Voting is like choosing your next meal from the tank of a portable toilet behind the downtown bus station.
Enjoy.
_________________
Monday, November 03, 2008
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Today in The Libertarian Enterprise
Do you get those ridiculous emails that try to scare you about immigrants by giving you all the statistics about how bad they are? Me too. Normally I just delete them, but this time I decided to do something different. And then I passed it along to The Libertarian Enterprise.
See the results here.
See the results here.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Drunk Driving
The core of this post is taken from an email conversation I had with someone a while back. I got to thinking about those police-state abominations called "checkpoints" and decided I should put this out there for all to see.
The problem isn't driving with a blood-alcohol content ("BAC") of a certain level, but causing harm by driving when you are "impaired". Impairment can come in many forms, not just alcohol or chemical related, but emotional, physiological, distractions, and other "problems". A "standard" BAC is not possible or reasonable. Anyone who causes damage, injuries, or death for any reason should be held accountable. Punishing people for potentially causing harm isn't good, not even if you think they are likely to cause harm.
That is how the anti-gun crowd operates. The fact that other people do bad things is no excuse to violate my rights in even the slightest way.
I think that someone who knows they have a drinking problem might, when they are sober, choose to install an ignition breathalyzer to prevent ruining their own lives. Especially if their insurance company (the only ones who should set any such standards anyway) were to give a discount for it. I also envision car companies in a free society making more crashproof cars and offering different options to defend against accidents. Would people be willing to pay the extra amount? I don't know. The thing is the cost should be borne by the ones who wish to pay it, and not by the ones who don't. As it is, we ALL pay the price for everyone else's stupidity, both real and potential.
Why couldn't cops, if they must get involved, simply help the drunks get home instead of turning it into an opportunity to shove someone around, kidnap them, and rob them? Is it a "power thing"?
Many people today hate insurance companies, and don't want them having anything to do with driving. I think the biggest problem with insurance companies comes from the state requiring insurance. If they had to compete for your business, other than just assuming you have to pick someone, I think they would be much more innovative and helpful in their dealings with customers. They would have much more leeway in what behaviors they penalized and rewarded. Some things obviously increase their financial risk, and that is why they would reasonably charge more for someone who doesn't wear a seatbelt. However, you might have such a good driving record that it would more than offset their risk and cause them to give you a discount. I don't really know what all might happen.... BUT, in a FREE market you would probably pay a tiny fraction of your current expense no matter what. That is the effect of eliminating the monopoly.
I would pay more for a car with active collision avoidance technology. Even though I don't drink. I have almost fallen asleep at the wheel too many times. That would also help pedestrians who would otherwise be in danger of being run down by drunk drivers. That is part of what I mean by "crash proof". I am also thinking that there are other ways of protecting the occupants and other vehicles that haven't been implemented yet. I wouldn't mind having a car that could drive itself as long as I could override that option if I wanted to. I have issues with letting others have control (even a machine).
As always, I am sure these are not the only solutions to the problem, since the market is more responsive, and people are much more clever, than is usually recognized. If a problem exists, it can be solved without violating rights. Once again, government is NOT the solution.
__________
Added: Eric Sundwall posted this link in the Haloscan comments and I think it needs to be read: Legalize Drunk Driving.
-----------------------
The problem isn't driving with a blood-alcohol content ("BAC") of a certain level, but causing harm by driving when you are "impaired". Impairment can come in many forms, not just alcohol or chemical related, but emotional, physiological, distractions, and other "problems". A "standard" BAC is not possible or reasonable. Anyone who causes damage, injuries, or death for any reason should be held accountable. Punishing people for potentially causing harm isn't good, not even if you think they are likely to cause harm.
That is how the anti-gun crowd operates. The fact that other people do bad things is no excuse to violate my rights in even the slightest way.
I think that someone who knows they have a drinking problem might, when they are sober, choose to install an ignition breathalyzer to prevent ruining their own lives. Especially if their insurance company (the only ones who should set any such standards anyway) were to give a discount for it. I also envision car companies in a free society making more crashproof cars and offering different options to defend against accidents. Would people be willing to pay the extra amount? I don't know. The thing is the cost should be borne by the ones who wish to pay it, and not by the ones who don't. As it is, we ALL pay the price for everyone else's stupidity, both real and potential.
Why couldn't cops, if they must get involved, simply help the drunks get home instead of turning it into an opportunity to shove someone around, kidnap them, and rob them? Is it a "power thing"?
Many people today hate insurance companies, and don't want them having anything to do with driving. I think the biggest problem with insurance companies comes from the state requiring insurance. If they had to compete for your business, other than just assuming you have to pick someone, I think they would be much more innovative and helpful in their dealings with customers. They would have much more leeway in what behaviors they penalized and rewarded. Some things obviously increase their financial risk, and that is why they would reasonably charge more for someone who doesn't wear a seatbelt. However, you might have such a good driving record that it would more than offset their risk and cause them to give you a discount. I don't really know what all might happen.... BUT, in a FREE market you would probably pay a tiny fraction of your current expense no matter what. That is the effect of eliminating the monopoly.
I would pay more for a car with active collision avoidance technology. Even though I don't drink. I have almost fallen asleep at the wheel too many times. That would also help pedestrians who would otherwise be in danger of being run down by drunk drivers. That is part of what I mean by "crash proof". I am also thinking that there are other ways of protecting the occupants and other vehicles that haven't been implemented yet. I wouldn't mind having a car that could drive itself as long as I could override that option if I wanted to. I have issues with letting others have control (even a machine).
As always, I am sure these are not the only solutions to the problem, since the market is more responsive, and people are much more clever, than is usually recognized. If a problem exists, it can be solved without violating rights. Once again, government is NOT the solution.
__________
Added: Eric Sundwall posted this link in the Haloscan comments and I think it needs to be read: Legalize Drunk Driving.
-----------------------
Friday, October 31, 2008
Hearsay or Observation
Authoritarians, both left and right, base all their fear about a certain candidate on hearsay: "He said if he got elected he would.....do this horrible thing! I just heard about it from Statist News Channel" Oh No!! Gasp! Or: "I'm afraid of what he might do if he is elected! You know how those people are!" Please.....
Libertarian types base our assessment of a candidate on his observed attitudes about liberty and on his demonstrated respect for individual rights. It is much a more reliable and honest method. I like "easier and more accurate", don't you?
Ignore the gossip and cut throught the crap. Does the candidate think it is OK to tell others how they must live even if they are harming no one? Then that tells you all you need to know.
Libertarian types base our assessment of a candidate on his observed attitudes about liberty and on his demonstrated respect for individual rights. It is much a more reliable and honest method. I like "easier and more accurate", don't you?
Ignore the gossip and cut throught the crap. Does the candidate think it is OK to tell others how they must live even if they are harming no one? Then that tells you all you need to know.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Spreading the Lust for Liberty
This blog is pointless if it never gets read by people who are not already sold on the idea of liberty. "Thank you" to those of you who have helped me get readers by alerting friends (and enemies) to my blog. I appreciate it a lot. If those of us who have a strong longing for liberty don't spread the desire to those who may be on the fence, we won't get very far toward a free society.
If you can string words together, start a blog. If I can do it, it must not be very difficult. If thinking up subjects to write about on a regular basis seems too daunting, there are other ways to spread this "liberty virus". Comment on blogs or on newspaper websites. You can find lots of news items that could use a libertarian or anarchistic perspective to counter all the deluded cheerleaders-for-the-state.
If you can't seem to find the words to express what you are thinking and feeling, then post links to libertarian blogs and websites everywhere you can. There are lots of good ones to spread around (check out my links on the sidebar). The main thing is to expose people who would otherwise never learn about it to liberty, its philosophy, and its ideas. Every little bit helps.
*******************************
If you can string words together, start a blog. If I can do it, it must not be very difficult. If thinking up subjects to write about on a regular basis seems too daunting, there are other ways to spread this "liberty virus". Comment on blogs or on newspaper websites. You can find lots of news items that could use a libertarian or anarchistic perspective to counter all the deluded cheerleaders-for-the-state.
If you can't seem to find the words to express what you are thinking and feeling, then post links to libertarian blogs and websites everywhere you can. There are lots of good ones to spread around (check out my links on the sidebar). The main thing is to expose people who would otherwise never learn about it to liberty, its philosophy, and its ideas. Every little bit helps.
*******************************
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
"The Welfare Queens of Wall Street"
A good article By Michael Shermer: The Welfare Queens of Wall Street.
Candidates Exposing Themselves to Libertarians
I have noticed a humorous thing about political ads. Whenever Candidate A tries to show how evil Candidate B is, he always inadvertently exposes his own evil. "Candidate B has tried to destroy the sanctity of marriage" is code speech for "I, Candidate A, don't believe that all people have the same rights."
When they say "Candidate B advocates the redistribution of wealth", what that tells us is that Candidate A also advocates the same thing, just in a different way, and he hopes you won't realize that fact. Otherwise he would call for an end to all taxation and welfare, and he isn't doing that, is he?
When Candidate A announces that Candidate B doesn't support "reasonable regulation" of guns, I would love to see the definition of "reasonable". I would also love to see, in writing, where Candidate B recognizes the absolute right of everyone to own and to carry any type of weapon they see fit, everywhere they go, in any way they desire, without asking permission from anyone, ever. Anything other is a restriction, and is way beyond "reasonable".
Most things should not be up for debate, from either side. "Hands off my rights, you meddling parasites!"
For every political ad, there is a clear exposure of both candidates and their absolutely evil opinions about key issues.
See how being libertarian frees you up to see the truth?
--------------------------------
When they say "Candidate B advocates the redistribution of wealth", what that tells us is that Candidate A also advocates the same thing, just in a different way, and he hopes you won't realize that fact. Otherwise he would call for an end to all taxation and welfare, and he isn't doing that, is he?
When Candidate A announces that Candidate B doesn't support "reasonable regulation" of guns, I would love to see the definition of "reasonable". I would also love to see, in writing, where Candidate B recognizes the absolute right of everyone to own and to carry any type of weapon they see fit, everywhere they go, in any way they desire, without asking permission from anyone, ever. Anything other is a restriction, and is way beyond "reasonable".
Most things should not be up for debate, from either side. "Hands off my rights, you meddling parasites!"
For every political ad, there is a clear exposure of both candidates and their absolutely evil opinions about key issues.
See how being libertarian frees you up to see the truth?
--------------------------------
Why Is It Wrong To Harm the Innocent?
It just is, but why? Is there a logical reason? Does there need to be a logical reason? I suppose I'll examine the issue in my own warped way. I'm sure others have better reasons based upon ... who-knows-what.
"Wrong" in this case means something that is undesirable for moral reasons; in other words, something that is "bad". Bad actions damage those they are directed against. Bad food does not nourish the body properly. Bad car parts don't function correctly and are replaced with good ones. Bad plans result in failure. Bad people can be killed in self-defense without guilt (though not always without "legal" consequences). "Bad" is to be avoided and can result in the elimination of its source. Once again, some would say this is too "utilitarian". Yet, you may as well make your plans according to the existence of gravity if you are in our universe. Ignoring the truth or complaining that you don't understand exactly why it is as it is doesn't get you anywhere. That doesn't mean you shouldn't keep trying to get to the foundation. There may be a "Moral Grand Unified Theory" out there somewhere.
So, moving along- "Innocent" means someone who does not deserve harm, at least in the immediate instant or situation. So, it is bad to harm someone who doesn't deserve to be harmed.
If it is not wrong to harm the innocent, I would say there is NO such thing as "wrong" at all. I know that is not a good reason. Everyone understands at an instinctive level that it IS wrong to harm the innocent.
Or, sort of. People who are not mentally ill know it is wrong to harm innocent people that they know, or who live around them, but they often think it is OK to harm innocent people that they don't know, like strangers in Iraq or Pakistan. That is just part of the human tendency toward tribalism. It is OK to want to protect your own, but it is not OK to think of others as "less than human". Remember the term "collateral damage" if you want a name for this evil way of refusing to think.
..................................................
"Wrong" in this case means something that is undesirable for moral reasons; in other words, something that is "bad". Bad actions damage those they are directed against. Bad food does not nourish the body properly. Bad car parts don't function correctly and are replaced with good ones. Bad plans result in failure. Bad people can be killed in self-defense without guilt (though not always without "legal" consequences). "Bad" is to be avoided and can result in the elimination of its source. Once again, some would say this is too "utilitarian". Yet, you may as well make your plans according to the existence of gravity if you are in our universe. Ignoring the truth or complaining that you don't understand exactly why it is as it is doesn't get you anywhere. That doesn't mean you shouldn't keep trying to get to the foundation. There may be a "Moral Grand Unified Theory" out there somewhere.
So, moving along- "Innocent" means someone who does not deserve harm, at least in the immediate instant or situation. So, it is bad to harm someone who doesn't deserve to be harmed.
If it is not wrong to harm the innocent, I would say there is NO such thing as "wrong" at all. I know that is not a good reason. Everyone understands at an instinctive level that it IS wrong to harm the innocent.
Or, sort of. People who are not mentally ill know it is wrong to harm innocent people that they know, or who live around them, but they often think it is OK to harm innocent people that they don't know, like strangers in Iraq or Pakistan. That is just part of the human tendency toward tribalism. It is OK to want to protect your own, but it is not OK to think of others as "less than human". Remember the term "collateral damage" if you want a name for this evil way of refusing to think.
..................................................
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
"Officer Safety"
The belief that any of us should give up the slightest of our rights, or even conveniences, to protect the troops of the "standing army" that occupies our towns and countryside is disgusting. Whether it is a prohibition on tinted vehicle windows, or "laws" concerning the carrying of weapons, no "officer" is entitled to protection or safety that infringes on the rights of the people.
I am not saying that they don't deserve safety, just that they deserve no special safety above and beyond that which any of us deserve. If it is right for one, it is right for all. I have no right to insist that you give up any of your rights in order to make me feel safer. Neither does a cop.
..........................
I am not saying that they don't deserve safety, just that they deserve no special safety above and beyond that which any of us deserve. If it is right for one, it is right for all. I have no right to insist that you give up any of your rights in order to make me feel safer. Neither does a cop.
..........................
Monday, October 27, 2008
Speaking With "Authority"
People who don't know their history too well, or who have an unfortunate addiction to the state, have a way of seeming to speak with a voice of authority and scolding libertarians for "not living in the grown-up world".
They can sound like they know what they are talking about, and seem to be "adults" while at the same time completely ignoring reality.
And they claim libertarians are "utopian".
............................................
They can sound like they know what they are talking about, and seem to be "adults" while at the same time completely ignoring reality.
And they claim libertarians are "utopian".
............................................
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
State Addiction
Those who rant the most about "drug addicts" seem to be the most susceptible to being addicted to the state. Why do they so vehemently hate other addicts? Maybe it is because between the two, addiction to the state is by far the more destructive addiction. The numbers of "dead-by-chemical" can't even begin to compare to the numbers of "dead-by-state".
Face it, any addiction can be harmful. Some people are addicted to video games. Some are addicted to coffee. Some are addicted to music. Some are addicted to control and intimidation. Some are simply addicted to the worship of those who are addicted to control.
Liberty for ALL is the treatment for state addiction. Withdrawal may be painful for some statists. Some may not even survive. In a case like this, if the state-addicts were not a danger to everyone else they could be left alone to live out their days in their extremely crippled state. Unfortunately, one of the hallmarks of state addiction is that it severely impairs the ability to mind one's own business, and causes the addicts to form highly aggressive gangs. Therefore, treatment of statists is self-defense. They should all be given the choice, however: "Leave us alone and go on your way, or keep attacking us and receive treatment."
.............................................
Face it, any addiction can be harmful. Some people are addicted to video games. Some are addicted to coffee. Some are addicted to music. Some are addicted to control and intimidation. Some are simply addicted to the worship of those who are addicted to control.
Liberty for ALL is the treatment for state addiction. Withdrawal may be painful for some statists. Some may not even survive. In a case like this, if the state-addicts were not a danger to everyone else they could be left alone to live out their days in their extremely crippled state. Unfortunately, one of the hallmarks of state addiction is that it severely impairs the ability to mind one's own business, and causes the addicts to form highly aggressive gangs. Therefore, treatment of statists is self-defense. They should all be given the choice, however: "Leave us alone and go on your way, or keep attacking us and receive treatment."
.............................................
Friday, October 24, 2008
It's Up to You
No elected "official", not even the president, is going to "save" the country. He might be able to destroy it, but he can't help it in any substantive way. It's just a sad fact.
It is up to YOU to save the country, one person at a time. You must free yourself. You must ignore counterfeit "laws". Yes, that means you will have to become an outlaw. Don't worry; you are already a "criminal", at least according to the state.
You must fix your own personal economy. Don't wait for some ignorant bureaucrat to bail you out. Don't wait for some politician to protect your job. Don't wait for your FRNs to become fancy printed toilet paper.
Don't even wait for enlightened extraterrestrials to swoop in and solve all of humanity's problems. It will never happen in your lifetime.
Start now. Keep working at it. Never stop.
--------------------------------------
It is up to YOU to save the country, one person at a time. You must free yourself. You must ignore counterfeit "laws". Yes, that means you will have to become an outlaw. Don't worry; you are already a "criminal", at least according to the state.
You must fix your own personal economy. Don't wait for some ignorant bureaucrat to bail you out. Don't wait for some politician to protect your job. Don't wait for your FRNs to become fancy printed toilet paper.
Don't even wait for enlightened extraterrestrials to swoop in and solve all of humanity's problems. It will never happen in your lifetime.
Start now. Keep working at it. Never stop.
--------------------------------------
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner
If you are concerned about gun rights, check out David Codrea's latest project: Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner.
Tattling to the State
How do you know if something is none of your business?
How do you know if you should probably just keep your nose out of it?
If it is something you can (and should) deal with on your own, then as long as you are not violating anyone's rights, go ahead.
If, however, you feel the need to tattle to anyone, you are probably in the wrong.
How do you know if you should probably just keep your nose out of it?
If it is something you can (and should) deal with on your own, then as long as you are not violating anyone's rights, go ahead.
If, however, you feel the need to tattle to anyone, you are probably in the wrong.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Shortsightedness
Someone I know pretty well sent me a copy of a letter-to-the-editor she wrote. I was disappointed in it, to say the least.
She was writing in support of "rent controls" in Los Angeles.
What I don't understand is why people can't see the unintended consequences of government interference. I mean, it is obvious, isn't it? Can't people see that if you control rent (in other words, keep it artificially low in spite of the market) fewer people will be willing to become landlords and places to rent will become more scare, thereby harming the very people the government meddling was claimed to be intended to help? This isn't rocket science and anyone should be able to understand the consequences of such "laws".
I guess this is why bitter statists say libertarians "refuse to grow up". We won't play their grown-up lying games.
.......................................................
She was writing in support of "rent controls" in Los Angeles.
What I don't understand is why people can't see the unintended consequences of government interference. I mean, it is obvious, isn't it? Can't people see that if you control rent (in other words, keep it artificially low in spite of the market) fewer people will be willing to become landlords and places to rent will become more scare, thereby harming the very people the government meddling was claimed to be intended to help? This isn't rocket science and anyone should be able to understand the consequences of such "laws".
I guess this is why bitter statists say libertarians "refuse to grow up". We won't play their grown-up lying games.
.......................................................
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Living the Life
Sometimes, when I read the blogs, it seems that some of the commenters think that "we" who value freedom should all go out into the world with a chip on our shoulders. If I state that I will not back down if confronted by a certain abuse, I am asked why I am not out there being shot or arrested "for liberty". Amusingly, the comment usually comes from those too afraid to even call a tyrant "a tyrant".
It seems to me the true test of a decent way of life is in being able to actually live. Yes, there are things you may come across that confront your resolve to not be a victim, and there will be a line-in-the-sand somewhere. But those things are extreme circumstances. In dealings with everyday people and situations those events should be rare. Especially if you make a point to avoid dealing with agents of the state if at all possible. Why seek out the sick and deranged? If you know a rabid badger lives in a hole, do you shove your hand down there just to annoy him? I don't.
It seems to me the true test of a decent way of life is in being able to actually live. Yes, there are things you may come across that confront your resolve to not be a victim, and there will be a line-in-the-sand somewhere. But those things are extreme circumstances. In dealings with everyday people and situations those events should be rare. Especially if you make a point to avoid dealing with agents of the state if at all possible. Why seek out the sick and deranged? If you know a rabid badger lives in a hole, do you shove your hand down there just to annoy him? I don't.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Liberty As I See It: The Island Scenario
I sure do run into a lot of people who don't seem to understand "liberty" in the same way as I understand it.
Some of them, it seems to me, seem intent on finding the hard cases where liberty might break down as a philosophy. Yet, even in those cases, liberty still seems the best available option, even if it doesn't solve all the difficulties. The other options certainly don't solve anything.
A recent example: You and I are stranded (shipwrecked or plane crash survivors) on an island with no available food (hard to believe there is nothing to eat, but let's pretend). If you found the emergency rations and refuse to share, and I need food in order to survive, do you violate my right to live if you don't hand your food over to me? The person proposing this scenario to me certainly thought so.
So, lets think about this. Does communism solve the problem. Take from the "have" and divide it between them both. Where did this government suddenly come from that is now dividing the rations? Maybe I found a gun among the wreckage and can coerce you out of your food by myself. So, then instead of a greedy person, we have a greedy person and a thief. That's not any better.
Does democracy solve the problem? We vote on it, and the vote will undoubtedly end up a tie. Even if I somehow trick you into thinking I have two votes to your one (Wilson votes to share!), how will I enforce your compliance with the "election". Once again, we see that force (theft) comes into play.
No, I have no right to your food if you don't want to share. Your actions might mean you are not a nice person, but you have no obligation to keep me alive.
My thought is that in this case cooperation would be advantageous to us both. I can start fires without any modern aids, I can make rope and stone tools, and shelter, and might just be able to find some of that "nonexistent" food and fresh water. Whatever skills you might be able to add to the equation would just increase our odds of survival. Of course, that doesn't mean that everyone will want to cooperate.
If the roles were switched and I had found the food, and you had the gun, I would probably walk away from the food and let you fend for yourself. After all, as long as I stayed away from you, I would soon have the whole island to myself.
Liberty does not eliminate the bad people, it just takes away most of their power and ALL of their legitimacy. Something no other system or philosophy can do.
..............................................
Some of them, it seems to me, seem intent on finding the hard cases where liberty might break down as a philosophy. Yet, even in those cases, liberty still seems the best available option, even if it doesn't solve all the difficulties. The other options certainly don't solve anything.
A recent example: You and I are stranded (shipwrecked or plane crash survivors) on an island with no available food (hard to believe there is nothing to eat, but let's pretend). If you found the emergency rations and refuse to share, and I need food in order to survive, do you violate my right to live if you don't hand your food over to me? The person proposing this scenario to me certainly thought so.
So, lets think about this. Does communism solve the problem. Take from the "have" and divide it between them both. Where did this government suddenly come from that is now dividing the rations? Maybe I found a gun among the wreckage and can coerce you out of your food by myself. So, then instead of a greedy person, we have a greedy person and a thief. That's not any better.
Does democracy solve the problem? We vote on it, and the vote will undoubtedly end up a tie. Even if I somehow trick you into thinking I have two votes to your one (Wilson votes to share!), how will I enforce your compliance with the "election". Once again, we see that force (theft) comes into play.
No, I have no right to your food if you don't want to share. Your actions might mean you are not a nice person, but you have no obligation to keep me alive.
My thought is that in this case cooperation would be advantageous to us both. I can start fires without any modern aids, I can make rope and stone tools, and shelter, and might just be able to find some of that "nonexistent" food and fresh water. Whatever skills you might be able to add to the equation would just increase our odds of survival. Of course, that doesn't mean that everyone will want to cooperate.
If the roles were switched and I had found the food, and you had the gun, I would probably walk away from the food and let you fend for yourself. After all, as long as I stayed away from you, I would soon have the whole island to myself.
Liberty does not eliminate the bad people, it just takes away most of their power and ALL of their legitimacy. Something no other system or philosophy can do.
..............................................
Saturday, October 18, 2008
OBAMcCAIN the Muslistian/Chrislim
I get really tired of listening to the people who are worried that half of OBAMcCAIN might be a Muslim because of his name or parentage. I never realized that your beliefs were dictated by your name, but...whatever. It is just a diversion from the real issue: the man is a socialistic monster who thinks you belong to "society". You have no value except as fertilizer for the collective. You are just unprocessed Soylent Green.
In other words, his real opinion of you is exactly the same as that of his other, presumed Christian, half.
If he can't use you, he has no use for you. OBAMcCAIN will tell you whatever it thinks you will be most susceptible to. That is reality, based upon an examination of its real actions and history, and not based upon imaginary things. Don't fall into the pointless debate, but keep returning the discussion to the real, objective, world.
And don't, under ANY circumstance, vote for any incumbent or "major party" candidate. In fact, just don't vote. But if you still feel you must, write in my name.
...................................
In other words, his real opinion of you is exactly the same as that of his other, presumed Christian, half.
If he can't use you, he has no use for you. OBAMcCAIN will tell you whatever it thinks you will be most susceptible to. That is reality, based upon an examination of its real actions and history, and not based upon imaginary things. Don't fall into the pointless debate, but keep returning the discussion to the real, objective, world.
And don't, under ANY circumstance, vote for any incumbent or "major party" candidate. In fact, just don't vote. But if you still feel you must, write in my name.
...................................
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Cruelest Utopia: Minarchy
Minarchy, the "smallest possible government", is a cruel idea. It means no pension for government employees, that's for certain.
Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." In other words, every generation or so, in order to keep government in check, and to keep liberty alive, those who love liberty need to kill off all the politicians.
Admit it. The idea made you smile. That would make it a lot less likely to have lifetime career parasites... uh.... politicians and bureaucrats. If they still wanted that power over the lives of others that badly, they would want to get in and out as quickly as possible. Maybe like a thrill-seeking thing. Still it is a very bad way to organize a society, especially since the bloodshed is unnecessary if you just keep tyrants from gaining power to begin with.
Government is a cancer. It is not possible to leave a small tumor inside and scold it into not growing. You must cut the thing out. If you leave a bit of it, you will need to repeat the surgery every time the tumor gets dangerously large. It is simpler, more effective, more realistic, and less painful, to get rid of ALL of the cancer at once.
.............................................
Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." In other words, every generation or so, in order to keep government in check, and to keep liberty alive, those who love liberty need to kill off all the politicians.
Admit it. The idea made you smile. That would make it a lot less likely to have lifetime career parasites... uh.... politicians and bureaucrats. If they still wanted that power over the lives of others that badly, they would want to get in and out as quickly as possible. Maybe like a thrill-seeking thing. Still it is a very bad way to organize a society, especially since the bloodshed is unnecessary if you just keep tyrants from gaining power to begin with.
Government is a cancer. It is not possible to leave a small tumor inside and scold it into not growing. You must cut the thing out. If you leave a bit of it, you will need to repeat the surgery every time the tumor gets dangerously large. It is simpler, more effective, more realistic, and less painful, to get rid of ALL of the cancer at once.
.............................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)