The underlying assumption

For every political argument there must be an underlying assumption. Currently both parties claim that assumption is freedom. But if we take that assumption to it's logical end, neither parties policies make any sense.

If one's underlying assumption is freedom, then ponder this: freedom comes from the right of each to do with their property as they wish. That property starts at their own body and extends to anything earned under contractural labour by them.

If one has a right to their own body, how can anyone deny them the abuse of that right; prostitution, drug use or anything else.

If one owns those things which are property by extension; what right does anyone have to confiscate that property? Most would say none, but are taxes not a confiscation of this property.

By the US constitution, the legitimate use of government power is the protection of rights. So, no matter how much things are needed by others, it is not under the constitutional right of the government to take from one and give to another.

Yes, people need health care; but if the government undermines property rights to give health care, what stops them from undermining property rights for any other reason?

We need a new healthcare system, but allowing the government to steal from people is not the answer; granting the government unconstitutional power never is the answer.

Dominique Dorsey III

After being unable to make the Redskins' roster this season, Dominique Dorsey has returned to Toronto, and it seems they are very happy to see his return.

Can They Hear Us Now?

Yesterday; on September 12th 2009, Washington DC was flooded with people protesting against government expansion. Some were anti-Obama, some were anti-big government, some were pro-Bush, some were Republicans, some were Democrats, some were Libertarians, some were Independants. Some were protesting recent government expansion, some were protesting a long string of abuses. Some were young, some were old. But they were all fed up with Washington. I've seen some saying this was just this or that group, or this or that group shouldn't support it because this or that group was supporting it. This seems to be missing the point, whether or not all of any of one group's ideas are "correct" doesn't matter. What matters is that they are all fed up with big government. They may not agree on how small a government should be, or what that government should do, but they all think it should be smaller than it is.

This is where the focus should be, once we have shrunk the size of government, then we can have these discussions of what it should be doing, but for now, lets focus on the first step, shrinking the scope of power that Washington yeilds.

Estimates of the crowd size varies from 30,000-2 million. Capitol Hill Police are said to have estimated 1.2 million. I don't know which numbers are correct, but it was a lot of people; and they were joined by many more at Tea Parties across the country. Maybe some one in the monstrosity which calls itself a government took notice.

Dominique Dorsey II

Well, many of you seem to have read my report on my freshman year roommate Dominique Dorsey getting a try in the NFL with the Washington Redskins. Unfortunately it seems he did not impress the Redskins coaching staff enough, he did not make it past the Sept. 5th cut down to a 53 man roster. Niether was he signed to the practice squad on the 6th, although rumor seemed that he would. If no other NFL team shows interest, his old team in the CFL, the Toronto Argonaugts, are chomping at the bit to get him back. I don't know what's going to happen now, but I wish him the best.

Some More Jefferson

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.

-Thomas Jefferson

No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.

-Thomas Jefferson

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

-Thomas Jefferson

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.

-Thomas Jefferson

Government can do something for the people only in proportion as it can do something to the people.

-Thomas Jefferson

We are all doubtless bound to contribute a certain portion of our income to the support of charitable and other useful public institutions. But it is a part of our duty also to apply our contributions in the most effectual way we can to secure this object. The question then is whether this will not be better done by each of us appropriating our whole contribution to the institutions within our reach, under our own eye, and over which we can exercise some useful control? Or would it be better that each should divide the sum he can spare among all the institutions of his State or the United States? Reason and the interest of these institutions themselves, certainly decide in favor of the former practice.

-Thomas Jefferson

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.

-Thomas Jefferson

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.

-Thomas Jefferson

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

-Thomas Jefferson

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.

-Thomas Jefferson

Echoes of the Past

I was reading, and this passage; which is preceded by Jefferson presenting offences of British Parliment and Crown prior to King George III, seemed to have a familiarity with todays political climate.

"That thus have we hastened through the reigns which preceded his majesty's, during which the violations of our right were less alarming, because repeated at more distant intervals than that rapid and bold succession of injuries which is likely to distinguish the present from all other periods of American story. Scarcely have our minds been able to emerge from the astonishment into which one stroke of parliamentary thunder has involved us, before another more heavy, and more alarming, is fallen on us. Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate and systematical plan of reducing us to slavery."

-Thomas Jefferson "A SUMMARY VIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF BRITISH AMERICA"

Addendum

This passage as well seems relevent:

"When the representative body have lost the confidence of their constituents, when they have notoriously made sale of their most valuable rights, when they have assumed to themselves powers which the people never put into their hands, then indeed their continuing in office becomes dangerous to the state, and calls for an exercise of the power of dissolution. "

-Thomas Jefferson "A SUMMARY VIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF BRITISH AMERICA"

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. — The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free system of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislature, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

---

John Hancock

Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
Geo. Walton

Wm. Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
Edward Rutledge
Thos. Heyward, Junr.
Thomas Lynch, Junr.
Arthur Middleton

Samuel Chase
Wm. Paca
Thos. Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Th. Jefferson
Benja. Harrison
Thos. Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Robt. Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benja. Franklin
John Morton
Geo. Clymer
Jas. Smith
Geo. Taylor
James Wilson
Geo. Ross
Caesar Rodney
Geo. Read
Tho. Mckean

Wm. Floyd
Phil. Livingston
Frans. Lewis
Lewis Morris
Richd. Stockton
Jno. Witherspoon
Fras. Hopkinson
John Hart
Abra. Clark

Josiah Bartlett
Wm. Whipple
Saml. Adams
John Adams
Robt. Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Step. Hopkins
William Ellery
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
Wm. Williams
Oliver Wolcott
Matthew Thornton

Some Timely Quotes From Mr. Jefferson

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. "

-Thomas Jefferson

"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves. "

-Thomas Jefferson

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. "

-Thomas Jefferson

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. "

-Thomas Jefferson

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive."

-Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. "

-Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. "

-Thomas Jefferson

"We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country. "

-Thomas Jefferson

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

-Thomas Jefferson

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. "

-Thomas Jefferson

"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. "

-Thomas Jefferson

"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition. "

-Thomas Jefferson

"Do not bite at the bait of pleasure, till you know there is no hook beneath it. "

-Thomas Jefferson

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories. "

-Thomas Jefferson

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. "

-Thomas Jefferson

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. " 

-Thomas Jefferson

What Should These united states Be Like; In My Opinion

What does the government need to do?  

1. Build Raods

2. Provide For Defense

3. Provide Courts

4. Provide Police

5. Regulation to enforce advertising and Contracts (so you know that things are "as advertised")

6. Powers granted in the Constitution

Things which are optional but the governement should slowly stop handling:

These things should evenutually become private charities

1. A voluntary scholarship fund for children to attend charter type private schools

2. A voluntary medical assistance fund for the poor and disabled

3. A voluntary monetary assistance fund for the poor and disabled

4. A voluntary food assistance program for the poor and disabled

How it should all be funded:

1. taxes should be collected at local levels and dispursed up to state and national level

2. If an income tax is levied, no more than .oooooo3% flat tax (each person is only 1 of ~300,000,000)

3. flat rate tax on all consumption, whenever a product or service is bought

4. All the above voluntary programs should funded voluntarily, not with tax dollars

That is it; nothing more.  Now I know it will most likely never get this good during my life time, but we need to start shrinkning government, and maybe one day things can become close.

The Naivitee of Artists

   I myslelf am an artist of sorts; as a writer/producer/director; however, the naivitee of other artists is staggering for me to think about.  When the Gulf War happened and we left without doing anything to Sadaam Huusain many artists had a thing or two to say.  Most notable of these was David O. Russel's Three Kings 

div>However; after George W. Bush invaded Iraq to oust Sadaam, Russel made an anti-Iraq war documentary called Soldiers Paydiv>

Many clebrities now talk about the horrible things taking place in Africa, especially Dafour.  However, they fail to mention that such corrupt governments confiscate most of the money and goods that come into the countries.  You have to do one or the other; war or ignore them.  These ragimes take most of the money and food we send, so this current situation is a black hole.  Either have the balls to spend the money to liberate people or have the balls to be fiscally responsible and draw back our military.  We can't have both, aid to these countries won't work; if we are going to help these people we need to put some power to our words, otherwise it is just a "feel good" waste of money.   I am not one for war; but if you want to free these people, that is the only way, sending aide is like jacking off and hoping to have a child.

The Fear of Freedom

   I  think I have finally figured it out, why Republicans and Democrats think the way they do; it's the fear of freedom.  Not their own, but of others.  Of course they want all the freedoms they can handle, but they are afraid of giving freedom to others.

   Republicans fear the repeal of drug prohibition because they fear that everyone else will just be high all the time and driving around selling drugs to kids.  They fear gay marriage because they think it will lead to people doing crazy things like marrying horses (no kidding, this is what my dad actually says).

   Democrats fear guns, and think if guns are banned that people will run around shooting everything in sight.  They fear small government because they think people can't take care of themselves.

   How can anyone walk around being this afraid of things?  I mean, I have generalized anxiety disorder, I have days where I stay in my house because I'm afraid to go outside.  My biggest fear in all the world is puppets.  I'm usually convinced people are doing things just to spite me.  But even I think it is paranoid to be as afraid of freedom as Republicans and Democrats.

   To want freedoms for yourself because those are the freedoms you like, and to deny people other freedoms because you don't like them is not acting in self-interest.  If only everyone acted in self-interest (do unto others as you would have them do unto you type stuff)  then there would be no problem, and I think if we spent half as much time teaching our children how to properly behave as we dosending them to public schools which teach a horrbly skewed socialist pallet of half-truths and useless nonsense, then we'd be ok.

Counting Blue Cars

   In a few of my posts I have spoken about how religious I tend to be.  At this moment I would wish to refine what I have meant by such statements.   I do not believe in organized religion, it leaves nothing to the individual.  I also do not believe in atheism, it ignores certain evidence, and for the most part asserts as fact something which it may never know.

  Organized religion tells people how to think based on what god they follow, and what the church higherarchy decrees.  To me, this is absence of thought.  To believe what another tells you simply because they claim a closer relationship with God means you abandon your own thought.   I bow to no man, and no man shall tell me fables which ignore the facts of this world and tell me they give him power over.

   Atheists (the majority anyway)  protest to know the unknowable, that there is no God.  To know something means one must have concrete undisputed evidence that it is true.  Of course, in the case of God, you cannot prove something unprovalbe, and neither can you disprove something unprovable.   Iy they were to say, they think or believe there is no God, I could maybe agree.

  I, myself am a Deist Catholic (Catholic in a cultural sense not spiritual).  I look at the world through the lens of logic.  I believe the big bang, and most all other theories.  The big bang; there was a cosmic egg of all of existence existing in a singularity.  But what created that egg, surely, the laws of nature tells us something cannot come from nothing.  And for all that mess to end up creating humans, a life form capable to concieve os such things, the chances are far against it.  The universe acts in predictable, describable means.   My logic tells me that there is a god of some sort, I don't think it interacts with humans through prophecy.

  I don't care what you believe; just don't try and say it is fact.  Facts are backed up by real world experimenst.  There are no such experiments for God.  In practicality, you believe or you don't, you don't know or or know it is not.

Back to the title- Counting Blue Cars by Dishwalla.

Self Interest V Selfishness

   It seems this is a distinction which needs to be made.  Self interest is not the same as selfishness.  It is out of selfishness a man demotes those under him to the idea of lesser beings.  It is out of self interest a man treats each as his equal.  

   It seems that the so called "liberals" in america (lower cased for purpose) can not distinguish between the two.   To them, the man who cheats his employees out of selfishness is the same as the man who treats his employees well out of self interest.   To them; both are in need of compulsitory compliance.  

   There is a difference.  The man who acts in selfishness does not worry about future consequences.  The man who acts in self interest does.

   If one were to steal a loaf of bread out of selfishness, they would only be worrying about survival.  If one were to steal a loaf of bread out of self interest they would consider everything, if they were in the position of the bread seller woud they wish to have thier bread stolen?

   Self interest is based on the ideal "do unto others as you would have done to you"  Selfishness is based onto the ideal "what is good for me is good for me."

   A man working on selfishness would steal from another to aquire as much material wealth as possible.

   A man working on self interest would aquire goods as he wished them to aquired from him.

   In short, a man working out of selfishness is a danger to society.  A man working out of self interest is a benefit to society.  A man working for an ideal is a parasite.  A man working for himself is reality.

Patrick Henry Is Dead

   On March 23, 1775, Patrick Henry gave a speech which ended in the the amazing quote,"give me liberty or give me death!"  Since that day, we citizens of the united states have slowly let that quote deteriorate. 

  Today; we have given into the quote, "give me liberty or give me a comfortable life at the expence of those who have more money than I."  Slowly, our country is fading around us; and for the last 100yrs we have done nothing.  We have been fed guilt and hatred, and we have accepted it.  

  Do you wish to know what has spurred me into action, this very blog, into being?  It is the idea that it seems we would rather die as slaves than to fail as individuals.   Mid-last year; when I saw this very thing begin to happen is when I could take no more.   

   I never wished to speak out.  My entire political philosiphy is modeled around being left alone.   But, for my own self interest; yes I do this out of self interest, I could no longer let my voice go unheard.  Someday I wish to have children, and I can not allow anyone to be brought into such a failure of intelligence as this world now is.  My hope is that this world will be set on a path of reform before any such point children of mine are maturing.  

   I would rather fail a free nation than succeed as a nation of slaves.

The Age of Entitlement

   One of my favorite periods to study in history is the Age of Enlightenment.  At this time many philosophers, scientists and political theorists began to stress the importance of reason and inquiry, to use rational ideas to explain the world around them.  Thomas Paine referred to it as the Age of Reason.  This period gave us Adam Smith's explanation of free market economics, John Locke's explanation for the nature of rights, and the united states Constitution.  To me, this is the most intellectually exciting period other than Greco-Roman.  I understand how these men thought. This is the way I think.

   The world I live in today, I don't understand.  I don't understand how people think today.  It's not the way I think.   It seems to me that people today think only about immediate results, and only the good immediate results.   People want more for themselves right now, without thinking what that means for later.  It seems people don't use reason, they use emotion.  When they rebut a point, they don't talk about how logical or illogical it is; they talk about how bad or mean or good it is.   It seems everyone wants to gain, but no one wants to lose.  Which is contrary to reason that that can occur; but it feels like a good idea.  People seem to feel as though they don't want to earn anything, just have it, then and there.  

   Except meaning the loss of my modern conveniences, I think I would be more at home in the Age of Enlightenment.  But it seems like I'm living in the Age of Entitlement.

Just Some Thoughts; WWI

   So much is taught about German involvment in WWI and the consequences which led to Hitler gaining power. But not much is ever mentioned about the involvment of the Ottoman Empire in the war.  I would venture to guess most poeple, at least not in America, know what the Ottoman Empire was, much less know it was involved in WWI.

   This seems an odd vaccuum of knowledge.  Maybe it is the fact that much of US public school teaching is geared towards European history.  Or maybe it makes some people feel less guilt ridden, since Germans are white and the Ottoman Empire was largely middle eastern.  I'm not sure.  

   It is odd; given that I was in a public school during the Gulf War, that they had not already begun to teach about the affects of the fall of the Ottoman Empire after WWI, given US trouble in the region had begun more than 15 years prior.  From what I know, public schools still aren't talking about this.  Almost everything I know on the subject is self taught.

   These were just some thoughts I had.  I had planned on discussing ethics V morality; but I guess that will be another post.

Property Tax

   As I stated in my last post; I think property tax is the worst of all the taxes.  Capitalism is supposed to be a voluntary system.  If you do not wish to make capitalist transactions, you should not be forced to.  However, paying a tax on land which one already owns means that after they acquired title to that land they are forced to participate in capitalism; in order to make the money to pay the taxes.

   If I were to give a good piece of land to a poor family, and on that land was everything they needed to live (food, water, lumber), they could not simply live off that land.  They would be forced to participate in capitalism to just pay the taxes.

   To take a voluntary system and force one to participate is a horrific thing.  The only taxes, if any, which should be levied, should be based on voluntary capitalist transactions.  Not on property already owned.

Political Office

   Recently several people have pushed me to run for a public office.   I do not want to be a politician. My entire political philosophy is built around the fact that I just want to be left alone.  What kind of world is it where for a man to be left alone he must thrust himself into the public light?

   In my considerations of these prompts I have thought about any chances I would have.  I know Republicans would back me on my small government stance, and Democrats would back me on my social freedom stance.  But I think both would reject me because of my overall stance.  Will a Republican vote for someone who thinks gay marriage should be legal?  Will a Democrat vote for someone who thinks welfare should be abolished?   I don't know; and the fact that I don't like people in general really makes me hesitate at having to deal with people so much.  

   If the government would permit it; I would become a hermit.  But even that is illegal I'm sure.  For one thing a hermit wouldn't have the means to pay property or any other tax (my hatred of property tax will be another post).

   So, I'm left confused.  If you read this blog, and have read any of my other blogs; please comment and let me know what you think I think I should do.

Jon

A Free Man Bows To No King

   Recently there has been some buzz about President Obama bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia. Even though many people are outraged, it seems to me that they outraged for the wrong reasons. All I hear about, from the people who care, is this and that about protocol.  But to me it is more than that.  President Obama is the appointed leader of a country of free men (and women and what ever else they wish to be called).  A free man bows to no king.  It is not a matter of protocol, but a matter of principle.  To bow to a king as a free man shows how little respect one has for the principal of freedom.  I don't care if it is the custom.  Customs which degrade the free man are not to be abided by. 

   I know this example may be a little too extreme for some, but I think it's the best way to get my point across; but if the custom were for the king to be called "master", then would it have been right for President Obama to abide by that custom?  Of course not!  In my eyes it's the same thing. A free man bows to no king!

And for those of you still don't think it was a bow, it was.  And for those of you think this is just because I dislike President Obama, it's not.  If it was just a reaction, I can understand it, but it doesn't make it any more right.

European Relations

    I have began to wonder why the government of the united states thinks it prudent to take advice on how to successfully run a Republic from countries such as France, Germany and the United Kingdom.

   France is a republic; but this incarnation has only been in existence since 1958; and is the fifth Republic formed in that country.  That is not a good track record on knowing how to run a sestainable Republic.

   Germany is a Republic; but this version of their Republic only dates to 1949, since their prior system was overtaken by Hitler.

   The United Kingdom is not a Republic.   They are a constitutional monarchy, without even a written constitution.

   So why does the united states government take advice on how to run a Republic from them?  Our Republic has been sustained since 1789.

   If they feel it prudent to take advice of any sort on how to run a Republic from any European country, then it would be best to take it from San Marino.  San Marino is the oldest Republic in the world, founded in 301.  That means while Germany, France and the United Kingdom were using the monarchal systems of the middle ages, San Marino was a Republic.  San Marino has had a constitution since 1600.  That means when France enacted their latest constitution the San Marino constitution was 350 years old.

  Do I think it's prudent to seek advice from San Marino?  No, for one it is much too small and does not have the same problems we do.  But I don't think we should be asking countries with such horrible records at running Rupublics as France and Germany or a countries which are not even Republics, such as Great Britain, how to run our Republic.  If advice is needed on how to solve our problems I believe all the answers are in or own past.   We need only look to that thing which has been gathering dust in D.C. these last few years, the Constitution.

Green Bay Tea Party

This is a piece I did on the Green Bay tea party back on March 7th.  I am going to try and cover the tea party in Appleton on the 15th.

If this is a passion for you, I urge you to go out and let your voice be heard.  If protesting government spending isn't your bag, then don't participate; but please don't heckle, there's room for all opinions.

Will Atlas Shrug?

   I have recently posited the fact that the united states of america is headed down the road of fascism.  However the major flaw in fascism is the fact that it relys on the compliance of the business sector to create this corrupt idea.  

   Are there any principled buisinessmen left who will simply give up and let the natural course of demise take hold?  Or have we become so corrupted that material gain of any kind is our principal?

   Atlas Shrugged describes a world where buisinessmen still have a principal of capitalism which still makes them morally justified; but have our businessmen so given into to this as to allow material goods to be the only justification to their actions?

   If there is no John Galt, then truly we will be overtaken by fascism; but I still hope there is at least one man left with honor; one man who believes a government granted monopoly is not an answer but a question; Who is John Galt?

The Nature of rights Part II

I have already shared that logical recourse shows that all other rights are devolved from the right of property. The right of property comes from the fact that we are human beings who can both understand our rights and the consequences of our rights, where animals can not.  Previously I posited the belief that property rights decminate from a person clarified as "a being with a body and brain consistant with that of others of the species".   Others have challenged this belief with the idea of a person being clarified as "a being which contains two strains of human DNA and is living."  This would of course deny the right's of a person to sperm/egg and hair, since sperm/egg contains only half of the human genome and hair, which contains the entire genome, is not actually living.  But then I hear this story on the local news.  And I began to think about laws of mutilation of a corpse and grave robbing; which seem to give prudence to my earlier assumption of the definition of a human only requiring a "human" to be alive; since this clearly shows that we manifest property right to even those whom are not alive.  Therefore; life is not an pre-requisite for human life and thus property right.  Which leaves us with the second half of the argument; to be human consists of only human DNA.  If that is the case, then we must treat every strand of fallen hair with the same rights as a human.  Since we clearly do not make that distinction, then the premise must be false; the qualification for being human does not involve either life or human DNA. Rather it is a more defined explanation; Abody which has a brain and a human-like body.  

    However; the opposite assertion that a child has no rights simply because it is dependant on the body of the mother is also illogical.  If this were true, then we would condone the killing of conjoined twins who depend on the body of thier twin.  Clearly we do not do this.  What we do is give give them a choice. They can remove the dependant twin and; but the medical proffesionals must give the dependant twin every chance to survive.  Why is this not true of abortion? Techniques which intentionally kill the child are murder.  The mother has the right to remove the child, but has no right to condone it's murder.

   When we take the logical steps to define a "person", both sides become clear.  Personally I think abortion is immoral; but politically I cannot find any logical reason why a fetus has rights before it has reached a definition of human.  What we can debate, and I encourage, is debate on what constitutes a human.  This will remain a problem until we can reach a logical conclusion on this issue.  It morally pains me to say that I must accept the political idea of abortion before a fetus has become "human"; but my belief that property right is the right from which all other right deceminates will not allow me at this point to object to such an argument.

Jon

Is Hollywood Oblivious or Enlightened?

As recent events are showing the united states to be skewing ever closer to what was only thought to be fiction Hollywood is doing something amazing; planned for release in the next three years are film versions of the novels: Atlas Shrugged, 1984 and Brave New World. How can the same people who are unflinchingly supporting President Obama make these movies now? Did they have a sudden realization of what is going on in this country? Is this round of films still only based on the hatred of President Bush? Or are they simply oblivious to what the theme of these novels is.
Atlas shrugged tells of how government control over business will lead to the downfall of the united states and the world. While our President takes it

upon himself to fire (force into resignation) the head of a privatly owned company (GM) and tell bank executives how much money they should earn.

1984 tells of government intrusion into personal lives through telescreens. At this moment the government wants to install a "smart grid" which could regulate how much power is available to you if they think you are consuming too much.

Brave New World tells of a one world government which promotes consumption of goods and reviles individuality; where the people are so conditioned (all be it through genetic engineering) that they don't even care. This at a time when our president is talking more and more about working with other countries, his state department saying we should ennact laws from other countries which are unconstitutional and the secretary of the treasury is considering complying with the requests to create a new world reserve currency.

For the three most anti-government novels of this century to be in the works while the government ever expands is simply amazing. If conditions have not gotten better by the time these films are released, Hollywood gets them right and the movie going audience understands what they are seeing; then that could be like a match being lit inside an oil tanker. I just wonder if anyone in Hollywood realizes that. Who is John Galt?

The Un-Spoken Word

   When I hear people speaking of the politics of President Obama they never seem to use the correct words. Some call him a socialist; he might be, but few of his policies have shown that because with a few exceptions buisnessmen still own thier businesses. Some call him a liberal; but that is a really vague term, what does that entail? No, through his actions so far he has proven to be somthing which has yet to be named by the critics. A word so damning they dare not utter it. A word which has taken on a different connotative meaning than it's actual denotative meaning. A word that if one used it they would be called isane. But this word is the one which properly describes his actions. What is the word? Fascist.

   Through the years Fascism has become interchangable with Nazism; when in fact Nazism is only a type of fascism. Through this misconstrued meaning it has come to be believed that a Fascist must be a racist; but this is not the case. Fascism; put simply, is socialism light. Where in socialism the government actually owns all the businesses; in Fascism the businessmen own thier businesses, but the government tells them how to run it. This is exactly what President Obama; as well as the previous administration, has done. The government doesn't actually own General Moters, but yet President Obama is choosing who runs the company.

   Sadly, one fact of Nazism that is inherrent of Fascism is that with the extended power of the government in the business sector, they also take power in the civil sector. In 1932 Hitler's Fascist ally Benito Musselini put it like this, "...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...." This sounds a lot like the attempts to limit smoking and consumption of fattening foods which have been happening these last few years.

Now the civil and economic factors are both there, so lets stop skirting around the issue.

    Let's not be afraid to use the correct terminology, because if what they are doing is so right, then why are they arfraid of naming it? If what you are doing is right, you have no such fears; only when you know what you are doing is wrong are you afraid to name it.

The Nature of Rights

So where do rights come from?  You may feel in your gut or have learned that each person has certain rights, but where do they come from?  Are they granted by Gods?  Are they granted by governments?  In my logical analysis; although God may have created nature, nature is the thing grants us rights; not God directly.  This is to say, the position of God on rights is vague, it all depends to whom you speak.  Where as nature has made it clear; in a state of nature each person has the right to their own body and the fruits of their labour.  In other words, property rights extending from the right of self ownership.

Then where does the right to free speech come from?  Well; your vocal chords are part of your body, therefore you can say what you want.

Then where does the right to free press come from?  Well; as long as you own the press or have permission to use it, that is an extension of your voice.

Then where does the right to religion come from? It is your mind and your body, do with it as you wish.

Then why is (stealing, murdering, beating...) wrong; because you have a right to your body, since it is property, and those whom harm your property are can be persecuted.

So why don't animals have this same right?  The key to human ability to have rights is based on the fact that humans as a species can understand rights.  If anyone can prove that another species understands t not only the benefit, but also the consequence of rights; then I will gladly grant that species rights.

Locke-Smiths

I have recently begun a group that I hope will be more than the average "we want this" political group; The Locke-Smiths, I hope, are more than a one issue band wagon.  There is one key issue, smaller government, but other than that it is up for debate on what exactly that small government should do as long as it does not infringe on life, liberty and property.  If you are into political philosophy and want to join a group that will actually attempt to make a change, I hope the Locke-Smiths can do it.

Spectral Analysis

This is how I view the political spectrum, as a circle; starting and ending in anarchy. From anarchy you go counter-clockwise adding more governance. Notice; there are no distinct lines between categories; they simply blend together.

Anarchy: There is no state. There is no governance.

Anarchistic Capitalism: There is no state; all functions of government are performed willingly through capitalist transactions. There is slight governance.

Classical Liberalism: There is a very minimal state, performing only very simple duties; such as national defense and arbitration through courts; personal. liberty is of most importance. The state plays no role in the economy. Personal property is not infringed. There is slight governance.

Conservatism: The state has moderate power; providing defense, arbitration through courts, basic education and moderate taxation. Personal liberties are slightly infringed. The state plays a very small role in the economy. Personal property is slightly infringed. There is moderate governance.

Modern Liberalism: The state has extensive power; providing defense, arbitration through courts, extensive education, progressive taxation and social programs. Personal liberties are greatly infringed. The state plays a large role in the economy. Personal property is regulated by the state. There is extensive governance.

Fascism: The state has over-reaching power; providing defense, arbitration through courts, extensive education, progressive taxation and social programs. Personal liberties are greatly infringed. The state controls the economy through extensive regulation. Personal property is heavily regulated by the state. There is extensive governance.

Socialism: The state has almost complete control; providing defense, arbitration through courts, extensive education, progressive taxation and social programs. Personal liberties are severely infringed. The state controls the economy through ownership of all business. Personal property is completely regulated by the state. There is extensive governance.

Communism: The state has complete control; providing defense, arbitration through courts, extensive education, progressive taxation, social programs, clothing, food and housing. Personal liberties do not exist. The state controls the economy through ownership of all business. Personal property does not exist. There is complete governance.

Anarchistic Communism: There is no state. All functions of the state are performed by the majority in the community. Personal liberties are severely infringed. The economy is controlled by the majority in the community. Personal property does not exist. There is complete governance.

Anarchy: There is no state. There is no governance.


Governance:

1. The act, process, or power of governing; government: "Regaining a sense of the state is thus an absolute priority, not only for an effective policy against . . . terrorism, but also for governance itself" (Moorhead Kennedy).
2. The state of being governed.

Govern:

Gov"ern\, v. i. To exercise authority; to administer the laws; to have the control. --Dryden.

I would argue that the current Republican party is somewhere in the blending of conservatism and modern liberalism; the Democratic party is somewhere in the blending of modern liberalism and fascism; and ther Libertarian party is somewhere in the blending of classical liberalism and conservatism. I think true anarchy can not exist when there is more than one person; so it is very hard to come by in reality.

Marxy Marx

I thought this would be a good time to take another look at Karl Marx's ten steps to make a capitalist country into a socialist country, lets check off the ones already completed.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Getting there; although we still may own our land, it isn't really ours, what with the abuse of emminant domain going on and all the regulations and zoning requirements put on the land.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Check

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Getting there; with the "Death Tax"

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Well; we don't really have emmigrant issues or rebels, yet.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Check

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

Getting there; the government now contorls the big three automakers, Amtrak and is giving money away to telecommunications in the new recovery act.

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.

Well; with the state buying up everything, this could be happening, I'm not quite sure.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

It seems more like they don't want people to work at this stage, so as to get them on their side; this one probably isn't far off.

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.

Check

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.

Check

A Matter of Disclosure

Aside from Disclosure being a great movie with the in her prime Demi Moore, I have something I feel is my obligation to say. Through all the railing against government spending I do; I to am on the government doll. It is not somthing I am proud of, in fact it has given me many restless night.

My father is a disabled veteran for the US Air Force, and through him I recieve benefits for going to school. I did drop out of school in Las Vegas to come back and help him here in Wisconsin when he fell ill. My parents wanted me to go back to school and get a degree so I could earn more to help take care of the family. So; when things settled down I went back to college; driving 62 miles (each way) a day to attend class while staying close to help take care of my dad. And the VA dissability pays for my schooling and gives me money to live off.

Even though I have never called for the stoppage of veterans assistance from the government; the fact that I get money from this has pained me. I call for less government spending, and yet I am a cause of it. In my ultimate goal, veteran assistance would be the last thing I would cut; since doing their duty to the government is what caused these men to be in the predicament they are in to begin with, but as everything else I would rather it be held in private hands up to the donors.

I often wonder if my predicament jives with what I preach, and the answer I have come up with is yes. I see it like a civil case; if we were to sue in civil court for the loss of my father's limbs we would win, so it seems justified. But somehow it does not sit well with me. If I could could stop all other government waste by denying the fruits of this I would. But then again I suppose anyone else would most likely say something similar.

So what do you think; is my case just or am I a hipocrat? let me know what you think by leaving a comment. Maybe then I could sleep at night.

Always attempting to be truthful

Jon

Dominique Dorsey

For those of you who do not know who Dominique Dorsey is, you may just find out soon. Dorsey left high school in 2001 as the leading rusher in California High School football history (the record has been broken since). Due to his size, only about 5' 7" 165lbs., none of the big colleges wanted him; he went to UNLV where he quickly made a name for himself as a kick returner. And after gaining 180 yards on 18 carries in a win over Nevada,

this article appeared in the October 15, 2001 issue of Sports Illustrated. That win carries a large significance, because at the time I was his roommate and he was upset about not having a 100 yard performance yet, and I told him, "You only needed 10 carries." To which he replied, "But that would be a ten yard average." And I said, "Exactly." And what do you know; he averages 10 yards per carry on 18 carries, giving him 180 yards. He went on to be the starting tailback at UNLV, piling up yardage against big name schools like Wisconsin and Tennessee.
After he graduated in 2005 from UNLV he went undrafted; trying out for the Baltimore Ravens and Oakland Raiders, but did not make either club. To stay up in football he moved north and joined the Seskatchewan Roughriders of the CFL where he went largley unnoticed. In 2007 he was traded to the Winnepeg Blue bombers of the CFL, only to be waived a month later.
Dorsey then signed with the Toronto Argonauts, and in his first came with the club he returned a record setting 129 yard(a CFL field is 150 yards long) missed field goal for a touchdown. In Toronto he went on to become an all-star player, eventually winning 2008 Special Teams Player of the Year despite missing several games to injury.

Now he has signed a three year deal with the Washington Redskins of the NFL, and I hope we hear a lot out of him this year. Congratulations Dom.

You can view Dominique's UNLV bio and stats here.

Here is a Las Vegas Sun artilce aboutDorsey signing with the Redskins.

Here is a Canada.com story about him signing with the Redskins.

And finally, here is a video of the record setting kick return.

What Powers Should the Government Have?

For anyone out there who is either Republican or Democrat; when you are thinking about what power the government should have, just think about this, "what powers would you trust in the hands of the other party?"  

As to say, Republicans, would you want a Democratic government to have the power you would give to a Republican government?

Democrats, would you want a Republican government to have the power you would give to a Democratic government?

I have noticed this among partisans; they will give all the power in the world to the government as long as thier party is the one in power; but once the other party is in power they appaul the "abuse" of power which is the same abuses thier own party had just done.

So, in closing; if you wouldn't trust the other party with that power, then the government shouldn't have it. (Although there are even more powers the government shouldn't have, but that's for another post)

Las Vegas Best Not Be Counting On A Bailout

As most cities, states and businesses are waiting with baited breath for thier bailout money one coty that better not be holding it's breath is Las Vegas. I just began studying the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, otherwise known as bailout #2, and right away something struck me, in sec. 1109; which states prohibited uses of the money:

"SEC. 1109. PROHIBITED USES.

None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act may be used for any casino or other gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, or swimming pool."

So, unless Nevada Senator Harry Reid makes some changes when it reaches the senate, it looks like it doesn't matter to Washington if Nevada fails. Which gets me, beacause if Citi Group is too big to fail it would seem to me that an entire state would be as well.

So much for this actually being about helping the economy.

Here's a news article about it.

And, if you feel really jaunty, you can read the bill here in PDF.

Note: I don't think any money should go to casinos; but that's because I don't think this bill should exist at all. If they are going to try and claim this has anything to do with actually helping the economy they should actually help the economy, not just give more money to themselves and their friends.

And here's an interesting chart showing how much money they are printing for this bailout.

Wiemar Republic anyone?

And here's a stilmulous breakdown from Glenn Beck.