copycat's political ramblings

for cM0SS (on the constitution)

2010-07-02T17:04:00.000-07:00

The US constitution is unique in that it recognizes the sovereignty of the individual _over_ the government, and that the government derives any authority it has from the consent of the governed. It also recognized the flow of authority from God to the people to the government instead of the traditional God to government to the people.

A constitution for any nation is the codification of the powers of the government as granted by the people to be governed. The truth of the consent given by the governed varies from country to country. The structure of the US constitution is such that it is set up to be a document which strictly limits the power of the federal government to act, and enumerates the manner and methods (the powers) which are usable by that government. It also specifically limits the powers of the federal government to the enumerated powers in the 10th amendment. The 9th amendment specifically states that the people and the states retain any and all rights and powers which are not enumerated in the constitution.

There are procedures for amending the constitution, and granting additional powers, or taking powers from the government, but unless a particular power is granted, in the manner prescribed, the government DOES NOT have the authority to carry out that power.

Our government is like a game of baseball.

2010-03-19T21:09:00.001-07:00

Think of the constitution as the equipment and the field at a baseball game. Think of our system of laws as the rules of that game. The whole makes up our government. So long as the rules make sense within the context of the game (designated hitter rule, or a mercy rule) the game will go pretty smoothly. If you try to institute rules that do not make sense within the context of the game (laws that are unconstitutional) The game will start to break down. For example, if you make a rule that a field goal is to be kicked after a player carrying the ball enters the end zone, the rule is meaningless and disruptive, unless, you also change the field (amend the constitution) to include a goal post, and an end zone. If you try to change the rules (change the laws through redefining the terms and legislating from the bench) do redefine home base as the end zone,or the foul lines as the goal posts, you change the entire nature of the game. Changing the rules is easy. Changing the field is purposely difficult.

This is the problem we find ourselves with. The federal government has been changing the rules, without changing the field, for so long that you can hardly recognize the game.

Frank's brick.

2010-03-19T20:58:00.001-07:00

On Private insurance:

Imagine that the risk and financial responsibility for an injury or disease is a brick. Each person carries a certain number of bricks (the number is different for everyone) just because they are alive. Some people increase or decrease their own number of bricks by choosing to engage in risky activities (or not), or eating healthy (or not), or any of a thousand ways to increase or decrease their risk. It is the responsibility of each person to carry their own bricks. It is acceptable for someone to voluntarily carry some of another person's bricks. Now let us say that Joe gets the idea that he can earn money carrying bricks for another person. So he saves his own money (or gets other people to chip in) and buys a wheelbarrow. People then pay Joe to carry some of their bricks. Joe pays some of this money to fix (health care) the bricks that turn out to be bad (the illness or injury happened) and he keeps the rest of the money. The business model is:

"Joe carrys some of your bricks, you pay Joe for this service. If Joe is carrying one of your bad bricks, then Joe pays to fix it, if not, you pay to fix it. "

This is how private insurance works.

On denial of coverage:
If joe thinks some of your bricks are bad (you have high risk factors), then he may choose to charge you more to carry those bricks, or refuse to carry those bricks at all, because his service is voluntary.

On preexisting conditions:
If one of the bricks you are still carrying is bad, it is not Joe's responsibility to pay to fix that brick. If you knowingly give Joe a bad brick (preexisting condition), then he is not responsible for paying to fix it.

On the health care industry:
Tom has a business repairing bad bricks (providing health care). It cost him a certain amount for supplies (facilities, insurance and staff) to fix bricks. He charges a certain amount for certain repairs, pays for the supplies, and keeps the rest as profit.

On medical repricing:
Now, since Joe sees a lot of bricks, and has to visit Tom, the brick fixer, he makes a voluntary deal with Tom to give him a volume discount on his's services. Since Joe is a good customer and brings in lots of business, Tom agrees to charge him at a lower rate. Tom even gets the idea to offer this discount to other people directly, in exchange for a small regular fee. He is trading occasional high profit for a steady lower Profit.

On the uninsured or self insured:
Suzie decides that she does not want Joe's services. She earns enough money to put aside some of it to pay for fixing her own bad bricks (she is self insured).
Frank cannot afford to pay anyone to carry his bricks (he is uninsured), so if he has a bad brick, he will have to pay to have that brick fixed. We will assume that it is not frank's fault that his brick broke, and no one else broke his brick (if they had, they would have to pay to fix it).

Debating welfare:

2009-10-15T08:55:00.000-07:00

When debating against various forms of welfare, with liberals, I have found a few common themes in their arguments for these programs. Here's the short list:

1. "Welfare payments keep the poor from rioting for food and other resources."

2. "The taxes that go to pay for welfare are 'payment' for living in society."

3. "It is 'immoral' for someone to buy when that money could go to save a sick child"

When all these arguments fail to convince me that stealing from some people to pay for resources for other people is a good idea, most will fall back on #4:

4. "you are a mean and nasty person, if you don't want to help the 'needy'." (this is the "I'm losing the argument, so I will attack your character" argument.)

To the first point, I would ask: If welfare is extortion money, wouldn't it be better to let them riot, and then treat the rioters as the criminals they are? Wouldn't it be cheaper to have them all in jail eating bread and water, than supporting food stamps where they buy steak for their dog (extreme, but i've seen it done)?

To the second, I would comment that society is based on mutual benefit. What benefit does the person who pays in to these programs, see from the people who receive these benefits. There are generally two answers to this question. One involves the "warm fuzzy feeling" you get from helping someone in need (i can get that from giving to charity, where I know the money is going for what i want it to go for). The second involves the first "riot" argument.

To the third point, I would ask: Is it the responsibility of government to force a person to act "morally"? To enforce morality? Whose morality should be enforced? Some would say that homosexuality is immoral. Most of us would agree that slavery is immoral. If majority opinion should shift so that this were not the case, should these issues be made mandatory, or prohibited , based solely on majority opinion? Or should the government only step in when one party actually harms another?

To the fourth point, I would say that there are other, more efficient, ways to help the "needy". Ways that ensure that the truly needy get help, and not just people who "game" the system for free resources. People have the right to be as stingy, or as generous as they want, with their own money. Generally, people will help someone in need, but will resist any attempt to take their money by force, for whatever reason. Forced charity is not charity, it is theft. Stealing from me to help someone else does not make me a good person.

What do you think? I'm sure i missed some "standard" arguments, these are just the most common ones i run into.

Americans have it good, what are we complaining about?

2009-08-25T07:38:00.000-07:00

Whenever I start to complain about the state of affairs in the United States, how we are slowly losing liberty, self reliance, and self determination to the juggernaut that is big government, people will point out that I should be happy that I have as many freedoms as I have, that we are still the most liberty-laden country in the world, and I should sit down and shut up.

This is my reply:

Imagine that your grandfather wanted to buy you a car. A nice sports car, with leather seats, and state of the art EVERYTHING. Let's say he worked hard for years, and years to save up enough money to buy you this perfect car. He finally saves up enough money, goes to the dealership, pays for this car, and gets a receipt. He then goes to your house, and hands you the receipt for this perfect sports car. You are excited, you run to the dealership to pick up your car. You show them the receipt, and they go to the back to get the car. The salesman pulls around the building, and you see a bright , shiny new YUGO. The guy gets out and hands you the keys. Now, what do you do? Do you complain, and demand that they give you the sports car that your grandfather worked so hard for? Or should you be happy that you have a car, sit down, and shut up?

Our forefathers fought, and died, to secure, for us, a republic that protected the sovereignty of the individual over the tyranny of the masses, and the government. Hell yes, I'm going to fight, when they try to deny me that which my ancestors paid dearly for.

Political spectrum quiz

2009-08-06T16:13:00.001-07:00

Take the quiz, and post your results in the comments section.

http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html

Here's mine:

http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-results-alt.html

on universal health care and social security:

2009-08-05T06:08:00.001-07:00

People on both ends of the political spectrum agree that Social Security is quickly going broke. The only reason it has lasted as long as it has is because lawmakers keep lowering benefits, and increasing the eligibility age for retirement. This is functionally equivalent to rationing the service. How long would the Social Security funds last, if you could withdraw money at will?

With socialized health care, either you would be restricted in your ability to use the service (rationing services) or you could visit the doctor whenever you want (withdraw at will). Which , do you think, will happen? If health care is rationed, how is this a more desirable system? If you can withdraw at will, how long before the system is as broke as Social Security?

The parable of WidgetWise

2009-07-28T14:44:00.001-07:00

Lets pretend that you own a store that sells Widgets. You have to make $1000 a day to stay in business. You can serve 10 customers a day, so you sell widgets for $100 each. Now, let's suppose that the government decides that everyone needs to have a steady supply of widgets, and starts a program called "WidgetWise". This program pays for widgets for people who , otherwise, would not have as many widgets. You think: "great! This will be really good for business". So, you open up your shop, and wait for the profits to roll in. You hand the new WidgetWise customers their Widget, and they give you "WW" number so that you can collect the payment from the government. You have seen four WW customers, when you notice the fine print on the WW card:

"Widget vendor must take this number for payment in full of $50, and supply the bearer with a Widget."

You can only see 6 more customers, and you have to make $1000 dollars today to keep your doors open. The first four "WW"customers only provided you with $200. What do you do? (here's a hint, 800/6=133)

This was the dilemma faced by health care providers when medicare came into effect. The liberal camp would have you believe that rising health care costs either have no cause, or are caused by "greedy doctors" gouging their patients for every last dime. So next time you hear The democrats shouting that the problem of the high cost of health care needs to be solved with a government program, just remember that before the last "government program" health care was affordable.

comments from another blog...

2009-07-18T07:26:00.000-07:00

>>It’s something that has to happen. Americans are already literally dying in the streets due to the Status Quo. And Privatization-gone-amok.

It is Status Quo, but it is not “Privatization-gone-amok”. The government has its hands in it, in the form of medicare. That makes it “semi-nationalization-gone-amok”

To use an example from another thread:

In the “safeway” situation, the striking workers have a resource (their labor) that they are withholding from the store owners, in order to force a change in the valuation of that resource (the “market value”). If the government were to bring in labor (scab labor) from somewhere else, and charge less than what the striking workers were making in the first place, how effective would that strike be? Would the value of the workers’ labor go up (change)?

Now let’s substitute the players: The patients are the “workers”, The patients’ money is their “labor”, The cost of health care is the “market value” of the labor (basically, how much health care a dollar will buy) and medicare is the “scab labor”.

The medicare system (scab labor), at present, prevents any “strike” by the patients (taking their money elsewhere), from being effective in changing the price (”market value”) of the health care.

The only thing that makes a strike effective is the threat of losing money on the part of the employer. As long as the medical providers are getting that money from the government (in the form of medicare, or universal health care) they are not going to lose enough money to force them to lower prices. If you remove that stream of “public money” from going into the pockets of the medical providers, the only source of money left is the patients. The patients’ money supply will be a relatively fixed resource that different providers will have to compete for. This competition will drive down prices.

>>Since the Right Wing hasn’t anything besides “more Reaganite Bullshit” and “give the Private sector more Public Money” any policy which caters or compromises to that is going to be so insufficient that it would take nothing less than the most massive police state ever to hold the people down.

I agree there, that is why I suggest letting the “private sector” A.K.A. “the individual” keep the money he earns, and not funneling it (in the form of taxes) through the government which will care little where it goes, because government did not earn it. The government didn’t load the truck, or stock the shelves, or machine the lower gear casing, to earn that money. They just stole it from the workers who did all those things.

>>copy cat, YOUR side has had almost thirty years of almost complete unfettered access to the public money without public oversight, aka “government regulation”.

“my side” has had little or no control over policy since the Keynesians took over in 1913. I am a “Von Mises, Rothbard, Friedman”, kind of guy, not a Reaganite.

>>Thieves like Cheney and Bush and Wolfowicz have done what, exactly? to benefit the economy.

Worse than nothing, and the current policies will be even worse.

>>Yet we’re supposed to trust these bastards with more leeway, more money and less regulation? Fuck that.

I suggest trusting the government with as little money as possible. I suggest making the consumer the only source of income for businesses.

copycat

Entertaining the possibility...

2009-07-17T07:56:00.001-07:00

I am trying to get someone to explain both sides of the fractional vs full reserve systems, and this is a place to ask my questions. I am willing to entertain the possibility that the fractional reserve system is not inherently flawed, and may be useful. I have invited someone from the fractional reserve camp who seems to understand both systems to explain some of the underlying concepts. I ask that there is NO FLAMING on either side of the issue, because it will add nothing to my understanding of the issue.

This post is for a specific user on another blog I frequent. You'll know if it is for you.

2009-07-14T20:10:00.000-07:00

>>http://www.well.com/~davidu/extinction.html for loads of links to your ‘proof’, CC.

Using your own "proof":
-----------------------------------------------------

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_938000/938038.stm

This article from 2000 says :

"A quarter of the world's mammal species face a high risk of extinction very soon, a conservation group says."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2000325.stm

This article from 2002 predicted "Almost a quarter of the world's mammals face extinction within 30 years, according to a United Nations report on the state of the global environment."

This last was in may of 2002, it is now july 2008, if 1/4 (%25) of the mammal population were supposed to be extinct in 30 years from 2002,then let's do some math:

If you divide the 25% by the 30 years the extinction is supposed to take, then you get .8% per year.

let's assume more animals will be lost in the later years, and fewer in the early years. so, let's cut that number in half (.4%). OK .4% x 6 (years) = 2.4% of the total mammal population should have become extinct in the last 6 years.

http://www.currentresults.com/Environment-Facts/Plants-Animals/number-species.php

This link puts the total number of mammal species at 5,416, and my research has uncovered numbers as low as 4600.

We will go with the estimate from your source.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/2/l_032_04.html

which put the figure at 5000 in 2001.

ok, 5000 x 2.4% = 120 species should have gone extinct since 2002.

ok, maybe they are taking longer than anticipated... let's divide that number in half.

so, can you find a list of the 60 species of mammal that have gone extinct since 2002?

I couldn't.

Remember, I'm using YOUR sources, and I'm "showing my work".

----------------------------------------------------------------

Below are some of my own links.

http://westinstenv.org/wildpeop/2008/12/31/of-mice-and-caribou-and-men-and-wolves/

This article suggest possible ulterior motives and methods for promoting a "gloom and doom" approach to environmental science. (just follow the money)

http://sovereignty.net/p/land/kral-insect.htm

This article gives good arguments against the "biodiversity bandwagon".

copycat

Tom Smith and His Incredible Bread Machine By: R.W. Grant

2009-06-15T11:21:00.000-07:00

This is a legend of success and plunder
And a man, Tom Smith, who squelched world hunger.
Now, Smith, an inventor, had specialized
In toys. So, people were surprised
When they found that he instead
Of making toys, was BAKING BREAD!

The way to make bread he’d conceived
Cost less than people could believe.
And not just make it! This device
Could, in addition, wrap and slice!
The price per loaf, one loaf or many:
The miniscule sum of under a penny.

Can you imagine what this meant?
Can you comprehend the consequent?
The first time yet the world well fed!
And all because of Tom Smith’s bread.

A citation from the President
For Smith’s amazing bread.
This and other honors too
Were heaped upon his head.

But isn’t t a wondrous thing
How quickly fame if flown?
Smith, the hero of today-
Tomorrow, scarcely known.

Yes, the fickle years passed by;
Smith was a millionaire,
But Smith himself was now forgot-
Though bread was everywhere.
People, asked from where it came,
Would very seldom know.
They would simply eat and ask,
“Was not it always so?”

However, Smith cared not a bit,
For millions ate his bread,
And “Everything is fine,” thought he,
“I am rich and they are fed!”
Everything was fine, he thought?
He reckoned not with fate.

Note the sequence of events
Starting on the date
On which the business tax went up.
Then, to a slight extent,
The price on every loaf rose too:
Up to one full cent!

“What’s going on?” the public cried,
“He’s guilty of pure plunder.
He has no right to get so rich
On other people’s hunger!”

(A prize cartoon depicted Smith
With fat and drooping jowls
Snatching bread from hungry babes
Indifferent to their howls!)

Well, since the Public does come first,
It could not be denied
That in matter such as this,
The Public must decide.
So, antitrust now took a hand.
Of course, it was appalled
At what if found was going on.
The “bread trust,” it was called.

Now this was getting serious.
So Smith felt that he must
Have a friendly interview
With the men in antitrust.
So, hat in hand, he went to them.

They’d surely been misled;
No rule of aw had he defied,
But then their lawyer said:

“The rule of law, in complex times,
Has proved itself deficient.
We much prefer the rule of men!
It’s vastly more efficient.
Now, let me state the present rules,’
The lawyer then went on,
“These very simple guidelines
You can rely upon:
You’re gouging on your prices if
You charge more than the rest.
But it’s unfair competition
If you think you can charge less.

“A second point that we would make
To help avoid confusion:
Don’t try to charge the same amount:
That would be collusion!
You must compete. But not too much,
For if you do, you see,
Then the market would be yours –
And that’s monopoly!”

Price too high? Or price too low?
Now, which charge did they make?
Well, they weren’t loath to charging both
With Public Good at stake!

In fact, they went one better –
They charged “monopoly!”
No muss, no fuss, oh woe is us,
Egad, they charged all three!

“Five years in jail,” the judge then said,
“You’re lucky it’s not worse,
Robber Barons must be taught
Society Comes first!”

Now, bread is baked by government.
And as might be expected,
Everything is well controlled;
The public well protected.

True, loaves cost a dollar each.
But out leaders do their best.
The selling price is half a cent.
(Taxes pay the rest!)

A bit of (no doubt faulty) philosophy

2009-05-14T13:32:00.000-07:00

It was asserted to me the other day (while discussing politics, ectics and morality) that there are no absolutes. I submit that although absolutes may not, in reality exist, but that non-existence is irrelavent. The idea of an ideal is a useful tool to use as a reference point for measuring change in a system, and therefore setting goals to change that system. I submit that the idea of the ideal is the absolute.

a Grand Unified Theory:
I agree that if a universal "natural law" or "absolute truth" cannot be discovered (or indeed, does not exist outside the realm of the supernatural) then there can be no universal ethic*.
With that being said, would it not be practical to start with a premise that is simple enough to be universally agreed upon, (or at least not refuted) agree upon a logical methodology to build upon that premise, and fashion an artificial universal ethic?

*in this work, I use the word ethic and ethics to describe interactions that are external to the individual, and independent of morality. I define morality as a person's subjective sense of right and wrong.
For example: under an ethical system whose premise is "might makes right" , it would be "ethical" for a person to murder another. It would be assumed that since the person was able to get the best of his victim, he was in some way, "mightier". Whether such a killing was "moral" depends upon what system of morality the observer uses, and is beside the point.

Things you should know about the united States government (but won't learn in the media)

2009-05-04T08:00:00.000-07:00

1. We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Democracy is a terrible form of government.

please add your own.

Hypocracy on both sides

2009-05-04T06:04:00.001-07:00

I debated with an individual, the other day, who said that no one should make over $250,000, because there is no way that they would need that much money every year, that there was no work that a person could do to "earn" that much money. He said that they should give any money over that amount to the needy. I asserted that any amount that an individual contracts for, and fulfills the contract, he has earned, because that is what the work was worth to the individual who paid him. He asserted that anyone who kept any more money than that was "greedy". This got me thinking. This person was a liberal, and was entitled to his opinions, but calling those who produce, and do not give away the product of their labor, "greedy" is making a moral judgement. This is something that the liberals accuse the conservatives of when it comes to the "gay marriage" issue, and the abortion issue. Using the Government to enforce "charity" (in the form of welfare) is no different (or any more proper) from using government to enforce religious doctrine. Both are using the power of government to enforce a code of morality. The function of government is not to enforce morality, but to protect the individual from the use of force by another individual, or individuals.

The Choice of a social system under which to live is no different (from a logical standpoint) from the choice of a religious system. Both are a conscious choice. Any social system which does not allow the individual to choose his own way is as bad as forcing a religious choice upon an individual, and has no benefit for society as a whole.

For example:
progressivism, socialism, Marxism (whatever you call it, it is the same premise) does not allow for people to "opt out" of the system, because one of the premises of this system is that the labor of the individual is owned by the group, and not the individual. If he leaves the system, the system considers that labor "stolen" from the group. This is not at all what this country was founded on, and is bad for the group as a whole, because if you see no more benefit from working your hardest, than a person working just enough to meet their quota, then the product of the entire system will be much less. This makes for a materially poor nation.

on the other hand, libertarianism, the system which was set up by the founding fathers, does not prohibit socialist style systems within its framework, it just guarantees that if an individual wants to "opt out" then he is free to do so. Under this system, if a person works harder, he gets the benefits of his labor. If he chooses not to work, he receives no benefits. This makes for a materially rich nation, because those who wish to prosper, do not have to support those who don't care to do what is necessary to prosper.

comments are welcome.

Democracy or Republic, Which is it?

2009-04-25T08:36:00.000-07:00

DEMOCRACY OR REPUBLIC,
WHICH IS IT?

By Benedict D. LaRosa

INTRODUCTION

Several years ago, a caller to the Larry King television
talk show asked the guest, a Congressman, to explain the
difference between a democracy and a republic. The
Congressman responded that there was no difference; the two
words were synonymous. Intrigued by the ignorance of this
apparently intelligent, well-meaning man who had sworn to
uphold the Constitution of the United States, I consulted
several dictionaries. None of them considered the two words
synonymous, though all described them in similar terms.
Little wonder, then, that the words are used interchangeably
today. To the founders of this country, however, there was a
world of difference between the two. Even Heinrich Muller,
Chief of the Gestapo, recognized this. In an interview given
to the Central Intelligence Agency in 1948 at his home in
Switzerland, Muller said:

Here, in Switzerland, is the only real democracy in the
world. You in American have a republic, not a democracy.
There is a real difference there.

Is the distinction merely the rambling of politically
incorrect 18th century tax protesters, or are there real
difference between the two forms of government?

MISCONCEPTION

Although we hear the term democracy used constantly in
reference to our form of government, the word does not
appear in either the Declaration of Independence or the
Constitution of the United States, our two fundamental
documents. Indeed, Article IV, Section 4, of the
constitution "guarantees to every State in this union a
Republican Form of Government." In addition, we sing
the Battle Hymn of the Republic, and pledge allegiance to
the flag of "the Republic for which it stands."

On the contrary, the founders saw great danger in
democracy. Tom Paine, that firebrand of the American
Revolution, considered democracy the vilest form of
government. In describing the purpose of the Constitutional
Convention of 1787, Virginia delegate Edmund Randolph
commented:

The general object was to provide a cure for the evils
under which the United States labored; that in tracing these
evils to their origin, every man had found it in the
turbulence and follies of democracy.

Thirty-eight years after the Declaration of Independence,
John Adams warned:

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes,
exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy
that did not commit suicide.

John Marshall, chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 1801
to 1835 observed:

Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference
is like that between order and chaos.

As late as 1928, the "Citizenship" chapter of
U.S. War Department training manual TM 2000-25 expressed the
opinion:

Democracy... has been repeatedly tried without success. Our
Constitutional fathers... made a very marked distinction
between a republic and a democracy... and said repeatedly
and emphatically that they had founded a republic.

One of America's outstanding historians, Charles Austin
Beard (1874-1948), put it succinctly:

At no time, at no place in solemn convention assembled,
through no chosen agents, had the American people officially
proclaimed the United States to be a democracy. The
Constitution did not contain the word or any word lending
countenance to it....

Why, then, do we call ourselves a democracy, and does it
really make any difference?

WHAT IS A DEMOCRACY?

The origin of the word democracy comes from the Greek
demos, meaning people, and kratos, meaning government.
Literally, democracy means government by or of the people.

In a democracy, the majority rules either directly, or
through elected representatives or appointed officials,
without the restraint embodied in a fixed body of law. The
law is whatever an official organ of government determines
it is. ("The law is in their mouth," as was said
of absolute monarchs.) It is rule by whim rather than law,
by emotion rather than reason. Individuals have no inherent
rights, but are considered the products of history (slavery,
the renaissance, dark ages, etc.), culture (western,
oriental, etc.), class (nobility, merchant, artisan,
peasant, etc.), gender (male or female), race (Caucasian,
Negroid, etc.), religion (Protestant, Catholic, Hindu,
Moslem, Jewish, etc.), etc., and are classified and
categorized accordingly. Rights emanate from the mass will
or power. The purpose of government is to satisfy needs
(food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare, etc.). It
is government by conflicting biases with the result that
members of politically powerful constituencies receive
privileges because of their classification within certain
categories rather than on merit at the expense of everyone
else. The racial and other quotas under Affirmative Action
are an example.

The laws are political or man-made, and reflect not truth
and justice, but power. They are a mass of ad hoc decisions
produced through lobbying, geared to expediency, concerned
more with immediate consequences and less with consistency
or continuity. Gun control and drug laws are prime examples.
They are based on the emotional reaction to societal
problems for which the misuse of guns and drugs are merely
the symptom. Despite overwhelming evidence that such laws
not only don't work, but actually encourage lawlessness,
those who support them demand more draconian measures in the
face of their repeated failures. As a consequences, our
prisons fill with peaceful people who merely want to defend
themselves or relax with a drug which is, at most, harmful
only to themselves, while murderers, rapists, and robbers
are set free to make room for these political prisoners.

Political law creates advantage. Therefore, political
factions compete to control the law-making process.
Government power is a prize to be won for the benefit of the
winners at the expense of the losers. The law becomes an
instrument used by the winners against their opponents.
Officers of the law are appropriately called law enforcement
officers or policemen (from the Greek, Latin, and French to
regulate, control, or cleanup). Their primary role is to
enforce the corporate will, and protect the power of the
state. The military is an instrument of foreign and, at
times, domestic policy. Taxes are imposed without the
individual's consent, and are used to reward and punish
as well as pay for legitimate government functions.

People vote for what they want, not what is right. The
public looks to the political class for moral leadership.
Public and private morality are considered the same which
justifies making private morality public policy. Thus what
one does in the privacy of his own home with consenting
adults (gambling, for example) must meet the same standard
as for public behavior. As a result, vices become crimes,
and the exercise of certain freedoms becomes criminal
activity. What is lawful today may not be tomorrow, and an
individual considered law-abiding one day, may be a criminal
the next, though his behavior has not changed.

Restraint is upon the individual. Rights are relative and
take the form of privileges granted through government
licenses and permits, or simply permissions revocable at the
whim of those in power. The will of one segment of society
-- the majority -- is imposed on everyone. Government acts
like a hammer punishing violations of majority standards as
enacted by legislation. Consent of the governed is
meaningless, for such governments exercise their powers over
anyone they choose.

Democracy concentrates power into the hands of the few
organized and clever enough to manipulate the masses. It is
characterized by a communistic attitude toward property and
monopolistic enterprises. Government thus becomes an
instrument for the redistribution of wealth as well as the
security of the state. It is the rule of men, the
dictatorship of the majority without regard to the
consequences upon individuals or society.

WHAT IS A REPUBLIC?

The word republic is from the Latin res, which means thing,
affair or interest, and publica which means of everybody.
It literally means everybody's thing or interest.

The Declaration of Independence contains the principles of
republican government: that all men are created with equal,
unalienable rights, that governments are formed by men to
secure these rights, and that governments derive their just
powers from the consent of the governed. Upon these
principles, our forefathers established a body of law called
the Constitution of the United States to which they added a
Bill of Rights as the first ten amendments to further
restrict majority rule.

The essence of a republic is the rule of law, by which is
meant the common or scientific law, which is certain and
unchangeable. This law is discovered, not made, in that the
tendency is to find the freedoms and restraints imposed by
natural law, and base decisions upon them. ("Man cannot
make principles, he can only discover them," wrote Tom
Paine.)

Since human nature doesn't change, what was right
yesterday should be so today and tomorrow. Courts seek out
and enforce a higher law as opposed to political or man-made
law. As a result, the law seeks truth, transcends politics,
is reasonable, consistent, predictable, and reflects or
approximates natural justice. Government acts like a shield
punishing the abuses of freedoms -- assaults against the
life, liberty, and property of innocent people -- not the
freedoms themselves. For example, the misuse of a firearm
which results in injury to an innocent party would be
punished rather than the mere possession of such a weapon.
Officers of the law are appropriately called peace officers,
for they do not enforce political law, but protect everyone
equally from force and fraud. The military is used as a last
resort to protect the nation. Moral authority rests outside
the political class who are held to a high moral standard
through public pressure. Government's purpose is to
protect rights and defend freedom. Taxes are voluntary
assessments used to fund legitimate government functions
serving the common good (in obedience to John Adams'
dictum that "No man may be taxed against his
will....").

Under this form of government, individual freedom and
responsibility are maximized. The individual is sovereign
and his rights are sacrosanct. Individuals are free to act
without permission, but must never impose without consent.
Everyone has an equal right to compete in the marketplace,
succeed or fail on their own, and pursue their own happiness
restrained only by the rights of others to do the same.
Republics reject as a danger to liberty the public interest
doctrine espoused in democracies, because, as John Adams
articulated:

You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments:
rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws:
rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.

In a republic, the government has just enough power to
carry out its proper functions, but is otherwise limited,
inhibited and restricted. According to political historian,
Thomas Molnar:

The prevailing concept [of 18th century liberalism] was...
that the State should concern itself with public safety, and
should be called out -- in the form of its armed forces --
only to restrain the disorderly and crush the rebellious.

Power is decentralized, divided, and regulated by an
elaborate system of checks and balances, with the ultimate
check held by the people in the form of free and open
elections (the ballot box), trial by jury (the jury box),
and an armed citizenry (the cartridge box). The law is
neutral. No one is exempt; everyone is equal before it. All
are held fully accountable to an injured party.

Republican government is based on Tom Paine's premise
that:

Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary
evil: in its worst state, an intolerable one.

Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address, gave
perhaps the best description of republican government:

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from
injuring one another... shall leave them otherwise free to
regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement,
and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has
earned. This is the sum of good government....

In a republic, government is an instrument solely for
collective security in which the people are served rather
than regulated, represented rather than ruled. When the
principles of republican government are followed, free
markets spring up automatically followed by a growing middle
class, abundance, harmony, a high degree of liberty, and
ethical behavior. The emphasis is on the creation of wealth,
not the accumulation of power as in a democracy.

WHY NOT A DEMOCRACY?

John Adams summed up what a government of men brings:

Passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple
government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of
fraud, violence and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened
before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy
gratification, it is hard for the most considerate
philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist
the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves;
nations and large bodies of men, never.

Professor Alexander Fraser Tyler, writing when the states
were still colonies of Great Britain, explained why
democracies always fail:

A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government.
It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote
themselves largess of the public treasury. From that moment
on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising
the most benefits from the public treasury with the result
that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy,
always to be followed by a Dictatorship.

James Madison, father of the Constitution, wrote in The
Federalist No. 10:

In a pure democracy, there is nothing to check the
inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious
individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been
spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been
found incompatible with personal security or the rights of
property; and have in general been as short in their lives
as they have been violent in their deaths.

Even Plato warned, in his Republic, that, as a rule,
tyranny arises from democracy.

For these reasons, the founders of our Republic avoided a
government of men and established a government of law.

WHY THE MISCONCEPTION?

The confusion is not new. James Madison, writing in The
Federalist No. 14, refers to:

The error which limits republican government... seems to
owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a
republic with a democracy, applying to the former reasonings
drawn from the nature of the latter.

Madison blamed "celebrated authors" for the
confusion because they placed:

... in comparison the vices and defects of the republican,
and by citing as specimens of the latter the turbulent
democracies of ancient Greece and modern Italy. Under the
confusion of names, it has been an easy task to transfer to
a republic observations applicable to a democracy only.

Widespread use of the term democracy began with the Woodrow
Wilson administration in 1912. It was during this
administration that the anti-republican amendments -- the
16th (income tax) and 17th (popular election of senators) --
were added to our Constitution and a central bank -- the
Federal Reserve -- was established. All three acts
centralized power.

The U.S. War Department manual (mentioned above) defined
democracy and republic, and explained the difference
between both. Sometime in the 1930s, during the Franklin
Roosevelt administration, all copies were withdrawn from the
Government Printing Office and Army posts, and destroyed
without explanation.

Confusion between the two forms of government lingers today
to the detriment of not only the American people, but also
all those who look to us as an example of how to structure a
just and free society. When we understand the difference,
many of the issues which divide us will melt away. We will
then make better choices in our leaders, and demand that
government become less intrusive, abusive, and expensive,
and more responsive to our collective needs for security,
harmony, and abundance. It would not be an exaggeration to
say that the very survival of our civilization depends upon
knowing the difference between a Republic and a Democracy.

copyright © Benedict D. LaRosa

Benedict D. LaRosa is a historian and author. He earned
undergraduate and graduate degrees in history from the U.S.
Air Force Academy and Duke University respectively. During
the Vietnam War, he served as a pilot and unit historian in
southeast Asia, and later worked as a civilian historian for
the Department of the Air Force. He is the author of Gun
Control: A Historical Perspective, published by Candlestick
Publishing Company.

Closer than you think.

2009-04-21T07:43:00.000-07:00

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few That are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, Sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands." All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.
Sound familiar?

The Bill of Rights: An analysis

2009-04-18T13:46:00.000-07:00

While reading through the bill of rights, it struck me that some of these amendments were absolute, and that some of them allowed the states to choose the manner in which they would be respected, or even to respect them. I have highlighted the phrases that indicate the difference.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(This means that an individual state might have the authority to establish religion, or prohibit free speech, but not the federal government (congress).)

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

(This means that no power has the authority to limit, in any way, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. Violating amendment 1 while the people are armed, wouldn't be a very good idea)

Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

(The "prescribed by law" qualifier makes this one stretchable)

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

(Another one that neither the state, nor the federal government may violate. )

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

(Another one that neither the state, nor the federal government may violate. )

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

(this one must be obeyed by both state and federal government)

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

(this one cites "common law" they have circumvented this one in many cases, by using the UCC instead of the common law)

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

(only the fuzzy definition of excessive and "cruel and unusual" allow this one to be circumvented)

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

(this one is circumvented by a lack of education in the people. If the people don't claim a right, then you can't say it was denied.)

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

(this one was made unenforceable by the states by the 17th amendment which robbed the individual states of representation in the federal government by making the election of senators by popular vote, instead of appointment by the state legislatures.)

comments are welcome.

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

2009-04-18T12:14:00.000-07:00

I'm in the middle of reading this novel, and it is the best I have ever read. the parallels between the events in the novel (published in the late 50s) and the state of our congress and constitution today are frightening. Please, READ THIS BOOK.

A liberal Kid ?.... and FIFTY DOLLARS

2009-04-07T15:23:00.000-07:00

i normally wouldn't post something i got as a forward in my email, but this fits the theme of my blog...



I recently asked my friend's little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her,
'If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?'
She replied, 'I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.'
Her parents beamed.
'Wow! What a worthy goal.' I told her, 'But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.'
She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?'
I said, 'Welcome to the Republican Party.'
Her parents still aren't speaking to me..


O.K. , I'm not Republican, but i do feel that the story illustrates the problem with the "collectivist" ideals.

912 wish list: www.912project.com

2009-03-27T05:59:00.000-07:00

wish list:

1. No taxpayer money should go to pay for primaries. Also institute range voting for federal office, and no official political parties identified on the ballot (political parties are essentially private organizations). (this decreases the chances of any 1 or 2 parties from dominating the government and allows for a greater range of political representation at the federal level.)

2. Districting (straight line, by computer) based solely on population, not on political affiliation. (this prevents gerrymandering)

3. Close all government agencies which were not specifically created by the constitution, (i.e. dept of education, IRS, EPA, TVA. etc.), as these do not have a direct measurable effect on National defense (armed services), the postal service, and the justice system.

4. Limit the number of federal laws to 100 and limit the number of words in the text of each law to 500 words. Each law must also cite the specific article of the constitution which gives the federal government the authority to pass and enforce the law. Additionally, there may be no more than 5 laws citing "interstate commerce". The length requirement for an individual law may be waived so long as three conditions are met: ---1. It does not cite the "interstate commerce" clause. ---2. The full text is read aloud, in its entirety, on the floor of the voting entity, in front of a quorum of the voting members, and each member present signs an affidavit affirming that they have heard, or read the entire bill. ---3. The bill, if passed, enjoyed a 75% majority vote. (this will limit the federal government to constitutional powers, discourage "hiding" legislation within a huge bill, and allow for the passage of really needed legislation that is larger than the size limit.)

5. Specify that corporations are not citizens. Ban campaign contributions (including to PACs) by corporations and remove the cap on contributions by private citizens. Also ban the use of tax money to fund political campaigns (no more "matching funds"). Additionally, ban payment for lobbying activities. If you lobby, you must volunteer to do so, without payment or gifts as incentive. (this will prevent corporations with deep pockets from having more political influence than a citizen.)

6. A constitutional ban the taxation of salary and wages, and allow the taxpayer to specify where the money he pays can NOT be used (welfare, planned parenthood, etc.). Additionally, if a private charity duplicates (or nearly so) the goal of a government agency, all donations to that charity are considered to have been paid directly in taxes (not as a deductable, but actually paid). (This will allow people who earn their money through work to keep it, and encourage charitable donation to entities which have a vested interest in making sure that their money is used efficiently for the stated purpose.)

7. Immediate withdrawal from U.N. membership, stop all foreign aid, allow private citizens unlimited donations to ANY organization (domestic or foreign) Require any military action approved by congress to be renewed every six months, with the margin of majority rising to 75% after the first full year of approval. (this will remove any threat to american sovreignty, allow citizens to choose which countries they wish to aid, allow the people to review the wisdom of any particular military action, and make it difficult to wage war under false pretenses.)

8. Require that the federal budget be balanced, and ban the borrowing of money by government, except through the sale of bonds to private American citizens. Stipulate that the last item to be paid from the budget be the salaries and budgets of the individual members' offices. (this will curtail inflation by preventing the government from "borrowing money from future generations, or "printing" large amounts of money into existence.)

9. Repeal federal anti-drug laws, and abolish the DEA. Allow each state and even communities within the states to choose whether laws banning the sale of a substance is appropriate for that state or community. Harming "society" is not an excuse for an activity to be illegal, if you attack or steal from another individual, it is a crime. If you only directly harm yourself, it's not a crime, it is natural selection. Allow criminals the choice (once in prison) of "hard labor" to shorten their sentences. prisoners who choose not to work, should receive long sentences and minimum subsistance food and accomodations for the duration of their sentence (paid for by the work of their fellow prisoners). Abolish parole, and restore full citizenship rights to prisoners, once released.

10. Close the social security administration, or at least allow citizens to opt out of social security (no opting back in). Stop the "borrowing" of funds from the social security fund. all money paid into social security, goes for social security.

on the constitutionality of anti-discrimination laws:

2009-03-23T12:56:00.000-07:00

I submit that anti-discrimination laws (on a personal level) violate an individual's freedom of association and sometimes their right to contract. I further submit that these laws do have a place in our society, but only up to the point where the rights of the "discriminator" are violated.

In the united States, individuals have the right to associate (or not) with whomever they wish, and the right to enter into contracts (or not) with whomever they wish, for any reason they feel justified. However, some anti-discrimination laws violate those rights by forcing contracts upon unwilling parties in the name of "fairness".

Here are two versions of a scenario with a very slight difference, which illustrates where I believe the line should be drawn, and the rationale behind that line.

Let us suppose that an individual owns an extra house, which he offers for rent. This "business is not incorporated, and the income from it is considered the personal income of the individual. His finances are not held separate from the house in the eyes of the law. He is a very religious person who believes that living together before marriage is sinful, and he refuses to support such activity on moral grounds. An unmarried couple seeks to rent the house, and he turns them away, citing these moral grounds in as inoffensive a manner as possible. He can then be sued for discrimination.

In this case, where is his right not to enter into conrtact with the couple, and therefore support a lifestyle to which he is opposed? His personal fortune is tied up in the house and he is unprotected financially from any disaster befalling the property (lawsuits included). I believe he has the right to discriminate in this instance, and for any other reason, because the "business" has no legal protection.

Now let us suppose the same scenario, with one change: The rental property is a regular incorporated business separate from the owner, and enjoys the protection offered by such an arrangement (limited liability, etc.) In this case, I believe that in exchange for the protection the business must not discriminate. This is partly because the owner has waived those rights in exchange for those protections where it relates to the business. I also believe that those protections came ,in part, from the individuals that the owner might seek to discriminate against. I see it as a voluntary contract, in that sense, so he cannot renig on his side of the contract.

Comments are welcome.

generic curriculum (a private project)

2009-03-20T19:18:00.000-07:00

I'm trying to come up with a generic curriculum for k-12 and i would like your views on what should be included at what grade levels. Things like what level should 2nd languages be introduced how soon should government be taught and timelines for maths are welcome. Feel free to post links to free resources.

Whose money do you think they are spending?

2009-03-15T16:00:00.000-07:00

The anecdote, David Crockett, Charity, and Congress by Edward S. Ellis, is a good explanation of why we should trust our government with as little money as possible.

Terror's War

2009-03-15T12:50:00.000-07:00

Terror's War

Once upon a city fair
Planes struck two towers, leaving bare
The lot where they once stood; the people gone but not forgotten.

A blackened Pennsylvania field
And the Pentagon did more bodies yield.
A cry went out our swords to wield
And to terror bring the war.
To the hiding holes and the darkened caves of terror bring the war.

Nothing less, but nothing more.

King Dubya crusaded to Afghanistan
And with ultimatum, did demand
Bin Ladin from the Taliban or else they feel his sting.

Said they, "We will not take your word.
Your evidence it must be heard
'Ere we decree 'release this turd'"
This so enraged the King.
How dare they doubt his word and thus infuriate the King.

He then let slip the dogs of war.

Meanwhile, back home, he did decree
That safety trumps our liberty
And all the rights that make us free leave us open to be attacked.

And so took them with some legal rot
With the dubious name of PATRIOT
And with no thought of freedom bought
With blood, they did enact.
That freedom robbing piece of legal rot they did enact.

Thus terror starts to win the war.

And while with war, we were distracted
And prison-state laws, they were enacted
And our rights, like so much trash compacted, Bin Ladin got away.

Then Sir Colin with half-true tales
Of bio programs and weapon sales
Bade the U.N. "Fight before Iraq gets out of hand."

U.N. would not, a war, endorse,
But Dubya stayed his steady course
And from atop his highest horse
Cried, "He threatened my old man!"
"Saddam Hussein, he thumbed his nose and threatened my old man!"

And so again we went to war.

And by the RPG's red glare,
His righteous sword held in the air,
His battle cry:"Saddam beware! Iraq, it will be mine!"

He broke Saddam, and some time later
In reports, investigators
Said , "There are no weapons
Of mass destruction here to find.
Ne're Geiger tick nor germ of all those weapons here to find."

So why did we go to war?

"It does not matter if we lied,"
Said Dubya,"if through wrong or right
The war doth end on freedom's side it justifies the means."

And back at home, the same is said
With security in freedom's stead
And a shameful eagle hangs his head
While freedom slowly dies.
The masses are distracted while our freedom slowly dies.

How do we win in terror's war?

We'll not wrest freedom from terror's jaws,
But from the makers of our laws
In back-room deals and the capitol's halls, now that's where terror stands.

For when Bin Ladin's doing time
Or dead, another foe they'll find
To occupy our weary minds
With war and colored bands
With imperialistic war and measured threat with colored bands.

But this is how we win the war.

The essence of self-evident truth
Can't be imposed with claw and tooth
But whispered in the voting booth, lest liberty be killed.

And with each whisper, growing loud
Into the roar of madding crowd
To sweep away the blackened cloud
Of corruption on the hill.
The power-maddened spectre of corruption on the hill

That's how we'll win the war.

Else later , do yourself deride
When your children standing by your side
Ask "Where were you when freedom died and terror won the war?
When they took our rights for safety's sake and terror won the war?"

-Shane Maness

Please vote Libertarian! (www.lp.org)
Your children's freedom may depend upon it.

Some good essays, and a really good read

2009-03-14T08:04:00.000-07:00

Over at the Advocates for Self Government, their library has some good articles. I liked one, in particular.

They Pry Them from Our Cold Dead Fingers by Sharon Harris

on taxes, theft and the rights of "society":

2009-03-13T20:15:00.000-07:00

Most people would agree that no individual has the authority to take another individual's property, without that person's permission, and that to do so would be theft.

How many individuals together does it take before the group has the authority to take an individual's property, without that person's permission? How many does it take before it isn't theft? 10? 100? 10,000? 10 million?

I submit that no group, no matter how large has that authority. I submit that the group (society) has no inherient rights, that the sum of the rights of the individuals in the group is no greater than the rights of any individual inside or outside the group. To butcher a phrase: The rights of the one outweigh the wants, or needs, of the many.

If you work, and earn money, you probably pay taxes. At what point did you give permission for your property (your money) to be taken?
I submit that unless you agree to the tax, it is theft. Think about it.

on socialism and the graduated income tax:

2009-03-13T14:17:00.000-07:00

a brief and simplistic description of economic systems:

The Socialist/Communist (there are differences, but mostly not) way:
Imagine you are in a group of 10 working people. You have no money at the start of the day. The owner of a warehouse announces that he is paying $1 for every concrete block moved within the warehouse in an 8 hour period. At the end of 8 hours, you have moved 300 blocks, 4 others have moved 150 blocks each (600 total), 2 others moved 50 apiece (100 total) and the last 3 guys slept all day in the corner. So at the end of the day, 1000 blocks were moved, and the owner pays each of the 10 workers $100.

(rationalle: the effort put forth by the workers belongs to "society" not to the individual worker, therefore the product of that effort must be divided equally among all the workers)

The Free Market way:
The same initial conditions apply and the same work (or not) is performed by the workers. At the end of the day, each worker is given $1 for each block he moved. So you end the day with $300. Those who did not work, got nothing.

(rationalle: each worker owns his own effort, and is entitled to compensation relative to the effort he provided)

"Free Market" With a graduated wage tax:
The same initial conditions apply and the same work (or not) is performed by the workers. at the end of 8 hours, you are paid $300, then the "tax man" comes and takes $75 from you, $20 from each of the 4 who moved 150 blocks and $5 from each of the 2 who moved 50. He then takes $15 for "administrative costs" and gives the 3 who slept all day $50 each, because they "are poor, and are unable to support themselves". You wind up with $225 for moving 300 blocks.

(rationalle: i can't really think of one, but it must be similar to the socialist model)

which of these systems is fair?

Devaluation of our money.

2009-03-13T13:38:00.000-07:00

This is scary.

Philosophy of Liberty

2009-03-13T13:09:00.000-07:00

This is a very good explanation of libertarianism.

on universal health care:

2009-03-13T12:56:00.000-07:00

An argument against a government run health care system using medicare as an example:

Look at the increase in the price of health care since medicare (government run) came into being. If you could charge the government an artificially high price for a service (as long as you charged everyone else the same) you would. The quality drops, ( there is no pressure to give good care, just more care) because the one paying isn't the one recieving the service. If we got government out of health care entirely, that would force the industry to compete for customers (better care, lower prices).

If you want to contribute to a private charity that helps the poor pay their medical bills, that is up to you. And you should make sure that charity uses your money efficiently to get good care for people who need it. They will then become a shrewd medical customer, because it's their money. A government run health care system isn't using its money, it is using your money, so it doesn't really care about the service, or price. It can always get more money next tax time.

If I cannot pay my medical bills, do I have the authority to force you to help pay them? (no) If government derives its authority from the governed, and I (one of the governed) don't have the authority, I cannot give government that authority.

on taxes and morality:

2009-03-13T12:12:00.000-07:00

Using universal health care as an example:

If the cause is so important to you, support (or start) a private organization whose mission it is to provide health care for those who cannot afford it. My responsibility to my fellow man is a moral one, and whether we have a moral responsibility to support those causes which benefit others (social security, welfare, universal health care) is moot, because it is not the responsibility of government, nor should it have the authority, to enforce morality. Once you give the government the the authority to support (through taxes) "good" causes you give it the ability to define what "good" is. whether it be feeding the poor, or protecting traditional marriage.

Whatever the cause, I, as an individual, do not have the authority to force you to donate your money to support it. By what authority does the government (through taxes) force you to donate your money to support it? The government derives its authority from the individuals who are governed. If I (one of the governed) have no authority to force you to give, I cannot give government that authority (I don't have it to give). Whether the cause is foreign aid, welfare, universal health care, or bailing out $multi-billion corporations, only those individuals who want to support a particular cause should do so.

Think about all the government programs that are out there. Think about one you strongly agree with. If there were a charity that did the same thing, would you support it? (probably) Now, think about one you strongly disagree with. If there were a charity that did the same thing, would you support it? (probably not) The government is now forcing you to support that cause (leaving less money to support those causes you agree with) by using your tax money to pay for it. Many of the causes that are being funded now would probably wither away, if only those who agreed with them supported them. If that happened, maybe it wasn't such a good cause?