Blog Home Page

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.

Hypocrite in Chief

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:05:01 -0600

Excuse me a moment while I wipe this tear from my eye... There... Ah... (*sniff*)

I can’t decide if these are tears of laughter or sadness. Both, I suppose. After all, what is one to think when, hard on the heels of a trillion-plus dollar (interest included) “stimulus” bill that our Messiah-in-Chief just signed, he has the temerity (idiocy? cupidity? stupidity?) to call for “cutting the deficit”!

Pay no attention to that man behind the screen!

Ah, yes! The best way to “balance” the budget, to be “responsible,” to “pay-as-we-go” is to create a spending bill that dwarves all previous exercises in legalized theft. Not only that, the Magician-in-Chief proposes nearly a half-trillion more dollars in spending this year.

Yeah, man! That’s the way to reduce our debt! Spend even more money that the State does not have!

Oh, sure. the Liar-in-Chief says that when his magic beans grow into a giant stalk, the tax revenues will stream into the coffers of the State and bridge any shortfalls between expenses and credits. By golly, this “new” economy will do what has never been accomplished in the history of mankind: we will be prosperous beyond our wildest dreams through the largesse of spending our way to wealth! After all, nearly every prominent yapping head on TV, radio, and elsewhere assures us that it is consumer spending that is the primary economic engine of our nation. Not such silliness as production of wealth that the producers can then invest in other wealth producing ventures which can then be used to buy consumer goods. Oh, no. Oh, no. Spending first and foremost. Spend what you haven’t produced. That’s how you produce things.

Right? Right?

Barely a month in office and already the Hypocrite-in-Chief has produced a wealth of nonsense that towers above all the frakking B.S. of any and all of his equally immoral and destructive predecessors.

(*sniff*)

Sorry. There I go again...

Such a Deal

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:51:47 -0600

Lessee. Do I have this right?

1. The State has passed a “stimulus” bill that nominally costs nearly $800,000,000,000.
2. You — the Average Taxpayer — will get a tax “break” of nearly...wait for it...$8 per week!!!
3. This will “fix” the economy! How? “Somehow.”

SUCH A DEAL!

Whoo-hoo!!!... Or should that be “boo-hoo”?

But wait! There’s more!

As detailed here, this wondrous opportunity will, when all the extra costs are added in, add about $62,000 to what Mr. and Mrs. Average Taxpayer already owe.

SUCH A DEAL!

But wait! There’s more!

While the expense of this financial albatross is egregious enough, adding insult to injury are the increased chains the State will place around our necks in the form of more laws, more regulations, more infringements on our fundamental rights.

SUCH A DEAL!

Such a crock.

Helping Your Neighbors

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:18:05 -0600

Last summer, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, faced its worst flood in recorded history. The Cedar River rose twenty feet above flood stage, inundating much of the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. Thousands of low and middle-income residents, small business owners, and others found everything they owned destroyed. The vast majority of these victims of the eco-fascists’ beloved “Nature” did not hold (government-subsidized) flood insurance. For most of these folks, such an omission was not irrational. After all, living in a “thousand-year” flood area suggested that paying for such insurance would be a needless expense they could ill afford. Even some who considered purchasing the insurance were discouraged from doing so because of the distance of their homes from the river.

But even low-probability events happen.

Most of those devastated by the muddy waters suffered through no fault of their own. They were not foolish or lacking in prudence or stupid. They were merely unlucky. Worse, with little in the way of reserve funds, these home and business owners often could not afford to fix up their property and/or continue to pay mortgages while simultaneously paying rent and/or being without a job.

Rightly so, many people here donated time and money to aid these folks. Some volunteers helped clear away debris. Some aided in reconstruction. Some simply wrote a check in the hopes of making a positive difference.

But as can be readily seen in disaster-prone regions such as the Gulf Coast (hurricanes), California (earthquakes), and the Midwest (tornadoes), charity is never enough for the professional do-gooders and those who expect the State to come to their rescue.

Next week, the cities in this county are voting on whether to add yet another penny to the sales tax. Last year, a “temporary” penny increase in that tax became both permanent and statewide. While this new tax is slated to expire in five years, that promise is worth almost as much as the used toilet paper I flush away every morning.

The local politicians are, of course, gung-ho for more money to rub between their fingers. The print and television media are likewise smilingly aboard the bandwagon. Even most of the citizens think it is their “duty” to vote in this “little” tax increase that will generate tens of millions of dollars for the State to fritter away.

While I realize protests against the altruist/statist/collectivist mindset of the vast majority of Americans is like spitting into the teeth of one of those Category 5 hurricanes, I decided to send a “letter to the editor” of the local paper. Here it is:

Few people would condone a private citizen walking into a neighbor’s home, placing a gun to that person’s head, and demanding money. Even if the person claimed he needed the money for himself 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 outcome makes it okay.

Voluntarily helping one’s neighbors can be a great thing. But “forced charity” is a contradiction in terms. 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.

Supporters of tax increases can pretend to themselves and to the rest of us that “we” agreed; that “we” are “helping our neighbors”; that “we” will all benefit from such coercive action. But disguising the truth about an immoral action to make it more palatable to ourselves and to others will not change its destructive nature. Only voluntary actions have moral value.

Vote “no” on any tax increase.

Diane Sawyer Bites

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:09:24 -0600

On Good Morning, Amerika, er, America, “reporter” Diane Sawyer had a story on Appalachian kids drinking Mountain Dew all day and ending up with crappy teeth. (See here. Video included.) She also had a dentist on who works in the region.

Lessee here: the kids are drinking quart-sized bottles of Mountain Dew all day, at home and at school. Families put Mountain Dew and Pepsi in baby bottles. They don’t go to the dentist often enough because they can’t “afford” it. They tell us they are “addicted” to Mountain Dew.

Whoa. Horrible stuff. Right?

And, of course, it was not the fault of the parents who gave the kids Mountain Dew or money to buy the stuff. It wasn’t the fault of the kids who were guzzling it or who didn’t brush or floss often enough. It wasn’t the fault of the schools who let them consume it or who made it available. Oh, no. Hell no.

It was Pepsi’s fault for making and selling Mountain Dew. The parents and kids and school officials are “not responsible” for the actions they chose to engage in. And the dentist said it was “wrong” to “blame the victims.”

But of course! That has to be the case. It’s never anyone’s personal responsibility or fault for the bad actions in which they engage. Oh, no. They can’t help it. They’re powerless to prevent what happens to them. They are mere pawns. Other people are responsible and must be held accountable for the negative consequences the victims suffer.

Oh, wait. We’re discussing bankers and auto makers and state governments and all the rest in line for bailouts, aren't we?

No? Hmm.

It’s no wonder this country is going down the tubes.

Capital One All Hassles Card

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:03:26 -0600

Nice to see that the wonderful financial policies of the Republicrats and Demicans are finally beginning to bear fruit. Just yesterday, I personally witnessed the consequences of simultaneously stealing citizens money and lavishing it on those in charge of the credit market.

I was a customer of Capital One — you know: the “No Hassles” card — for over a decade. My most recent card interest rate was about 6.5%. After all, with the prime rate barely hovering above zero, the “cost” of borrowing money is low. Just look at home mortgages in the 5-6% range for fixed mortgages.

By golly, though, I guess the Capital “No Hassles” One folks made the same realization that those in charge of our government have: don’t let any crisis go without taking advantage of it. So, in this wondrous world of the Sky Is Falling Unless We Act Immediately!, Capital One sent me a notice that they were increasing my interest rate. Double it? Nah. Triple it? Uh-uhn. Quadruple it? Are you kidding me? Oh, no. These great souls are nearly quintupling my interest rate to just under 30%!!! That’s right: a nearly 400% increase in the interest charged on any revolving balance.

400%!!!

I was so happy to be the target of this beneficent change, that I immediately called and canceled my card.

Well. I tried to cancel it immediately.

The shill on the other end went on and on: well, my interest rate went up, too [but only 10 points, not 25]; you’ve been with us for so long [yeah, and I deserve better treatment as a customer]; it doesn’t matter what the interest rate is since you pay off your bills [but I don’t do so every month]; the economy is having problems [so I am a responsible person and customer who pays my bills and doesn’t go hog wild with charging things I can’t afford, and I am the one who gets punished for it?; welcome to the modern America...]; and on and on.

I had to get angry and firm and practically yell to get the stupid twit to cancel my card.

Fuck these people.

Don’t misunderstand me: I fully and completely believe and accept that Capital One or whoever has the right to jack up the interest to 30 million percent, if they want, if that’s in the provisions of the agreement. BUT...having the right to do X does not mean that X is the right thing to do.

If you’re a Capital One card holder — or maybe many other card issuers will mimic these actions — prepare yourself for the possibility of having something large and unpleasant shoved up your nether regions. I hope — like me — you’re in a position to cancel that card and seek greener pastures.

But the real problem is all those jerks who clamored and continue to clamor for the State to “do something.” They were the ones who helped create this mess, in the first place. I am as mad or madder at them. After all, Capital One is merely exploiting a bad situation in a sucky attempt to try to get more of my money. All the politicians and the 98% of the voters who keep those assholes in office are doing something much worse:

They’re out to get my freedom.

Statist in Chief

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:06:41 -0600

Whew! We can all rest easy now. Our Fearless Leader, the Great and Wondrous Obama, has declared that we no longer need argue about the size of the State. All we need concern ourselves with from now on is whether the State “works” or not. Nor need we offer up any silly things like “principles” to judge whether what the State is doing is proper. He wants us to relegate “ideologies” to the scrap heap of history as outmoded, pointless, and obstructionistic.

We also no longer need concern ourselves as mere citizens or business owners or whatever with our role in restoring economic health. Nosirreebob. Only the State has the “resources” to deal with the catastrophe looming so closely over our collective heads. But don’t ask where those “resources” come from. Uh-unh. That would be akin to questioning where Santa Claus gets all the goodies he delivers every Xmas Eve. Just close your eyes, smile, raise your arms in supplication, ignore that probing feeling in your pockets, and all shall be delivered unto you.

When you open your eyes, by golly, you just better be grateful that the State has taken over wide swaths of the financial market; that the State has assumed more control over education; that the State will have complete electronic access to your medical files and decide who deserves what kinds of treatment; that the State will “own” more land in the name of “preservation” and use that “ownership” to further restrict places where you can legally defend yourselves with guns; that the State will drive down the value of whatever meager savings or investments you might have accumulated; that the State will make it easier for unions to rob you of your wages; that the State will ramp up the war in Afghanistan; and that the State will be the unquestioned messiah, delivering all things to all people...or else.

All hail, the Statist in Chief. All hail, the Great and Powerful Obama. All hail, He Who Must Be Obeyed.

Ah, hell...

Libertarian Egalitarians

Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:14:44 -0600

The only realm in which people are equal is (when properly instituted) the political realm. Everyone — regardless of economic status, race, creed, religion, sex, beauty, or stupidity — has the same fundamental rights as a human being and equal protection under (properly constituted) laws.

But that’s about it. People are otherwise not equal. People vary in ability, in intelligence, in dexterity, in beauty, in friendliness, in accomplishment, in integrity, in independence, in honesty, in productivity, in self-esteem, in character, in the size of their houses, in the love or admiration or hatred they give or receive, in desirability of where they live, in the variety and quality and number of their possessions, in the respect they earn and/or receive, in virtually any and all qualities and characteristics that might describe a person.

Some people are creeps. Some people are bland. Some people are exciting. Some people are admirable. Some people are bad. Some are good. Some are great human beings.

Why is any of this at all controversial to anyone the least bit familiar with the human condition and the context of freedom?

Yet — apparently — egalitarian populism is alive and well among a subset of libertarians. (See here.)

This writer and some of his readers seem to disagree with some facts of reality. For instance:

1. Children do not have full human rights. A baby does not have the “right” to refuse medical care or education deemed necessary by a parent. A child does not have the “right” to ignore his chores or drink a fifth of Scotch. A teenager does not have the “right” to have orgies in front of his parents while they watch TV. Full human rights are dependent on the physical maturation of one’s brain and the capacity to care independently for oneself. If a child disobeys a proper demand of a parent, the parent does have the right to force the child to obey.

1. Those who do not respect property rights have no claim to property rights. Mayans or Aztecs or Incans or other Indians who did not establish and enforce property rights had no basis for complaint against Spanish or English or Dutch settlers who utilized the same immoral means to obtain what they wanted. Slavers and sacrificers of live human beings have no moral ground to object to being sacrificed or enslaved themselves.

1. All property should be private property. “Public property” is an oxymoron. The “public,” i.e., the State cannot own anything. At best, it should be a caretaker until unowned land becomes someone’s property. The modifier “private” in conjunction with “property” is as much a redundancy as is “individual” in conjunction with “rights.” Sadly, in today’s corrupt intellectual and political environment, such adjectives must be used to clarify the thinking of those unclear about the true meaning of liberty and rights.

Despite the various valid points this writer makes, his adherence to the discredited idea of “anarchy” is not a promising signal of his intellectual acuity. If one does not properly understand freedom and its requirements, then subsequent analyses of related concepts must be suspect.

In reality, many people are “inferior” to others in terms of their productive capacity, their creative ability, their drive, their dedication, their hard work, their willingness to take risks, their independence, their capacity for rebounding from and overcoming failure, their skill in overcoming obstacles. This fact does not mean that an Eddie Willers is inferior as a person to Dagny Taggart. But I fully acknowledge the superiority to me in this realm of those who create jobs, who build and distribute products and services I use, and who are able and willing to do all those things that eventually improve my life in so many ways. I am not demeaning myself by acknowledging my debt and gratitude to entrepreneurs and their kin. There is nothing “odious” about recognizing and acknowledging that the “status” of some individuals is (much) higher than that of others.

What is “odious” or “cringe”-worthy is pretending that (beyond the realm of fundamental rights) that there is something immoral, something improper in stating that some people are — in reality — better than some other people...not in all areas, certainly, but in some.

Frankly, I am better than those who advocate involuntary servitude and who work to enslave me.

I am better than those who hate freedom and use the State to steal “legally” what is not theirs.

I am better than those who think other people should support them.

I am better than those who advocate sacrifices.

I am better than those who think there are basic “rights” to health care or food or shelter or education or any other goods or services.

I am better than those who judge individuals by collectivist notions such as race or class or sex.

I am better than those who resort to statist smear tactics to discredit ideas by reducing a philosophy to identification with a particular person (e.g., “Randroids”).

In the end, I’ll take liberty over “equality” any day of the week.