form
of loans to business (or to consumers or government), until the total
increase in checkbook money is $120. At the end of phase II, then, we
have an increase of $20 in bank reserves generated by Fed purchase of a
calculator for that amount, an increase in $120 in bank demand deposits,
and an increase of $100 in bank loans to business or others. The total
money supply has increased by $120, of which $100 was created by the
banks in the course of lending out checkbook money to business, and $20
was created by the Fed in the course of buying the calculator.
In practice, of course, the Fed does not spend much of its time buying
haphazard assets. Its purchases of assets are so huge in order to inflate the
economy that it must settle on a regular, highly liquid asset. In practice,
this means purchases of U.S. government bonds and other U.S.
Inflation and the Business Cycle 185
government securities. The U.S. government bond market is huge and
highly liquid, and the Fed does not have to get into the political conflicts
that would be involved in figuring out which private stocks or bonds to
purchase. For the government, this process also has the happy
consequence of helping to prop up the government security market, and
keep up the price of government bonds.
Suppose, however, that some bank, perhaps under the pressure of its
depositors, might have to cash in some of its checking account reserves in
order to acquire hard currency. What would happen to the Fed then, since
its checks had created new bank reserves out of thin air? Wouldn’t it be
forced to go bankrupt or the equivalent? No, because the Fed has a
monopoly on the printing of cash, and it could—and would—simply
redeem its demand deposit by printing whatever Federal Reserve Notes
are needed. In short, if a bank came to the Fed and demanded $20 in cash
for its reserve—or, indeed, if it demanded $20 million—all the Fed would
have to do is print that amount and pay it out. As we can see, being able to
print its own money places the Fed in a uniquely enviable position.
So here we have, at long last, the key to the mystery of the modern
inflationary process. It is a process of continually expanding the money
supply through continuing Fed purchases of government securities on the
open market. Let the Fed wish to increase the money supply by $6 billion,
and it will purchase government securities on the open market to a total of
$1 billion (if the money multiplier of demand deposits/reserves is 6:1) and
the goal will be speedily accomplished. In fact, week after week, even as
these lines are being read, the Fed goes into the open market in New York
and purchases whatever amount of government bonds it has decided upon,
and thereby helps decide upon the amount of monetary inflation.
The monetary history of this century has been one of repeated loosening
of restraints on the State’s propensity to inflate, the removal of one
check after another until now the government is able to inflate the money
supply, and therefore prices, at will. In 1913, the Federal Reserve System
was created to enable this sophisticated pyramiding process to take place.
The new system permitted a large expansion of the money supply, and of
inflation to pay for war expenditures in World War I. In 1933, another
fateful step was taken: the United States government took the country off
the gold standard, that is, dollars, while still legally defined in terms of a
weight of gold, were no longer redeemable in gold. In short, before 1933,
there was an important shackle upon the Fed’s ability to inflate and
186 Libertarian Applications to Current Problems
expand the money supply: Federal Reserve Notes themselves were
payable in the equivalent weight of gold.
There is, of course, a crucial difference between gold and Federal
Reserve Notes. The government cannot create new gold at will. Gold has
to be dug, in a costly process, out of the ground. But Federal Reserve
Notes can be issued at will, at virtually zero cost in resources. In 1933, the
United States government removed the gold restraint on its inflationary
potential by shifting to fiat money: to making the paper dollar itself the
standard of money, with government the monopoly supplier of dollars. It
was going off the gold standard that paved the way for the mighty U.S.
money and price inflation during and after World War II.
But there was still one fly in the inflationary ointment, one restraint left
on the U.S. government’s propensity for inflation. While the United States
had gone off gold domestically, it was still pledged to redeem any paper
dollars (and ultimately bank dollars) held by foreign governments in gold
should they desire to do so. We were, in short, still on a restricted and
aborted form of gold standard internationally. Hence, as the United States
inflated the money supply and prices in the 1950s and 1960s, the dollars
and dollar claims (in paper and checkbook money) piled up in the hands of
European governments. After a great deal of economic finagling and
political arm-twisting to induce foreign governments not to exercise their
right to redeem dollars in gold, the United States, in August 1971,
declared national bankruptcy by repudiating its solemn contractual
obligations and “closing the gold window.” It is no coincidence that this
tossing off of the last vestige of gold restraint upon the governments of the
world was followed by the double-digit inflation of 1973–1974, and by
similar inflation in the rest of the world.
We have now explained the chronic and worsening inflation in the
contemporary world and in the United States: the unfortunate product of a
continuing shift in this century from gold to government-issued paper as
the standard money, and of the development of central banking and the
pyramiding of checkbook money on top of inflated paper cur rency. Both
interrelated developments amount to one thing: the seizure of control over
the money supply by government.
If we have explained the problem of inflation, we have not yet examined
the problem of the business cycle, of recessions, and of inflationary
recession or stagflation. Why the business cycle, and why the new mysterious
phenomenon of stagflation?"
"The Federal Reserve and Fractional Reserve Banking
Inflating by simply printing more money, however, is now considered
old- fashioned. For one thing, it is too visible; with a lot of high-denomination
bills floating around, the public might get the troublesome idea that
the cause of the unwelcome inflation is the government’s printing of all
the bills—and the government might be stripped of that power. Instead,
governments have come up with a much more complex and sophisticated,
and much less visible, means of doing the same thing: of organizing
increases in the money supply to give themselves more money to spend
and to subsidize favored political groups. The idea was this: instead of
stressing the printing of money, retain the paper dollars or marks or francs
as the basic money (the “legal tender”), and then pyramid on top of that a
mysterious and invisible, but no less potent, “checkbook money,” or bank
demand deposits. The result is an inflationary engine, controlled by
government, which no one but bankers, economists, and government
central bankers understands—and designedly so.
First, it must be realized that the entire commercial banking system, in
the United States or elsewhere, is under the total control of the central
government—a control that the banks welcome, for it permits them to
create money. The banks are under the complete control of the central
bank—a government institution—a control stemming largely from the
central bank’s compulsory monopoly over the printing of money. In the
United States, the Federal Reserve System performs this central banking
function. The Federal Reserve (“the Fed”) then permits the commercial
banks to pyramid bank demand deposits (“checkbook money”) on top of
their own “reserves” (deposits at the Fed) by a multiple of approximately
6:1. In other words, if bank reserves at the Fed increase by $1 billion, the
banks can and do pyramid their deposits by $6 billion—that is, the banks
create $6 billion worth of new money.
Why do bank demand deposits constitute the major part of the money
supply? Officially, they are not money or legal tender in the way that
Federal Reserve Notes are money. But they constitute a promise by a bank
that it will redeem its demand deposits in cash (Federal Reserve Notes)
anytime that the deposit holder (the owner of the “checking account”) may
desire. The point, of course, is that the banks don’t have the money; they
Inflation and the Business Cycle 183
cannot, since the y owe six times their reserves, which are their own
checking account at the Fed. The public, however, is induced to trust the
banks by the penumbra of soundness and sanctity laid about them by the
Federal Reserve System. For the Fed can and does bail out banks in
trouble. If the public understood the process and descended in a storm
upon the banks demanding their money, the Fed, in a pinch, if it wanted,
could always print enough money to tide the banks over.
The Fed, then, controls the rate of monetary inflation by adjusting the
multiple (6:1) of bank money creation, or, more importantly, by
determining the total amount of bank reserves. In other words, if the Fed
wishes to increase the total money supply by $6 billion, instead of actually
printing the $6 billion, it will contrive to increase bank reserves by $1
billion, and then leave it up to the banks to create $6 billion of new
checkbook money. The public, meanwhile, is kept ignorant of the process
or of its significance.
How do the banks create new deposits? Simply by lending them out in
the process of creation. Suppose, for example, that the banks receive the
$1 billion of new reserves; the banks will lend out $6 billion and create the
new deposits in the course of making these new loans. In short, whe n the
commercial banks lend money to an individual, a business firm, or the
government, they are not relending existing money that the public
laboriously had saved and deposited in their vaults—as the public usually
believes. They lend out new demand deposits that they create in the course
of the loan—and they are limited only by the “reserve requirements,” by
the required maximum multiple of deposit to reserves (e.g., 6:1). For, after
all, they are not printing paper dollars or digging up pieces of gold; they
are simply issuing deposit or “checkbook” claims upon themselves for
cash—claims which they wouldn’t have a prayer of honoring if the public
as a whole should ever rise up at once and demand such a settling of their
accounts.
How, then, does the Fed contrive to determine (almost always, to
increase) the total reserves of the commercial banks? It can and does lend
reserves to the banks, and it does so at an artificially cheap rate (the
“rediscount rate”). But still, the banks do not like to be heavily in debt to
the Fed, and so the total loans outstanding from the Fed to the banks is
never very high. By far the most important route for the Fed’s determining
of total reserves is little known or understood by the public: the method of
“open market purchases.” What this simply means is that the Federal
Reserve Bank goes out into the open market and buys an asset. Strictly, it
184 Libertarian Applications to Current Problems
doesn’t matter what kind of an asset the Fed buys. It could, for example,
be a pocket calculator for twenty dollars. Suppose that the Fed buys a
pocket calculator from XYZ Electronics for twenty dollars. The Fed
acquires a calculator; but the important point for our purposes is that XYZ
Electronics acquires a check for twenty dollars from the Federal Reserve
Bank. Now, the Fed is not open to checking accounts from private
citizens, only from banks and the federal government itself. XYZ
Electronics, therefore, can only do one thing with its twenty-dollar check:
deposit it at its own bank, say the Acme Bank. At this point, another
transaction takes place: XYZ gets an increase of twenty dollars in its
checking account, in its “demand deposits.” In return, Acme Bank gets a
check, made over to itself, from the Federal Reserve Bank.
Now, the first thing that has happened is that XYZ’s money stock has
gone up by twenty dollars—its newly increased account at the Acme
Bank—and nobody else’s money stock has changed at all. So, at the end
of this initial phase—phase I—the money supply has increased by twenty
dollars, the same amount as the Fed’s purchase of an asset. If one asks,
where did the Fed get the twenty dollars to buy the calculator, then the
answer is: it created the twenty dollars out of thin air by simply writing
out a check upon itself. No one, neither the Fed nor anyone else, had the
twenty dollars before it was created in the process of the Fed’s
expenditure.
But this is not all. For now the Acme Bank, to its delight, finds it has a
check on the Federal Reserve. It rushes to the Fed, deposits it, and
acquires an increase of $20 in its reserves, that is, in its “demand deposits
with the Fed.” Now that the banking system has an increase in $20, it can
and does expand credit, that is, create more demand deposits in the form
of loans to business (or to consumers or government), until the total
increase in checkbook money is $120. At the end of phase II, then, we
have an increase of $20 in bank reserves generated by Fed purchase of a
calculator for that amount, an increase in $120 in bank demand deposits,
and an increase of $100 in bank loans to business or others. The total
money supply has increased by $120, of which $100 was created by the
banks in the course of lending out checkbook money to business, and $20
was created by the Fed in the course of buying the calculator.
In practice, of course, the Fed does not spend much of its time buying
haphazard assets. Its purchases of assets are so huge in order to inflate the
economy that it must settle on a regular, highly liquid asset. In practice,
this means purchases of U.S. government bonds and other U.S.
Inflation and the Business Cycle 185
government securities. The U.S. government bond market is huge and
highly liquid, and the Fed does not have to get into the political conflicts
that would be involved in figuring out which private stocks or bonds to
purchase. For the government, this process also has the happy
consequence of helping to prop up the government security market, and
keep up the price of government bonds.
Suppose, however, that some bank, perhaps under the pressure of its
depositors, might have to cash in some of its checking account reserves in
order to acquire hard currency. What would happen to the Fed then, since
its checks had created new bank reserves out of thin air? Wouldn’t it be
forced to go bankrupt or the equivalent? No, because the Fed has a
monopoly on the printing of cash, and it could—and would—simply
redeem its demand deposit by printing whatever Federal Reserve Notes
are needed. In short, if a bank came to the Fed and demanded $20 in cash
for its reserve—or, indeed, if it demanded $20 million—all the Fed would
have to do is print that amount and pay it out. As we can see, being able to
print its own money places the Fed in a uniquely enviable position.
So here we have, at long last, the key to the mystery of the modern
inflationary process. It is a process of continually expanding the money
supply through continuing Fed purchases of government securities on the
open market. Let the Fed wish to increase the money supply by $6 billion,
and it will purchase government securities on the open market to a total of
$1 billion (if the money multiplier of demand deposits/reserves is 6:1) and
the goal will be speedily accomplished. In fact, week after week, even as
these lines are being read, the Fed goes into the open market in New York
and purchases whatever amount of government bonds it has decided upon,
and thereby helps decide upon the amount of monetary inflation.
The monetary history of this century has been one of repeated loosening
of restraints on the State’s propensity to inflate, the removal of one
check after another until now the government is able to inflate the money
supply, and therefore prices, at will. In 1913, the Federal Reserve System
was created to enable this sophisticated pyramiding process to take place.
The new system permitted a large expansion of the money supply, and of
inflation to pay for war expenditures in World War I. In 1933, another
fateful step was taken: the United States government took the country off
the gold standard, that is, dollars, while still legally defined in terms of a
weight of gold, were no longer redeemable in gold. In short, before 1933,
there was an important shackle upon the Fed’s ability to inflate and
186 Libertarian Applications to Current Problems
expand the money supply: Federal Reserve Notes themselves were
payable in the equivalent weight of gold.
There is, of course, a crucial difference between gold and Federal
Reserve Notes. The government cannot create new gold at will. Gold has
to be dug, in a costly process, out of the ground. But Federal Reserve
Notes can be issued at will, at virtually zero cost in resources. In 1933, the
United States government removed the gold restraint on its inflationary
potential by shifting to fiat money: to making the paper dollar itself the
standard of money, with government the monopoly supplier of dollars. It
was going off the gold standard that paved the way for the mighty U.S.
money and price inflation during and after World War II.
But there was still one fly in the inflationary ointment, one restraint left
on the U.S. government’s propensity for inflation. While the United States
had gone off gold domestically, it was still pledged to redeem any paper
dollars (and ultimately bank dollars) held by foreign governments in gold
should they desire to do so. We were, in short, still on a restricted and
aborted form of gold standard internationally. Hence, as the United States
inflated the money supply and prices in the 1950s and 1960s, the dollars
and dollar claims (in paper and checkbook money) piled up in the hands of
European governments. After a great deal of economic finagling and
political arm-twisting to induce foreign governments not to exercise their
right to redeem dollars in gold, the United States, in August 1971,
declared national bankruptcy by repudiating its solemn contractual
obligations and “closing the gold window.” It is no coincidence that this
tossing off of the last vestige of gold restraint upon the governments of the
world was followed by the double-digit inflation of 1973–1974, and by
similar inflation in the rest of the world.
We have now explained the chronic and worsening inflation in the
contemporary world and in the United States: the unfortunate product of a
continuing shift in this century from gold to government-issued paper as
the standard money, and of the development of central banking and the
pyramiding of checkbook money on top of inflated paper cur rency. Both
interrelated developments amount to one thing: the seizure of control over
the money supply by government.
If we have explained the problem of inflation, we have not yet examined
the problem of the business cycle, of recessions, and of inflationary
recession or stagflation. Why the business cycle, and why the new mysterious
phenomenon of stagflation?"
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
The Government and Race
I am of the opinion that the government has no business knowing what race a person is. It should not matter whether a person is white, black, asian, Native American or any other race, it is no business of the government. Yes; 40 or more years ago the government needed to step in to to stop such inane laws as the Jim Crow laws in the south, but what business is it of theirs anymore? In my experience; government preference of one race over another has only worked to strain the burgening relationships. I grew up and still live in an area with with many Native Americans; many of whom were my best friends, but what made me feel any ill will towards them what so ever was the fact that they got special treatment fromt the government that I as a white child was not afforded. The same goes for African Americans; I have many friends and even relatives whom are African American, and I feel no ill will towards them(in fact I have gone to fistacuffs over people using derogatory frasing towards them), but the government pushing obsurd tolerance laws and constantly telling me how racist I am by the fact that I am white is the only cause I have to feel ill will towards them. I think if the government just kept thier noses out of our business there would be no problems. Not to mention the government mishandles everything and then blames thier mishandling on racism. See for instance the Beurou of Indain Affairs in this John Stossel clip:
Difference between Democrats, Republicans and libertarians
as of late i've been reading a book; ok, i'm listening to the audio version, but still; and it's very intriguing. Of course I don't believe in everything aspoused in the book; as I would never presume to speak for another person and never presume to allow another person to speak for me, but I found one passage in particular which painted the difference between Democrats, Republicans and libertarians quite well:
Murray N. Rothbard
from;
For A New Liberty:
"Sometimes it seems that the beau ideal of many conservatives,
as well as of many liberals, is to put everyone into a cage
and coerce him into doing what the conservatives or liberals
believe to be the moral thing. They would of course be differently
styled cages, but they would be cages just the same. The
conservative would ban illicit sex, drugs, gambling, and impiety,
and coerce everyone to act according to his version of
moral and religious behavior. The liberal would ban films of
violence, unesthetic advertising, football, and racial discrimination,
and, at the extreme, place everyone in a “Skinner box”
to be run by a supposedly benevolent liberal dictator. But the
effect would be the same: to reduce everyone to a subhuman
level and to deprive everyone of the most precious part of his
or her humanity—the freedom to choose.
The irony, of course, is that by forcing men to be “moral”—
i.e., to act morally—the conservative or liberal jailkeepers
would in reality deprive men of the very possibility of being
moral. The concept of “morality” makes no sense unless the
moral act is freely chosen. Suppose, for example, that someone
is a devout Muslim who is anxious to have as many people as
possible bow to Mecca three times a day; to him let us suppose
this is the highest moral act. But if he wields coercion to force
everyone to bow to Mecca, he is thereby depriving everyone
of the opportunity to be moral—to choose freely to bow to
Mecca. Coercion deprives a man of the freedom to choose and,
therefore, of the possibility of choosing morally.
The libertarian, in contrast to so many conservatives and
liberals, does not want to place man in any cage. What he
wants for everyone is freedom, the freedom to act morally or
immorally, as each man shall decide."
Monday, December 1, 2008
Deforestation: A Death Nell?
Recently I've been thinking about how crazy environmentalists are about trees. They seem to think that there aren't enough trees to do the job; in there eyes to stop global warming. But; if they were so serious about the CO2-O2 cycle, then they would be talking less about trees and more about algae. In a recent conversation with a friend I stunned to find out that he actually thought trees were the most important part of the CO2-O2 cycle; when in fact the most important part of this cycle is algae. This aquatic plant is estimated to be responsible for 70%-80% of Oxygen production. But you don't hear the environmentalists talking about saving the algae. I surmise this is because algae isn't as heart warming as a beautiful tree, and if they didn't rely on emotionalism they wouldn't be able to induct as many people because they would see what the environmental movement is all about: socialism. So next time some one says they are trying to save the planet; ask them about algae.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Female Celebrities
Today is a two for one; first I will tell who are the five female celebrities whom I keep hearing are hot and I don't get it, I think if you saw a chick that looked like them in a bar they wouldn't even get a second look, unless you were super drunk, but somehow because they're famous guys think they are hot. Then I'll give my five female celebrities whom I think are super hot, my Meccas.
Ones I Don't Get:
Cameron Diaz
Julia Roberts
Paris Hilton
Uma Therman
Drew Barrymore
I Got a Thing For These Chicks:
Rachel Stevens
Shannon Sossamon
Julia Stiles
Kira Knightley
Kate Beckinsale
Cameron Diaz
Julia Roberts
Paris Hilton
Uma Therman
Drew Barrymore
I Got a Thing For These Chicks:
Rachel Stevens
Shannon Sossamon
Julia Stiles
Kira Knightley
Kate Beckinsale
Friday, November 21, 2008
Libertarian Celebrities?
Raised in a Republican household which worshiped these fellows, I was amazed to find out their political views were more like mine than my father's;
Clint Eastwood (F'n Dirty Harry!)
Tom Selleck (Magnum PI biotch)
Kurt Russell (Snake Plisskin himself!)
Dennis Leary (He did some cool shit, but nothin quotable)
John Larroquette (not only did we watch Night Court, but he was in Star Trek III)
Drew Carey (myself and my parents loved his show)
Tom Selleck (Magnum PI biotch)
Kurt Russell (Snake Plisskin himself!)
Dennis Leary (He did some cool shit, but nothin quotable)
John Larroquette (not only did we watch Night Court, but he was in Star Trek III)
Drew Carey (myself and my parents loved his show)
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Civil Literacy Test
Try taking this civil literacy test, apparently many people haven't been scoring well on it. My score was 93.94% or 31 out of 33.
from the website:
"Of the 2,508 People surveyed, 164 say they have held an elected government office at least once in their life. Their average score on the civic literacy test is 44%, compared to 49% for those who have not held an elected office. Officeholders are less likely than other respondents to correctly answer 29 of the 33 test questions."
from the website:
"Of the 2,508 People surveyed, 164 say they have held an elected government office at least once in their life. Their average score on the civic literacy test is 44%, compared to 49% for those who have not held an elected office. Officeholders are less likely than other respondents to correctly answer 29 of the 33 test questions."
Jerry Bader
Just thought I'd let you guys in on this; Jerry Bader is a local conservative talk show host here in the Green Bay area. I love to listen to him because he isn't a tow-the-line kind of guy like most of them; I usually agree with what he has to say. Well, now if you're interested you to can view the show live on the radio station website, so even if you're way out in Nevada like my boy Mikey you can listen to what I consider to be a great show. Now, very often he does take up local issues, but there is usally a point to it that can translate to anywhere. The show airs 8:30am-11am Central Time, check it out here if you're interested.
As of right now they are looping the show until they get their other shows streaming
As of right now they are looping the show until they get their other shows streaming
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Scientific Fact, Scientific Hypothesis and Scientific Theory
People need to stop throwing science around so casually without actually understanding it, so here are a few tidbits to make you more informed.
A scientific hypothesis is an educated observation of a causal relationship; meaning you see something happen, and you guess what made it happen.
A scientific theory is a more worked out version of a hypothesis; it's a model of how things should work, but as of yet has not been completely proven through repeatable controlled experimentation.
A scientific fact is an observation which can be proven using a physical repeatable controlled experiment; repeatable, meaning you or anyone attempting it have to be able to the experiment over and over with the same results; physical, meaning it can be carried out in the real world where causality is most assured; controlled, meaning you must control every factor involved to show direct cause and effect of what your theory states.
Here are some examples:
Scientific Fact: Evolution-Over time by mixing certain animals in a species the species will evolve this, can be seen through physical repeatable controlled experimentation; this can been seen in breeding, by taking the cows that give the most milk and mating them with the bulls which produce the most meat you will get a line of cows which give a lot of milk and meat.
Scientific Theory: The Theory of Evolution- That all animals have evolved from a common ancestor; this will always be a theory for the simple fact that it has already happened and there is no repeatable controlled experiment which can be done. The same goes for the Theory of Human Evolution; although both are sound theory, there is no conceivable way for them to become fact.
Scientific Theory: CO2 Caused Global Warming-That a rise in CO2 alone can cause the greenhouse effect to increase. Since the world is so big with so many variables, it is impossible to do a controlled experiment to see the exact cause and effect relationships occurring. Computer models are not a physical test, they do not happen in the real world, so they can not prove anything, they can only help support theories.
Scientific Theory: Cigarette Smoking Causes Cancer-Since the human body so complex there is no way to do a controlled experiment to see the exact causality. The best which can be achieved is a correlation; but correlations do not prove anything, if every time I ride my bike I fall down and skin my knee the correlation between riding my bike and skinning my knee is very strong, but the causality is not.
A scientific hypothesis is an educated observation of a causal relationship; meaning you see something happen, and you guess what made it happen.
A scientific theory is a more worked out version of a hypothesis; it's a model of how things should work, but as of yet has not been completely proven through repeatable controlled experimentation.
A scientific fact is an observation which can be proven using a physical repeatable controlled experiment; repeatable, meaning you or anyone attempting it have to be able to the experiment over and over with the same results; physical, meaning it can be carried out in the real world where causality is most assured; controlled, meaning you must control every factor involved to show direct cause and effect of what your theory states.
Here are some examples:
Scientific Fact: Evolution-Over time by mixing certain animals in a species the species will evolve this, can be seen through physical repeatable controlled experimentation; this can been seen in breeding, by taking the cows that give the most milk and mating them with the bulls which produce the most meat you will get a line of cows which give a lot of milk and meat.
Scientific Theory: The Theory of Evolution- That all animals have evolved from a common ancestor; this will always be a theory for the simple fact that it has already happened and there is no repeatable controlled experiment which can be done. The same goes for the Theory of Human Evolution; although both are sound theory, there is no conceivable way for them to become fact.
Scientific Theory: CO2 Caused Global Warming-That a rise in CO2 alone can cause the greenhouse effect to increase. Since the world is so big with so many variables, it is impossible to do a controlled experiment to see the exact cause and effect relationships occurring. Computer models are not a physical test, they do not happen in the real world, so they can not prove anything, they can only help support theories.
Scientific Theory: Cigarette Smoking Causes Cancer-Since the human body so complex there is no way to do a controlled experiment to see the exact causality. The best which can be achieved is a correlation; but correlations do not prove anything, if every time I ride my bike I fall down and skin my knee the correlation between riding my bike and skinning my knee is very strong, but the causality is not.
My Favorite Musical Artist
I though I would share my favorite musical artist with you for two reasons; so you can get to know me better and because you most like have never heard of him even though he is responsible for writing and producing a number of popular songs. His name is Butch Walker, he started out in a hair metal band called SouthGang; then the pop rock band the Marvelous 3 with whom he had a moderate hit called "Freak of the Week". After the Marvelous 3 broke up he started producing and writing for bands such as SR-71, Bowling for Soup, Pink, Fall Out Boy, Sevendust, the All American Rejects, American Hi-Fi, Lindsey Lohan, The Academy Is..., Avril Lavigne and Lit among others. He has released several solo albums, the most recent being "Sycamore Meadows"in the fall of 2008, and last summer released an album called "Maya" from his side project 1969.
Bio here.
His music covers a whole range, from hair metalish pop, to pop punk, to folk; basically he's all over the place. Here are a few videos.
Marvelous 3
Freak of the Week
Solo
My Way
Mixtape
Ships in a Bottle
and here he is playing guitar in SouthGang
Tainted Angel
Bio here.
His music covers a whole range, from hair metalish pop, to pop punk, to folk; basically he's all over the place. Here are a few videos.
Marvelous 3
Freak of the Week
Solo
My Way
Mixtape
Ships in a Bottle
and here he is playing guitar in SouthGang
Tainted Angel
Monday, November 17, 2008
My Favorite Action Movies
In a little bit of a departure I want to follow my buddy Mikey's lead and share with you some of my favorite action movies, in no particular order.
The Running Man
The Terminator
Rambo
Die Hard
300
Sin City
Commando
Predator
First Blood
Big Trouble in Little China
Escape From New York
The Terminator
Rambo
Die Hard
300
Sin City
Commando
Predator
First Blood
Big Trouble in Little China
Escape From New York
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Libertarians and Atheists
I'm getting fed up with so called libertarians trashing religious people and assuming all libertarians are atheists. I myself am not an atheist, I deeply believe in God, but I don't think that should affect my political views, and there are most likely more like me, who if so called libertarians would stop harassing may join our cause. To be a libertarian is not to view the world the same, it is to view the world differently and debate (not scold) each other without government involvement in our personal beliefs. Libertarianism is not a personal view, but a political view.
Friday, November 14, 2008
The Late, Great Mr. Crichton
'Aliens Cause Global Warming' an article from the Wall Street Journal by the late Michael Crichton.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
This Will Not Be Like The Great Depression
It's easy to be afraid today that our current economic situation will lead to another Great Depression; what when that's what the news and politicians are saying. But I can give you one huge reason why it won't be like that; the Dust Bowl. The Great Depression began in October of 1929 and then in May of 1930 the Dust Bowl hit. The Dust Bowl; which devastated much American farmland, is what made the Great Depression great, raising the price of food: which not only affects the livelihood of those producing the crops, but also those who transport and sell them; not to mention making it hard for anyone to buy food. At this point, even if we have a severe drought, it will not get as bad as the Dust Bowl because of technologies and agricultural techniques we have in place. So, even though it may get tough, this will never approach conditions of the Great Depression.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Why?
It took me more than 4 years to decide how I would vote and I was still undecided when I got into the voting booth; would I vote as far left as McCain? That was my dilemma, and I did. I lost out to thinking gradual regression back to what we were could work. But I seriously want to know why anyone voted the way they did.
Monday, November 3, 2008
The Moral of the Story
From Dictionary.com
mor·al (môr'əl,) Pronunciation Key
adj.
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.
Ok, so what many of the left say about Republicans is they want to legislate morality; this is how I used to describe it as well, until the other day when I was conversing a person of the left persuasion; then I realized that both Democrats and Republicans want to legislate morality. Because, as you can see above, there is no mention of the word religion in the definition of the word "moral". So, when you tell someone else how to live their life because you see it as wrong you are preaching morals, whether they come from the Bible or Al Gore; they are still morals. So Democrats get mad that the Republicans want to make laws using thier biblical morals, and the Republicans gets mad when Democrats try to make laws using thier environmental morals. So, when Democrats complain about Republicans legislating morals they are being hypocritical, they are mad they aren't legislating their morals.
As well as legislating environmental morals, making someone pay for a government program can also be enforcing morals. Let's take an example: welfare v American Family Housing. Welfare serves the same purpous as American Family Housing, they both take care of the poor. So, why should a person be mandated to pay for either? If you think wlfare works, then you should give your money to welfare, if you think American Family Housing works then you should give your money to them; you should not be forced to give your money to either. Just because you think welfare is better doesn't mean that I do. If someone wants to give to a program which they feel better fits their morals they should; but they shouldn't be forced to pay for one that doesn't.
So what laws should we make? Ones that protect property; your body is your property, so no one can harm you. Your land is your property, so someone else can't do something on their land that will harm your land, like dumping chemicals into the river; and so forth.
mor·al (môr'əl,) Pronunciation Key
adj.
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.
Ok, so what many of the left say about Republicans is they want to legislate morality; this is how I used to describe it as well, until the other day when I was conversing a person of the left persuasion; then I realized that both Democrats and Republicans want to legislate morality. Because, as you can see above, there is no mention of the word religion in the definition of the word "moral". So, when you tell someone else how to live their life because you see it as wrong you are preaching morals, whether they come from the Bible or Al Gore; they are still morals. So Democrats get mad that the Republicans want to make laws using thier biblical morals, and the Republicans gets mad when Democrats try to make laws using thier environmental morals. So, when Democrats complain about Republicans legislating morals they are being hypocritical, they are mad they aren't legislating their morals.
As well as legislating environmental morals, making someone pay for a government program can also be enforcing morals. Let's take an example: welfare v American Family Housing. Welfare serves the same purpous as American Family Housing, they both take care of the poor. So, why should a person be mandated to pay for either? If you think wlfare works, then you should give your money to welfare, if you think American Family Housing works then you should give your money to them; you should not be forced to give your money to either. Just because you think welfare is better doesn't mean that I do. If someone wants to give to a program which they feel better fits their morals they should; but they shouldn't be forced to pay for one that doesn't.
So what laws should we make? Ones that protect property; your body is your property, so no one can harm you. Your land is your property, so someone else can't do something on their land that will harm your land, like dumping chemicals into the river; and so forth.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
From dictionary.com:
Marx·ism
[mahrk-siz-uhm] –noun the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, esp. the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.
com·mu·nism [kom-yuh-niz-uhm] –noun
so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] –noun
If the government owns a stake in our businesses what does that mean? That is socialism. Is socialism simply a regulation of our business', no, it is the government having stake in our business'. Deregulation is simply the government allowing business to do business, allowing milk producers to sell milk at the price they demand, allowing a company to offer health care at the price they demand, allowing companies to pay what they demand, but the government must demand that the company does not infringe upon your rights, mainly, once they own a stake in it, it is theirs. They can't enforce upon you anything you did not permit them to enforce. But didn't that cause our current economic problems? No, wrong, regulations did, regulations demanding that banks loan money to people whom the banks did not feel were suitable. Both parties were responsible for this. I said this four years ago when the presidential candidates were saying that everyone should own a home, no, everyone who can afford it should own a home, if they want. Deregulation does not mean that there should not be limits placed on companies, when they violate a persons rights they should be held responsible, But deregulation holds the key of competition, competition is responsible for every advance in human evolution.
Deregulation, does that mean no regulation? No, if someone has impeded one of your rights, of course you have a right to recourse, but does regulation hold the key? Regulation is the government telling the market what it should do, when in fact it should be the other way around, the market should tell the government what to do. Is it any coincidence that we passed the 16th amendment, allowing for the government to take income tax, then 13 years later we had the great depression? I'm not a conspiracy monger mind you, but I do not think those who run for office are usually qualified to run a company, so why should we let them run our companies?
But why is deregulation bad? It's not. The government should be there to protect us for our defense and stopping people from stealing our property. But bad regulations are bad. If they are there to stop them from stealing your property, then they are there to enforce the law. What more does one need? To keep themselves from being stupid? Well, that will never work, because no matter how hard one tries, there will always be stupid people.
Think the Right are the ones who abuse people, look at the left, they abuse eminent domain to increase the revenue base; the government takes (they pay them, but it is not a choice to not accept their offer) the land of a property owner to sell or give it to a business which will pay more in taxes. These laws are there for building roads and other necessities, but as of late they have been used to increase revenue bases for the government and for environmental protection.
Marx·ism
[mahrk-siz-uhm] –noun the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, esp. the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.com·mu·nism
[kom-yuh-niz-uhm] –noun | 1. | a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. |
| 2. | (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party. |
| 3. | (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party. |
| 4. | communalism. |
so·cial·ism
[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] –noun | 1. | a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. |
| 2. | procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. |
| 3. | (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. |
If the government owns a stake in our businesses what does that mean? That is socialism. Is socialism simply a regulation of our business', no, it is the government having stake in our business'. Deregulation is simply the government allowing business to do business, allowing milk producers to sell milk at the price they demand, allowing a company to offer health care at the price they demand, allowing companies to pay what they demand, but the government must demand that the company does not infringe upon your rights, mainly, once they own a stake in it, it is theirs. They can't enforce upon you anything you did not permit them to enforce. But didn't that cause our current economic problems? No, wrong, regulations did, regulations demanding that banks loan money to people whom the banks did not feel were suitable. Both parties were responsible for this. I said this four years ago when the presidential candidates were saying that everyone should own a home, no, everyone who can afford it should own a home, if they want. Deregulation does not mean that there should not be limits placed on companies, when they violate a persons rights they should be held responsible, But deregulation holds the key of competition, competition is responsible for every advance in human evolution.
Deregulation, does that mean no regulation? No, if someone has impeded one of your rights, of course you have a right to recourse, but does regulation hold the key? Regulation is the government telling the market what it should do, when in fact it should be the other way around, the market should tell the government what to do. Is it any coincidence that we passed the 16th amendment, allowing for the government to take income tax, then 13 years later we had the great depression? I'm not a conspiracy monger mind you, but I do not think those who run for office are usually qualified to run a company, so why should we let them run our companies?
But why is deregulation bad? It's not. The government should be there to protect us for our defense and stopping people from stealing our property. But bad regulations are bad. If they are there to stop them from stealing your property, then they are there to enforce the law. What more does one need? To keep themselves from being stupid? Well, that will never work, because no matter how hard one tries, there will always be stupid people.
Think the Right are the ones who abuse people, look at the left, they abuse eminent domain to increase the revenue base; the government takes (they pay them, but it is not a choice to not accept their offer) the land of a property owner to sell or give it to a business which will pay more in taxes. These laws are there for building roads and other necessities, but as of late they have been used to increase revenue bases for the government and for environmental protection.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Constitutional Rights?
I'm getting fed up with the term "Constitutional Rights". Why? Because the term implies the Constitution gives you these rights, it doesn't. You have these rights by nature, the constitution simply says the government can't take them away. If they were granted by the constitution then by extension they are granted by the government. If they are granted by the government, then the government can take them away. They are not granted by anyone or anything, they implicit in human life; by right of being alive you have these rights. So please, don't say "It's my Constitutional Right", say, "It's My Right." No one can take your rights away unless you let them; so don't even let them think they can.
Addendum: The only entity granted anything by the constitution is the government, it is granted the power to mediate between us, not to rule over us.
Addendum: The only entity granted anything by the constitution is the government, it is granted the power to mediate between us, not to rule over us.
Keep Your Liberty
Lately several people have posed the question to me, "why is socialsim so bad?" The short of it is because it take away individuality and free choice, it becomes about the collective. It gives government control over your entire being, the government will decide what's best for you, your health, your financial security, your thoughts; you become property of the government through proxy. So? It means I get free health care, home, etc. Well, free in the sense you may not pay directly for it; but you pay by proxy, someone else is paying for you; some one who is making more money than you. These people who pay, they are the ones who create jobs; the greedy rich. So let's play a little thought game; let's say I'm the greedy rich guy and you're the guy getting the government money; let's say I start off with $100 and you start off with $1. With my $100 I pay 10 other people $2, that means I have $80 left; of which the government takes $10, leaving me with $70. The government then gives you $2. So, I'm still way more rich than you, you have $3, I have $70. You spend $1 on my product and so do 3 of my workers, so now I have $74, you have $2. Again, I pay my 10 employees $2 each; now I have $54 dolars, of that the government takes $10; giving you your $2, you now have $4 I have $44. You spend $1 on my product, along with 5 of my employees. You now have $3, I have $50. Again, I pay each of my employees $2, leaving me with $30, the government takes $10, of which you get $2, I now I have $20, I'm still almost 3 times as rich you, but I cannot afford to pay all 10 empoyees or I would be broke, so I cut 5 jobs; and pay out $10 to my remaining 5 employees. See where this is going? It's deminishing returns. Of course this example is much simplier and quicker than reality, but this is how socialism works. Soon we are all equal, great right? Well, then who pays us? Well, the government of course, they bought my factory. Eventually once this happens to every business the government owns all the facotories; and we become communist.
"But what's so bad about communism?" We all get free healthcare and housing and a steady job. Well, now the government has too much invested in you, so to make sure we all stay healthy we need to all eat the same healthy food, wear the same cheap clothes, live in the same cheap building, work in an unsafe factory; to keep the cost down because there are no more rich people to tax to pay for the government. Now the government has to run like a business, but theres no competition, so it doesn't matter how they treat you. Sure, in a perfect world the government would treat us nice because it's the nice thing to do, but the world isn't perfect, so you won't get treated nice, you'll be a commodity.
But you say, "Well, the leader I elect to make us socialist won't be bad to us." Maybe, but you're giving them the power to do it, they may not use it, but that power is there now and you will have to fight like hell to wrest it away from the guy down the line who doesn't treat you right. The only way to avoid this is to keep that power out of anyone's hands, keep the power for yourself and your posterity like the people who founded these united states fought for and handed to us in the Constitution. Limit the size and power of government. Take respoonsability for yourself. Keep your liberty.
"But what's so bad about communism?" We all get free healthcare and housing and a steady job. Well, now the government has too much invested in you, so to make sure we all stay healthy we need to all eat the same healthy food, wear the same cheap clothes, live in the same cheap building, work in an unsafe factory; to keep the cost down because there are no more rich people to tax to pay for the government. Now the government has to run like a business, but theres no competition, so it doesn't matter how they treat you. Sure, in a perfect world the government would treat us nice because it's the nice thing to do, but the world isn't perfect, so you won't get treated nice, you'll be a commodity.
But you say, "Well, the leader I elect to make us socialist won't be bad to us." Maybe, but you're giving them the power to do it, they may not use it, but that power is there now and you will have to fight like hell to wrest it away from the guy down the line who doesn't treat you right. The only way to avoid this is to keep that power out of anyone's hands, keep the power for yourself and your posterity like the people who founded these united states fought for and handed to us in the Constitution. Limit the size and power of government. Take respoonsability for yourself. Keep your liberty.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Ten step Program
"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible." That was said by Karl Marx, in The Communist Manifesto, More or less, redistribute wealth and property through government control. Now, recently some have taken offense to me saying Senator Obama is a Marxist/socialist. One person even said, "Having socialist ideals doesn't make some one a socialist." Really? isn't that the whole idea, you're views make your ideals and your ideals shape your views, and more to the point, he holds many, not a few, of these views. Below is a "how to" list from Karl Marx of turning a capitolist country into a communist country. Notice how many of these are supported by Senator Obama. And, I also have some friends who believe both McCain and Obama are socialist, while I do disagree; I believe Obama is all the way there and McCain is just leaning that way.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
This would be public housing, although it does not yet apply to all land. Something supported by Senator Obama, as well many other Democrats and Republicans, including Senator McCain do a lesser degree.
An income tax that makes the rich pay more than the poor? Senator Obama is leading the pack on this one, although Senator McCain wants it, to a lesser degree.
This would be the so called "Death Tax". Senator Obama supports it, Senator McCain does not.
No one is supporting this on a large scale, yet, but it does happen when people break the law, many of which should not exist, but they do.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
This may be the next part of the bailout, what with the airlines coming on tough times, many people speculate they may be next in line for at least partial government ownership. Luckily we have gone the other way with communication, breaking up the government monopoly on the telephone system, but who knows what the future holds.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
Ok, no one wants child labour, but who in this election is calling for more free education? Well, both, while Senator McCain wants competition among the schools Senator Obama wants more money for the schools, oh and he wants cheaper continuing education, most likey more free rides to be given out as well. I'd say point Senator Obama.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Marxism, is that what we want in a president?
After the "Joe the Plumber" incident Barack Obabma has been trying to dodge the charges of being a marxist and or a a socialist. But this 2001 radio interview lays all his cards on the table. When I heard this I could not believe it, I'm now officially scared of an Obama Presidency.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Free Trade = Peace?
I have had many friends who advocate no war through free trade. But I wonder how far that goes. Say in 1950 we ignore the USSR's exploits in northern Europe. So that has happened. Then we ignore the USSR's invasion of eastern Europe. So what, we don't trade with them. Then they take over the entire Eastern hemisphere, not our problem, except, who do we sell to then? And then they take over everyone but us. Is that good for our trade?
Thursday, October 16, 2008
The Foreign Policy Oddity
My friend over at The World of Mike as well as many of my other friends have been strong Ron Paul supporters, and I myself agree with many of Dr. Paul's domestic policy views, like limited government, balanced budgets, constitutionalism, abolishment of the income tax and so on. However I have one problem and that is foreign policies. Why is it that everyone with great domestic policy is an isolationist? It has been proven time and again that this type of policy will come back to bite you. If you ignore the fact that people who are a danger to your country are growing in power then by the time you do something it is too late.
Many contest that these foreign powers are not a threat to our national security or economy, therefore we should not do anything about them; but if you don't do anything about them they will become a threat, and by then they are more powerful and harder to stop. Look at WWII, if we would have done something right away instead of ignoring Hitler's rise and eventual invasion of Poland millions of lives and dollars could have been spared. Look at 9-11, if we hadn't just let the Middle East deteriorate into a ramshackle of dictators and jihadists, that could have been prevented. And we must also be vigilant not only for our national security, but also for our economic security. These countries that get invaded can be great customers for our exports and if they get invaded their economies will be destroyed by the ensuing violence, if they have no money they can't spend any on our goods. Look at the nations of Africa, who could be great customers if we would help them become free, and I don't mean just throw money at them that thier bad governments will take and waste, I mean really deal with the problem.
Now, I'm not preaching all out war. A very important weapon in our arsenal is capitalism itself. I once had a teacher who said "if you want to stop a country from being communist don't put an embargo on them, sell them washing machines." That is to say, once people have goods and property, they want to be able to keep that property and not let the government take it, then they need laundry detergent and repair parts and so on. We can see this philosophy at work in China; where people are starting to earn money and buy houses, and once they buy those houses they want to keep the government from taking the house they have worked for, and now China has some semblance of property rights (yes they have a long, long way to go, but it is inch by inch getting better) because we are trading with them.
So I would just love to have a candidate with great domestic policy who has a grasp on the importance of being involved keeping other countries safe so we can stay safe.
Many contest that these foreign powers are not a threat to our national security or economy, therefore we should not do anything about them; but if you don't do anything about them they will become a threat, and by then they are more powerful and harder to stop. Look at WWII, if we would have done something right away instead of ignoring Hitler's rise and eventual invasion of Poland millions of lives and dollars could have been spared. Look at 9-11, if we hadn't just let the Middle East deteriorate into a ramshackle of dictators and jihadists, that could have been prevented. And we must also be vigilant not only for our national security, but also for our economic security. These countries that get invaded can be great customers for our exports and if they get invaded their economies will be destroyed by the ensuing violence, if they have no money they can't spend any on our goods. Look at the nations of Africa, who could be great customers if we would help them become free, and I don't mean just throw money at them that thier bad governments will take and waste, I mean really deal with the problem.
Now, I'm not preaching all out war. A very important weapon in our arsenal is capitalism itself. I once had a teacher who said "if you want to stop a country from being communist don't put an embargo on them, sell them washing machines." That is to say, once people have goods and property, they want to be able to keep that property and not let the government take it, then they need laundry detergent and repair parts and so on. We can see this philosophy at work in China; where people are starting to earn money and buy houses, and once they buy those houses they want to keep the government from taking the house they have worked for, and now China has some semblance of property rights (yes they have a long, long way to go, but it is inch by inch getting better) because we are trading with them.
So I would just love to have a candidate with great domestic policy who has a grasp on the importance of being involved keeping other countries safe so we can stay safe.
Addendum:
The Iraq war
The Iraq war
Regardless of whether it was right or wrong, we have gone into Iraq and given them hope, to leave and let them fall apart now would be terrible and cause even more problems for us. This is what happened in Afghanistan, we (CIA) went in and helped them oust the USSR and then we just left, and they collapsed and the power void was filled with despots and criminals who created the environment for the jihadists to blossom in which (among other blunders in the area) led to the 9-11 attacks. So regardless of right or wrong in entering Iraq we must stay and make sure they have a good, stable government to fulfill the promise of safety which we have made, if not they will fall apart and create more fertile ground for them jihadists to recruit from.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Morning Constitutional
Today I want to talk about two Constitutional amendments I've been mulling over. The reason I say they should be Constitutional amendments and not laws is because it's too easy for the government to make loopholes in or not pass at all laws which restrict them. I am not a lawyer, so these are not worded as they would have to be to become amendments, but it's the idea that matters here. Too many politicians lie their way into office and stay there by lying about what they have done, and something needs to be done if we are to survive as a nation.
Amendment 28
Any Person running for public office or holding public office must be under oath of law at such time that they are proclaiming their goals, discussing the political record of themselves or their opponent.
-Basically I'm trying to say that anyone running for or in public office should be under oath and able to charged with perjury if they lie about their intentions, past record or their opponent. It would have to be worded as to allow for matters of national security and personal privacy, but the gist is if they lied they could be charged with a crime.
Amendment 29
No amendments to or clauses in a bill shall be unrelated to the intended outcome of the bill.
-Basically, I want an amendment that bans pork in bills. It is so stupid to have things shoved into bills that have nothing to do with them. And then the voting record is skewed, because a representative may vote against a bill because it has too much pork and then get lambasted for voting against the bill itself which may have originally been a good bill.
Amendment 28
Any Person running for public office or holding public office must be under oath of law at such time that they are proclaiming their goals, discussing the political record of themselves or their opponent.
-Basically I'm trying to say that anyone running for or in public office should be under oath and able to charged with perjury if they lie about their intentions, past record or their opponent. It would have to be worded as to allow for matters of national security and personal privacy, but the gist is if they lied they could be charged with a crime.
Amendment 29
No amendments to or clauses in a bill shall be unrelated to the intended outcome of the bill.
-Basically, I want an amendment that bans pork in bills. It is so stupid to have things shoved into bills that have nothing to do with them. And then the voting record is skewed, because a representative may vote against a bill because it has too much pork and then get lambasted for voting against the bill itself which may have originally been a good bill.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
A "WOW and an "OY" from the debate
Last night as I was watching the Presidential Debate a few things caught my eye, and because I don’t believe the pundits will talk about any of this I thought I would.
Part 1- A “WOW” moment
Although the debate was nothing new and a tie for all practical purposes there was one big “WOW” moment which grabbed my attention. Now, for a while now I have stated that, although no one will admit it, Obama has been running on a centrist Republican platform for the past few weeks; while McCain has been trying his hardest to run on a conservative Republican platform. Neither of them are what anything like the platforms they are running on, but based on the platform talking points these are their running platforms. The “WOW” moment came as McCain was talking about his economic policies and stated that he wants to use $300 billion tax payer dollars to buy up bad mortgages (alongside the $750 bailout he just voted for). I could not believe what had just happened in front of my eyes; McCain had jumped right over Obama and turned his own platform into that of a conservative Democrat! So now as it stands the Republican Candidate is running on a conservative Democrat platform and the Democratic Candidate is running on a centrist Republican platform; basically they’ve switched sides, and in the middle of a debate, I could not believe it. Now, do I believe that these platforms represent what they will do once they are in office? No, based on their histories I think McCain will be a centrist Republican and Obama will be a mid-liberal Democrat. I just find it interesting how no one is discussing this, Democrats who hate everything Republicans say are eating up everything Obama says on this platform, and Republicans still keep insisting that McCain is a solid conservative Republican, and more likely than not you will never hear about this “WOW” moment.
Part 2- The war in Iraq VS the war against Iraq
Another moment during the debate that got me going was when Obama talked about McCain’s poor judgment because the war in Iraq was not quick and we were not greeted as liberators, even though McCain said beforehand that both would be true. This has been brought up time after time over the past four years plus, and no one has corrected this misguided thought. The fact is there have been two different wars, our war against Iraq and our war in Iraq. These distinctions must be made: In March of 2003 we went to war against Iraq and toppled the regime in a matter of weeks, we were greeted as liberators as Iraqis toppled statues of Saddam and danced in the streets. However out of this came a power vacuum which filled with people who were glad that Saddam was gone not only because they hated him, but because they wanted to be in power themselves, and thus started the war in Iraq, which is a whole other war unto itself. Yes it was caused by the war against Iraq, but the war in Iraq is not the same war, we are not fighting the same enemy; instead of being the regime of Saddam Hussein it is against extremists funded by Iran and terrorists who want to get America out of the way so they can take the power. They are two different wars and this is a fact that needs to be acknowledged. Let me put it this way, after WWII after we toppled Hitler’s reign and the Soviets came in and took over in the vacuum was that still WWII? No, that was a new war, the Cold War. This is the same situation, except there is actually fighting this time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
