tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-58353012024-02-28T05:58:02.152-06:00OratPolitical and miscellaneous commentary by Orat.Gonnyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11673878470946330593noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835301.post-34244018326222628102011-10-07T18:56:00.002-05:002011-10-07T20:05:11.890-05:00In Praise of HypocrisyI have a confession to make. I was naive. I believed that our Republic would be better preserved under the administration of Barack Obama than under John McCain. Mind you, I didn’t think it would be preserved because Obama would be a better President or had a better understanding of the Constitution. Rather, I believed we would be safer from tyranny because Republicans would fight Obama’s policies in areas where they might have acquiesced to McCain, owing to party loyalty. In short, my hopes were that Republicans would be hypocrites.<br /><br />Why did I think that? Let me provide some examples. During the reign of Bush The Elder, Republicans were pro-war, pro-UN intervention, as they rallied behind Bush to enforce UN resolutions against Iraq for its invasion of Kuwait. Shortly after the conclusion of this conflict, Bill Clinton was elected President. Bill Clinton, in a manner not at all unlike his predecessor, proceeded to commit US troops to more conflicts where they would be charged with enforcing UN resolutions. This was fiercely opposed by the same Republicans who had supported it just a few years earlier under Bush. The difference, however, was that the Republicans succeeded, in large measure, in slowing down and inhibiting Clinton’s agenda, both abroad and at home.<br /><br />Fast-forward a few more years to the reign of Bush the Younger. Republicans once again swung back in favor of war to enforce UN resolutions (again, against Iraq). Similarly, Bush was able to pass an incredibly expensive expansion of welfare state entitlements in the form of the Prescription Drug Medicare expansion. So again, Republicans failed to put the brakes on in areas where they had successfully forestalled the same or similar efforts by a Democrat President. It is apparent that this difference was due to partisanship. Republicans felt free to oppose Big Government when pushed for by a Democrat, but felt reluctant to do so when it was being advanced by someone of the same party.<br /><br />Or at least, that was the theory...<br /><br />In 2008, the race came down between one of the most “liberal” (not in the classical sense) Republicans in Washington and Barack Obama. My reasoning was that, like they had done during Clinton, Republicans would doggedly resist Obama’s agenda, if for no other reason than sheer partisanship. On the other hand, under McCain, many of the same agenda items might advance, but would receive no resistance from Republicans, and certainly not from Democrats who already want to see government expand in its size and scope.<br /><br />My hope was that this would likewise translate to Republican feelings on foreign policy, just as it had in the transition from Bush 41 to Clinton. Yes, I eagerly hoped for Republican hypocrisy!<br /><br />Things started out well enough. Republicans seemed to seethe at the very mention of Obama’s name. This was a good sign. Then, RNC Chairman Chris Steele made the comment that Afghanistan was “Obama’s war”. Even better! Then we began to see Obama repeating many of the same policies Bush had advanced, and then some! For example, Obama called for a “new legal regime” wherein people who had been imprisoned, but against whom there was not enough evidence to bring them to trial, could be left in prison to rot for the rest of their lives. I mean, if you don’t have evidence that someone is guilty, then common human decency dictates you let them go, right? So surely Republicans who already believe Obama to be a liar, a socialist, and perhaps the Antichrist himself, would be taken aback by the idea that one Barack Obama would assert the power to imprison people indefinitely without so much as evidence that they were guilty!<br /><br />Republicans were silent. Indeed, most of the public ire raised came from the “Left”.<br /><br />Later, Obama held a Press Conference announcing that he had killed Osama bin Laden. The problem was, several of those in his own administration came out with conflicting stories about what had happened and how it all went down. On top of that, we were then told that we could not be shown any photos which would prove bin Laden’s death, and that, incredibly, the body of the world’s most-wanted villain had been unceremoniously dumped overboard in the ocean. Not only did this open the door for a sort of “Osama bin Elvis” phenomenon, it conveniently ensured that nobody could ever verify that he was, in fact, dead, and so we would all have to take Barack Obama’s word for it.<br /><br />Despite the Republican view of Obama as the Father of Lies, Republicans drank it up, conflicting stories and all.<br /><br />Obama then decides to send forces into Libya to help topple Qaddafi. Okay, almost nobody saw this one coming. Fortunately, there was some tepid resistance from Republicans, but it never really built a head of steam. To this day, Obama continues our military operations in Libya without any approval of Congress, and with little to no protest from Republicans.<br /><br />Somewhere along this timeline the Obama administration announced that it had drawn up a “kill list” of people marked for assassination, and that on that list were the names of two or three American citizens. Yes, for the first time in our nation’s history, a President had admitted publicly to having a list drawn up of Americans to be assassinated without any kind of trial or due process. Again, there was hardly a response from Republicans, if any. A few months later, it was announced that the CIA had killed American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen using a guided missile fired from a UAV. al-Awlaki was not in a battlefield, nor was he even in a hostile country. As far as we know he was not armed, but was simply killed.<br /><br />In addition to al-Awlaki, Samir Khan, an American citizen who grew up in Charlotte, North Carolina and was editor of Insight magazine, was also killed in the same drone strike, and was blithely listed as “collateral damage”. Khan was, even by the Obama administration’s own account, merely “a loudmouth” but had never undertaken any actual terrorist activities.<br /><br />Incredibly, Obama’s unprecedented act of summarily assassinating unarmed American citizens, away from any sort of battlefield or combat situation, not only went unopposed by most Republicans, it was praised!<br /><br />Yet somehow amidst all of this, many Republicans still tell us Obama is a Muslim sympathizer who does nothing but apologize to our enemies and appease the terrorists. For all their disparaging talk, however, it seems Republicans must hold Obama in such high esteem as to entrust him with powers never before claimed by an American President. The idea of Obama forming secret committees to “nominate” (yes, that’s the official term) Americans for assassination without any legal process whatsoever doesn’t scare these people in the slightest. If such absolute unchecked power in the hands of Obama doesn’t scare them, I ask you, what could possibly scare them?<br /><br />I admit it, I was naively hoping for some Republican hypocrisy. I’d certainly have preferred they be consistent with their past opposition to Big Government, including Big Government foreign policy. But sadly, Republicans are no longer the hypocrites they once were...*<br /><br />* <span style="font-size:85%;">It is still correct to say that Republicans, like those described in this piece, are hypocrites insofar as they espouse small government, the Constitution, and the rule of law, while simultaneously advocating the biggest of all government endeavors: imperial war and flagrantly disregarding the Constitution and the rule of law. But this isn’t the sort of hypocrisy I was hoping for in 2008. </span>Gonnyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11673878470946330593noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835301.post-83038507915021417022010-08-11T20:17:00.006-05:002010-08-12T03:53:53.954-05:00The sorry state of the vanguards of ObjectivismAfter life and work had kept me away for a few years from reading Objectivist-authored material in any quantity, I finally returned to a site I used to frequent which syndicated articles by Objectivist writers, among others. I won't name the site for fear of adding to its readership. But upon pulling up the front page, I saw an article discussing whether or not the government should deprive a group of people of their rights to property by forbidding them to build a mosque in NYC. The article argued in favor of government action, and linked to <a href="http://www.peikoff.com/2010/06/28/what-do-you-think-of-the-plan-for-a-mosque-in-new-york-city-near-ground-zero-isnt-it-private-property-and-therefore-protected-by-individual-rights/">this podcast</a> by Ayn Rand's official heir and present guardian of Objectivism, Leonard Peikoff.<br /><br />Therein, Mr. Peikoff lays out a hypothetical situation regarding property rights:<br /><blockquote><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, Times, serif;font-size:100%;"><em>In any situation where metaphysical survival is at stake all property rights are out. You have no obligation to respect property rights. The obvious, classic example of this is, which I've been asked a hundred times, you swim to a desert island – you know, you had a shipwreck – and when you get to the shore, the guy comes to you and says, ‘I've got a fence all around this island. I found it. It's legitimately mine. You can't step onto the beach.' Now, in that situation you are in a literal position of being metaphysically helpless. Since life is the standard of rights, if you no longer can survive this way, rights are out. And it becomes dog-eat-dog or force-against-force.</em></span></blockquote>I was quite shocked to hear the heir of Ayn Rand say this. I find it rather incredible and contradictory seeing as how this is precisely the moral justification for government-provided health care. I don't know of a single Objectivist who would approve of a government program that provided "necessary" life-saving treatment to those who could otherwise not afford it, at the public expense. Yet with such a statement as Peikoff's above, the necessary moral foundation for just such a program is laid. When someone's need is vital, according to Peikoff, your "rights are out". In other words, the needs of one individual can trump the rights of another.<br /><br />I never thought I would hear an Objectivist say that. But here we have it.<br /><br />Moving on to the main topic - the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" (the Cordoba House, which actually isn't a mosque, but that's another matter) - Peikoff proceeded to call for the US Government to deprive the owners of the Cordoba House of their rights to property. Peikoff insists that the government must prevent adherents of Islam from building mosques in NYC (and presumably elsewhere) on the grounds that failing to abridge their property rights would be a "sign of our weakness" to the outside world.<br /><br />Peikoff attempts to shore up his argument with another analogy:<br /><blockquote><em>Now, let me give you an analogy if it’s not self-evident. Japanese strike pearl Harbor. We declare war. Japan, the Japanese, are then given a large spread of land in Pearl Harbor to build a temple celebrating — I don’t care what. The Japanese superiority or Shinto peacefulness or — I don’t care what. Now, if you can even conceive of that as justified because of ‘property rights,’ then I say you haven’t a clue what property rights, or individualism, or Objectivism is saying. Because what permitting that amounts to is ‘Roll over. Kick me. Kill me. I have nothing to say.<br /></em></blockquote>Now first, the owners of Cordoba House were not "given" the land or building in question, they purchased it. Nor are the owners of Cordoba House in any way (as far as I can tell) affiliated with any state or organization with whom we are at (undeclared) war. But neither of these aren Peikoff's point - his point here (when taken in context of the rest of his comments in the podcast) is that the thing which negates the owner's property rights is <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">what they are saying</span> with his property. This is presumably because allowing someone to say something which, by the government allowing it to be said, would be seen as, "an objective sign of our weakness," and thereby allegedly embolden the enemy. This raises the legitimate question: if one's rights of property are negated because the use thereof for speech is a "sign of our weakness", then does this not imperil the very right of speech? If applied consistently, Peikoff's principle would likewise prohibit individuals from expressing such opinions regardless of means.<br /><br />Interestingly, Peikoff admits in the course of the podcast that there are some innocent Muslims, but goes on to say that, "even if there were innocent Muslims involved in this mosque, the alternative we have is their right to property versus our right to survive as the only property defender left in the West." Setting aside the absurd suggestion that the property rights of innocent Muslims present a clear and present threat to our survival, he is simply presenting a hyperbolic dichotomy to obscure the fact that he is calling for the abridgment of the rights of an entire group of people without regard to their <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">individual</span> innocence or guilt. That's collectivism, folks! Collectivism from a supposed champion of individualism.<br /><br />Mr. Peikoff is apparently aware of the collectivist hue of his assertions because toward the end of the podcast he attempts to deny it by saying, "Here we have to go by probability which is not collective judgment". He then clarifies this "probability" comment by cursorily referencing the argument that NYC cab drivers are not being racist (and thereby not being collectivist) when they decide not to accept fares to Harlem on the grounds that there is a statistically higher probability that they will fall victim to a crime there. There are only two problems with this: first, it is unclear how it relates to the situation under consideration, and second, the cab drivers are making a non-aggressive choice for themselves. By contrast, the government in this situation would be committing aggression against an entire group of unconvicted (or charged) individuals, many of whom are doubtless innocent, and depriving them of their rights, all because, according to Peikoff, there is a high probability that any given individual within their ideological group is guilty. That sounds collectivism in statistical garb to me.<br /><br />To be clear, Peikoff never once suggests that the owners or operators of Cordoba House are guilty of terrorism, but merely that they deny that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Yes, Peikoff is suggesting that these people's right to property is lost because they, in his opinion, lack an ideology that is sufficiently hostile to Islamic terrorism.<br /><br />Bear in mind, this is the same Peikoff who in <a href="http://www.peikoff.com/2009/06/08/in-an-objectivist-society-would-advocating-socialism-be-a-crime/">another podcast</a> claimed that, "any ideology is outside the province of the state. If you say the State defines which ideologies are permissible and which ones are criminal, that is the end of free thought. ... abstractions, true or false, whatever you think their implications are, are outside the province of government."<br /><br />You are caught in a contradiction, Mr. Peikoff. Check your premises.Gonnyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11673878470946330593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835301.post-48910576514857203742009-11-16T22:31:00.002-06:002009-11-16T22:40:27.059-06:00Sarah Palin info dumpSimilar to the <a href="http://orat.blogspot.com/2009/11/mike-huckabee-info-dump.html">Huckabee info dump</a>, this will be a repository that will be updated from time to time with information on Sarah Palin's views and policies which are at odds with her "conservative" image.<br /><br />-----------------------------------<br /><br />There is much information to indicate Sarah Palin lobbied (at least for a time) in favor of parts of the Obama stimulus which benefitted Alaska:<br /><a href="http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2009/02/sarah-palin-and-the-stimulus-package.html">http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2009/02/sarah-palin-and-the-stimulus-package.html</a><br /><a href="http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2009/02/say-it-aint-so-sarah-palin-supports-obamas-megadeficit-government-spending-.html">http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2009/02/say-it-aint-so-sarah-palin-supports-obamas-megadeficit-government-spending-.html</a><br /><a href="http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/stupid_sarah_palin_joins_other_republican_governors_in_begging_congress_for/">http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/stupid_sarah_palin_joins_other_republican_governors_in_begging_congress_for/</a><br /><a href="http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/266288">http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/266288</a><br /><a href="http://thinkingrevised.blogspot.com/2009/03/palin-flip-flopping-on-stimulus.html">http://thinkingrevised.blogspot.com/2009/03/palin-flip-flopping-on-stimulus.html</a><br /><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/23/palin-takes-back-stimulus_n_178080.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/23/palin-takes-back-stimulus_n_178080.html</a><br /><a href="http://community.adn.com/adn/node/139475">http://community.adn.com/adn/node/139475</a><br /><br />----------<br /><br />Palin supports "shoring up" Wallstreet when asked about the Bailout (and expresses support for the bailout in particular):<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txfqWzGMgmY">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txfqWzGMgmY</a><br /><br />----------<br /><br />Palin supported windfall profits tax on Alaskan oil companies:<br /><a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html">http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html</a><br /><a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/11/palin-backed-alaskan-windfall-profits-tax/">http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/11/palin-backed-alaskan-windfall-profits-tax/</a><br /><a href="http://dontmesswithtaxes.typepad.com/dont_mess_with_taxes/2008/08/palins-windfall.html">http://dontmesswithtaxes.typepad.com/dont_mess_with_taxes/2008/08/palins-windfall.html</a><br /><a href="http://mccain.voterfactcheck.com/facts/11/palin_windfall_profits_tax_344511.shtml">http://mccain.voterfactcheck.com/facts/11/palin_windfall_profits_tax_344511.shtml</a><br /><br />(Note the statements in the last link that clearly reveal her view that Alaska's natural resources are, and ought to be, collectivized - much as in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela.)<br /><br />----------<br /><br />Needs more verification, but the link below would appear to cast some doubt as to Palin's perceived pro-life credentials - one of the centerpieces of her popularity among Republicans:<br /><a href="http://prolifeprofiles.com/palin">http://prolifeprofiles.com/palin</a>Gonnyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11673878470946330593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835301.post-41064926878874010332009-11-16T22:15:00.006-06:002009-11-16T22:31:14.722-06:00Mike Huckabee info dumpThis post is not a traditional blog post, but rather an information dump I will periodically update with various resources demonstrating the counterfeit nature of Mike Huckabee's "conservative" credentials. Almost all of the resources are first-hand statements from Huckabee himself.<br /><br />-----------------------------------<br /><br />Government programs to subsidize "approved" healthy behavior:<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPHhIbmVhDQ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPHhIbmVhDQ</a><br /><br />----------<br /><br />Support for S-CHIP:<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8sBLOK1jgQ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8sBLOK1jgQ</a><br /><br />----------<br /><br />National smoking ban:<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl81Pq4aOOo">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl81Pq4aOOo</a><br /><br />----------<br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;"><br />Doubling</span> "PEPFAR" aid to Africa is not enough!:<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8jT8L5hCSM">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8jT8L5hCSM</a><br /><br />----------<br /><br />Appears to want some kind of control on CEO pay (what kind? he doesn't say):<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRnAUFMSUZc">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRnAUFMSUZc</a><br /><br />----------<br /><br />Defends choice of President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, as chief Foreign Policy adviser (though the audio is muffled, it sounds as though Huckabee briefly mentions Haass' position on US sovereignty [see note below link]):<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGxMdNCjfRU">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGxMdNCjfRU</a><br /><br />NOTE: On Feb. 21, 2006, Haass, writing for the Taipei Times in an article titled "State Sovereignty Must be Altered in Globalized Era", made the following statements:<br /><br /><blockquote>"For 350 years, sovereignty--the notion that states are the central actors on the world stage and that governments are essentially free to do what they want within their own territory but not within the territory of other states--has provided the organizing principle of international relations. The time has come to rethink this notion."<br />"Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function."<br /><br />"...sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization."<br /><br />"Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves . . . Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary."<br /><br />"Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute."<br /><br />"The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy."</blockquote>Such statements as the above are completely consistent with the agenda and philosophy which has prevailed in the CFR since its founding. A brief study of the history of the CFR reveals a wealth of such quotes from both its members and its leadership.<br /><br />----------<br /><br />(3rd-party source) Raised taxes overall (0:48) and fought against proof of citizenship for tax-payer funded state services (1:20):<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OrE6IusJ1U">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OrE6IusJ1U</a><br /><br />----------<br /><br />Supports One.org (campaign to lobby the US government to increase federal spending on foreign aid):<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_aHDZcP8uc">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_aHDZcP8uc</a><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVWRmff_7hM">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVWRmff_7hM</a><br /><br />----------<br /><br />Huckabee believes in human-caused Global Warming and supports:<br /><ul><li>Increased federal fuel efficiency mandates (1:50)</li><li>Cap & Trade (2:07)<br /></li></ul><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KicX3Zc994c">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KicX3Zc994c</a><br /><br />----------<br /><br />Cap & Trade:<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1z9lpuoTTU">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1z9lpuoTTU</a><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgSjQW2rN8I">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgSjQW2rN8I</a> (1:35 - "I'm still very open to that [a national cap on carbon]")<br /><br />----------<br /><br />Cap & Trade and CAFE standards (starts talking like he doesn't want the government to cap carbon, but then when asked directly at 1:24, he affirms he is open to government caps):<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpxLLidYWRk">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpxLLidYWRk</a><br /><br />----------<br /><br />Cap & Trade:<br /><blockquote>"As part of our overall effort, I also support a cap and trade system, which has worked well for reduction of sulphur dioxide emissions. However, I do not agree with those who want all allowances to be auctioned off because I believe that will create too great a burden on businesses. The alternative to cap and trade is a carbon tax, which I don’t support."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.carbontax.org/progress/us-presidential-contenders/">http://www.carbontax.org/progress/us-presidential-contenders/</a><br /></blockquote>(NOTE: No so-called "voluntary" system could possibly result in a "burden on businesses", and if it was truly voluntary, by what federal authority would he disallow auctioning off voluntary, self-imposed allowance quotas? Furthermore, though he says he opposes it here, he refers to a tax as an alternative. All of this taken together reveals quite clearly that he is referring to mandatory, government-imposed cap & trade.)<br /><br />----------<br /><br />A note on Huckabee's mythical "voluntary" cap & trade:<br /><br />"Voluntary" cap and trade is an oxymoron for the following reason: Cap & Trade is about limits on the amount of CO2 emissions a business is allowed to produce. Each business has a quota - an allowance - and if they manage to fall short of that allowance, they can sell their remaining allowance to businesses that need to exceed their allowance but would otherwise incur a fine. Now if a business needs to exceed some ridiculously, voluntarily self-imposed CO2 quota, what sense does it make for them to purchase excess CO2 emissions "allowance" from another business that has also voluntarily self-imposed a quota? Wouldn't a self-imposed quota that overestimates a business' required emissions simply reveal a miscalculation on their part, calling for a smaller quota next year? It certainly wouldn't indicate that there is some mass of "unused" carbon emissions out there, waiting to be traded.<br /><br />Following such an absurd "plan", what is there to stop me, Mr. Average Joe, from simply "selling" such CO2 credits that I "voluntarily" invent out of thin air to other businesses, and what sense would it make for any business to actually purchase them? Who would determine what my "allowance" was if it was voluntary? If my business is writing novels, what is to stop me from allocating to myself enough "credits" to support a power plant, and then just sell the "excess" to other companies? There is absolutely no way for any such self-awarded "excess credits" to have any value or any meaning to a company that wants to exceed its own irrationally self-imposed "carbon cap".<br /><br />Either Huckabee supports such mind-numbingly stupid business behavior that wouldn't make any difference at all and that nobody would actually be stupid enough to follow, or he is simply doing a typical political two-step and backing away from his original support for Cap & Trade. Cap & Trade only has any meaning if the government sets the mandatory caps, and therefore creates an artificial market for tradeable, government-issued carbon credits, without which you would face a fine or worse.Gonnyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11673878470946330593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835301.post-18282343988953188502008-09-11T00:53:00.003-05:002008-09-11T01:36:50.190-05:00Slaying monsters in the name of "Freedom"A friend recently sent me a link to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8">this homemade McCain ad</a>. I will give its creators credit for putting it together well, and I will further credit the veteran pictured in the ad for his willingness to follow his convictions to the point of risking life and limb. I must, however, state that his convictions have been misguided and his trust in McCain misplaced.<br /><br />I continually hear supporters of the war in Iraq assert that we are fighting for freedom. As sour a pill as it may be to swallow, and as unpopular and even painful as it may be for me to point out, just as the veteran did in the ad, I must act on my convictions and point out that we are doing nothing of the sort.<br /><br />My reasons for saying this are various, and I will attempt to list a few of them here.<br /><br />1. While we have established a democratic system in Iraq, Democracy is not the same as freedom. See some of my other blog posts for an explanation as to why this is. Otherwise, suffice it to say that democracy only says who makes decisions, but it does not stipulate the character of the decisions made. Decisions made by a million tyrants are no less tyrannical and oppressive than those made by a solitary despot.<br /><br />2. Freedom cannot be imposed. It should go without saying, but imposing freedom is a contradiction in terms.<br /><br />In the above two points, I am obviously referring to the idea that we are supposedly fighting for freedom for the Iraqis. However, also implicit in the video linked above is the notion that we are somehow fighting for <em>our</em> freedom as well. This is also not the case, and indeed the opposite is true. As John Quincy Adams predicted, if we attempt to champion the liberty of others abroad, we will inevitably undermine our own liberty at home:<br /><blockquote><p>And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?<br /><br />Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.<br /><br />She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.<br /><br />She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.<br /><br /><strong>She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.</strong><br /><br />She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.<br /><br />Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.<br /><br /><strong>But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.<br /><br />She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.<br /><br />She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.</strong><br /><br />She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.<br /><br /><strong>She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.<br /><br />The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....<br /><br />She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....<br /><br />[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace.</strong> This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.<br />-John Quincy Adams, 1821 (emphasis added)</p></blockquote><p>The attentive reader will note that each prediction has come to pass. We are now involved abroad beyond extrication and it has indeed usurped the standard of freedom. The maxims of our policy have certainly shifted from liberty to force. We have indeed become the "dictatress of the world" (commonly referred to as the sole "Superpower"). And owing to our deep entanglement through foreign alliances, the United Nations, and other treaties and agreements, we have ceased to be the ruler of our own spirit.</p><p>And while we are allegedly bringing freedom to the Iraqis in contrast to our Constition and our founding principles, we are giving up our freedom here. What freedoms, I dare ask, have we secured to ourselves in the prosecution of this war?</p><p>Freedom of speech? I dare say not, for our every conversation can now be recorded and monitored under the color of law, not to mention the raiding of homes and "preemptive arrests" as of the likes we witnessed in Minneapolis BEFORE the Republican National Convention had convened.</p><p>Freedom of assembly? Surely not as the PATRIOT Act and other such laws are now used to charge with crimes those who might assemble for a redress of grievances.</p><p>Economic freedom? Since entering Iraq, our currency has been increasingly debased, talks of "windfall profit taxes" are on the lips of even Republicans, oil is now more expensive than ever, Sarbanes-Oxley imposes crushing accounting regulations on business, and every business which can be contrived to be a financial institution is now subject to secret, warrantless siezure of records for the sake of "national security".</p><p>The right of habeus corpus? Certainly not! This war and the fear that has been cultivated around it has lead to the passage of the Military Commissions Act which effectively suspends your right to a trial, meaning that you can now be imprisoned indefinitely without trial and without legal recourse. It is sufficient to simply be designated as a "terrorist" to have your rights stripped away along with any possibility of defending your innocence.</p><p>Yes, in view of things, I think rather than having successfully fought for freedom, I can find only examples of it being ceded away bit by bit to a National Security state. If history teaches us nothing else, it teaches us that war is the health of the state (goverment) and that it is always attended by a curtailment of liberty.</p><p>What is harder to swallow still is the notion that John McCain would be the champion of our liberties. After what I witnessed first-hand in St. Paul, I can tell you conclusively that McCain is no friend of freedom, and the thought of his presidency genuinely frightens me for the future of our Republic.</p>Gonnyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11673878470946330593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835301.post-70519346127151791922007-10-30T01:07:00.000-05:002007-10-30T01:25:59.765-05:00The Club for Growth (of government)The Club For Growth just recently released its <a href="http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/10/ron_pauls_record_on_economic_i.php">whitepaper on Ron Paul</a>. But it appears that the CfG is, to put it nicely, shortsighted. Here's a quote that pretty much sums up their mistake:<br /><blockquote>"Unfortunately, his stubborn idealism often takes Ron Paul further away from achieving the limited-government, pro-growth philosophy he advocates. This is certainly the case with school choice, free trade, tort reform, and entitlement reform, in which he votes against vital free trade agreements, competitive school choice initiatives, and tort reform proposals."</blockquote>What the CfG fails to understand is that even though measures which may seem to be a step in the right direction in the short-term are actually steps in the wrong direction when viewed long-range. Let's take their example of federally-funded school choice, for instance. While this may pragmatically appear to be a step toward more choice and more freedom for families to choose where to send their children, the reality is that it is at least as large a step backward by handing more power into the hands of the federal government. Consider the fact that federal funds always have strings attached to them, and that any recipient of federal funds will eventually have to comply with federal stipulations. Then what happens is that the path of least resistence is to simply comply with federal dictates rather that forego the federal subsidies or exemptions. A good example of this sort of tactic is 501(c)(3) status being used as a tool to gag speech in churches. The government offers a perk, the people fall for it, and thus the federal government acquires more control.<br /><br />This is precisely how clever manipulators of the system coax us toward a more fascistic system with the illusory promise of "free markets". Were we to follow the CfG's advice, the federal government would slowly (or perhaps quite rapidly) expand its power both economically and politically. It is precisely the sort of principled stand taken by Ron Paul that guards against this trickery and lights the path to true free market solutions. The fact that the rest of Washington is not onboard is an indictment against Washington, not Ron Paul.Gonnyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11673878470946330593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835301.post-59890820001289577332007-07-09T13:53:00.000-05:002007-10-30T04:00:00.792-05:00Madison and the General WelfareI am constantly having to re-explain to various people I encounter that the general welfare clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is not carte blanch to the Congress. I then cite Madison's several statements to this effect. But this citation is usually very laborious both for me and for those whom I refer as I normally have to point to several different web pages, each with additional information that is non-essential to the Madison quote itself. So I have now consolidated the main Madison quotes on the subject here for easy reference.<br /><br /><em>Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831</em><br /><blockquote><p>With respect to the words, "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the details of power connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution... [that] was not contemplated by the creators.</p></blockquote><br /><em>Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792</em><br /><blockquote><p>If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.</p></blockquote><br /><em>House of Representatives, February 7, 1792</em><br /><blockquote><p>If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.<br /><br />The language held in various discussions of this house is a proof that the doctrine in question was never entertained by this body. Arguments, wherever the subject would permit, have constantly been drawn from the peculiar nature of this government, as limited to certain enumerated powers, instead of extending, like other governments, to all cases not particularly excepted.</p></blockquote><br /><em>The Federalist #41</em><br /><blockquote><p>Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."<br /><br />But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.<br /><br />The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation! </p></blockquote><br /><em>1792, in disapproval of Congress appropriating $15,000 to assist some French refugees</em><br /><blockquote><p>I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.</p></blockquote><br /><em>Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 6, 1788</em><br /><blockquote><p>[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend it's jurisdiction.</p></blockquote><p>Addendum: Here also is a relevant quote from Thomas Jefferson:</p><blockquote><p>Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.</p></blockquote>Gonnyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11673878470946330593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835301.post-18257824442331812642007-06-20T16:22:00.000-05:002007-06-20T16:56:38.064-05:00Hannity's HumanitarianismAs most astute readers are by now aware, in the second Republican Presidential debate in <st1:state st="on">South Carolina</st1:state> - hosted by Fox News - a certain Congressman Ron Paul of <st1:state st="on">Texas</st1:state> made quite the splash by suggesting that <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> foreign policy ought to be one of non-interventionism.<br /><p class="MsoNormal">During the post-debate coverage, one Sean Hannity had a spirited exchange with Congressman Paul over the morality of interventionist war:</p><br /><object height="350" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KNz0pta4PVU"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KNz0pta4PVU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="350" width="425"></embed></object><blockquote>Hannity: <span style="font-style: italic;">“Are you saying then that the world has no moral obligation in the first Gulf War, when an innocent country is being pillaged and people are being raped and murdered and slaughtered, or in the case of Saddam, he’s gassing his own people, are you suggesting we have no moral obligation? … You stand by and let that immorality happen?</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span><span style="font-style: italic;">You support that? … You would stand by and do that, I would not.</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span><span style="font-style: italic;">I think that’s immoral.”</span></blockquote><span style="">Oh really? What most astute readers may or may not be aware of are Hannity’s previous statements regarding just such circumstances in the past. I’ll let Hannity speak for himself regarding Kosovo:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">"Why should one </span><st1:country-region style="font-style: italic;" st="on"><st1:place st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-style: italic;"> airman give up his life when our national security is not in imminent danger?"</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">March 24, 1999</span> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-style: italic;">"Congressman Moran, a couple of things that are in my mind. Number one is the president has really failed to lay out before the American people the reasons why we need to be involved militarily. That's number one.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">And then we go back to Henry Kissinger's test, which is number one, is there a vital </span><st1:country-region style="font-style: italic;" st="on"><st1:place st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-style: italic;"> national interest? And do we have a plan to disengage? What's the exit strategy? I don't see that we've met that test either. And why does it have to happen this second, this hour? Why don't we have a national debate first?"</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">March 24, 1999</span><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-style: italic;">"But you know what? There's a lot of massacres going on in the world. As you know, 37,000 Kurds in </span><st1:country-region style="font-style: italic;" st="on">Turkey</st1:country-region><span style="font-style: italic;">, over a million people in </span><st1:country-region style="font-style: italic;" st="on"><st1:place st="on">Sudan</st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-style: italic;">. We have hundreds of thousands in </span><st1:country-region style="font-style: italic;" st="on">Rwanda</st1:country-region><span style="font-style: italic;"> and </span><st1:country-region style="font-style: italic;" st="on"><st1:place st="on">Burundi</st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-style: italic;">. I mean, where do we stop?"</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">March 24, 1999</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-style: italic;">"Slobodan Milosevic is a bad guy. He's an evil man. Horrible things are happening. I agree with that. Is Bill O'Reilly then saying we go to </span><st1:country-region style="font-style: italic;" st="on">Rwanda</st1:country-region><span style="font-style: italic;">, </span><st1:country-region style="font-style: italic;" st="on">Burundi</st1:country-region><span style="font-style: italic;">, </span><st1:country-region style="font-style: italic;" st="on">Somalia</st1:country-region><span style="font-style: italic;">, </span><st1:country-region style="font-style: italic;" st="on"><st1:place st="on">Sudan</st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-style: italic;">? Where does this stop? And when you look at sheer numbers, 2,000 -- and I'm not minimizing death. It's horrible. What this man is doing with ethnic cleansing is abhorrent, but sheer numbers -- 2,000 killed in the last year versus hundreds of thousands, millions in some cases in other parts of the world. Are you saying the </span><st1:country-region style="font-style: italic;" st="on"><st1:place st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-style: italic;"> should go to all those places?"</span><o:p></o:p><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">on "The O'Reilly Factor," April 5, 1999</span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:10;" ><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">But, gentle reader, lest you be mistaken, there is one key difference between the <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region></st1:place> war and Kosovo that renders Hannity’s “nuanced” view valid.<span style=""> </span>The difference?<span style=""> </span>Kosovo was undertaken by a Democrat President, <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> under a Republican.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p>But even that cannot let him off the hypocrisy hook, as his statements to Congressman Paul were not just specific to <st1:country-region st="on">Iraq</st1:country-region>, but were broader blanket statements that it would be immoral for the <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> not to intervene and “fight for freedom wherever there’s trouble” (as GI Joe would put it).<span style=""></span></p>Gonnyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11673878470946330593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835301.post-1128023515545173792005-09-29T14:33:00.000-05:002005-09-29T15:38:59.083-05:00The Root of Poverty and WealthToday I received a news alert by e-mail that mentioned a project to develop a laptop that costs only $100. I was immediately interested and clicked to view the article. Much to my dismay, however, I found that this was yet another example of a brilliant mind wasted in pursuit of misguided, utopian fantasies.<br /><br />As I learned, Nicholas Negroponte, co-founder of the Media Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has embarked upon a plan to develop a $100 laptop, not so that he can realize an entrepreneurial dream of profits and success or bring an affordable laptop to the mass-market, but ostensibly so he can do his bit to help so-called “developing nations.”<br /><br />Operating under the name “One Laptop Per Child” (OLPC), Negroponte plans to partner with repressive governments such as those of Communist China and Brazil to provide laptops to those countries’ students. I can only assume that he believes, like many people, that by placing high-tech computers into the hands of those in poorer nations, it will contribute toward an automatic lifting of that country out of poverty and into the modern industrial age.<br /><br />Indeed, Mr. Negroponte is only one of a legion of hopelessly deluded do-gooders, such as those affiliated with the “Live 8” and ONE.org programs, all of whom mistakenly believe that if we could all just shovel enough money and resources to these dysfunctional nations, they’ll somehow magically come into the 20th Century (and perhaps the 21st someday afterward). Never mind the fact that nobody had to shovel any such resources to lift freer Western nations to their present heights.<br /><br />The problem here is a fundamental misunderstanding of the root of poverty and wealth.<br /><br />Poverty is a natural state. That is to say, nature does not furnish Man with the things necessary to his survival automatically. This state of natural poverty can only be overcome by the application of Man's mind – his primary and only means of survival. For Man's mind to work at its best requires freedom. This is why we don't see engineers in totalitarian countries (such as North Korea) coming up with brilliant designs for revolutionary laptops to start distributing to the rest of the world, but we <em>do</em> see them in (relatively) free countries.<br /><br />Simply giving wealth over to impoverished countries will not help them in the least. Poverty and wealth are effects, not root causes. Thus the cause of poverty cannot simply be a lack of wealth. The root cause of these countries' poverty is their lack of freedom, and therefore no amount of aid or generosity will solve their fundamental problem. Until the issues of freedom and individual rights are addressed in these nations, all such benevolence will be throwing money down a black hole – or much worse.<br /><br />If you doubt any of this, look at the decades and decades wherein huge sums of international aid that have been repeatedly heaped upon such countries. Observe that, for the most part, it has always been the same countries receiving such aid over the decades. This aid has accomplished nothing and only serves to further entrench the oppression there by sheltering such regimes from the natural consequences of their policies. By aiding and abetting these regimes in their endeavor to evade the inevitable reality of their policies, Mr. Negroponte and his ilk have become willing accomplices to the continued oppression.Gonnyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11673878470946330593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835301.post-1111009244558400522005-03-21T15:38:00.000-06:002005-03-23T09:32:04.770-06:00The Power of Principles<br>    We often hear people speak of “principles” but few ever define exactly what they mean and why they’re needed. With this blog, I will attempt to do just that.<br /><br /><strong>Principles in Ethics<br /></strong>    In the same way matter is composed of atoms, every issue is composed of one or more abstract principles.<br /><br />    Principles are comprehensive. They transcend individual issues, thus serving as a guide to action even in uncharted territory. Their transcendental nature means that all thoughts, actions, and beliefs are logically consistent, whereas without principles, separate individual positions on an assortment of issues with no guiding principles can easily come into conflict. Principles enable one to see to the core meaning of a given issue and discover its true deepest nature, rather than only seeing its surface, superficial implications.<br /><br /><strong>Principles in Science</strong><br />    In a less esoteric field, the value of general and universal principles can be easily seen. Consider the principle of gravity, or the principle of magnetism, or any number of mathematical principles. An orange plus another orange is two oranges, but what if we add two apples together? If we do not grasp the abstract principle of one plus one equals two, then we would be left to ask such ridiculous questions as this. Each time a new situation arose, we would have to start at square one. Therefore we must recognize and identify the general, abstract principle that unifies and explains each individual case. The same is true in the field of ethics.<br /><br /><strong>Why We Need Principles<br /></strong>    It isn’t enough to know what you think on a particular issue. You should know why you think what you think, and know what principle guided you to your conclusion. Whether you consciously recognize principles or not, every stand you take on an issue carries with it one or more implicit principles. For example, a stand against slavery carries with it the principle of the dignity and sovereignty of the individual, which has implications far beyond the issue of slavery alone.<br /><br />    But if we do not consciously define our principles, we are bound to promote conflicting ideas, as I will presently demonstrate:<br /> <br />    To again use slavery as an example, it is a contradiction in principles to oppose slavery, but support Socialism. Both ideas state, in principle, that the fruits of a man’s labors do not belong to him, but rather to someone else. And on a deeper level, they both rely upon the principle that a man is not an end in himself, but only a means to the ends of others.<br /><br />    Another example of such a conflict would be opposition to racism, but support for racial “pride” parades, holidays, and other events where people extol the virtues of a particular race. The former stand rejects the principle of identifying and valuing an individual according to their race, while the latter stand embraces it.<br /><br />    People adopt such contradictory positions because they fail to consciously identify their abstract principles.<br /><br /><strong>Principles versus Pragmatism</strong><br />    There is an alternative method of evaluating issues and arriving at conclusions, and that method is known as “Pragmatism”. Pragmatism takes the short-term view of an isolated situation and decides on a course of action without regard for the principles underlying in those actions. With pragmatism, the ends are often seen as justifying the means. Pragmatism also is often confused with being “practical”. But in the long-run, pragmatism is no more practical than it is practical to ignore the principle of gravity, or principles of mathematics.<br /><br />    An example of the folly of pragmatism would be an individual who wants to discourage racism and also wants to counter its effects through unprincipled, pragmatic actions. Let us suppose such a person supports policies of racial preferences, for example giving jobs or scholarships to people largely based upon their race. Their pragmatic reasoning is that since racism exists and therefore has certain negative effects, they will simply attempt to reverse those effects by preferring the discriminated race. After all, that seems like the “practical” solution. The noble goal certainly seems like an end worthy of the means of applying racial preferences. But in fact, such a person’s principles (conscious or unconscious) are confused and in conflict because they have not taken the time to define their principles and act according to them. Instead, they have only looked at the one isolated situation and decided on an expedient solution without considering the broader implications.<br /><br />    Beware when people plea for the “practical”, because this usually means they are trying to ignore the principles involved and instead pursue the expedient.<br /><br /><strong>Summary</strong><br />    We have seen how principles are important in the decisions we make and the stands we take, how they allow us to adapt to new situations, and how they help us avoid adopting contradictory positions. Be sure to make a conscious effort to identify your principles and then to apply them to your life by testing each of your ideas against them, looking for inconsistencies.Gonnyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11673878470946330593noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835301.post-1110992767221227582005-03-16T10:58:00.000-06:002005-03-16T11:06:07.223-06:00The Power Market    Corruption, graft, fraud – these are all features we’ve come to associate with so-called “crony capitalism”. From the Enron disaster to the Haliburton sweetheart deals, it seems as though graft and corruption are running rampant. And most disturbing is that our own political leaders appear to be involved on some level. But what do we do? What can we do to stop this when those supposedly enforcing the laws appear to have little regard for the law?<br /><br />    As the phrase “crony capitalism” implies, much of this problem can be traced back to instances where certain individuals and entities were afforded special “favors” from their friends in the government, in return for other favors of some kind or another – such as campaign donations, etc. But what is the root cause of this problem? While it has practically been accepted as a definitive characteristic of politicians to be dishonest and prone to what we will diplomatically refer to as “influence”, the question remains, if this is such an inherent trait to politicians, what can we do to stop, or at least curb this? After all, as much as we may want to, we cannot live without politicians of one kind or another. At some level, bureaucracy must exist. So are we doomed to live with the inherent flaws of having human politicians?<br /><br />    Fortunately, the answer is no.<br /><br /><strong>Political Power is a Commodity<br /></strong>    Since we’ve established that politicians, in general, being human as they are, are susceptible to “influence” and therefore corruption, and since this is not a feature of human nature we can eliminate without eliminating the humanity of the politician, we must find a way to contain, or “defang” the politician, rendering his flawed human nature harmless. “How can we do that”, you ask? The answer is by recognizing the existence of, and subsequently eliminating the “Power Market”.<br /><br />    What is the Power Market? It is the hypothetical place where political power, wielded by the hand of the politician, is traded like a commodity in exchange for other commodities. Where does this market exist? Everywhere and nowhere. But we can see its stock in trade everywhere we look. It’s easy to spot if you know what to look for. You can see where such trades have taken place by looking at the payment doled out by the politicians. This payment takes the form of things such as corporate welfare, subsidies, protected monopolies, and special rules and exemptions intended to give one group an advantage over others, among other things.<br /><br /><strong>The Vulnerability of All Political Systems<br /></strong>    So the question naturally follows, if the Power Market is the source of the corruption, can it be defeated by moving away from a system of trade to some other political/economic system? If history is any guide, the answer is no. Political systems of all kinds have witnessed this problem to varying degrees, and the more authoritarian the system, the worse the problem – even in countries where market economies were virtually banned.<br />    We thus see that attempts to restrict the trade of the Power commodity have been futile. So we must take another approach: If we cannot restrict trade of this commodity, let us ban the commodity altogether!<br /><br /><strong>The Solution of the Leashed Legislator</strong><br />    The way to eliminate the trade of political power for favors is by eradicating the commodity itself. The answer to the question of how to keep a business interest from “buying” political influence is by making it so there is nothing to buy. The answer to the question of how to keep politicians from “selling out” is by giving them nothing to sell. By this means we can drain the Power Market of its lifeblood.<br />    Would this mean the politician is utterly powerless? Certainly not. After all, what would be the purpose of a powerless politician? But if we can strictly limit their power to only those proper functions of their position – that is, of securing and protecting our rights – then we will have little fear that they will sell “favors”. After all, the only “favor” they could extend would be that of protecting one’s rights.<br /><br />    In addition to eliminating business influence in politics, and political influence in business, the adoption of the above we would likely also see a decrease in the amount of corporate corruption overall since these corporations would be left to make profits only through their own productivity and not through any favors or exceptions extended to them. But whenever the path of least resistance is to use political power (the power to use force) to gain values; whenever that Pandora’s Box of a tool exists to be wielded by the unscrupulous to gain advantages, corruption is inevitable – both in business and in government alike.Gonnyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11673878470946330593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835301.post-1110579864525288662005-03-11T16:15:00.000-06:002005-03-16T10:44:00.963-06:00Social Security “Privatization”<em>(Note: It should be pointed out that the remote possibility exists that some in Congress will promote Social Security “Privatization” that actually involves tax-payers being able to freely invest their Social Security money in truly private accounts that they truly own and over which they will have full control. This would undoubtedly be a positive development. However, as stated above, the possibility that such a bill will pass both houses is indeed remote. With that in mind, the following commentary should be taken and understood in the context of the variations of “privatization” that are more likely to emerge. It is these far less “private” variations that are the subject of the following blog.)</em><br /><br><strong>An “ownership society”?<br /></strong><br />    When President Bush tells us that he wants to see an “ownership society”, how can we disagree? After all, doesn’t it make plain horse sense that the nation would be better off if everyone owned their own home, car, property, etc? Don’t people act more responsibly with things they own themselves? Of course! All of this is true.<br /><br />    But when we hear this term “ownership society” applied to Social Security “Privatization”, what are we really talking about?<br /><br />    The current fairytales being peddled in conservative circles tell of a fantastic world where each taxpayer will actually <em>own</em> a personal, private investment account in place of the current Social Security arrangement. According to the legend, this private account will be under complete control of the person who owns it, all the money they pay in will go only into their private account, and the federal government will be powerless to deprive them of the earnings or to otherwise interfere with it.<br /><br />    Such a reform that places this level of independence, self-reliance, freedom, etc, into the hands of the individual is the stuff dreams are made of… literally. Those who actually think this is what is planned are dreaming.<br /><br /><strong>Behind the buzz</strong><br /><br />    As with most mythology, the myth is much more fantastic than the reality. Social Security “Privatization” is no exception. The reality is that, in the best case, this “Privatization” scheme will mean personal investment accounts that are subject to government regulation, meaning you only get from them what the government says you get with no guarantees that you’ll actually get back even a fraction of what you paid in. After all, if they can pass a law tomorrow lowering your Social Security benefits, they can pass legislation taking back your “personal” investment account so long as Social Security is in their hands. What the government giveth, the government can taketh away. So there is no guarantee that this investment will ultimately make it back into your hands when you retire.* (Remember, this is the <em>best case</em>!) In the worst case, the only major change is one for the worse by putting Social Security revenues into the stock market allegedly to earn a better return <strong><em>for the government</em></strong> on the money, leaving the benefits to be doled out the same as they are at present – that is, at the government’s sole discretion.<br /><br />    Why would I say that investing the money in the stock market would be a change for the worse? I hear protests saying, “But wouldn’t this mean a huge shot in the arm for the economy by dropping a mountain of capital into productive circulation?” It may mean that, yes. But it means much more. It means that the government would have controlling interests in the economy. Let’s elaborate on this point.<br /><br /><strong>Politicizing the portfolio – the feds set the menu</strong><br /><br />    First of all, it ought to go without saying that federal bureaucrats, not wanting to be held responsible for massive losses, are going to pass guidelines requiring that Social Security funds only be invested into approved firms. If you thought the government was going to be an “equal opportunity investor”, you’re in for a wake-up call. This means the feds will have to establish a list of approved stocks, and they will likely go as far as micromanaging how much is invested in which companies, all depending on whose version of the measure eventually passes both houses. But in either case, it won’t be up to the tax payer to choose how they want their money invested. In the best case, look for the government to give you a list of investment options you get to choose from. In the worst case, it will be entirely out of your hands, as will be the profits earned from the investments.<br /><br />    Even assuming the best case, we have a list of government-approved stocks. And don’t you know that every company out there will be fighting their hardest to get a piece of the massive government cash cow being offered? This puts the federal government in the stock market’s driver’s seat as probably the single largest investor in the market. In addition to being in position to greatly steer the market, the federal government could potentially become a majority share holder in many corporations, effectively bringing that corporation under direct control of the government. i.e. Fascism.<br /><br /><strong>From stock market to favor market<br /></strong><br />    In addition to federal bureaucrats having great influence over the market in general and even possible direct control through majority share holdings, they would also be in position to elicit favors from corporations in exchange for the privilege of having their company added to the list of approved stocks. The prospect of getting millions upon millions of tax-payer money by being added to the approved list would likely drive corporations to do just about anything to be approved. And when something’s in high demand, it asks a high price. Subsequently, look for bureaucrats to ask for some big favors in exchange, some of them under-the-table. If you liked Enron, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!<br /><br />    No longer would the stock market trade merely in stocks, it would then trade in government favors and political power. The potential for this to incubate corruption both in big business, as well as in government, is virtually unlimited. The more favors the bureaucrat has to offer, the more “product” he has to “sell” to the highest bidder. The more favors there are for the businessman to “buy”, the more he’ll try to “buy” the bureaucrat. If we want politicians to stop selling out to special interests, then we need to give them nothing to sell. If we want big businesses to stop buying politicians, we need to give them nothing to buy. That which the politician would sell, and that which the businessman would buy is, in a word, power. This is why the limitation of government power and influence must be curtailed.<br /><br /><strong>The “compelling interest” of the “public good”</strong><br /><br />    Given a few years of this entanglement of the stock market with the government, and the security of Social Security will be seen by many to be imperiled by the regular ups and downs of the stock market. Reactionaries (of which Washington has no shortage) will quickly call for government action at the first sign of a bear market. Now that the government’s Social Security program has a vested interest in the stock market’s performance, many in Congress will argue that the government now has a “compelling interest” in tightly regulating the market in an attempt to avoid losses in the Social Security accounts. Thus we will have welcomed in a giant Trojan Horse -- a Trojan Horse that will bring with it even more government-business entanglement and corruption.<br /><br /><strong>There’s no going back</strong><br /><br />    After this amount of capital is invested in the stock market, there will likely be no going back. Once invested, any withdrawal of Social Security funds from the market would constitute an unprecedented sell-off and would likely signal a massive depression. So should we change our minds about this all being a good idea, it will be extremely difficult, perhaps even dangerous, to turn back. Any planned withdrawal would have to be conducted with extreme care and would have to be very gradual.<br /><br />    But even at that, it is unlikely that bureaucrats, after having tasted such power and influence over the nation’s economy, will agree to hand over the reigns. And likewise, the special interests that stand to benefit from having their sweetheart politician in the position to dole out favors and competitive advantages are going to be reluctant support the phasing out of the very program which makes those favors possible. Thus it will be a self-perpetuating behemoth.<br /><br /><strong>Market Nationalization</strong><br /><br />    Rather than actually privatizing anything, Social Security “privatization” would likely lead to an unprecedented nationalization of our economy. The nation’s economic center of gravity would shift drastically toward Washington and the individual tax payer would have little or nothing more to show for it. In short, Social Security “privatization” would be anything but private.<br /><br />___________________<br />* In 1960 the Supreme Court ruled in <em>Flemming v. Nestor</em> that Social Security is a payroll tax, and as such, tax payers are not entitled to any guaranteed benefits.Gonnyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11673878470946330593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835301.post-1100017297048933912004-11-09T10:13:00.000-06:002004-11-09T10:25:25.766-06:00Democracy is a Process – Not a System    We hear much talk today in America about “our Democracy” or our “system of Democracy”. Without delving into the finer distinctions of how we are actually not a Democracy but rather are a Constitutionally-limited Republic, I will endeavor to expose the dangers in viewing Democracy as a System or as an end in itself rather than a means to an end.
<br />
<br />    First let us define our terms for the purposes of this article:
<br /><center><table width="70%" border="0">
<br /><strong>System
<br /></strong>    A set of interacting processes that comprise a single coherent whole.
<br />
<br /><strong>Democracy</strong>
<br />    A process by which the majority rules in all decisions. The doctrine of majority-rule. <tbody></tbody></table></center>
<br />    The point I intend to make with the above definitions is that I wish to differentiate between the concept of a “System” and the concept of a “Process” (which is a component of a system).
<br />
<br /><strong>Democracy as a system
<br /></strong>
<br />    According to many, Democracy is a political system. It is a system where the people (or rather, the majority of the people) rule in all matters. This leads many to the conclusion that anything the majority decides must be the law of the land. After all, if Democracy is our system, and if that system states that “the People” (the majority) are the ultimate authority, then anything the majority of the people want must become law.
<br />    A problematic side-effect of this view is that lynch mobs are then examples of properly functioning democratic bodies as no limits are placed on the scope of the decisions being made. Thus we see there is a fatal flaw in the concept that Democracy is, in and of itself, a complete system. Using Democracy as the sole component of a governmental system is like dropping a high-performance engine into a car, but leaving out the brakes and steering – it is woefully incomplete and dangerous!
<br />
<br /><strong>Democracy as a process
<br /></strong>
<br />    To many, the distinction between a process and a system will sound like quibbling and hair-splitting. But the importance of this distinction will soon become clear to the reader. Democracy is a process of making decisions. It answers the question, “who shall decide?” However, it does not answer the question, “what types of decisions shall be made?” or “what shall be the scope of the decisions made?” This is the critical missing element that keeps it from being a complete system.
<br />
<br />    Most Americans would agree that freedom is our ultimate goal, our end. But many confuse the concept of Democracy as the embodiment of this end. This is not the case. Democracy does not equal freedom. Freedom is a result of limited government power. Democracy is one of many means by which government power is limited. But by itself it can also be a means by which government power is expanded. In fact, as the example of a lynch mob illustrates, Democracy, when practiced alone without any other moderating processes, can easily lead to the destruction of the rights of the individual. So then Democracy must not be our end, but rather must be one means to our end, that end being freedom.
<br />
<br /><strong>The utility of the Democratic process
<br /></strong>
<br />    You’ve doubtless heard much talk about things called “checks and balances” as it pertains to systems of government. Democracy is one such “check and balance”. Democracy is a means by which government can be kept accountable to the people it governs. This is conducive to freedom for obvious reasons. But as we have seen, Democracy by itself cannot achieve our ultimate end. And if we rely on it alone, we will be sorely disappointed.
<br />    What’s more, the Democratic process should not be used as a means for the majority to rule over the minority by using the State as its proxy. If this is done, not only is Democracy not serving its rightful purpose of keeping government in check, but it has become a mechanism for the very sort of oppression it was created to prevent!
<br />
<br /><strong>What shall be decided?</strong>
<br />
<br />    To complete our system, we still must answer the question, “what types of decisions shall be made?” In the American system of government, this question is answered by our Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land. The point here is that the government, and by extension, the people acting through the government through the Democratic process, are limited in the scope of what they may impose by force of law on their fellow citizens. That scope must be limited to the securing of individual rights. If the government or the “people” are granted power to use the force of law beyond this boundary, or worse, if they are given carte blanche to rule arbitrarily, then the very rights we sought to protect will now be endangered by the whim of the majority. We certainly don’t want our most fundamental rights, such as rights to speech or life, to be subject to the mercies of the ruling majority! Such rights must be held inviolate regardless of popular opinion and should not be subject to a vote.
<br />
<br /><strong>The rule of Law or the rule of Men?</strong>
<br />
<br />    Recently a 17 year old girl who was running for mayor in Minnesota (where state law requires her to be 21 to be eligible for office) was asked what she would do if she won the popular vote but would not be certified due to her age. Her response? She would take it to court because, “I doubt the judge would be able to say no to the popular vote. The people’s right to choose prevails over (state law).” In other words, she believes the people are above the law. This is why one of the primary questions that needs to be asked today is, do we wish to have the Rule of Law, or the Rule of Men? Do not forget that it was the Dark Ages when we saw the Rule of Men in the form of kings and despots. Whether we have one king, or a million kings makes little difference. Men are volatile and subject to whim.
<br />    One of the key turning points in the history of human civilization, insofar as government is concerned, was the advent of written law. This demarcated a point where men were no longer subject to the whims of their masters. They could now read the laws that were (literally) set in stone to which their masters would have to adhere. Punishments could no longer be arbitrary since the precise letter of the law was publicly known and could be pointed to.
<br />
<br />    An age of brute Democracy would signify a return to the age of the Rule of Men; an age where we have little use for actual written law but instead relegate everything to referenda and public opinion; an age where instead of suffering the tyranny of a single king, the minority suffers under the boot of a multitude of kings with whims that change with the seasons.
<br />
<br />    Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter once said, “…Law alone saves a society from being...ruled by mere brute power, however disguised.” Now couldn’t it be argued that brute Democracy is just a means by which law is made, and that we therefore are still under the Rule of Law? At first this argument sounds sensible, but the actual fact of the matter is that under such a Democratic “system”, law itself becomes nothing but a formality by which the whim of the moment is imposed on the people by force. Since law in no way restrains the actions of the majority so long as something is sufficiently popular, there is little actual need or use for law. Law should not be easily changed. One of the key features of the American Constitution, for example, is the fact that it is difficult to change. As a result, it resists transient whims and is normally only changed when there is very strong reason to do so.
<br />
<br /><strong>The proper role of Democracy</strong>
<br />
<br />    Democratic processes are a powerful tool to keep the government accountable for its actions. However, we must not let this tool be abused. The means by which we should keep such abuse from taking place is not through personal restraint, as we cannot depend on that. The means by which we prevent such abuse is the Rule of Law, and in the United States, this Law takes the form of the Constitution. If the Constitution denies the government the power to enact a law, it matters not how many people may be in favor of that law.
<br />Gonnyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11673878470946330593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835301.post-1067638816043643162003-10-31T16:20:00.000-06:002007-10-30T03:57:11.514-05:00Materialism and Socialism<br> We often hear about how Capitalists are materialistic, but it is my intention to prove in this article that Socialism is, in fact, the ultimate materialistic ideology. Toward this end, let us first define Materialism:
<br /><center><TABLE width="70%" border=0>
<br />(Taken from <a href="http://www.dictionary.com">www.dictionary.com</a>:)
<br /> ma•te•ri•al•ism n.
<br /> 1. Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
<br /> <b>2. The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life. </b>
<br /> 3. A great or excessive regard for worldly concerns.</TABLE></center>
<br /> For our purposes, we will concern ourselves with the second definition (#2 in bold). Also, there are many various incarnations of Capitalism, but for our purposes we shall understand “Capitalism” to mean laissez-faire Capitalism.
<br /><br> First, let us examine the primary concerns of each ideology:
<br /><br><center><TABLE width="70%" border=0><b>Laissez-faire:</b>
<br /> Primary concerns are individual freedom and the limitation of government power to interfere in private affairs. Government’s only role is to secure the peace and protect property rights. The initiation of force is prohibited to all parties, including government. Force is only legitimate in the defense of rights. The prohibition of the initiation of force and the preservation of individual rights is paramount, all other concerns are secondary.
<br /><br><b>Socialism:</b>
<br /> Primary concerns are the distribution of wealth and the material circumstances of “the people”. Coercive force of law is a legitimate means by which wealth and property can be “re-appropriated” (confiscated by threat of force) for the “good of the community”. Government (“community”) control of the means of production and “economic justice” (meaning the forced equal distribution of material wealth) are of primary importance. All other concerns (including individual freedom) are subordinate to these primary concerns.</TABLE></center>
<br /> Now given this comparative break-down of these two ideologies, it is readily apparent to the writer (and hopefully the reader) that material wealth is given much more emphasis in Socialism than in Laissez-faire Capitalism. Material wealth is only one of countless possible pursuits within the Laissez-faire system. But the acquisition of wealth is not an objective of Laissez-faire, but rather the preservation of rights and the non-initiation of force.
<br /><br> By contrast, Socialism’s primary function is to control the creation and distribution of wealth. Indeed in revolutionary Socialism it is even permissible (even encouraged) to take people’s lives through violent force who do now bow to the ideals of the forced confiscation of their property. Again, contrast this with Laissez-faire Capitalism’s prohibition of the initiation of force. Were Capitalism as materialistic as Socialism, it would condone the use of force and the taking of life in one’s pursuit for wealth. But it does the opposite. The concept of property rights alone prohibits one party from forcibly taking the property of another.
<br />
<br /> It would appear that Socialism is a much better fit for the accepted definition of materialism.
<br /><br> Let us further summarize what we have found here:
<br /> <b>Capitalism:</b> Freedom through the absence of force.
<br /> <b>Socialism:</b> Material equality by means of force.
<br /><br> “Who you callin’ materialist?”
<br />Gonnyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11673878470946330593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835301.post-1066919395725889642003-10-23T09:29:00.000-05:002007-10-30T03:57:11.525-05:00Do “We” have more rights than “I”?<br> In this day and age it is worth asking the question, “from where does government derive its rightful authority?” Whatever answer is to be found to this question must serve as the limit to government power. After all, nobody – not even government (especially government) – should go beyond that which can be rightly claimed.
<br />
<br /> To answer the question of the origin of government power, we must explore the origin of government itself. For the next bit, I will borrow heavily from Frederic Bastiat (see <a href="http://www.bastiat.org">www.bastiat.org</a>). Now let us transport ourselves back to the (strictly hypothetical) dawn of human civilization and witness the process of the emergence of government.
<br />
<br /> Let us picture two farmers working away in their fields. On occasion, a thief will come by these farmer’s fields and will steal some of their grain. But these farmers are too busy farming and tending their crops to concern themselves with the defense of their property. So they both decide to band together and share in the expense of hiring a handful of men to watch over their farms for them to thwart future attempts at theft. Thus they have established the first police force.
<br />
<br /> It is perfectly acceptable for these farmers to hire other men to use force to prevent thieves from stealing from them, because each farmer naturally and individually possesses the right to self-defense and the defense of their property. The hired men are only acting on behalf of the farmers’ own natural rights.
<br />
<br /> But now let us imagine that the second farmer fails to plan ahead and finds himself without any seed to re-plant his crops. So the second farmer says to the hired men (police), “would you please take for me some seed from the first farmer as I have none?” This is the same sort of theft that these men were hired to prevent. But now they are being asked to commit it themselves.
<br />
<br /> It is not acceptable for the second farmer to ask these men to take the other farmer’s property by force because it is not a natural right the farmer possesses, and therefore the hired men are not acting on behalf of any natural right. The farmer, working by proxy through the hired men, is one and the same as the thief he wanted to stop from stealing from his own field. If the farmer does not possess a right to take from another, neither do his hired proxies have such a right – even if (and especially if) the hired proxies are paid by both farmers.
<br />
<br /> The farmers entered into a joint venture of mutual protection since it was more efficient and cost-effective than hiring guards separately. We see that this primeval government was conceived by the farmers for the sole purpose of protecting their persons and property from bandits. This is the purpose of government and the reason it was established in the first place. But this government can only rightly do things that its founders had a right to do individually before the government was founded. If it is wrong for the individual to do a thing, it must also be wrong for the group to do the same thing because the group is composed of individuals.
<br />
<br /> Many today would have us believe that somehow groups enjoy more rights than individuals. That governments (which are nothing more than the modern analog to the hired men in the previous story) somehow enjoy more rights of power collectively than the individuals that comprise them. Governments are, after all, merely groups of individuals who have (more or less) mutually agreed to cooperate with one another for the common protection of their rights.
<br />
<br /> But the question must be asked, in political matters, at what point does the whole become more than the sum of its parts? Put another way, at what point does a group association acquire rights and powers that the individuals comprising the group do not possess separately? If the individual cannot justly take something from another by force, how many individuals must associate together for it to become just? 10? 100? 1,000? While 10 men collectively possess more physical strength than 1, do they posses more humanity? Do they, merely by means of their association, attain to something higher than the individual human? Something super-human? These questions hopefully illustrate the absurdity of the notion that governments can do things that are normally considered unjust, immoral, and criminal for the individual. Earthly government does not act on behalf of a Supreme Being, but rather on behalf of the mere mortals that comprise it. So how can government claim super-human privilege? Bastiat explained this concept well in his book, <i>The Law</i>:
<br /><center><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="70%" background="" border=0>
<br /> If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. … If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law … is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.</table></center>
<br /> Another scathingly clear indictment of our present generation’s view of government can be found in Bastiat’s <i>Government</i>:
<br /><center><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="70%" background="" border=0>
<br /> We all therefore, put in our claim, under some pretext or other, and apply to Government. We say to it, "I am dissatisfied at the proportion between my labor and my enjoyments. I should like, for the sake of restoring the desired equilibrium, to take a part of the possessions of others. But this would be dangerous. Could not you facilitate the thing for me? Could you … lend me gratuitously some capital which, you may take from its possessor? Could you not bring up my children at the public expense? or grant me some prizes? … By this mean I shall gain my end with an easy conscience, for the law will have acted for me, and I shall have all the advantages of plunder, without its risk or its disgrace!"</table></center>
<br /> So the next time a politician is promoting one law or another, ask yourself, “do I personally possess the right to do what this law would have the government do on my behalf?”
<br />Gonnyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11673878470946330593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835301.post-1066323837606302192003-10-16T12:03:00.000-05:002007-10-30T03:57:11.535-05:00Who Needs Property Rights?<br> One of the most central issues to libertarians and most “conservatives” is that of Property Rights. That is, the right to own, use, and dispose of your property as you see fit. This is also probably one of the most violated rights in America. But who really needs property rights? Who benefits most from them?
<br />
<br /> It is the argument of those on the socialist/big-government side of the aisle that property rights benefit the “rich” (whoever that is) and not the poor. But this could not be further from the truth. The poor, the struggling, and the “middle class” need property rights as much or more than the so-called “rich”. How is that, you ask?
<br />
<br /> Property rights are more critical to the freedom of those with little property than those with a lot of property. If a wealthy person who owns many, many pieces of property has one of them taken away, or has the use of it limited, the rich person hasn’t lost a great deal of personal liberty. But if a poor person who owns very little has their rights of ownership violated, it could easily impact them severely.
<br />
<br /> Small farms are one example of a middle-class to lower-income group to whom property rights are extremely crucial. Without protections on property rights, many struggling farmers will lose everything, and many already have.
<br />
<br /> In America we enjoy a high degree of income mobility. That means that you can be very poor today, but be doing quite well tomorrow. This is an important feature of our economic system. And a vital component to this income mobility is property. Without sufficient rights to ownership and property, we would lack the springboard needed to engage this income mobility. Property and ownership is often a critical tool necessary to lift one’s self up from low income levels. Were property rights to be wholly denied, the poor would have little to no means of ever improving their situation themselves.
<br />
<br /> In fact, there were times when women and blacks were not allowed to own property. It became a moral imperative to recognize these individual’s rights to property and ownership. Yet the same activist groups who would heartily agree that these instances were victories for civil rights are the same groups that want to infringe upon everyone’s property rights! Surely this would be a drastic step backwards. Indeed, even farther backwards than it once was. If it was so important for the disadvantaged to be able to own property back then, why is it not today?
<br />
<br /> In addition to property rights and rights of ownership being critical to economic viability, property rights are also vitally important to personal liberty. Without property rights, the government can take what little you have, or render what you have unusable. If you are forced into a situation of living without ownership of anything, or worse, living on the government’s aid, there are many liberties you lose. For instance, living in government housing projects carries with it various and sundry limitations, restrictions, and regulations, some of which are much more burdensome than if you lived in a privately owned apartment.
<br />
<br /> Speaking of apartments, let me draw upon another example of how property rights and rights of ownership are critical to personal liberty. There have been several cases in recent history where owners of apartments have been forced by the government to allow people to reside in their apartments who practice things that violate the owner’s principles. “But apartment complex owners are rich,” I hear you say. Despite the fact that, rich or poor, everyone has the same rights, these same government regulations apply to lower-income households who offer to rent a room out of their homes to try to make some extra income. Under these laws, people are forced to allow people of whom they disapprove live within their own homes! In some cases, the home owners have Christian beliefs and their religion prohibits them from aiding or abetting what the Bible refers to as sin. Thus, when an unmarried couple, or a homosexual couple want to rent their room, the home owner is forced by law to violate their religious beliefs – in their own home no less! This is a position in which nobody should be placed. The abridgement of property rights and rights of ownership in this case means that the home owners (or apartment owners for that matter) do not, in fact, have freedom of religion. Rich or poor, these kinds of violations of fundamental rights cannot be allowed. Even if you’re not religious you must ask yourself the question: where will it stop and where will it lead?
<br />
<br /> With cases like these where one’s most fundamental rights are at stake, we see that rights of ownership and property are basic and essential human rights. But let us look at one more example.
<br />
<br /> In the so-called “third world” where there is little rule of law and only rule of men, it is not in any way inconceivable that the ruler of one of these countries could seize one’s home, one’s land, one’s car, or anything for that matter, for his own purposes. Not only for his own purposes, but upon a completely arbitrary basis, and without due process or any need to give account for why it is being taken. If such a “third world” government wanted to take something you have, you have no alternative or recourse but to comply.
<br />
<br /> Contrast this with how even the President of the United States legally could not arbitrarily decide to confiscate your home, your car, etc. If he really wanted to and had good and compelling reason, he would still have to give account for it and there would have to be due process. This is because in America we still have a modicum of property rights. But it is not where it should be as I’ve shown above.
<br />
<br /> The underlying principle that must be understood is that if you are denied rights of ownership and property by the government, then essentially that property is ultimately owned (insofar as it is controlled) by the government, and you are only allowed to keep it, use it, and dispense with it at the pleasure of the government.
<br />
<br /> As we have seen, property rights are an imperative not only to the wealthy, but also, and more importantly, to the “middle class” and to the poor. Without them, we cannot long be free. Nor can we command our own economic destiny without them.Gonnyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11673878470946330593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835301.post-1065644229401308912003-10-08T15:18:00.000-05:002007-10-30T03:57:11.549-05:00Obi Wan Was Wrong – Don’t Use the Force!<br> Socialists and so-called “Progressives” constantly tell us that their “plan” is kinder and gentler because it is a plan based upon giving to the poor. They attempt to contrast this with Capitalism which they claim is harsh and mean-spirited, especially to those in need. But are they correct in saying this? Have they thought it through? Let us examine precisely what a Capitalist “system” really is.
<br />
<br /> First, Capitalism isn’t a “system” so much as it is the absence of a system. Capitalism is simply a naturally occurring form of economy that forms with the presence of a government that protects individual rights including the rights of property. The unstructured and free nature of Capitalism therefore disqualifies Capitalism from being considered an actual “system” in a true sense. Thus if we are discussing forms of government, then we shouldn’t actually be discussing Capitalism as it is little more than a naturally occurring phenomena. Instead, we should be discussing the form of government that allows truly free Capitalism to exist: limited government.
<br />
<br /> So now let us compare limited government with socialistic government. First, it is important to realize that within limited government not only can Capitalism exist, but a host of other kinds of economy. Indeed, given the limited nature of a limited government and its hands-off approach to individual freedom, individuals are free to pursue whatever sort of economy they desire. Unionized factories? No problem! Communes? We can do that. In fact, any kind of voluntary system you can imagine can be had alongside Capitalism in a free, limited system of government. The key term here is “voluntary”.
<br />
<br /> So why can’t we have Socialism alongside Capitalism? We can have voluntary redistribution of wealth to the poor in a free system. What we cannot have in a free system is involuntary, forced or coerced “giving” (otherwise known as “taking”). Giving is a voluntary act. Therefore nothing can be considered as giving to the poor if it is forcibly confiscated. Forced confiscation is known as taking – not giving.
<br />
<br /> Thus we see that Socialism is not merely a system whereby people give to the poor. It is a system of force and coercion whereby people must either render to the State what it demands or be punished. Contrast this with the free and voluntary benevolence that is possible under limited government and alongside Capitalism. The presence of Capitalism does not coercively force anyone to conduct their affairs in any particular way. This leaves each person free to pursue their own views of how they want to live their lives. In such a free system, nobody is allowed to coercively force someone else to accept their views. But Socialism leaves no option but Socialism. Worse, if you attempt to choose something other than Socialism (by refusing to participate) you will be punished by force of law, meaning that one specific view (that of Socialism) is forced upon all. No one is free to act upon an opposite view. So we see that Socialism is hostile to freedom of choice and freedom to act on one’s own views.
<br />
<br /> Now let us briefly examine the nature of government. This will be a very short examination since government is nothing more than force. Some will tell you that government is many things, but the truth is that when you boil any act of government down to its root you will always find force. Force is the only means by which government can obtain your cooperation. If government fines you for speeding, they can more or less depend on you to pay the fine because they know you are aware that if you do not pay the fine you will feel the iron fist of government. So we see that even more passive methods of enforcement, such as fines, still have their basis in the use of force.
<br />
<br /> Socialism must operate through government and government is nothing more than force. Therefore, Socialism is a specific application of coercive force. But isn’t Socialism supposed to be about charity? This is a good time to hear from Frederic Bastiat, a French economist who lived through the brutal French Revolution:
<br /><CENTER>
<br /><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="70%" background="" border=0>
<br /> "There are three regions in which mankind can dwell: a lower, that of plunder; a higher, that of charity; and an intermediate, that of justice. Governments perform only actions having force as their sanction. Now, it is permitted to force someone to be just, but not to force him to be charitable. Law, when it would do by force what ethics does by persuasion, far from rising to the region of charity, falls into the domain of plunder. The proper domain of law and governments is justice."</TABLE></CENTER>
<br />
<br /> While charity cannot be forced without it becoming plunder, we can freely choose charity within a system of limited government and even as part of a Capitalist society. We can be as generous and as benevolent as our hearts desire and nobody can forcibly keep us from these goals. The one and only thing we cannot do under such a system is to use coercive force to press our views and ways upon others. This is the primary point of distinction between a free system and Socialism.
<br />
<br /> We must then conclude that the aims of Socialism – namely the provision for the poor, common ownership, etc – can all still be achieved alongside, or even through Capitalism. The only missing component is that of coercive force. And I hope we can all agree that we need as little coercive force in our lives as possible. Let us all be free to live our lives as we see fit. Let us not have people forcing their views upon others. Let us have limited government! And let the socialist realize that his “plan” is neither kind nor gentle.
<br />Gonnyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11673878470946330593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835301.post-1064958857155455732003-09-30T16:54:00.000-05:002007-10-30T03:57:11.560-05:00The Gaping Hole in the Gap Argument<br> Much ado has been made about the growing gap between the so-called “rich” and the “poor”. Whether this gap is growing is itself a matter of debate. But let’s accept, for a moment, that it is indeed increasing. What does this mean?
<br />
<br /> First, is the gap increasing because the rich are getting richer? Or is it because the poor are getting poorer? Or both? The answer is that both the rich and poor are getting richer in real terms. The U.S. Census Bureau (<a href="http://www.census.gov">www.census.gov</a>) data on household income clearly shows an upward trend for both, indeed all, groups. And aside from this increase in monetary income, real wealth has been increasing in other ways as well. For instance more “poor” households have things like cell phones, computers, internet access, and Playstations than they did several years ago. Any sensible person would say that’s an increase in wealth – not a decrease!
<br />
<br /> So if the “poor” are getting “richer”, what’s with the growing gap? The answer is that the “rich” are getting “richer” too. Arguably, they are getting richer at a faster rate. But what problems does this pose? None that I can see. Unless, of course, you are the sort that begrudges your neighbor’s success. If you received a pay a raise and a new car, would you have a right to be outraged because your neighbor got a similar raise, car, and also a swimming pool? Do you have a fundamental right to have a swimming pool too? Could it possibly be that your neighbor earned his swimming pool? Now let’s say that after some time, you too get a swimming pool. But by now your neighbor has his own private jet. Do you get upset at this difference in wealth? If so, what specifically entitles you to what your neighbor has?
<br />
<br /> A good friend of mine who is very astute once said that in the future the “poor” would eventually live in ten-bedroom mansions and the “rich” would own space stations. Nevertheless, there would still be some moaning about the vast material disparity between the two groups. As outrageous as this comparison may seem, in comparison to previous times, this is precisely the case today. Just compare present-day average material affluence to that of just about any time in the past. If the “wealth gap” argument were valid, it would mean that a poor person in the Middle Ages was better off than a “poor” person today. The truth is that a “poor” person today has more and is better off than even the nobility of that day!
<br />
<br /> On June 26th, the <i>New York Times</i> wrote, “The 400 wealthiest taxpayers accounted for more than 1 percent of all the income in the United States in 2000, more than double their share just eight years earlier, according to new data from the Internal Revenue Service.” This report has made many green with envy. Many in various internet forums have been seen complaining about this and proposing that this wealth be confiscated and redistributed to others (or themselves). They have somehow adopted the notion that this wealth somehow belongs to them. If it didn’t, why else would they lay claim to it? And what claim <i>can</i> they lay to it? What did they do to deserve it?
<br />
<br /> Apparently some of their idea that it belongs to them derives from the fact that they assume out of hand that these rich 400 obtained their wealth by stealing and cheating, or else inherited it. They pass these bold judgments and condemnations without even knowing who these 400 are. How would these same master judges of character react to someone judgmentally attributing their comparative poverty to laziness and stupidity?
<br />
<br /> The interesting thing these people took no time to seek out themselves, and that the <i>New York Times</i> article failed to point out was that these 400 wealthiest taxpayers in 2000 were not the same ones as in 1992. In fact, more than three-quarters of the 400 were not in the top group more than once during that time. According to the Joint Economic Committee less than one percent of the 400 “were among this group every year from 1992 to 2000.” Incidentally, the lower 50 percent of American earners paid less than 4 percent of total federal income taxes in 2000. In the same year, the top 25 percent – those earning $55,000 or above – paid 84 percent of the total!
<br />
<br /> If homogeneity of income and wealth is our goal, let us consider two things:
<br />
<br /> 1 – Considering the fact that individuals do not produce (or contribute to society) in the same degree, how does it make sense to reward all the same? Some people are highly motivated, creative, inventive, productive, and hard-working. Others would prefer to drift through life just getting by. How is it equitable to reward both types of people the same?
<br />
<br /> 2 – Where in the world have we seen a society where wealth and income were uniform? If we have seen such a society, it has been uniformly destitute. It would have to be because it is impossible to raise all people – productive and unproductive – to a high level without their cooperation. So the only way for them to have the same wealth is to have very little wealth at all. In a society where people are allowed to pursue their own potential, we will invariably have a large gap between some individuals. It is inevitable because some are productive and motivated, while others are not productive at all. So unless you reward lack of productivity, you cannot reach equilibrium without bringing the productive individuals down.
<br />
<br /> I once heard a man piously declare that he, and all people, should be able to make a living, a good living, without any “job skills”. He said that people should not have to have “job skills” to make a living. Let us analyze this statement.
<br />
<br /> What are “job skills”? I would have to assume that they are skills or abilities that allow one to productively contribute to society. If a person is without these, it is impossible for him/her to fully contribute. So what this man was saying, in effect, was that nobody should have to be able to contribute to society. Put another way, everybody should be able to get by comfortably without contributing anything.
<br />
<br /> Now we begin to see the utter absurdity in this statement. If nobody could contribute to society, society would collapse under its own weight. Who would provide the necessities? The government? But what is the government? Isn’t it just a collection of people? Isn’t it just a product of society? Is it a god? Is it some mysterious, all-powerful force in the universe from which all blessings flow? While the obvious answer is “no”, it is surprising how many people will tell you that all these things can simply be provided by the government. But how does the government get these things to begin with? People have to produce them. And without the ability to produce, nobody – not even the government – can obtain them. That is, not without coercive force and slavery.
<br />
<br /> So what of the gap between rich and poor? We have seen from the above and if we try to “harmonize” wealth among individuals, we will only succeed in rewarding lack of productivity, and will tear down and discourage productivity. And without this productivity among individuals, the entire society will suffer. We also have seen that this gap is a natural occurrence as sure as the Grand Canyon is a result of natural processes. But we’ve also seen that the level at which the “poor” live today is much higher than it has been anywhere in the past. It is nothing more than jealousy that prompts one whose life has improved to still covet, envy, and begrudge the success of his neighbor.
<br />
<br /> If those at the bottom are content with their contribution to society, and their lives are not falling into decline, then I say, let the gap grow! Let it widen! And let me be at the top of it! Were this the aspiration of most individuals, we could raise the floor yet more. But instead we find an abundance of people who would, rather than aspiring to prosperity and greatness, actually accept and embrace failure. One of the harshest (yet ignorant) critics of the top 400 I saw once stated quite confidently that he was poor and would surely remain such. With an attitude like this, how can he expect anything else? If only he could see beyond his prejudice and bias that the rich, who he hates and loathes so rabidly without cause, are where they are largely, if not entirely, because they hold the very opposite attitude.
<br />Gonnyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11673878470946330593noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5835301.post-1063999965511188012003-09-19T14:41:00.000-05:002007-10-30T03:57:11.570-05:00Universal Suffering? The present debacle we’re witnessing in California raises interesting questions. At least it does to me. Namely, that if a voter is too incompetent to vote using a simple system, what does this mean for the quality of our elections? Now for those who suffer physical disabilities of one sort or another that may prevent them from voting accurately with a particular type of machine, I cast no blame. But for those who are so intellectually lazy that they don’t pay close enough attention to where their vote is going, what does it mean for us that they are voting in the first place?
<br />
<br /> I would hope that all Americans view voting as a very solemn and weighty duty. I realize this is not the case, but it should be. Voting is not something to take lightly. I have a friend who once decided not to vote because he said that he honestly didn’t know enough about the candidates and issues to form an educated opinion. I was quite impressed by this. Of course there are few excuses for not educating one’s self, but if one does find himself in a situation where he doesn’t know enough to make an educated choice, then I at least admire his honesty to not simply cast some random vote. Indeed, our Founding Fathers saw an educated electorate as a vital element to preserving freedom.
<br />
<br /> I have to wonder if by masses of voters turning out at the polls solely at the urging of MTV’s “Rock the Vote” campaign and various other similar advisements to “Just go vote” we aren’t getting results scarcely more meaningful than if we elected on the roll of the dice? No, I’m sure this isn’t the case. With dice, we would at least get a statistically even distribution of results. I tend to think that people ignorant of the issues will, statistically, fall into one group more than another, so we will more likely get weighted results. But even so, these weighted results are no more meaningful since they are the result of people voting out of ignorance. Or worse, voting based largely upon superficial characteristics such as attractiveness, or “coolness”.
<br />
<br /> Perhaps it is because the prevailing view is that voting, in itself, is some fundamental “good” that voting from ignorance is not frowned upon? But voting is not a virtue in itself. Only voting from a position of being informed and educated regarding the issues and candidates can be considered virtuous. If someone doesn’t care enough to inform themselves of the issues, why should they care enough to dilute the informed votes of their fellow citizens?
<br />
<br /> Perhaps voting is not the real duty? Perhaps the real duty is being informed, and then, and only then, voting. Voting is the only way in which citizens may exercise their power, and it is a great power indeed. But since it is power, shouldn’t this power be exercised responsibly? We would scoff at the notion of allowing people to perform surgery without any sort of qualification, and yet we entrust the fate of our nation to people who do not even know the purpose of the Constitution, the function of Congress, and are generally lacking an awareness of the most basic aspects of our system of government.
<br />
<br /> Is it any wonder, then, that we have an abundance of elected officials who don’t know the Constitution from a roll of Charmin? Should we be surprised? Now that we agree (I hope) that there is a problem, what is the solution? I don’t pretend to have it. But many ideas have been put on the table. Let us examine some of them below:
<br />
<br /><strong>Voter tests / Accreditation</strong>
<br /><strong>The theory:</strong> Some have suggested that voters be given tests they must pass to demonstrate that they are sufficiently educated to make an educated choice.
<br />
<br /><strong>The rub:</strong> Any government-mandated and standardized means of verifying someone’s aptitude can be abused and this opens up a wide range of possible ways to taint minds and/or keep one’s ideological opponents from the polls.
<br />
<br /><strong>Poll taxes
<br />The theory:</strong> Apparently the idea with this system is that only people willing to give something up (money) will vote. So therefore someone must feel strongly enough to forfeit a fee to be able to vote. If the individual feels this strongly, they are very likely to have educated themselves on the issues.
<br />
<br /><strong>The rub:</strong> This system would effectively disenfranchise people who, despite their political astuteness, do not find themselves with the financial means to pay such a tax.
<br />
<br /><strong>Earned / Elective Citizenship
<br />The theory:</strong> The idea here is that citizenship (which entails franchise, among other rights) is either earned through something such as public service (such as service in the military) or that it must be voluntarily chosen (elective) because citizenship entails certain duties and obligations that cannot or should not be demanded of every resident.
<br />In Earned Citizenship, the individual qualifies himself for franchise by responsibly contributing to society. In Elective Citizenship, the individual demonstrates his willingness to responsibly contribute to society while simultaneously giving consent to abide by the duties and obligations citizenship entails.
<br />
<br />In both cases, similar to the Poll tax system, the individual must be willing to sacrifice something to gain franchise. These systems also often involve the idea that non-citizens (or residents) do not have the same duties or obligations as citizens.
<br />
<br /><strong>The rub:</strong> In Earned Citizenship, the individual does not gain franchise until after fulfilling a duty. This duty, depending on its nature, may itself be a means by which the individual could be indoctrinated thus leading to a degree of homogeneity in the voting populace. In both systems, depending on their specifics, some people may simply be unable to do what is required to become a citizen and thereby gain franchise. For instance, handicapped individuals would be unable to serve in the military.
<br />
<br /><strong>Landed franchise
<br />The theory:</strong> This concept was widespread around the time of the founding of the United States and states that only land owners have franchise. The idea was, once again, to find a criterion that would yield a degree of assurance that the voter is educated.
<br />
<br /><strong>The rub:</strong> This should be pretty obvious. Today it is difficult to fathom how such a system could be thought to be just since there are plenty of people fully capable of making educated decisions but who may not own any land. Franchise must not be tied to one’s economic or social status.
<br />
<br /> It is interesting to note that a common notion in several of the above mentioned systems is that of sacrifice. If something must be sacrificed to vote, even if it is just a minor inconvenience, then many of the less dedicated will be dissuaded from voting.
<br />
<br /> I must admit that when I started writing this article I thought the Poll Tax idea was the most absurd second only to Landed franchise. But consider it for a moment: what if you had to pay, say, a dollar to vote? How many of the “Rock the Vote” crowd could we expect to see at the polls then? Or what if the inconvenience wasn’t monetary? What if it was something simple that anyone could do but was inconvenient enough so that only those serious about their views would follow through? This thread of thought warrants further exploration.
<br />
<br /> One thing is certain, however. If voters are required to sacrifice something for the ability to vote, very few voters will be of the sort who only wants government to give them a handout. And that, I think, would be a vast improvement by itself.
<br />Gonnyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11673878470946330593noreply@blogger.com0