Blog Home Page

Morality Versus the Rule of Law

Fri, 25 Mar 2011 06:29:54 -0500

A man was recently convicted of counterfeiting, terrorism, and presenting a “danger to the economic stability of this country.” Bernard von NotHaus had minted about $7 million dollars in silver Liberty Dollars that looked similar to U.S. coins. But unlike the money produced by the government, von NotHaus made his coins out of precious, not base metals.

The real counterfeiters, of course, are the members of the Federal government and their state-level cohorts. Indeed, while the Constitution does state that the Feds can “coin money,” the Feds are supposed to ensure that only “gold and silver coin” shall be “a tender in payment of debts.” The State’s power to “regulate” money extends only to its responsibility to ensure that coins contain the amount of precious metals they claim to do and that the money shall not be debased. Further, there is no prohibition in the Constitution against private coinage (only against states engaging in that behavior). Private money was not a rarity in the Nineteenth Century.

(And if the Feds are so concerned with money that is not born in its own vaults, why does it not prosecute municipalities that issue their own “currency” good only in that city as a promotion to “shop locally”?)

As for “terrorism,” it is the State that forces people to accept its money via “legal tender” laws. The customers who bought Liberty Dollars did so voluntarily and happily. No coercion or threats were involved.

Of course, von NotHaus probably was guilty of potentially destabilizing the U.S. economy. The monetary inflation created by the Feds has stolen/robbed the citizens of this country of 98% of the dollar’s value over the past century. Maybe – just maybe – people might have become aware of this fraud and finally realized what the government has done to our money. At that point, perhaps the whole house of cards might have collapsed.

Some self-styled “freedom” lovers have stated that von NotHaus deserved to be convicted since he obviously did break the law. If he was not convicted, then “anarchy” would ensue because the “rule of law” would have been ignored. But morality trumps that which is merely “legal.” The “rule of law” is a valid principle only within a moral framework. Otherwise, we should vilify those who broke the “law” to oppose state-imposed segregation; who ignored the Fugitive Slave Law; who engaged in jury nullification to state that slavery itself is wrong.

No one is under the least bit of moral obligation to obey an unconstitutional, immoral “law.” As Jefferson said, such legal sleights-of-hand have no validity or force. Morally and legally, it is as though they did not exist.

Von NotHaus violated no rights. Those and only those actions that violate rights should be illegal. For anything else, the State should mind its own business.

Immoral Libertarians

Fri, 25 Mar 2011 06:29:39 -0500

I recently watched a Reason.TV program (and I use the term “reason” advisedly...) in which Reason magazine editor Nick Gillespie interviewed economist Walter Williams. The occasion was the publication of Williams’s memoirs.

In general, I admire Williams’s ideas. His biggest error is treating punk-ass terrorists as some amalgam of Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini who warrant a full-scale “War on Terror” instead of being treated as the criminals and thugs they are. By treating terrorists as so dangerous, he and others who agree with him on this issue simply set the stage for the all-out assault on our rights and freedom that has occurred (and continues to occur) in the past decade.

In the interview, though, Gillespie asked Williams if he didn’t agree that since he, Williams, had benefited so much from his tax-subsidized college education that such a positive outcome for Williams justified the establishment and continuation of such government programs. Williams agreed that he might not have been able to afford to go to college if he had had to pay the full tuition amount. The yearly tuition then at Temple was $2000. At UCLA, it was $125-150 per year. Still, he said, there should have been nor be such government subsidies.

It was obvious that Gillespie was not particularly happy with Williams’s stance. He argued that over his professional college career, Williams had paid far more in taxes than he had received in tuition subsidies; that he would not have been able to do so without the subsidized college education he had received. Williams countered that the California taxpayers had not benefited from his taxes since he had not worked in that state. He had ripped them off, for certain, when he left.

Gillespie just wasn’t having it. But Williams persisted. He posed a scenario where he robbed a person of $5000 to pay for his college expenses but with the promise that someday he would pay him back. Such a situation would still be robbery. That was, in essence, no different than the State stealing the $5000 via small amounts of money taken from a large number of citizens (taxes) then giving it to Williams.

From what I have observed, this is typical of Gillespie. He is, at his core, an immoral person who wants “permission” to engage in his evasions of morality all in the name of a nonexistent “pragmatism.” This might well explain his open hostility to Ayn Rand, in particular, and Objectivism, in general. Neither of these satisfy his desire to make “exceptions” to freedom. This also probably is why Reason has degenerated to a wishy-washy rag unwilling to take a firm stand against statists and collectivists.

As the saying goes, with friends like this, who needs enemies?

Permits for Rights

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:10:48 -0500

This is a letter to the editor I am submitting to a local paper:

I want to applaud the Gazette for publishing the names of citizens who are granted a permit to carry concealed weapons. I think, however, the Gazette needs to expand this service for those in Cedar Rapids who are concerned with the behaviors of their neighbors. Every individual who might pose a problem should first be investigated by the government before they are issued a license or permit to engage in certain actions.

Since religion can be so contentious and harmful to society (for example, the Crusades; the Inquisition; Jihads), those who are properly vetted and then granted permits/licenses to establish a church; to attend worship services in public; to purchase Bibles or other holy texts; to read and carry such texts in public; and otherwise to practice their religious beliefs should have their names published in the Gazette.

Given how harmful offensive or unpopular speech can be, those who are properly vetted and then granted permits/licenses to speak in public; to buy books, magazines, music, movies, news programs, Web sites, and other forms of art and information; to read/use such items in public; to publish such items (I’m sure the Gazette will proudly print its own permit/license to publish) and to sell such items to the public should have their names published in the Gazette.

Given the violence and disruption that can accompany purportedly peaceful public assemblies of citizens, those who are properly vetted and then granted permits/licenses by the government for such public assembly should have their names published in the Gazette.

Citizens who are properly vetted and then granted permits/licenses by the government to petition the government for redress of grievances committed by the government should have their names published in the Gazette.

Since law enforcement officials can face personal danger when fulfilling their duties, citizens who are properly vetted and then granted permits/licenses by the government so they can be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government should have their names published in the Gazette.

Given that many who are charged with crimes withhold necessary information, those who are properly vetted and then granted permits/licenses by the government so they do not have to testify against themselves should have their names published in the Gazette.

Citizens who are properly vetted and then granted permits/licenses by the government so they can avoid double jeopardy; so they can be obtain due process from the government; so their private property will not be seized by the government without proper compensation; so they can have a swift and impartial trial at the hands of the government; so they can can informed by the government of what charges the government is making against them; so they can be tried by a jury; so they do not face excessive fines nor cruel and unusual punishments; any and all such people who are granted permits or licenses by the government for these and similar purposes should have their names published in the Gazette.

Those who... Wait. What? Fundamental, natural rights don’t work this way? Huh. Imagine that...

Edited, published version:

I want to applaud the Gazette for publishing the names of citizens who are granted a permit to carry concealed weapons. I think, however, the Gazette needs to expand this service for those who are concerned with the potentially problematic behaviors of their neighbors. Every individual who might pose a problem should first be investigated by the government before they are issued a license/permit to engage in certain actions.

Since religion can be so contentious and harmful to society (the Crusades; Inquisition; Jihads), those who are properly vetted and granted permits/licenses to establish a church; to attend worship services; to purchase holy texts; to read/carry such texts in public; and otherwise to practice their religious beliefs should have their names published in the Gazette.

Given how harmful some speech can be, those who are properly vetted and then granted permits/licenses to speak in public; to create or buy books, magazines, music, movies, use the Internet, etc.; to read/use such items in public; to publish or sell such items should have their names published in the Gazette (including the Gazette’s permit).

Given potential problems, citizens who are properly vetted and then granted permits/licenses by the government to peacefully assemble; petition the government; avoid unreasonable searches and seizures; avoid self-incrimination and double jeopardy; obtain due process; have an impartial jury trial, etc. should have their names published in the Gazette.

Those who... No. Wait. What? Fundamental, natural rights don’t work this way? Huh. Imagine that...

Tax This

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:00:27 -0500

In 2008, my town of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, suffered a devastating flood when the Cedar River overflowed and filled the streets in some places up to ten feet. Thousands of (relatively) poor people lost their retirement investments, that is, their homes. A good many of them did not have flood insurance.

Many of the hopelessly damaged homes were bought by the government and have been torn down. Hundreds of others remain vacant. The downtown (none too healthy economically to begin with) continues a slow recovery.

The local city counsel bamboozled the voters by pushing a time-limited 1¢ optional sales tax designed to help flooded citizens in specific ways. No big surprise, the money was spent for many unauthorized uses.

Now the cock-mockers want to change this “temporary” burden into a twenty-year-long leash around our already over-taxed necks. They want to spend the money on “property tax relief” (yeah, right) and to fund a flood wall to protect certain structures...on one side only of the river. (I guess floods only travel in one direction...)

Screw ’em.

It’s no business of the government to build flood walls so other, smaller communities down the line can be flooded with “our” water. It’s no business of the government to buy out damaged homes. Or to pay for temporary shelter. Or to subsidize rebuilding costs. Or to restrict (via licenses and permits) who may or may not work to fix up damaged homes or to dictate how and when such repairs may be made.

Keep your damned taxes to yourself, O’ Great City Leaders. We’ve had all the “help” we can stand from the likes of you.

Because We Say It Is Not

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 14:44:18 -0500

Our Hypocrite-in-Chief continues his Nobel Peace Prize winning ways by starting another pointless and unconstitutional war, this time in Libya. Oh, the neo-con crowd and all the other chicken hawks are practically creaming their pants over yet another opportunity to kill strangers and blow things up. It’s the same sickening litany of nonsense we heard about Iraq and Afghanistan and all the other useless hellholes where American soldiers have died and American money has been squandered.

That preeminent jack wad, Barry McCaffrey, former general and ex-Drug Czar (apparently he loves destroying innocent lives; perhaps he should join Mr. and Mrs. Prez in their anti-bullying PSAs...), was asked if these attacks on the Libyan military constituted a war. (See the transcript here.)

He said: “It couldn't be, otherwise the War Powers Act of 1973 would have been invoked.”

In other words, it’s not what actions are occurring that are important; it does not matter what reality indicates is happening; it is irrelevant if our military is engaging the military of a foreign nation, it not only is not a war, it couldn’t be because we have not “invoked” the War Powers Act of 1973. So I guess if we nuked every dictatorial cesspool in the world in one fell swoop, we would not – could not – be at war as long as we did not “invoke” this act. Jeez. What an idiotic tool (and I mean that in its multiple shades) McCaffrey is.

And, of course, McCaffrey does not give even lip service to the FACT that the Constitution says that only Congress can declare war. Any “War Powers Act” is unconstitutional on the face it. Go screw yourself, Barry.

Homefront Review

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 14:17:48 -0500

A recent game I played, Homefront portrays a near-future world in which North Korea invades the United States. While there are good things about this PS3 game, in the end, I sold my game to Amazon for a $35 in-store credit. Ya takes ya chances... What follows is the review I posted on Amazon (slightly edited for clarity).

I’m 58, and have played about all the COD (Call of Duty) games, Battlefield 2, MOH (the latest Medal of Honor), and others. I can get through these games but will never be as good as some teen boy at either the single or multiplayer options. It took me about 8 hours to get through the single player, but partially because I missed a game assist (more on this later).

I was drawn to the game because of its theme of fighting for freedom. There is a bit of this, but I guess even the “shocking” scenes [of executions and mass graves] didn't seem all that shocking in today’s jaded era. I liked the overall story and some of the realities of fighting a guerilla-style war: citizens who just want to get along [with the enemy]; others who take advantage of the war for their own benefit; screw-ups that happen [friendly-fire]... I wish there was more development of these elements. I didn’t feel much of anything for the characters. Even at the end of MOH, I felt a bit when the wounded soldier died. Not so much here. Pity.

The graphics: the backgrounds seemed detailed enough to me, overall, but were certainly stylistically different than other such recent games. Sometimes the character animation seemed lacking: feet that didn't really “touch” the ground, odd ticks, etc. Too often the characters seemed pasted in rather than integral to the background. (Cf to Battlefield 3’s latest videos for the opposite effect.)

There were parts of the game I enjoyed quite a bit. Other parts had me yelling at the TV in frustration.

SPOILERS: Problem areas: auto-lock on too often “stuck” on enemies not close to the actual one I was trying to shoot; word hints (enter church or whatever) sometimes obscured the enemies, making it difficult to see them even on a 46 inch HD LED screen, leading to unnecessary deaths; save points that required redoing too many tasks (suffered by other games: how about a save point after accomplishing each difficult goal rather than endless repetition?); enemies that were unrealistically great shots/too lethal to me; too many on-screen hints at some points, not enough at others; rocket emplacements that required an unholy number of hits to be destroyed; walking upright through fields to avoid being seen by enemies but fields with almost no cover (cf COD game crawling through the grass to avoid being spotted by nearby enemies). In one annoying (a glitch?) sequence, we were in a Target-type store. My character was supposed to “follow” another, but the other guy just kept running back and forth — not doing anything, not shooting, nothing — back and forth like a chicken with its head cut off. He would not advance. Not until my character moved forward did the story/game start again. The first couple of times I did that, I was immediately slaughtered. Eventually, I got past that sequence, but my “leader” still engaged in a lot of pointless running around. I was really happy when we finally left that stupid store...

SPOILERS: Re: hints: in one sequence, the passengers have to exit a helicopter your character is flying at ground level and enter three fuel trucks on the move. (Don't ask...) It took me a long while to figure out what to do to get the characters to exit the chopper and enter the trucks. A simple “use square button” at the start of the sequence would have saved me a lot of time. Another issue that made me redo sequences with RPGs and missiles far too many times was not realizing I was supposed to use “countermeasures” then. I had to figure out how to get through the sequences by simply dodging and weaving (not easy when you’re being fired upon from four different directions). Again, a simple “use X button” hint would have reminded me of what I glimpsed in the manual but did not remember during the play. (I went back after finishing the game and used the countermeasures: much easier the second time around.)

I liked some of the gun play; liked shooting a sniper rifle; thought some of the story was good; thought the characters had potential, though my character was a near-total cipher.

I played a few rounds of the multiplayer. (I play COD:BOps [Black Ops] and Uncharted 2 online; mostly enjoy those.) A bit frustrating. Again, hot shots (almost literally) who killed me with a couple shots, while my multiple rounds accomplished little. Fun. Not. The maps and graphics seemed okay but with certainly a different feel from COD. Maybe the maps are too big; seemed too empty. Also, I can sort of appreciate the high angle start above the map when you regenerate (to give you an overview of what's happening) then the zoom when you “land,” but this seems to slow things down too much as does the requirement before every rebirth to select your weapons. I prefer COD where the game gives you the same load-outs throughout a battle unless you request in-game to switch on the next respawn. I doubt I’ll play much multiplayer here. (I didn’t notice any lag, but then, I didn’t get on until 1:00 a.m., either.)

I’ll give the game 3 stars, but would prefer 3 1/2. Can’t quite rate it a 4. I paid $40 for this after a $20 credit for buying an earlier game from Amazon. I think I would have been more upset if I’d paid the full $60.

The game has its moments. It could have been better.

Bully In Chief

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 14:03:40 -0500

Lately, the First Thug Bully-in-Chief Prez and his hectoring wife have been appearing in Prostate Specific Antigens PSAs to inform us all that “bullying is a bad thing.” (And it certainly is.) Why, the Constitution itself states that the Federal Government should use taxpayer money to film and broadcast mini-lectures to tell us ignorant po’ fo’k what we’re too frakkin’ stupid to know and/or understand. (It certainly does not.) After all, I’m certain that any actual or would-be bullies who are exposed to the wise and cogent words of these two dedicated “do-gooders” will immediately cease and desist any behaviors that could be construed as bullying. (They certainly will not.)

If nothing else, this delightful duo exposes their premiere hypocrisy. Politicians and their ilk are the biggest bullies of them all. After all, what is a “bully.” It’s someone who uses physical intimidation and verbal threats and insults to control the actions and words of innocent bystanders (especially ones who are not part of the “main stream” and who mostly just want to be left alone).

So, Prez and Mrs. Prez.: Go frak yourselves. Quit trying to bully the country into swallowing even more statist and collectivist poison; quit trying to bully citizens into staying quiet and not criticizing you; quit trying to bully people who don’t want to be controlled, forced, and/or manipulated by the likes of you who see no problem with robbing the poor (and rich...unless the rich person is one of your pals) and enslaving them to do what you want them to do and not do what you don’t.

Jerks.

Leave Me Alone

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:51:23 -0500

Since Thomas Frank (“The Left Should Reclaim ‘Freedom,’” Wall Street Journal, 9-16-09) never bothers to define “freedom,” it’s unsurprising he reaches the wrong conclusions. He conflates “positive” “freedom” with so-called “negative” freedom. There is a world of moral and practical difference between government forcing one group of people to provide goods to others who have not earned those things (FDR’s version of “freedom”) and having government respect and protect the right of individuals to decide for themselves what to do (or not do) with their lives and their property (Jefferson’s version of liberty). The latter is the mark of a free people. The former is a sign of an abused people.

Despite what Frank states, “freedom” is all or nothing. Only slavery – or “involuntary servitude,” if one prefers – comes in degrees. A leash around one’s neck – no matter how long it is or how loosely held – is still a sign of slavery. A government that “allows” people to gather is hardly a respecter of liberty. When our nation had overt slavery, skilled slaves often were “allowed” to keep part of their earnings and to travel short distances. But it was the master who decided what the slave would be “allowed” to do; how much of what he earned he would be “allowed” to keep and how much he had to hand over to his master; and whether he would be “allowed” to do anything, at all.

True freedom is not some “abstraction” as Frank would have us believe. For those of us who understand the real-life consequences of not being free, freedom is an intensely personal and central fact of our lives. If Frank does not mind wearing a leash and wants to worship his master, that’s his problem. But it’s my life, my money, my decisions, and my responsibility. My life and my property belong to me, not to Frank, not to my neighbor, not to a stranger, and most assuredly not to anyone in government. I’ll thank him and all others who erroneously believe I belong to them to simply leave me alone.

[Letter to the editor submitted to The Wall Street Journal.}

Abusing Animals, Abusing Rights

Tue, 1 Sep 2009 12:21:21 -0500

How many times? How many friggin’ times am I going to read a “libertarian’s” bold claim that — somehow, some way — this time it’s okay to use the State to punish those who engage in immoral (but not rights-violating) behavior?

A recent article pointed out that, while animal abuse is disgusting, because animals have no rights, such heinous action is not subject to legal punishment. In a short comment, another libertarian said that animal abusers “deserve ‘an eye for an eye’ justice,’ that “animals are [NOT} ‘property,’” that a person cannot “‘own’ any sentient being,” that animal abusers “should be punished by the state,” and, finally, that “all sentient beings should be under the protection of ZAP” (the zero aggression principle).

I’ve run across this same intellectually woeful and incoherent sentiment again and again in various so-called libertarian venues. I submit that the underlying principle proclaimed above is the essence of statism: if you don’t agree with odious behavior or outcome of person A — ends that violates no (human’s) rights — then appeal to the state to punish the wrongdoer. After all, it just “feels” right to do so.

But this outlandishly anti-libertarian statement is riddled with incoherencies and self-contradictions.

1. What qualifies as a “sentient being”? Any creature, great or small, with a brain or nervous system that has the capacity for some kind of (even rudimentary) sensory awareness of the world? According to my electronic New Oxford American Dictionary, “sentient” means “able to perceive or feel things.” Should we include fish? Chickens? Rabbits? Squirrels? Rats? Insects “perceive” things and “feel” temperature and pressure. Should we include mosquitoes? Ticks? Heck, even plants “perceive” the sun and cold and react to those external stimuli. This non-sensical view of what/who should be “protected” by ZAP (or the State) would fit to a tee PETA’s desires to ban hunting and the eating of flesh of any kind. Indeed, it lends support to their idiotic (and too successful) plans to ban pet ownership and create “guardianship” status for critters that would die much sooner if left to roam “free” and unencumbered by human “ownership.”

2. The ONLY things that should be banned or punished by the State (or by ZAP) are those ACTIONS that violate RIGHTS. The very existence and subsequent protection of “rights” is valid only in a social context and only for those beings who rely upon a moral code to guide their behavior, i.e., rights are the means that enable individuals to practice their (noncoercive) moral codes in a social context. Only creatures that possess free will or volition and operate on the conceptual level of consciousness have a need or capacity for morality. Hence, only such creatures that meet those criteria have rights — of ANY kind — that must be protected against transgressors (and only similarly rights-possessing beings can be “transgressors”)...or shall we lock up a cat that kills a mouse? Any valid moral principle must be compossible, that is, it must apply to everyone equally. Any bogus notion of “rights” that imposes restraints on humans in regard to animals but does not do the reverse is invalid on the face of it.

3. Animals can most definitely be property. (Even wild animals can become property given the proper human actions to make them so.) Animals such as pets are or can be or maybe even should be a type of property that is of a “higher” value in one’s hierarchy of values, but my pets are most definitely property. I OWN my cats. What happens to them is my responsibility (along with my wife, of course, the co-owner.) I decide how they are to be used. I decide how they are to be treated. I decide what is best for them (and for me). Not my neighbor, not some stranger, and most certainly not the STATE.

4. Transgressions by people of the proper way to handle their animals, e.g., abuse of whatever kind, can only PROPERLY be addressed by PERSUASION, either one-on-one argumentation or by boycott or ostracism or offers to purchase the animal, i.e., the other person’s property, in order to protect the animal from inhumane use.

5. This issue of how to deal with animal abuse is a touchstone in determining if someone REALLY supports freedom and rights or simply does so only as long as his or her personal ox (pun intended) is not the one being gored.

Only humans have rights.

(For more on this issue, see my essay, “The Myth of Animal Rights.”)

No Right to Health Care

Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:50:22 -0500

What virtually no one has addressed in the debates on health care is that there is no such thing as a fundamental “right to health care.” Even more to the point, health care provided by the coerced expenditure of the time and money of others is even more destructive of rights and freedom.

While medical insurance and health care are certainly desirable values, “forced charity” is a contradiction in terms. Few people would condone a private citizen (or group of citizens) walking into a neighbor’s home, placing a gun to that person’s head, and demanding money. Even if the intruders claimed they needed the money for themselves or for someone else in need, any decent individual would still condemn such robbery. The (“good”) ends do not justify the (bad) means.

Somehow, though, voting for such an immoral set of actions and outcomes is supposed to make such policies okay. But hiding behind an anonymous vote and relying on the government and its armed agents to impose one’s wishes on unwilling others is neither honorable nor moral. Legalized theft is no less theft simply because one group of people is more politically powerful than another. Might does not make right.

Only voluntary actions have moral value. In the end, no one has a right to anyone else’s life, money, or property without that person’s consent. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution abolished involuntary servitude. Congress, the President, and the majority of the American public have brought it back.

[Letter to the editor submitted to The Wall Street Journal.}

Credit Card Shuffle

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:18:24 -0500

Okay. Let me see if I understand this correctly:

1. Through a combination of governmental coercion, individual corruption, and institutional incompetence, a bunch of banks got into trouble. As the housing market deflated, these financial gurus found themselves saddled with bad mortgages and, in tandem, rising credit card defaults as money and employment problems mounted.
2. Through a combination of even more governmental coercion, individuals lacking a moral backbone, and institutional panic, many of these banks glommed onto tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money (either through direct taxation, borrowed cash, or government-counterfeited dollars). These funds were supposed to keep these suckers afloat because they were “too big to fail.” (Why the latter? Who the frak knows?)
1. Through a combination of yet more governmental interference, gutless individuals, and institutional insanity, many of these banks jacked up credit card rates to astronomical levels, even on (or especially on?) their best and most reliable customers. (See my blog entry “Capital One All Hassles Card” for more on the this topic.)
2. The banks’ lame-ass reasoning for these jumps of 400-500%? Well, you see, it’s like this: we (the banks) received all this stolen loot bailout money. Our credit card profits are in the toilet. We need to have people who already pay their bills on time and meet their obligations also pay for all those deadbeats or unfortunates who are missing their credit card payments or discharging their credit card balances via bankruptcy. (After all, that’s the American way these days: reward failure.) This way, we’ll be able to see some profits. Then we’ll be in a position to repay with interest that money we got from the government. So in the end, the taxpayers will actually be making money on this wonderful deal.

Hmm.

Okay-okay. I think I got it. One more time:

1. Accept money stolen from the taxpayers.
2. Charge the taxpayers more money (up the yin-yang) in credit card interest and fees to pay for our losses.
3. Then (someday) we’ll repay the government the money they stole for us from the taxpayers.
4. The government will use that repaid money we got from the taxpayers who bailed us out to give to even more freeloaders like us.
5. Voilà! The taxpayer wins.

See? Simple.

You win.

Prescription for Change

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:04:13 -0500

The Obama’s latest tactic in increasing State power involves a feigned “horror” at the murders and mayhem occurring on our border with Mexico. (See here.) Seems that ol’ debbil, the Drug Cartel, is once again rearing its ugly Hydra head by resorting to violence to resolve its problems.

(Gee. That’s a shocker. I’m sure the Drug Lords would fare far better by taking their territorial disputes with other dealers and their differences of opinion with the authorities to a court to resolve the difficulties. Or am I missing something there...?)

While these escalating deaths and mutilations in Mexico and the U.S. are, indeed, abhorrent and chilling, the hypocrisy of those who create and promote the conditions necessary for these reprehensible acts to occur is sickening to observe. It is, after all, the State that has declared a “War on (some) Drugs.” It is the State that makes the recreational drug trade so profitable. It is the State that makes it impossible for those selling (or buying) drugs to use the judicial system. It is the State that is militarizing our border. It is the State that is corrupting our financial system and our privacy to combat “money laundering.” It is the State (and its media shills) that is using this manufactured crisis in an infuriating attempt to reinstate the so-called “assault” weapons ban, i.e., increase victim disarmament.

Even though some people recognize the links between our government’s drug policy and mounting violence and violations of our rights (for example, see here), the State shows little evidence of ending a “war” that swells its power so ably. (Miniscule movements in the right direction — such as ending federal prosecution of marijuana users and sellers in states that have legalized or decriminalized such behavior — are meaningless until the politicos who joke about their own usage either go to jail themselves or totally end this heinous prohibition.)

The State latches like a leech onto any excuse that will provide cover for its predations on our rights and freedom. It gorges on our lifeblood while extending its reach into more and more areas of life. (For example, requirements for ID and quantity limits when purchasing some cold medicines.)

The State must cease its unconstitutional and immoral actions. For adults, there must be no prohibition on nor regulation of the purchase or use of any drug of any kind. No prescription drugs. No ban on recreational drugs. No restrictions on experimental drugs. The Drug Enforcement Agency should be disbanded, and the drug thugs who have murdered innocent citizens and stolen their goods and property should be tried, convicted, and imprisoned or executed for their role in one of the biggest scams that has ever been perpetrated on the American public.

Now that is a prescription for change I can heartily support.

Schizophrenic Outrage

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:44:02 -0500

The Obama’s transformation of our national economy is working precisely as planned. Before he and his cohorts are finished, governmental power will have increased to an extent that even the last thug president will seem prudent in his actions and policies.

Of course, the economy will be in the toilet for years to come, but...

What is even more ludicrous (if possible...) than the spectacle of our political “leaders” and pundits declaring that the way to economic prosperity is via ratcheting up our debt by trillions of dollars is the faux “outrage” these criminals people spew whenever a camera slides in their direction. For example, we have the comment from Iowa’s own Senator Charles Grassley that some of the folks at AIG should “commit suicide.” [I never voted for the senile guy...] Then there’s ol’ Barney crook Franks self-righteously demanding that those who received bonuses with taxpayer money be outed so the mob can take action against them. The sick chorus of statists and collectivists yammers on about $165 million while ignoring the trillions they are stealing from us...and the trillions more they intend to rip from our pockets in the near future.

Sadly, these diversionary, sleight-of-hand tactics work too well. The average dunderhead American is eagerly thrusting out his hand for his share of the promised government booty goodies while simultaneously demanding the heads of a handful of bankers who were merely more successful in gorging themselves at the State’s trough. No irony there, of course.

Nor should anyone be surprised that the very creeps folks in Congress who passed the unconstitutional laws and promulgated the rights-violating regulations that led to the present financial debacle are the most vocal in decrying “capitalism” and “greed” and “freedom.” Responsibility? These black-hearted yahoos wouldn’t admit their role in this mess for anything. No, no. Not their fault. Never.

The funhouse, of course, doesn’t end with the blaggards who are slitting our throats declaring their innocence while covered in our blood. No. They compound injury with insult by attacking the rich then handing those very same “villains” untold billions of our dollars without accountability. They twist the knives in our wounds by weeping for the “poor” and the “middle class” while mugging us and insuring that those who can least afford it will face higher prices for food, for energy, for health care, for indoctrination centers education, for housing, and virtually everything else we buy.

And — I’ll bet about any amount of money — those self-same “poor” and “middle class” citizens will vote in nearly every single one of the felons who are robbing them blind.

Schizophrenia, anyone?

Bush Won

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:51:49 -0500

Investor’s Business Daily has an editorial telling us all about “Bush’s Big Victory.” Because some conditions have improved in Iraq, IBD asks us to accept that this justifies Bush’s invasion of a country that was no real threat to the United States.

IBD maintains that because there is:

1. More support for democracy by Iraqis,
2. Security is better,
1. Iraqis are more concerned with their economy than war,

Bush “got it right. Mission accomplished.”

What a crock.

Support for “democracy” (majority “rule”...and I mean “rule”...) is a fool’s game and a tool of tyrants. How about supporting — and implementing — freedom for a change.

Iraqi security — what there is of it — has been purchased by the blood of our soldiers and the hard-earned money of our citizens...and would likely deteriorate precipitously should Americans really leave Iraq (as opposed to The Great One’s bogus “withdrawal” that leaves 50-60,000 American soldiers in Iraq).

Improvements in Iraq’s “general state of affairs” comes as we waste trillions of dollars in that sand pit while our economy nosedives, at least in part, by that diversion of wealth to those who neither earned it nor deserved it.

The most egregious part of this editorial, however, comes here:

“You might disagree that Bush was right to depose this murderous thug. But in doing so, you would then have to defend the deaths of thousands of innocents.”

Bullshit.

1. The sole purpose of our military and our government is to defend the rights of AMERICAN citizens.
1. Only the acceptance of unearned guilt would lead to the false conclusion that American citizens who accept (1) are somehow to blame for the evil and destructive acts of any pissant tyrant who is slaughtering his own citizens. I can condemn murderous policies and still realize that it is both impossible to prevent them all and a violation of the purpose of government to pretend it is our duty to sacrifice ourselves to save every sorry soul on the planet. (And this ignores the thousands of Iraqis who died as a result of our invasion.)
1. If we accept IBD’s heinous statement, then those who wrote that editorial are defending Stalin's murder of 50,000,000 citizens, Mao's murder of 60,000,000, and the murder of millions of others killed in genocides in Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere simply because those writers did not advocate invading all those nations and deposing all those thugs who felt it proper to wipe out those they were supposed to defend.

Despite IBD’s pretensions, Bush did lie (for example, he constantly changed his rationale for this unconstitutional and immoral invasion); Congress was (willingly) “bamboozled on WMD” (there were none; even if there had been, the mere existence of WMDs would have been an invalid reason to invade); the “surge” was not the main factor in decreasing violence (buying off local thugs was a bigger influence).

What Bush “won” was a massive ratcheting upward of presidential power; a huge increase in government in both size and control over the American populace; and a tragic and continuing loss of freedom and rights for all of us.

Bush’s “big victory” is nothing more than a big disgrace, a victory only for those who oppose everything this nation once stood for. Bush’s defenders should be ashamed that they continue to be complicit in the destruction of the United States of America.

Preparing for Reform

Thu, 5 Mar 2009 14:26:46 -0600

There he goes again...

Our Beloved Leader — The Obama — has declared that he will not accept the status quo with regard to “reforming” health care. Just as with the banking and financial crisis, the automobile industry crisis, and the housing crisis that he so recently and permanently solved, we must act now to enact his policies on health care or the End of the Universe As We Know It will be upon us.

He has generously deigned to seek “input” from various sycophants people from various areas of life. Of course, what counts as “input” is only what The Obama likes. No “ideologues” (translation: people with principles). No “entrenched interests” (translation: people whose rights will be trampled by his statist policies and who will bear the actual costs). No “debate” (translation: he has already declared what the ends are; the only question is what unconstitutional means he will accept). No “sacred cows” (translation: except anything even remotely resembling choice, liberty, and the free market).

So what kind of “reform” will we suffer enjoy in the years to come?

More regulations and control of doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and patients. More loss of patient privacy as the State gains even easier access to all our medical information. More rationing of health care as expensive “free” care explodes in costs. More medical errors and problems as the best doctors and nurses and scientists shrug and retire from an exploitive system that treats them like slaves. More deaths as patients are denied “nonessential” tests and surgeries and treatments or are forced to wait months or years for “approved” types of care.

More costs. More slavery. More problems.

More of the same.

When the scheisse hits the fan, prepare for a Brave New World of hurt brought to you by The Obama and his loyal minions. The only “reform” this yahoos understand is the kind they impose at the end of a gun.

Shameless

Thu, 5 Mar 2009 10:02:35 -0600

Boy. This sounds like someone who really understands freedom:

“If in this country a simple majority of people can start stripping away the rights of a protected class in the minority, that's a pretty alarming thing.” (See here.)

And...

“It took away the rights of people that already were legally affirmed.”

Ain’t it the truth...

1. Gun owners — a protected minority whose rights are legally affirmed by the Second Amendment — have their right to own and/or carry weapons infringed on a regular basis. A right is transformed into a privilege due to unconstitutional requirements for permits or registration. Some folks are “legally” forbidden to own any firearms, at all. Nearly everyone is forbidden ownership of fully automatic weapons.

1. Business owners — a protected minority whose rights are legally affirmed by freedom of association and contract — are deprived of their rights to buy and sell to adults whatever products they want under any conditions mutually agreeable to all parties; to hire or fire whomever they want for whatever reasons they want that do not violate contractual obligations; to act on their own best judgments without interference by the State; to operate without licenses or permits sans the prior restraint of nonobjective laws and regulations that assume their guilt ahead of time.

1. Individuals — a protected minority whose rights are legally affirmed by the Constitution and natural law — are unable to make their own decisions on consuming drugs or medicines or food; are constricted in their rights to marry whomever they want and however many of “whomevers” they want; have their hard-earned wealth “legally” stolen by taxes and regulations and inflation; are denied their right to anonymity in banking and travel and virtually every other area of life; are prevented from doing what some others view as the “wrong” things; have their rights stripped away every day by those who have sworn to protect and defend those very rights.

Yeah. Pretty alarming stuff.

Too bad that the man who said the above — San Francisco's Mayor Gavin Newsom — wouldn’t know freedom and rights if they bit him on the ass. (His quotes focused solely on California’s recent ban on gay marriage.)

He and his brethren-in-spirit, in California and elsewhere, routinely violate the rights of individuals by “a simple majority” vote. They virulently favor victim disarmament. They arrogantly oppose such imminently useful things such as plastic bags, large, discount stores, and fast food chains. They increase poverty by limiting housing, taxing their citizens to death, and spending money they don’t have. They encourage bad behavior with their subsidies, special privileges for groups they favor, and their condoning of “rights” that do not exist.

These people are shameless in their blind hypocrisy, mirroring Demicans who support “choice” (when in reference to abortion) but oppose “choice” (when it comes to economic issues)...and Republicrats who believe just the opposite..

Everyone — anyone — who enacts and enforces such blatant violations of liberty deserves to be convicted and tossed into jail.

It’s a damned shame that they will not face the consequences of their destructive ideas and actions.

We will.

A Matter of Opinion

Wed, 4 Mar 2009 12:05:42 -0600

Go to nearly any high school or college classroom and proclaim that “reality” exists, that it is, indeed, possible to be “rational” and “objective,” that one “should be rational and objective,” that the meaning of our concepts is “objective” and refers to the things classified by that concept, that there is only “one valid morality,” that “it is possible and proper to state that one person is wrong and another is right,” that “absolutes do exist,” and you will be assured that, no, oh, no, such things as the nature of “definitions” or “concepts” or “morality” or “judgment” is all just “a matter of opinion,” that one person’s or culture’s or nation’s “opinion” is just as valid as any other, that “it’s all relative.”

If you make a judgment about some policy or law or aspect of human action or interaction, with profound seriousness, the students or teachers will pronounce “that may be true for you but not for someone else”; that “other countries believe in a different ethics”; that “no one can judge another person or culture or group.”

This is, of course, pure and unadulterated bullsh– nonsense.

Try to declare that the latest tax increase at the local or state or national level is simply another example of legalized theft...

Try to claim that victim disarmament — of any kind and to any degree — is immoral and a violation of our rights...

Try to state that “might does not make right” or that “the ends never justify the means”...

Try to judge as evil those who want to tighten the noose around your neck while pretending they are doing so “for your own good” or for the “good of society”...

Try to point out that immigration restrictions violate freedom of association...

Try to explain that no one has a right to health care or a job or retirement benefits or a home or an education or a car or food or clothing or companionship or any good or service that is provided by unwilling others...

Try to argue that your life, your money, and your property belong to you and to no one else, that they are your responsibility and you alone get to decide how those values are or are not used...

Try to do any of this and these academics — and, to be honest, most Americans — will come down on you like the Hammer of Thor.

And these are the good and true positions to hold. Try to be racist or sexist, try to utter what “someone,” somewhere perceives as a racial or ethnic slur, try to promote discrimination or hatred or any other non-PC or actually negative position, and you may suffer legal sanctions for what is your “opinion” that is not supposed to be “judged” by anyone else and that is supposed to be just as “valid” as the “opinions” of those who will gleefully and vigorously persecute and prosecute you for your “opinion.”

Huh. Go figure.

Gun Rights versus Human Rights

Sun, 1 Mar 2009 07:45:42 -0600

Last night, I watched a rerun of speeches from Friday by some prominent conservatives at one of their conventions, the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference. Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul helped rally the faithful. Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association also alerted folks to the attitudes about gun ownership of Messiah Obama’s underlings. (Cue music from the Wizard of Oz: duh-du-dut-du-duh-duh...)

Wayne quoted or played video clips from a number of them. Hillary Klin-ton betrayed her usual control-freak nature, wanting to register and license all guns everywhere and impose other onerous controls. Hypocrite “I support the Second Amendment” Obama — who never met a gun control proposal he didn’t like — was revealed for the two-faced fascist he is. Obama’s racist attorney-general, Eric “You Cowardly Americans” Holder, clearly has not changed since he was Bill Klin-ton’s pissant “point man” on banning guns: the stupid “assault” weapon ban is somehow now a good idea because Mexico is revealing the logical consequences of its (and our) obscene and immoral War on “Drugs” (i.e., a war on individuals who consume officially unsanctioned drugs).

Wayne even had a clip of himself confronting that monumental left-wing television ass, Chris Matthews. Matthews was yapping on like a two-bit chihuahua, baiting Wayne about “winning” (yeah, right...) the Heller Supreme Court case. Matthews sarcastically noted that NRA-types will no longer have to worry about “black helicopters” coming to confiscate Americans’ guns (how silly: doesn’t he know the ’copters will be a lovely chartreuse...?). He also asked what Wayne thought about the prospect of people walking down the street “carrying a bazooka” or having “burp guns” (geez; what century is this guy in?). About the “horrors” of individuals owning 50-caliber rifles. Blah-be-dee-blah-blah.

Instead of addressing the issue of private ownership of machine guns head-on with a resounding, “Hell, yeah!”, Wayne stumbled along, obviously avoiding a direct answer, yammering about “heavy restrictions” on machine guns that have been in place since the Thirties, etc. etc.

What Wayne should have done was point a finger at the prick host, Matthews, and said, “Do you support private ownership of SUVs? No one needs a vehicle that powerful. It’s a favorite form of transportation of drug dealers. Do you support uncontrolled ownership of the vehicle of choice of drug lords? And what about semi-trucks! Those can crush nearly any other vehicle on the road with barely a scratch to themselves. They’re a hazard to others simply by existing. Surely you don’t believe in private ownership of bulldozers, do you? Those can destroy a house in minutes. Do you?”

But, no, by constantly using the phrase “gun rights” instead of “individual” or “human” rights (even though the adjective for the former makes no sense and the adjectives for the latter are redundant), Wayne shifted the focus from the individual and his freedom to a focus on the physical object of a gun. Starting from the latter point, the discussion merely deteriorates into a “debate” as to which guns are or are not permissible.

It’s the same error so many people on all sides make on the inane arguments that consume Americans. Whether the issue is health care or immigration or welfare or self-defense or education or whatever, it’s a colossal waste of time babbling on about “how much” is “too much.”

Freedom is about people, not about things.

Freedom is an absolute. It’s an either/or proposition. (See my essay, “One Freedom.”)

Only slavery comes in degrees...and the temperature in this country is getting way too damned hot...

Principles and Prophecies

Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:54:19 -0600

“The result [of altruism] is that need, pain, failure and disaster are made into the leading purpose and value in life. In other words, altruism amounts to the following principle, which you can see being adopted in politics today: If a man fails for any reason, whether through his own fault or through accident, that failure gives him a mortgage on the lives, the earnings, the property and the services of those who have not failed. The result is a hierarchy of values in which the zero is the dominant standard. To the extent to which a man lacks any values at all — material, spiritual or intellectual — he has a claim on his betters. To the extent to which a man has achieved any values, he is the sacrificial animal for any zero-holder who can present his lack as a claim against achievement.”

Ayn Rand, Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed, p. 145. (Interview occurred in the period of 1962-1966.)

Sound familiar?

Failing banks vs sound banks? Homeowners in arrears or facing foreclosure vs homeowners paying their mortgages? Collapsing automobile makers vs auto manufacturers not needing bailouts? States that have huge budget shortfalls vs states with balanced budgets? Disaster victims vs those paying for those destroyed homes? Mothers on welfare having multiple babies vs prudent parents paying their own expenses? Medicaid recipients vs those paying for their own insurance? Farmers collecting subsidies vs farmers winning in the marketplace? Subsidized energy producers (such as wind and biofuels) vs traditional, cheaper producers of energy? People who pay no federal income tax receiving “tax refunds” (welfare checks) vs rich people who are taxed more and more? The growing clamor of politically connected leeches with their claws extended for handouts vs the hardworking, moral individuals who quietly grit their teeth and struggle onward to live their lives?

The yammering class dares to claim that “no one knows if this or that stimulus will work.” This is, of course, pure, unadulterated bullshit spewing from the mouths of those who cynically or ignorantly or hypocritically reject and deny the efficacy of principles. It is precisely principles — of morality, of politics, of economics — that predict with assurance that the actions of the criminal, political class will not only not work but will fail spectacularly as the new laws and regulations and taxes and bailouts achieve the exact opposite of what the statists and collectivists in power claim they are seeking.

Perhaps, though, the real goal is not a healthy economy and a free society but a strengthening and tightening of the chains that are wrapped around our collective throats. That, I predict, is precisely what these monsters in sheep’s clothing will achieve before they are done.

Intellectual Property Rights

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:43:19 -0600

No one has an ownership right — an intellectual property right — to an idea, as such. If one makes a knowledge claim and chooses to share that information with others, then anyone who accepts the truth of that idea is free to use it. As Ayn Rand said, to claim otherwise would be to insist that people cling to falsehoods rather than operate according to reality.

As Rand also noted, no one can claim ownership to a discovery of an X that already exists in nature (compare this to the nonsense of patenting the DNA sequence of X). A person can only claim ownership to an invention, the creation of an X that did not exist in nature on its own before the person created it. The ownership is of a particular formulation of an idea that has been given a material/physical manifestation. (For example, no one can own “quantum physics,” but a writer has ownership of his particularized and physical presentation of that idea.) We are not ghosts. We exist in a physical world.

Intellectual property is just as much a type of property as is “real” property because both share the same fundamental characteristics. Without the input of a person's mind, no property of any kind would exist. The intellectual component involved in making “oil” into a “value” (or in earning the money to purchase that oil) is no different in kind that the intellectual component of an author who makes 100,000 words a “value” by placing those words in a particularized order and publishing a book (electronic or physical) that contains his individualized presentation of his ideas.

Also, remember that a fundamental “right” is primarily about the ability to choose how to use a particular X and less about the X itself. As Rand said in, “Man’s Rights,” in The Virtue of Selfishness, “Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.”

Rand also pointed out that what is essential to the production of values is thought — an idea — and not merely the physical effort required to produce a particular object. Placing primacy on the physical rather than the intellectual aspect of production would be to endorse the “labor theory of value,” a theory incompatible with freedom.

As for how long a copyright or patent should be granted, that is a matter for debate. But for the life of the creator and, perhaps, X years after his death seems a reasonable place to start the discussion.