I will start the latest diatribe with observations/comments about several bills being considered by our fearless Congress (note that the list was shamelessly plagiarized from capwiz.com)…

H.R. 659 For the relief of certain aliens who were aboard the Golden Venture. For those of you lucky enough to forget, the Golden Venture was a ship carrying Chinese who were trying to gain illegal entry to the US.  It ran aground near NYC and some of the victims/criminals are still in legal limbo.  What is not clear is why there is no relief for the numerous Haitians and Cubans who tried, but failed, to get here on rafts, inner tubes, etc.  I also wonder about the many space aliens who have crashed while hovering over Earth, no doubt filming earthly life as part of a reality sitcom shown back on their home planets.

H.R. 15 creates a nationalized system of free health care.  There is no explanation how the word “free” can be applied to an act that would bankrupt each and every one of us.

H.R. 414, the Camera Phone Predator Alert Act, requires cameras in cell phones to make an audible sound to alert others (such as in locker rooms) when a picture is taken.  Seems too many of the “victims” are being denied the opportunity to turn to their “best side”, pose, or otherwise enhance themselves before being snapped.

H.R. 390 addresses “college football playoff games”.  You have got to be putting me on!  Nobody would submit a bill that stupid.

H.R. 187 says let Cubans play American baseball.   Obviously I wrote the above comment before reading this one.

H.R. 227 states that human life begins at fertilization.   I actually like this one.  Imagine the potential savings in scientific research this makes possible.  No time and resources working out the mysteries of the universe!  Hell no – just submit the questions to congress and let them vote us an answer.  BTW, I am still waiting for the definitive answer RE the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

H.R. 254 moves voting to the weekend.   I guess none of the morons realize how many states let one vote for at least a full month before the official voting day?  Hello — is there any sign of intelligent life in there?

H.R. 113 requires anything funded by an earmark to be audited.  This is good.  Without the audits, we are never sure whether the funds were wasted as intended or accidentally put to some good use.

H.R. 202, which creates a “Museum of Ideas.”   Perhaps it can share space with the “Museum of Stupid Bills”?

H.R. 116 ends political “robocalls” if you are on the “Do Not Call” Registry.  Ah Ha!  Just as I thought!! “Do not call” really means “do not call unless using an obnoxious machine to do the dialing”.

S. 30 wants there to be caller ID honesty.  Well great.  I want there to be congressional honesty but you see how far that has gotten.

H.R. 87 says “Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is,” and invites those who like to pay taxes to voluntarily pay extra taxes.  We need a bill for that?  Can’t they just send in a check?

H.R. 25. calls for a “Fair Tax” (a national sales tax) and abolishing the IRS.   Some people want to take the fun and profit out of every scam.   Might as well ask congresspeople and senators to give up their paid-for-by-tax-dollars illicit sex partners.

H.R. 70 would make it a hate crime to display a noose with the intent to intimidate.  As opposed to the nooses displayed during a real lynching?

H.R. 40 explores paying reparations to African-Americans.  A worthy bill.  Indeed, I think that every one, currently alive, who can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they have been slaves should collect a bucket load from everyone currently alive who can be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have kept slaves.

H.R. 346 repeals the automatic payraises Congress receives.  How could they, what will all the hard work evidenced by the bills above??

Then, my friends, we have the granddaddy of them all – the Emergency Economic Stimulus Package.  There is so much that could be said about it — if I did not try to limit the use of vulgarity in this blog.

First, one might reasonably ask, why is this an emergency since the situation has existed for several months, with nothing done other than ensuring the captains of finance don’t get hurt by showering billions of cash down on them?  Well, this turns out to be the most easily answered of the questions.  It is an emergency for the simple reason that congress must enact it quickly before the economy shows improvement all on its own.

One thing that can be said about the package: it is a marvel of “new speak”.  For instance:

• It proposes to give an income tax “cut” to millions who don’t currently pay any income tax.  Can we no longer use the term “welfare” to describe the dole?

• It proposes to “strengthen” our system of free enterprise by partially nationalizing much of our financial system and parts of our manufacturing sector.

• It proposes to stimulate the economy while doing little or nothing to stimulate the real productivity engine that actually drives the economy.

• It proposes to rebuild our national infrastructure (roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, etc.) by limiting the use and employment of people who actually know how to rebuild roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, etc., instead by hiring a quota of the hard-core unemployed (that is to say, those who remain unemployed mostly because of an aversion to learning and to work).

• And, worst of all, it proposes to promote “fairness” by using the threat of deadly force (as in armed government agents) to take from the productive, that which they have legally and honestly earned, and give it to others, who in no way earned it, simply to buy their votes.

Remember my friends, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”. Edmund Burke

Speaking out is a form of doing something.  Why is it that so many of you can cheer so loudly for your favorite sports teams but seem to be struck mute when your country needs some noise on its behalf?

Tweet This Post 

As readers of this blog know, I am an outspoken foe of universal suffrage.  But, I seem to have fallen short in my attempts to explain the evils of universal suffrage.  So, I recommend that all of you (re)read The Law, written by Frederick Bastiat in 1850.  While this work refers to French politics of that time, it is exactly on target today.

http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm

Is it not amazing how timeless an idea can be when it is based on rational thought?   But, I digress.

Knowing that many of you will not go read the entire pamphlet, I have thoughtfully enclosed an extract that speaks directly to my argument against universal suffrage…

“… Who Shall Judge?

The followers of Rousseau’s school of thought — who consider themselves far advanced, but whom I consider twenty centuries behind the times — will not agree with me on this. But universal suffrage — using the word in its strictest sense — is not one of those sacred dogmas which it is a crime to examine or doubt. In fact, serious objections may be made to universal suffrage.

In the first place, the word universal conceals a gross fallacy. For example, there are 36 million people in France. Thus, to make the right of suffrage universal, there should be 36 million voters. But the most extended system permits only 9 million people to vote. Three persons out of four are excluded. And more than this, they are excluded by the fourth. This fourth person advances the principle of incapacity as his reason for excluding the others.

Universal suffrage means, then, universal suffrage for those who are capable. But there remains this question of fact: Who is capable? Are minors, females, insane persons, and persons who have committed certain major crimes the only ones to be determined incapable?

The Reason Why Voting Is Restricted

A closer examination of the subject shows us the motive which causes the right of suffrage to be based upon the supposition of incapacity. The motive is that the elector or voter does not exercise this right for himself alone, but for everybody.

The most extended elective system and the most restricted elective system are alike in this respect. They differ only in respect to what constitutes incapacity. It is not a difference of principle, but merely a difference of degree.

If, as the republicans of our present-day Greek and Roman schools of thought pretend, the right of suffrage arrives with one’s birth, it would be an injustice for adults to prevent women and children from voting. Why are they prevented? Because they are presumed to be incapable. And why is incapacity a motive for exclusion? Because it is not the voter alone who suffers the consequences of his vote; because each vote touches and affects everyone in the entire community; because the people in the community have a right to demand some safeguards concerning the acts upon which their welfare and existence depend.

The Answer Is to Restrict the Law

I know what might be said in answer to this; what the objections might be. But this is not the place to exhaust a controversy of this nature. I wish merely to observe here that this controversy over universal suffrage (as well as most other political questions) which agitates, excites, and overthrows nations, would lose nearly all of its importance if the law had always been what it ought to be.

In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual’s right to self defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder — is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?

Under these circumstances, is it likely that the extent of the right to vote would endanger that supreme good, the public peace? Is it likely that the excluded classes would refuse to peaceably await the coming of their right to vote? Is it likely that those who had the right to vote would jealously defend their privilege?

If the law were confined to its proper functions, everyone’s interest in the law would be the same. Is it not clear that, under these circumstances, those who voted could not inconvenience those who did not vote?

The Fatal Idea of Legal Plunder

But on the other hand, imagine that this fatal principle has been introduced: Under the pretense of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law takes property from one person and gives it to another; the law takes the wealth of all and gives it to a few — whether farmers, manufacturers, shipowners, artists, or comedians. Under these circumstances, then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so.

The excluded classes will furiously demand their right to vote — and will overthrow society rather than not to obtain it. Even beggars and vagabonds will then prove to you that they also have an incontestable title to vote. …”

In a word, one person’s suffrage is often another person’s suffering.

Tweet This Post 

As I listened to Barack Obama’s inauguration speech, I found myself agreeing with much of what he said. Then I stopped to reconsider and realized I was agreeing with HIS statements, but based on MY context. Indeed, most of the time, he provided no context whatever, leaving me to wonder what the hell he was really saying. I still do not know, but I fear all will be revealed in the coming months.

For example, assume the leader of a country announces “It is unacceptable for our elderly to live out their final days in poverty.  I have a plan to remedy this.”

Does our imaginary leader have a plan to rescue the elderly from poverty via some government handouts?  Or, does he propose to euthanize them once they become a burden to the state?  Either one could accurately explain the leader’s statement.  Ergo, without a clear context, you really don’t know for sure what the beloved leader is saying.  Indeed, you might actually support a proposal, based on your context, only to find later that you had supported a plan you consider vile and evil.  I suspect many of Hitler’s early admirers ended up feeling this way.

To repeat, I was left not having a clue what Mr. Obama’s statements really meant.  But, I can guess because one thing in the speech that was very plain was that Mr. Obama proposes a government solution to all our ills, especially those caused by the virus we call government to begin with. That alone is reason to be afraid – very afraid.

It was also clear that Mr. Obama considers the outgoing President the devil incarnate, and the reason for all of the ills that plague us – including those that happened before he was even born.

I humbly predict that, in the near future, we will no longer be known by our individual names, our skills, our accomplishments.  Instead, we will be known only by the group we are considered part of.  That is, by our membership in a collective.  Another reason to be very, very afraid.

In a previous rant, I stated that, should Mr. Obama show us the path back to America, I would become his most vocal admirer.  I repeat that, even though I honestly don’t believe it will happen.

A parting thought… Mr. Obama has said on several occasions that he compares himself to Abraham Lincoln.  Does this mean he plans to free the white people?

Tweet This Post 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Treasury Secretary-nominee Timothy Geithner on Wednesday said the government’s response to the financial crisis would be made in the coming weeks and he apologized for “careless mistakes” in underpaying taxes.

I read this, wondering to myself, how many crooks, after having been exposed, respond with “I still think that was the wisest thing I ever did”?  It is getting so crazy that I am not sure when to laugh and when to cry!

Does this mean that the folks we just put in charge of the Republic really think we are all really that stupid?  Not at all.  In fact, they know there are many intelligent, informed people out there.  People who truly try to understand the power of enlightened self interest and who behave accordingly.  But, the folks now in charge also know something else — that those of you who want a return to the USA described in the Declaration and the Constitution simply do not matter.

That’s right.  In the current scheme of things, you are beside the point.  For the simple reason that they can get and keep their power without you.  Simply stated, they control a base of stupid people sufficient for their purposes.  With all due apologies to Mr Lincoln, we now seem to have a state of  “government of the stupid, for the stupid, by the criminals”.

Well, you say, “but we are correct in our thinking, we actually do know the way to universal prosperity”.   I don’t disagree.  So, what I want you all to do is take a bit of time, think how to explain freedom, self government and laissez-faire economics in the very simplest terms.  Next, I want you to try that explanation out on your dog, cat, or, lacking that, on the nearest liberal.  If you are able to convert any or all of these to advocates of free people and free markets, then ignore anything else I have to say, get that dog/cat/liberal in tow, and go forth to educate the masses.

For the rest of you, consider this.  We are in the very worst of  “Catch 22″ situations.  To repair our governmental institutions would clearly require an educated, informed, involved majority.  To generate such a majority would clearly require that some of our governmental institutions, especially those involving taxation, regulation and, especially, education to be in a state of repair.

Ergo, to break out of the death spiral we seem to find ourselves in, would require:

• A miracle, or,
• A total, worldwide “meltdown” so severe that those who are left could start again with the proverbial “clean slate”.  But, even then, there is no guarantee that the preferred ones would, in fact, be the ones left for the restart.  And, if everything we consider valuable must be destroyed before it can be recovered, one might reasonably ask “what is the point?”.

Leaving us with nothing better than to wish for a miracle.  Now, let me be the first to say that, should our new President be the source of such a miracle, I will become his most vocal advocate.

However, and not to take anything away from a man who no doubt means well, I simply do not find miracles reliable enough to depend on in this (or any) situation.

So — what is left?

On a forum I once frequented, some of us longed for a “Galt’s Gulch”, as described in Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.  While such a thing is not literally possible, at least not as described in the novel, the overall idea has a great deal of merit.

With each election with national consequences, it becomes ever more clear that the very deep rifts in our political landscape grow ever deeper and wider.  So, I ask in all sincerity, why not exploit this trend?  The TAO has long taught us that it is much more effective to go with the flow of a stream and use our energy to steer our craft, than it is to try to change the course of the stream itself – especially to try to make it flow the opposite direction.

What does this mean in practical terms?  Simply this.  There is a significant portion of the USA that claims to want a country of free individuals, engaging in free enterprise, with a very minimal governing influence.  Just as there is an even more significant portion that seems to want an all encompassing “nanny state” that makes all their decisions, sees to their every need, and does not require much, if anything, in the way of effort or responsibility.  There may well be other portions that prefer some middle or other road.

My solution?  Let every group have what it wants by dividing the country into several autonomous regions, each free to choose the type of governmental/economic/social system it prefers.  For sure, this would cause some dislocations since many would find themselves in a region that does not conform to their preferences.  No problem.  Leave them free to either:

• Willingly abide by the decisions of the majority in that region, or,
• Remove themselves to a different region, more suited to their tastes.

After all, we are a very mobile people.

Such freedom of choice and movement should remain open to any and all for a predetermined period after the division.  However, after this period of choice has expired, each region should then be free to establish its own processes and rules for immigration.  I suggest this last restriction in the absolute belief that those who choose poorly would soon want to flee to the protection of others who chose more wisely.

Sorry but when one chooses a system, one must choose ALL of that system.  After all, would not any and every system be great if we could only choose its best attributes and be immune to its failings?

Is this not a form of the very thinking that has gotten the USA to the state of collapse?

Mao Zedong advocated a state of  perpetual revolution.  While that seems a bit too chaotic to be practical, I do take his point.  Government, being human, has organic properties, just like all things human.  One thing we know about organic things; at the instant they become alive, they inevitably start that journey to decrepitude and death.  However much we humans wish that our science will change it, for the foreseeable future, it remains a fact.

I conclude from this reasoning that all forms of government, no matter how well intended or how brilliantly constructed, are prone to systemic corruption.  Based on the known history of governments, including our own, about the best one might reasonably expect from a good governmental system is 100 to 150 years.  (Unfortunately, the bad ones often last much longer.)

If I am correct in my thinking, and I truly think I am, this means that no matter how perfect the plan for a government (and I think ours got darn close), it will, nevertheless, become corrupt in time, indeed, will become destructive to the very ends it was instituted to preserve and promote.

If we go back and study the Founding Documents, we will find that many of the Founders themselves not only knew this, they predicted, with amazing foresight, precisely how the whole thing would eventually come unraveled.  One (Jefferson) even went so far as to suggest we be prepared to replace it.  Obviously, we failed to heed the warnings.

This leads me to the part of an idea that still needs to be refined and “fleshed-out”.  Why can’t we design a system of government whose parts have an intentional, pre-determined “shelf life”?  That is, a government whose very workings cause it to go away (or be replaced) in time — and in less time than the typical corruption cycle.  In other words, a government derived from, and directed by, the free marketplace, rather than our failed attempts to do it the other way around.

So, there you have it.  We leverage the political and social rift that is splitting the nation.  Then we carve out for ourselves an autonomous region, dedicated to freedom for the individual and freedom for the marketplace, driven by enlightened self interest (call it greed if you wish – bothers me not at all).  I am certain there is a way to do this.  Probably a way that has already been described, if we only had the sense to see it.

At any rate, a better answer is not beyond the reach of a group a dedicated minds.

Again, it sure would be nice if more of you readers would help reason this stuff out.  I am old and by no means exempt myself from the decrepitude (and worse) mentioned above.

Tweet This Post 

I am a Libertarian.  And, I support most of the Libertarian platform, including a surrender in the so-called “war on drugs”, which, in reality, has become more of a war on individual rights.

Recently, I have heard this topic discussed on several talk shows, usually by hysterical callers who would have us believe that the end goal is to have a dose of heroin in each toddler’s kindergarten lunch.  This argument seems to assume that, were narcotics legalized, most of the population would immediately become junkies.

I dispute this.  How many of you actually believe that the average, drug-free American, is that way because they think there is no way for them to acquire drugs?  Hardly.  The fact is that the average, drug-free American, is that way because they want to be that way.  That is, they use their freedom of choice to choose not to “do drugs”,  just as most of them choose not to abuse legal alcohol, just as many of them choose not to use legal tobacco products, and an ever increasing number of them choose to quit using legal tobacco products.

I propose that we drop the emotional reactions and, instead, take a rational look at the drug issue in America.  I will start by posing (then answering) 2 simple questions:

1. Is the current so-called “war on drugs” doing anything to lessen the harm caused by the sale and use of illegal drugs?  My answer:  Emphatically no.  There has been some drop in the use of illegal drugs in the past but experts in the field attribute virtually all of this to improved education and information, not to policing.
2. Has the current so-called “war on drugs” done anything?  My answer: Plenty.  All of it undesirable, including:

• The funding and increasing power of drug cartels.  Crime syndicates that rival those that were spawned during our failed experiment with alcohol consumption, nearly a century ago.
• Overwhelming our criminal justice system with non-violent offenders whose only crime was the use of a substance arbitrarily deemed illegal by government.  This has long since gotten to the state where truly dangerous criminals are being plea-bargained out in court and/or released early from prison to make room for these non-violent “offenders” whose main crime was to not live by someone else’s standards.
• Acting as a price support system for the drug cartels by interdicting enough illegal drugs to keep the prices high, but not enough to really affect usage.
• Ensuring that the sale and consumption of these drugs is entirely unregulated in any meaningful way.
• Inflicting a significant drain on our Treasury.
• Increasing the power and intrusion of our government bu increasing the number of armed personnel intended to be used against us rather than for our protection.
• Thereby, imposing on the individual liberties of American citizens, to the point of taking a giant leap toward becoming a police state.

Allow me to raise some elementary facts:  The first is that there is a multi-billion dollar market for drugs that are presently illegal.  A “free market”, if you will… that is, a market of relatively free people choosing for themselves.  In a relatively free country like American, a market this size will be served.  This is a fact whose truth is demonstrated thousands of times each day.  You don’t have to like it, but, not liking it, not approving of it, will not make it less true.

So, the real question concerning our drug issue is not whether the obvious market will be served!  No.  The question is “who will it be served by?”

Currently, our answer is that we think it better served by the drug cartels.  With all the attendant violence, mayhem and police state antics.  For sure, a lot of us wish it would simply go away, but, until it does, we leave the supply to the cartels.

Would it not obviously be better served by reputable businesses, under strict regulation of the U.S. Government, much as is done with alcohol today?  I make no claim that legalization would make drug use disappear.  To the contrary, I think it will be with us forever to some degree.  Again, without regard to what you and I like of approve of.  But, there are potential benefits from legalization that would be a step in the right direction, including:

• The DEA could be disbanded, saving billions for the taxpayers and preventing it morphing further into our version of the Gestapo.
• The drug trade would cease to be a net drain on the treasury, becoming a net revenue source instead.  Revenue that could be, at least partly, directed toward the education/information approaches that have shown some success in reducing the demand for illegal drugs.
• The cartels would be bankrupted.  This would take away the primary incentive for gangsters and their toadies to get our youth hooked on drugs to begin with.  It would also tend to take the influence of illegal drug money out of our political processes.
• Our criminal justice system would have much more capacity to deal with those who truly do threaten our peace and security.
• The resulting government regulations would make it harder for drugs to be sold to children.
• The crime and mayhem attending the current so-called “war on drugs” would mostly cease, saving much future harm to our own citizens as well as to those of the producing countries.

As a Libertarian, I am insulted by the continued inference that we want an America that is drowning in drugs.  To the contrary, what we want is to first, stop the collateral damage, then, once the situation is under some level of control, to implement the education/information approaches that have been shown to work.

I would really like to hear comments on this as I well know it is not a widely accepted position.

Besides, it would just be nice to hear from some of you (please?).

Tweet This Post 

I have read several articles recently that hail the democratization made possible by the Internet – and the almost endless access to information that it brings to any and all who want it.  This got me thinking.   Always a dangerous thing!

I just finished reading Ken Follett’s World Without End. While this highly entertaining book is fiction, it is set against a reasonably accurate backdrop of England in the Middle Ages.  Those wonderful days when the princes of the realm joined forces with the princes of the church to keep the rest of the population in various states of ignorance, serfdom, slavery, and often, abject poverty.  For sure, some physical force was used to keep the masses in line.  But, the masses were also “kept in their places” through the enforcement of ignorance and the substitution of superstition and fear for real knowledge.

This technique proved so successful that it was still in use at the time of the U. S. Civil War, as a way to help keep slaves “down on the farm”.  Indeed, it was illegal in many states to allow a slave to learn to read or write for fear that they be harder to deal with if educated.

Soon after, an increasing demand for literate workers, coupled with a general rise in prosperity, and universal, state-sponsored education (in the West at least) seemed to put these days behind us.  So we thought.

Now, reflect with me again, back to the Middle Ages.  Suppose that these people had had easy and open access to whatever information they desired.  Would that have made much of a difference?  My certain answer is NO, it would not.  Why?   Isn’t it a long accepted truism that “information is power”?  Maybe, but, this simple truism assumes that those with access to information are able to process it — to use it in some beneficial way.  This is too often not the case.

Put in a far more simple fashion, imagine I take my dog to the library.  Now, I know that dogs cannot read so I put ole Rover in a room where books on tape are constantly playing.  Books on every subject imaginable.  Now, I ask you — how long must this continue before Rover becomes quite improved by this exposure to information?  For my part, I suspect he never will for the simple reason that, no matter how much information I hurl at him, Rover has no capacity to process most of it.  Dogs are simply not made this way.  But humans supposedly are.  Yet, as we can plainly see all around us, far too many people will not take advantage of this ability.  Indeed, in my insignificant life, I have observed that the only real difference between cannot and will not is the degree of self-inflicted tragedy involved.  The final outcome is virtually always the same.

So here were are, back in real time with this amazing facility we call the Internet, bringing a universe of information to the screen in front of us, yet a large percentage of our population can’t make change without a cash register figuring it for them, can’t find Canada on a world map, and haven’t a clue where their senators and congresspeople stand on vital issues (assuming then even have a hint who these people are).  A population that increasing believes that government can give them something it did not first take from them and/or a fellow citizen, that government can somehow shield them from the outcome their own dysfunctional behavior.  Forget the more sophisticated demands of liberty and self governance such as a basic understanding of economics and of the intended operation of our government.

Whether it be by intent or by accident, the “dumbing down” of the West, particularly America, is shaping up to be one of the great tragedies of human history, in the potential it has to set the human condition back to that of the Middle Ages.

Lately we see a lot of programs telling us of the potential for disaster should that rogue asteroid hit, should Yellowstone blow its top, should the ice caps melt.  Yet, when did you last see a program predicting the outcome of the very real disaster we are all participating in, to one degree or another?  No, Political Correctness demands that we ignore it, that we deny it.

As an aside, am I the only one who has noticed that the worldwide rise of fundamental religious power and activity seems to track in parallel with the dumbing down of the average person?  How can I avoid the notion that we are headed straight back to the Middle Ages when mankind is working so hard to move backward?

As a parting thought, have many of you ever noticed how long and hard it can be to get someplace yet how fast and easy it can be to go back to where you were?

I suggest you polish your lance and start going to jousting practice.

Tweet This Post