Mere Freedom

Bad Arguments Come From Bad Thought Process and Parroting

2010-03-29T12:34:00.000-07:00

My friend Adam Adkins shared with me a conversation he had with someone; I don't know who, but it may well have been any of millions of 19- or 20-year-old college students. His friend's arguments are interesting because:

(a) They are the same arguments you hear supporters of Big Government make every day. And when I say 'the same arguments' I don't mean merely that they're similar; I mean that almost every sentence contains at least one phrase that is repeated verbatim everywhere. Most of these people reflect perfectly, like a mirror, what they're told. And

(b) This is important because they aren't thinking about it. The use of language, and especially whole phrases, that you see in print or hear on television all the time is a sure symbol that the speaker is repeating what he has heard, not really caring what he is saying except so far as it is disagreeing as loudly as possible with whoever he is arguing against. This is exactly what Orwell was talking about in Politics and the English Language.

I will present the text as it was written, with comments in between.

If racism is not the whole of the Tea Party, it is in its heart, along with blind hatred, a total disinterest in the welfare of others, and a full-flowered, self-rationalizing refusal to accept the outcomes of elections, or the reality of Democracy, or of the narrowness of their minds and the equal narrowness of their public support.

This entire paragraph is made of flowery language and clichéd phrases that don't mean anything--certainly the writer is not concerned with what it means.

'Blind hatred'? Of whom? By whom? The writer ascribes 'blind hatred'--a very grievous charge to lay against any fellow man--to everyone involved with the Tea Party, and substantiates it not at all. This is the spirit of the 'hate speech' legislation that is ever being pushed by the left in the face of the First Amendment: the presumption that all dissent constitutes hate. Indeed, the word hate is losing its meaning; reading most leftist doctrine, hate may be used interchangeably with dissent. That is notable because when a person advocates punishing people--almost always conservatives--for 'hate speech', what he means is dissenting speech.

Now observe the phrase total disinterest in the welfare of others. In what way is the speaker positioned to make such a judgment on another person, knowing only that he opposes socialism?

The speaker does not know, and very likely does not care, the implications of what he is saying. He is implying that (a) Big Government is the only way to care for others, (b) that any person who opposes Big Government is selfish and unfeeling, and (c) that it is right and proper for government take by force the property of selfish people and redistribute it however it wants. That leads, actually, to implication (d), that government is automatically and by definition both selfless and efficient; or at any rate, more efficient than an individual can be.

Next, observe the reality of Democracy. That phrase asserts that the minority must submit to the majority's will, and the majority is by right empowered to force such submission, even if the majority says, for instance, you will teach your children this or that, or we will forcibly take them from you.

That sounds more like thuggery than proper or caring government. And should an individual take upon himself to do such a thing, we call it kidnapping.

Next, the narrowness of their minds. That should read their narrow minds, but the 'the ___ of ____' construction is very common in the political arena, probably because of its close kindred to the law arena, where wordiness and density is for some reason equated with intelligence.

Particularly, the narrowness of their minds, or narrow-mindedness, is a common stock phrase people say without thinking about what it means; ironically, usually the person using the phrase is himself narrow-minded, unwilling to tolerate anyone believing differently from himself. Such is exactly the underpinning of socialism, or even the quasi-socialism now prevalent in the United States: intolerance of dissent, which leads, once again, to applying force to hamper a dissenter's ability to teach his children, or any children, his inconvenient beliefs.

As an aside, this line also appeared in the conversation:

What's wrong with Socialism? Why is it bad?

Many who claim to oppose socialism seem to struggle to answer this question, so I will share the answer: It is bad because it violates the unalienable human right to liberty.

Okay, Socialism is nothing like what is happening in America today, nothing. Government control is necessary in today's world. Yeah, it would be great if no control worked. No one wants laws and police and regulation in their lives. But, it has to happen.

The speaker asserts 'government control is necessary in today's world' but never explains why. That is likely because she does not know why; she just approves of government control because at some point someone she trusted told her it was a Good Thing. The entire phrase, is necessary in today's world, you will see often; but you will almost never see it explained further, except sometimes by an anecdote or two.

Was government control not necessary in, say, 1925, or 1850, or 200 B.C.? What's different about today? I don't know; neither does the speaker.

The speaker similarly asserts 'Socialism is nothing like what is happening in America today' with no further qualification. She doesn't understand the concept of socialism; but she is betting her hearer doesn't, either, and will usually win her bet.

If the government didn't control the education system, parents wouldn't have to send the kids... See More to school, leaving those kids uneducated and that just doesn't cut it.

Many of the best educated children and young adults in the United States never set foot inside an institutionalized school. Home-schooled students consistently score nearly an order of magnitude higher than government-schooled students on any objective test you would care to use to measure. On subjective matters like belief-system programming--usually called by antiseptic names like social awareness--the government students score better, of course. If you think about the differences between government schools and being taught at home, it is easy to understand why these things are.

The line in the sand between education and indoctrination has been kicked nearly into invisibility. That is a subject for a different essay.

By the way, the regulation of the financial system you are talking about? There isn't any and that has been the reason of the recession today. The Wall Street Bankers were making bets on bets on bets and it was bound to fail. There still hasn't been any regulation put on these people, so hold tight, we'll be in this boat again.

The word bet is grossly misused by Junior Economists on practically every television channel. The entire phrase 'The Wall Street Bankers were making bets on bets on bets' is itself clichéd and parroted, and the speaker cannot be troubled to look up bet in a dictionary and see what it means. The financial system was not bound to fail not because of anyone betting on anything--a bet is always made between two parties, and when one party loses another wins, and it makes no difference to the currency being bet.

The United States' financial system is near ruination because far too many people, then businesses, and finally government, have lived and operated far beyond their means, year after year spending more money than they earn. That always catches up; when you're floating on an ever-expanding bubble, the bubble will inevitably burst. When it does, the damage will be catastrophic. This is a fundamental precept of economics; it could be explained to an eight year old.

The biggest reason for foreclosure in this country is medical bills, there is a foreclosure filing every 7.5 seconds, and a home is actually foreclosed every 17 seconds. So no government control wouldn't make sense.

Again the speaker is repeating some data she at some point heard, but cannot be troubled to think about what it means or how to apply it. The biggest reason for foreclosure--it is not far wrong to say the only reason for foreclosure--is that a person has bought something, on credit, he cannot afford. He is living paycheck to paycheck, with no margin in his budget for unexpected expenses. The first time a large unexpected expense hits him, he is bankrupt.

One might assert that medical bills are the most common unexpected major expense that causes bankruptcy, and one would likely be correct. That the speaker does not acknowledges this betrays either her ignorance or her unconcern for her subject matter.

Then the speaker leaps from her data to a conclusion--no government control wouldn't make sense--that is in no apparent way connected to the data, and she offers no reason for the association. In fact, an important reason why 'Wall Street Bankers' have played fast and loose with lending is because government has offered them a safety net.

These people are in dire need of help and no ... corporation, private company, would ever even think of helping any of them.

Here is bad argument in its basest form, an opinion presented as fact, where it is obviously false. It is patently false, so false it should be laughed to scorn, that no private company thinks of helping people. Private companies donate massively to nonprofit charities even today, and community organizations--largely churches, in the United States, which is why so many hospitals are still named X Presbyterian or Y Lutheran or Saint Z's--have always, back to long before Big Government got involved, cared for those in dire need of help. Relative to the medical standards of their time, poor Americans in 1850 were medically cared for at least as well as they are today, quite probably better--and for a fraction of the cost.

The language the speaker is now using signifies her drift away from argument and toward personally charged rant.

The government is by the people, for the people. It is not here to hurt anyone.

Here is another assertion founded in neither logic nor evidence; it is nothing more than a personal belief. If I assert that the United States government as it exists today is by big money and for big money, and will hurt anyone and everyone if it advances big money's interests--that is, on its own merits, no more or less true a belief than the speaker's. It is merely a statement of opinion; and I think that nearly everything the United States government has done for the past fifty years supports my theory above the speaker's.

At any rate, the speaker is now trying to persuade you to believe the government loves you and cares for you; she is now removed from any logical or factual defense of socialism.

The Socialist things that you hate so much are fantastic and I hope to see more of them. I hope there are more and more libraries, sidewalks, parks, and schools.

Observe that once again the speaker uses hate when she plainly means dissent with. She also is either unaware of uncaring that libraries, sidewalks, parks and schools existed long before socialism came along. I am a radical Libertarian indeed, but I too am in favor of libraries, sidewalks, parks and schools, and I am even in favor of government collecting taxes to pay for the sidewalks and parks--but this has nothing to do with whether socialism is a good thing.

Being someone who has been poor, been on Welfare, received Social Security, I have nothing but great things to say about these programs. They helped me in my time of need and without them, I'd be begging for change on the street.

Again note the disconnect between the anecdote and the conclusion; the speaker strings together clichéd phrases (helped me in my time of need, begging for change on the street) to create the presumption that all poor or troubled people need Big Government to survive, and repeating an earlier argument, that one who opposes Big Government therefore must hate poor people.

I don't know the speaker's predicament, of course, but in most cases, without Big Govnerment, you wouldn't be 'begging for change on the street'. You would be working at McDonald's, sleeping in a warm room, and eating. You would not have a cell phone or satellite TV, but these are not unalienable human rights, and working at McDonald's is not beneath you.

There are some people in truly bad straits--crippled, unable to work, who need help to survive. The vast majority of individuals will do what they can to help these people in a heartbeat, and do not need Big Government's assistance, much less force, to do so. The vast majority of individuals will not observe an able-bodied person unwilling to work at McDonald's or live without a 28 inch television and be inclined at all to help him. The majority of those Big Government confiscates property to 'help' fall in that latter category.

Perception or Truth?

2009-03-10T07:54:00.000-07:00

"I don't think another Howard Cosell will ever be allowed in the industry, because they don't want the truth. I mean, the public really doesn't give a damn about the truth." -Howard Cosell

As much as I want to see this world as it ought to be, what I want is what it will never be. No matter what I do in life, if there is one thing I want it's the truth. But we live in a world that doesn't want it at all. We just witnessed one of the greatest financial collapses in this country as a result of the housing market and I can tell you one obvious fact in respect to this as well as virtually every other issue: every one has someone to blame and virtually no one has any idea how it really happened.

This world thrives on scapegoats or just blaming someone, especially not themselves, and usually it's one person or a group of people, but one person is preferable. Case in point, every one blames Hitler for the murder of millions of Jews, but do you forget that it took millions of Nazis to carry out that extermination? If we continue to simply place all blame on who we choose to be the "most blameworthy," then we will ignore all those who also participated in the wrongdoing. Responsibility is what we must enforce, accountability for all actions of an individual.

For some reason, though we have known for quite some time about the housing bubble and many of the problems that contributed to our current situation, people don't actually care about something until it happens and when it does they create some fictional world to help cope. I hear all the time people saying the phrase "you need to get a real life" to people, or we "live in a real world," but I submit to you that the world they speak of isn't real at all, it's the ignorant bliss we have created. A world where stronger voices make right, where responsibility does not exist in most situations, where victims who have no voice are trodden under foot of men and those who complain usually get what they want.

To support this fictional world is how when anyone dies, it's always the good things people remember, because bad things are only remembered in a world that holds people responsible for who they are and what they did.

What am I saying?

This is the top-down society we have created, we have choosen, and that we refuse to change. The only people blamed are those at the top, which is incidentally choosen through politics and not truth, leading everyone into a realm of comfortability through which sleep can be attained in the constant daily reminder that we have someone to blame.

Sure, a bottom-up society of responsibility on all people is much harder to achieve, but it yields a populace of people who are better than those in a top-down system.

I'm not sure how to finish this but this world is headed for a disaster, any logical level-headed person can see it, how dire it is I don't know, only time will tell, but know this:

We do not hold people resonsible for their mistakes.
Our education is failing to teach basic math skills to even the teachers who teach our children(gee maybe that's why we're failing)
A society built on a system of extrinsic rewards only, yields a more selfish inconsiderate culture.
A political system that time after time does not fix problems and only applies band aids or temporary fixes will eventually lead to total and complete collapse.

We all have a hope that someday we will fix these problems, but in the words of CCR "Someday never comes."

'Teenagers Being Teenagers' is NOT Normal

2009-02-26T09:50:00.000-08:00

It really isn't, folks. A 16 year old is supposed to resemble an inexperienced but real adult, not an overgrown child with unrestrained urges.

Anyway, this isn't directly related to Libertarianism or freedom issues, but I have access to the blog so I'm going to share my opinion. :) This is something I think I had an apostrophe about (Ed. Note: Epiphany. I assume.) and wanted to submit for consideration here.

The sneering, haughty, contemptuous attitude of teenagers/young adults--I speak primarily of boys, but it often applies to girls also--is the direct result of organized, age-segregated schools. Among any gathering of adults of various ages where the few late teens are the youngest in the room, they will starkly stand out, because their attitude is easily markable as silly and juvenile. They're idiots, knowing nothing, yet each sincerely believes he is the wisest person in the room.

How does this happen? It's the inevitable product of the school culture. Yes, schools have their own culture, where the teachers are outside oppressors, and the ruling class, the people at the top of the social pyramid, are the high school juniors and seniors, the oldest/biggest kids. A 17 year old regards himself as the pinnacle of human development because in his world, he IS.

This should be no surprise. From age 5 forward a child's primary culture is the school culture, with all of its own cultural nuances. Every child spends the vast majority of his time surrounded by other children, primarly those of the same age, and rarely are adults around at all except to swoop down and try to impose undesired and cumbersome rules.

Consider: Within the standard family unit, a child's ruling class, life guides and role models are adults--primarily parents, who not only instruct them and rule over them but also live with them, and by that I mean perform the daily activities of life day by day with them*, and also parents' adult friends and acquaintances. All but the firstborn have older siblings in a similar role.

* This is something we've lost in modern excessively-busy society and sorely miss.

But within the school culture, a child doesn't participate in the daily activities of life alongside ANYONE older than himself! For a child growing up in a family, the ancillary people generally surrounding him are predominantly adults, with only younger siblings and their friends being younger than himself.

But for a teenager, in the school culture, his world is predominantly populated by younger children--so he's already mature by those standards (and he grew up believing that teenagers were the most mature people in the world). How is one supposed to learn to be an adult in that setting?

Therefore it's easy to understand why homeschooled teenagers tend to behave like inexperienced but recognizable adults, whereas school-cultured teenagers tend to behave like children with adult desires and passions.

Wickard vs. Filburn

2009-02-07T07:10:00.000-08:00

Wickard vs. Filburn is a court case involving a farmer who went over a quota of what he could grow and harvest of wheat. His argument was that the excess was for his farm and family and therefore shouldn't be considered under the commerce clause, or rather that if there was an effect it was trivial. I can understand the want or need for legislation that brought order to an otherwise chaotic situation, but can we, as Americans not see the importance of this situation? If interpreted as so, that food grown for our family and farm be considered as something that can be regulated by the government, then we are wholly in subject to that government.

Indeed this court case was one of many that has opened the door for all liberty in this country to be stolen away in any situation, deemed by a small percentage of the population, as "necessary and proper." In fact I actually would have agreed with the court had they specifically stated that as long as you don't sell any wheat you can grow and do whatever with it as long as it doesn't leave your farm. That is not what the case said though. According to the case, if the amount allotted to him for how much wheat he could grow was not enough to sustain his farm, then he would have to purchase the rest. There is a big difference. In what I have said, the government could have regulated commerce and preserved liberty, in what the Court said, liberty was taken away.

I thought about putting possible things that government could tell you what to do under this clause, but I think I should let you imagine possible interpretations. And if I have interpreted anything wrong from this case please enlighten me.

A Cold Halelujah

2009-01-14T19:17:00.000-08:00

"I did my best, it wasn't much
I couldn't feel, so I tried to touch
I've told the truth, I didn't come to fool you
And even though
It all went wrong
I'll stand before the Lord of Song
With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah" -Leonard Cohen

I find daily the hardest thing is accepting to live in a world where inspiration is met with depression, where enlightenment is met with ignorance and a heightened zeal for doing good is met with cynical pessimism built from self righteous smugness around a philosophy that no one can change this "three ring circus side show of freaks,"(Tool lyric from Aenima) so why even try?

Despite some nonsense that such a question is rhetorical when I believe it is not, to meet good with blame upon those who do good by pointing out the things they have missed along the way or that you believe their time could be better spent doing something else when in fact you yourself have done nothing, is most irritating. Somehow this world has born, out of some terrible illogic, that to denigrate a man whose actions makes you feel like a lesser person, somehow justifies your useless existence in this system; somehow makes you sleep better at night; somehow makes you think that you aren't as bad as the person you see in the mirror every morning; somehow you aren't part of the problem; somehow you hold all the answers and yet solve nothing.

As I grow older I see more frequently the shortcomings of men. When we are younger we are given images of heroes in our lives, take David for instance. We are told about his battle with Goliath, but it is not until later in our lives that we learn of his failures as a person; how could he have committed such terrible acts that I could never live with, having done? This appears to be a common theme with virtually every person I have ever learned about and I'm not sure what to take from it. Some might say that it shows we are all human, but if being human is giving in to the things which we know to be wrong, I am not content just yet to simply lay down in such a pit of failure.

Coming up is the day of remembering Dr. King. A man who up until recently was a great hero in my mind. No one can take the importance of what he did away, nor has the impact of his words found detriment in my heart, but he himself has lost reverence in my eyes. Now I am not certain there is absolute proof that Dr. King was an adulterer/womanizer, but when the government documents become unlocked in 2027, I expect to be met with something which will confirm just that, because I have become use to being disappointed with people.

I must say something though. I am not judgmental. I do not enjoy seeing faults of any kind in any man. But I am tired of failure. I am tired of seeing all of my heroes destroyed by some weakness they could not overcome in life.

I do not know how to put all of this together, but I wrote a poem over a year ago that I think addresses this aspect in relation to my life. I only hope that somehow it can convey what I cant describe at this moment. It addresses perfectionism, failure and the feeling that every time someone in this world fails, a burden is placed upon you to succeed where they have failed.

I wish I could be that son you never had
I wish I could replace that friend who left, when things were getting bad
I wish I could become everything you never had
I wish I could become…
But I can't keep thinking that all this weight belongs...
on me, it sits like a well, toss in a coin make a...
wish you could feel what it's like to have to be...
perfect, in every way like a light from heaven shining down...
on me this weight found peace, but I can't have peace… I can't...
sleep, my escape from everything that doesn’t allow me to be free when I'm...
awake and dreaming one day I might become what I was meant to be.
I don't want to look back and see that what this hate is, was me
But I look in the mirror
and it's not me
there's no self image
who could I be?
A world of visions
It’s like I’m lost at sea
no bearings for hope
right in front of me
I'm deprived
Cerebration unsatisfied
I have looked for a savior
In a race filled with failure
And all I see are these
Vacant spots, where leaders once stood
That now has become an occupation of false truth
Failures of those who came before
I’ve inherited their burden, to open the door
I’m left alone; they don’t have faith in me
How can I, make them believe?
B r o k e n h o p e
For a b r o k en d re am
Nothing left, no self esteem
Misplaced thoughts
Begin to drop
A once peaceful state
That begins to erase
An age of serenity
Now fades away
A mess of confusion
Now fills my days
I sit and wait and contemplate
I think I believe that I might not be
Everything I thought I could possibly be
But you got to try, you fucking try
To become that which you wished you would be
Maybe a thought, maybe a dream
You can’t just give up; it’s all we’ve got.

Conspiracy, how much truth is there?

2009-01-09T12:06:00.000-08:00

By now many people have heard of Lindsey Williams. There's youtube footage of him divided into about 8 parts, depending upon what version you watch and it's roughly 80 mins long, though I could have done it in 10(after all he is a Baptist minister).

I wanted to write this for a couple of reasons:
1. To clarify some things I have told people that were somewhat wrong.
2. To get people to realize that there are people powerful enough to control this world, the only question is do they?

I had told people that there were two countries that opposed joining OPEC, when in fact what I should have said was that there were two members of OPEC that opposed Kissinger's plan in the 1970's. How much of it is true I don't know but you can watch the video that Lindsey Williams discusses this aspect of here. The basic idea is that there were two countries that wouldn't denominate the sale of oil in dollars and help to pay off America's debt. Those two countries were allegedly Iraq and Iran. He also speaks of Iran wanting to flood the market with cheap oil, though this doesn't make sense according to the news that suggests it is Iran that wants to drive the price up and our friendly Saudis who want to keep it down and it is the Saudis who have claimed to flood the market in order to oppose the Iranians.

Here is what I have a problem with in regards to people:

Most people believe the government is corrupt.
Most people believe that the two parties control our country (by this I mean that if you are not by default an R or a D, you will not win anywhere without a large amount of money backing)
Most believe in the statement that absolute power corrupts absolutely
Most people believe that our justice system is based upon the idea that money buys defense and no money means you are screwed.

I could go on and on with the list which leads to one inevitable conclusion: that an elite group of people could easily run this nation; and that even if you argue that they obey the will of the masses, they can easily manipulate that will. I find it hard to believe that people can believe in everything that would allow and support the existence of something and then not believe in it because the word conspiracy is attached to it. But it seems that people are easily misled by perception and not as strongly influenced by facts.

I think I want to address fear mongering, because it has become a powerful tool, even in areas where it is not supposed to be.

Traffic Law Proposal No. 1

2009-01-03T19:06:00.001-08:00

I've long had a cherished short list of proposed alterations to traffic laws, which I'll share with you in this very space. Time is short tonight, so I'll start off with one nice, simple change: Between the hours of midnight and 5:00 AM, in all but the most heavily trafficked urban areas, all red lights are to be regarded as flashing red lights (that is, stop signs.) If you pull up to an intersection and your light is red, you may proceed after confirming there is no right-of-way (green light) traffic you'd be impeding.

I suppose the way the country is going now, we'll be seeing mandatory curfews that will render it all moot before long anyway. But as things stand, I've sat twiddling my thumbs for upwards of five minutes* at many red lights at 1:30 AM, the only car on the road for a mile in any direction, waiting for the light to change so I can make my left turn.

* Maybe it's just wacky ol' Altoona, but there are several intersections in this city where, if you're in the left turn lane, you need a left turn arrow to proceed, but your light is red while the light to go straight through the same intersection is green... and you CANNOT GET A LEFT TURN ARROW UNTIL A CAR HAS COME FROM THE OTHER (perpendicular) DIRECTION to trip the motion sensor and make the light cycle through (green -> red -> left arrow -> green).

I've noticed in my travels there are some cities that already do this--their intersections all automatically change to flashing red lights in every direction (effectively a four way stop sign) at around midnight and change back at around 4:00 or 5:00 in the morning. I don't even think it's necessary to actually make the lights change; just change the law so you can legally proceed through a red light as though it were a stop sign during low-to-no traffic hours.

Is anyone out there against this?

(On the docket for discussion in the near future: Speed limits on highways, speed limits in towns/cities, tailgating/aggressive driving laws, DUI laws, methods enforcement of traffic laws and punishments for traffic violations, and seat belt laws. At least.)

"Nail in my hand from my Creator, You gave me life, now show me how to live" Audioslave

2008-12-24T09:22:00.000-08:00

Perhaps a Frankenstein analogy, perhaps meant simply for man himself, I wonder how many of us simply ask "just show me what is right and I will do it?" Moreover, how many of us hear what is right to do and refuse to do it because of the difficulty of doing so in the face of so many who do not do good?

"And many writers have imagined for themselves republics and principalities that have never been seen or known to exist in reality; for there is such a gap between how one lives and how one ought to live that anyone who abandons what is done for what ought to be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation: for a man who wishes to profess goodness at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good." Niccolo Machiavelli

This may be true but I have rebelled against it, I will never become again what this world is. Destroy me they may, but I will never become what I have despised my whole life, I did once and have regretted it.

"He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life. And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God." Ecclesiastes 3:11-13

You should read Ecclesiastes if you haven't, I promise that you will take something meaningful away from it. Moreover, you ought to read the Sermon on the Mount to answer the implied question in the title.

By the way, if you don't read my links you might as well not read anything I write, because I link them for good reason, I'm not wasting your time, this goes for all my posts.

I'm writing a story about a man who fights himself. He exists in a world that he can save, and within it he can find nothing worth saving. The salvation of a world that does not want to be saved and a man who does not want to save it, only to find that the salvation of his life lies in the salvation of the world. Perhaps when I have written more of that story I will post part of it here.

There was another man that I did not write about, who entered into a world to save, giving his life for those who hated him most, living long enough to see those closest to him turn their backs, betray and abandon him; he lived long enough to see the world he came to save betray all that he did, and his name was Christ.

One day you will find that to become better you must make a choice to do good to those who hate you. I have seen this action as the hardest step for any man to take, there are few who do. But what reward is given to us if we do only that which even the most evil of persons do?

I have said before that if you showed a video of some great atrocity, the common reaction you will probably receive is "how could you show that?" I am at a loss of words, because the reaction ought to be "I can't believe that actually happened." Herein lies again the quintessential problem of our society today wrapped all around convenience: that people don't see what is real, that something like that actually happened; they only see what happened to themselves: that you interrupted their perfectly comfortable life and inconvienced them.

Most days I think to myself: all that I have accomplished is complaining. I have done nothing. I am constantly frustrated by the society we live in being perverted into thinking that winning means more than justice. I am constantly dismayed that when you try to better anyone in this world the first reaction is that they take offense and through some misguided interpretation of what Christ taught suggest to me "who are you to judge me?" How quickly we admit that no one is perfect, and how quickly we condemn others for saying what we have already said. I am more disgusted in how Christ's words have been twisted over the years in Matthew. Many people like to twist words to such an extent to say that since no one is perfect no one should point out the flaws in anyone, even if the purpose is to become better. We have become a stagnant world of comfortability and convenience; this is the end state of our lives. To achieve something greater than two kids a wife/husband and a job? This is ridiculous, because in America we are taught of nothing more. The young no longer dream of becoming more than just a worker in this society; we are slaves, do not be fooled, we exist as such because of the notion that we can say we aren't a slave, but it doesn't change the fact that we are. You don't have choices; you have elbow room to do only what the few would allow you to do.

I know this much: since my conception I have been a man who can not be bound by the chains that this world has to offer, and I never will be. It's up to you to not become a slave to a system of stagnation producing one more meaningless life. It's up to you to ask for something better than the garbage we have been given called an education that exceeds now $10,000 a year per person in America for indoctrinating us into this useless existence. It's up to you to stand up and become something better in this world. It's up to you to vote for something different than the pick your poison parties we have been given. It's up to you to do the right thing, it always has been.

On the other hand, if you are comfortable to sip your tea and watch your cable tv, while violence, drugs, and corruption run rampant through our country than by all means do so. Part of me says I can't wait to see your face when those problems hit your doorstep and you have no choice but to join the better cause. But the other part of me says to be something better and not delight in the suffering of any human no matter how ignorant, inconsiderate or selfish they may be. Part of me is bitter and part of me is better.

The New Year is coming and this is the time for people all around the world to make a promise to themselves of things they will do for the new year, which they will break within a month. And as this is a conclusion I think you can put two and two together (only if our education system succeeded in doing at least that) and realize I'm about to give you a challenge. I challenge you to do something to fix the things you see wrong that are happening in your life. Even if it involves writing a letter to the news or your local representatives. I challenge you to make it your duty to do at least something in every case no matter how small that something may be. Change begins small, but it begins with a recognition and a desire to change what you see is wrong.

So what I really meant to say here is let's be the ones to make a difference; let's be the ones that aren't willing to be satisfied with the scraps we have been given; let's be the ones to stand up when others remain seated; let's be the ones who fight.

WIth Friends Like This, Who Needs Enemies?

2008-12-22T12:33:00.000-08:00

Yeah. Read this one.

If you're too lazy or paranoid to click the link (after all, it might be an insidious attempt on my part to steal all your money with my fearsome cracking skills), I'll give you the Cliff's Notes.

Woman was passenger in a vehicle driving someplace, with her friend driving another vehicle following behind.

Woman's vehicle smashes into a light pole at 45 MPH. Woman is semi-trapped in the wreckage and unable to escape on her own.

Friend pulls over, rushes up, and fearing the smoldering wreckage would explode soon, grabbed her friend's arm and dragged her out of the vehicle.

Woman is paralyzed from the waist down, but survives.

Woman buys her friend a nice thank-you card and maybe a gold necklace for helping preserve her life.

-----------

Just kidding about that last part. What actually happened was: Woman files a lawsuit against her 'friend', blaming her for rendering her paraplegic. Really.

Now, being in a horrible car wreck and becoming paraplegic is one of the absolutely most horrible things I can think of. Myself, I'd rather be killed than paralyzed (mostly because as a paraplegic you're an unceasing, life-altering burden to whoever's closest to you, a fate I desperately hope never befalls my wife). To say the event would leave you or I or anyone bitter is like calling the Pacific Ocean 'damp'. To say the very least.

But to sue your 'friend' who was risking her own life to try to save yours?

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions from here, but remember today's Safety Tip: Carry copies of an affidavit and a pen in your glove compartment, so if you happen upon flaming wreckage with someone trapped inside, you can make sure they sign the affidavit indicating they won't sue you, and then pull them out.

Foreign Policy Part 3

2008-12-22T10:05:00.000-08:00

I want to place this topic in a temporary period of rest, so I will do my best to state what I have already concluded and built upon in my previous posts.

Let us begin the conclusion with the intent of the Founders.

The Monroe Doctrine Points:

1. "the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers."

2. "We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgement of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security."

3. "Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to those continents circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different.Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to those continents circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different."

4. "It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in hope that other powers will pursue the same course."

I consider these 4 excerpts from Monroe's speech to be key points in foreign policy, a lot of which was influenced by his Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, to which we can assume a strong influence of his father, John Adams, who also resisted intervention of any kind in the British-French warring at the time. Certainly, I am no expert on the intentions and meaning of the Monroe Doctrine but here is a quick understanding of it.

Note the importance is that non-intervention is the goal, but surely it does not take a genius to see that Monroe has given a sphere of influence for the United States, to which intervention is given under certain circumstances, most notably an act of aggression from a European power over the newly independent countries in Latin America.

I do not wish to make this a history lesson or an in depth look at every detail of foreign policy, merely to establish a general principle upon which our foreign policy should be based upon.

We have seen a general intent by our Founders (though mainly an intent by the Founders whose positions prevailed in politics at the time, others such as Hamilton would have provided a different course) and through this we can to a general extent base our current policy, factoring for the change in the current state of our world versus the state of the world at the time such doctrine was established.

Here are the points to which I must make regarding any future foreign policy:

1. That the act of intervention of our power not supersede the importance of what we intervene in. Much can be said of this. The importance of why we intervene must never be lost. To do so would leave us with a reasonless action, upon which we would receive great criticism and lose both respect and confidence from those with which we aspire to have a good relationship with. Our action must always be in adherence to the reason. If we are to stop an unjust invasion of a country the act of our intervention must do just that. To go beyond anything but this is a demonstration of power, which loses sight of the importance. Any further action must be measured and should involve an authority greater than that of the American people. Many do not see the United Nations as a body capable of performing anything, which is why many would assume that we are entitled to perform such actions; but this is where our greatest criticism is received; perhaps we should do more to make it work, than choosing the path of go it alone.

2. If an act or acts by an oppressive nation go against the universal things which we hold as the rights of all men everywhere, then we must meet these acts with intervention of some kind. As I have said before, to do nothing is to invite such behavior to continue to breed in our world, when our intention should be that it not. To do nothing would be wrong, but to meet all such acts with war is obviously outside of our capability and would not be prudent for other reasons as well. So our actions must be measured in all circumstances, and meet all oppressive action in the same way that rules of engagement are used to meet a hostile force. Should the oppression be small, our action should be small, but as it rises in severity, so too should our reaction.

3. The purpose of war is to bring about peace. "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven...a time of war, and a time of peace." I have always found Ecclesiastes to be one of the most moving books within the Bible, my next post will probably involve it. War, such as it is, must always be the last resort and when used it must be terrible, quick and decisive. A war that is prepared is fought this way and ends quickly. A war that is not ends in disaster. The other thing that has always bothered me is that the purpose of any serviceman is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies both foreign and domestic. I think that we need to consider that our military should only be used for defense of our country against direct threats, but perhaps we need to devise a way to use a force for something else, such as a situation of genocide in Africa. I'm not sure how to do it, only that it should be comprised of volunteers and that they would know their purpose before entering it.

I strongly believe though that the most important part of foreign policy is right decisions. I know that both the Vietnam War and World War 2 could have been avoided with two different decisions. As I look back into the wars of our past, how many of them could have been avoided by making the right decision? People think that there are times in which we must go to war, this may be true, but the vast majority of wars can easily be avoided. If you are left wondering what should be done specifically in cases of foreign policy then I have succeeded, because the truth is simple: right action. Be not dismayed though, my only intent was to show that isolationism is not an answer and that our current disposition is wrong.

Foregin Policy Part 2

2008-12-13T07:03:00.000-08:00

The Argument for intervention.

As I had said previously, neutrality, doing nothing to stop an oppressor, is the same as agreeing with the oppressive action as far as results are concerned. The result is an oppressor who continues to do what we consider wrong. This argument does not entail going to war with every country that performs an oppressive action, all this entails is doing something. What we do I will address in a later post.

So this is the inevitable chain of events: There is oppression somewhere. The oppressor kills millions of innocent people and no one stops them. They continue to oppress others in other areas because they are left unchallenged. The eventuality is that they will be at your doorstep someday. As Martin Niemöller once wrote in a poem which has different translations, but I will use the translation at the New England Holocaust memorial. "They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."

There are times in life in which we wish we would have had a little bit (or a lot in some cases) of courage to stand up for another, even though it would have been an inconvenience for us. The truth is that people who are oppressed are looking for someone to help them, they ask how could the world let this happen? But it is because it is an inconvenience. And if it happens to you, after having watched it happen to others, suddenly you ask the same question that they asked and you wonder why no one comes.

There are two worlds to live in. One where people stand up for what is right and one where people hide behind a cowardly principle of non-interference in other cultures, stating intellectual reasoning that covers up the self cowardice. How can we hold the founding documents with such reverence when we blatantly disregard those words when they become inconvenient? Does the belief of life and liberty end at the borders of our nation? If they do they are not beliefs at all, indeed convenience has become the word of the day for our world. I will help those in need when it is convenient for me. I will stand up for what is right when it is convenient for me. I'll do what I want otherwise.

We have become a nation of people with no beliefs at all. Convenience has Christians ignore the life that Christ taught to live in his Sermon on the Mount because such a life would be too difficult. Convenience has seared the conscience of all men as technology makes our lives easier, to quote Star Trek Insurrection: "When you create a machine to do the work of a man, you take something away from the man;" we have become lackadaisical, in that we have obtained no greater wisdom or responsibility in obtaining knowledge. I think too often our world has become one in which it was said in Jurassic Park by Jeff Goldblum playing Ian Malcolm: "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." The meaning of such a quote can be further clarified with two quotes everyone has heard before: "to whom much is given, much is expected" and "with great knowledge comes great responsibility."

With new knowledge and technology it becomes easier to do things which before seemed unreasonable. This means that the thinking has changed since the founding of our nation, but we must not forget that the intent has not changed. It means that things which our Founders considered inconceivable in such a time as was their lives, might be a simple act which everyone in America can perform now.

We must admit to ourselves that to ignore what happens in this world through an ignorant philosophy to not interfere with other cultures is not somehow some greater wisdom bestowed upon us. The laurels of such a belief has yielded a world unwilling and unmotivated to stop genocide. While we take time to complain about gas prices or how this recession might mean giving up the family cell phone plan or your monthly high speed internet access, they take time to kill more people. With all of my wisdom I cannot comprehend how we can feel compassion for a senior who has to work a few more years before retiring because of the current economy, but we can't find that same compassion for a man who dies a horrible death in another country. But the answer is simple: convenience.

I have devised what I believe to be the isolationist message to the rest of the world:

Survival means becoming a coward; never standing up for what you believe in; always saying "yes sir" no matter what the directive is. Survival means becoming a biological robot; never thinking for yourself, always ignoring the truth and what is right. Survival means that to exist, you will never truly live, and to be free you must die.

Rebut what you will, but we have done nothing and that message has been sent. That is the real message of freedom we have given to this world.

I must end this on the right note. I do not believe in intervention everywhere. I do not believe that war is the answer anywhere, necessarily. I believe that our current policy is to do nothing in those parts of the world where oppression occurs and this must change. Every problem usually starts out small, we must be quick and decisive in every situation, but of course, not quick to war. If we had acted appropriately we could have given Ho Chi Minh his democracy and adverted communism in Vietnam and a war that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people (Read and weep how Wilson and Truman and others, ignored Minh's plight for a democracy because of obvious political reasons). Right action is what we need and we won't get it with politicians that currently infest Washington. They aren't the cure, they are the disease.

Foreign Policy

2008-12-10T12:24:00.000-08:00

Recently President Bush has called for Robert Mugabe, the current leader of Zimbabwe, to step down. I want to consider not only this action of calling for his resignation but the recent history of the Zimbabwe situation and how America ought to respond in such a situation.

Earlier this year Mugabe urged his supporters to essentially kill members of the opposition. This resulted in a lot of deaths, including the opposition party leader's wife being butchered and tossed into a burning house. The first point is that these kinds of actions absolutely must be openly condemned. What has bothered me most about this is the lack of outcry from within the Catholic Church, most notably the pope. Mugabe is a Catholic and any Christian anywhere can agree that this kind of conduct is unbecoming of a Christian and Christians everywhere need to be open about this fact, mainly the leaders to whom the whole world will hear the voice of, aka, the pope. Nevertheless, America can issue a statement simply from a humanitarian perspective that this is not the kind of action that should occur anywhere.

Mugabe eventually pushed for the opposition party candidate to give up his run, because of the fear and loss of life involved from the tactics Mugabe used. With that being said, what should America do about this situation? Well, Zimbabwe is a reasonably democratic country, although Mugabe has taken more of that away recently, the people of Zimbabwe still have it within their power to solve this situation themselves, and we as Americans should respect that. If we make any kind of action it must be one of peace and not war, because the situation can be dealt with by the people of Zimbabwe. So by action of peace, what do I mean? I mean we can help those in need like we do everywhere through charities and the peace corps by providing basic medical attention and food wherever we can, but outside of that it will be diplomacy urging Mugabe to do the right thing, not to step down. When dealing with anyone you do not have direct power over(not like someone who works for you) you urge them to take the right course of action, or you point out what was done wrong, but you do not tell them what to do. This often leads to defiance and is a horrible practice, even in everyday life. Try telling someone they have to do something, then try telling someone they ought to do that something because it is right or because what they were doing is wrong. You will have better results with the latter because people want to believe that they have control over their lives.

The approach to every situation is different, there ought not to ever be a specific foreign policy that applies to every situation, because no situation is ever the same.

Most libertarians tend to be isolationist, for good reason. There was a definite intent by the founders to participate in war only when it was absolutely necessary. We have definitely wandered far from this position but we must be careful, if we are to change this current demeanor, in how isolationist we become; because to ignore oppression in this world is to place us in a position of condoning such behavior.

There is a fine line to walk.

As Elie Wiesel once said “neutrality helps the oppressor” (taken from his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech). If you were to live in a neighborhood where people thought ill of you if you “ratted” on someone you saw that murdered someone, then your non-action for not turning that man in is saying that you choose to continue to live in such a world. By doing nothing we make this world worse, when there is obvious wrong.

What we need to do is set a guideline for what the line of intervention is.

That guideline must be based upon an assessment of the situation in which we are considering. The line is drawn when a group of people are no longer able to help themselves or change their current situation. The Holocaust was one of the most extreme and obvious examples and do not be fooled. Hitler stated he was going to bring about a Holocaust and we stood by and did nothing. We were shocked when we saw what had occurred in concentration camps, but an honest assessment of Hitler would have easily drawn a conclusion of what had occurred. We aren't responsible for the Holocaust, but we are responsible for being idle, knowing that it would happen. Imagine someone saying they are going to count to 10 out in the street and if someone didn't come and take the person they had bound in front of them away they were going to execute them. Do you think you would look kindly upon the person that went back in their house and said that's none of my business? Yet that's exactly what America did. (From Hitler himself: "Nor can I see a reason why the members of this race should be imposed upon the German nation, while in the States, which are so enthusiastic about these "splendid people," their settlement should suddenly be refused with every imaginable excuse")

We can't be a country that does nothing and we can't be a country that does everything. I will try to elaborate on the proverbial line more in a future post.

A New Beginning

2008-12-08T12:22:00.000-08:00

I figured the best way to start anything is with a purpose. I think the purpose will be to enlighten the people who have not heard of a Libertarian and to show them how one thinks.

I believe the purpose of government is to allow all people freedom to do whatever they want insomuch as one man’s freedom does not impede that of another man. I think this should be the basis of any government here on earth.

Pertaining to the freedom of which I speak, here are the limitations entailed by the eventuality of impedance in other men’s affairs:

The most important of which is the fundamental respect for life and the resources of this planet. Freedom should not involve waste, when the cost will inevitably be the price from which all or future generations will pay. (This of course will be within a reasonable mindset, something which environment extremists occasionally lack, but no one is going to argue that if you’re dumping sewage into a river that other people use, that it clearly isn’t your right; on the other hand we can only be clean about what we do within reason of our resources to do so, aka, there will always be some pollution.)

Nor should undue or unjustifiable harm to anything be called a right by freedom. So in these cases of freedom of action, people do not have freedom when there is a victim. Now victim can be interpreted quite liberally, but we will be clear here. A victim is someone or something which is the recipient of a direct action or an action which triggers a scientifically inevitable chain of events that cause undue or unjustifiable harm. Once this rule is broken, it is up to the people to establish laws in which a punishment is due, but an act which produces a victim can not be called an act of freedom and will not be protected as such.

What I'm basically saying is if what you are doing does not directly(or trigger a chain of events which does) harm someone or something, then you should be free to do it. Sounds like common sense but you would be surprised how much of our governmental policy restricts freedom out of some misguided logic.

I think this is a good start upon which everything I believe will rest upon. The title of Mere Freedom is also a C.S. Lewis-esque type of meaning that it is the freedom which we can all agree upon. But more importantly than my political beliefs of what a government ought to be is something which the Libertarian Party will have to assert to become a party which just doesn't revert into what we now see as the Republican party and the Democratic party. There needs to be term limits for every office. People don't get elected to office to make a living, they get elected to make a difference and perform a service to our country. If we become a party which exists merely to maintain power, then we will be no better than what choices we currently have. We must become a party of getting the job done, no matter when election day is and what ramifications it has for future elections.

Where I Stand

2008-12-02T11:09:00.000-08:00

When Justin asked me to consider contributing to this blog, I immediately said yes and then almost as quickly said no. The topic of politics, in general, leaves me with an inherit feeling of depression, but I always jump at the chance to debate someone on them. Love Obama? Lemme bash him. Hate Obama? Lemme defend him. For me, that is simply entertaining, but to really break it down and think about politics… I can’t do it.

And why? Because it always seems to me that politics aren’t be played by men who care about me. That’s selfish. I know. But I expect that out of my politicians. This is fucking America. I want them to care. But I’m realistic enough—cynical enough?—to know that they just do not. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Sarah Palin, George Bush, Ron Paul and even Bob Barr are all exactly the same. That’s my feeling. None of them care about me.

So why should I care about this Libertarian Party business that Justin keeps telling me about? Because if I can ignore the unavoidable facts above they might sound like the kind of people I could really behind? I guess the only way to know is to list what I want in a party.

1. I Want My Say

This is something the Republicrats simply do not do. How many of you have met your local representative, either in the local, state or federal arms of the big government tree? I bet very few of you. There are enough politicians in this country—or at least enough bureaucrats—that every single person’s every single complaint should be heard. However, as we all know, a single citizen—in a republic—cannot walk into a legislative body and propose an idea. That seems... un-republicish. I’ll be honest, I know this idea is wide-reaching and probably a bit unpractical, but if we’re going to call ourselves Free, these sorts of things not only ought to be readily available, they should be made well-known and heavily advertised. “Got an idea? Come to your City Council Meeting Tonight!”

However, that is not gonna happen, we all know that. Opening up discussions in Congress—which, hell, they don’t even get asked for THEIR opinions anymore—would dramatically reduce control of the Big and Rich. So, it won’t be. That simple. And, yes, I know it would slow down the democratic process if every idea and complaint was heard. But you know what? I don’t give a shnit.

Now, I am unaware of how the Libbys feel about this. I really don’t know how the Libertarians feel about anything. But, if they claim to be the party for Liberty, then can you ignore this? I do not think so.

I think that enough people have simply disengaged from the political process in this country, and that has allowed the vultures to sweep in and take up large quantities of land (freedom). But that’s another point for another post.

2. No Party Of Mine Will Reek Of Socialist

Oh, don’t you act all innocent, Mr. Elephant. Go stand by your cousin, Mr. Jackass Donkey. Both of you have enough Hammer and Sickle in you to drown me. The wave built up and up and up... and it’s crashing down, down, down. Literally the entire rest of the world is socialist, not in name, but absolutely in execution. They call it any number of catchy things: ‘Universal Health Care’ is the current one. Canada has it; you want a check up? Go ahead, call now, we’ll see you in June. England’s all Uni; tore up your knee? Call now, we’ll knife you in April. Isn’t that pleasant? Just wonderful, right?

It’s absolutely horrible if you are a regular guy like me, without all the benefits of large-scale back stabbing and ridiculous amounts of money. It’s amazing, I’ve always been taught that greed is a bad thing and will only lead to bad things... but it sure seems like greed is doing a hell of a good job for those that bathe in it.

Anyway, back to the socialist thing. Our President-Elect, Barack Obama, is a no-doubt socialist, as we know, and you’ll notice that even though a lot of people cringe when they hear the words Socialist or Communist or Marxist... they voted one into office overwhelmingly. There you go.

The Dems don’t even try and deny it anymore. They’re proud, and I guess they have a right to be. Right now, they shit is working. It may not forever, but it is right now.

The GOP is who I have the problem with. I’ll ignore the God-awful campaign you ran for John McCain. I’ll ignore the apparent lack of knowledge your VP candidate had. But the fact is, a GOP President, in office, right now, is doing more Socialist things with his power than any man since Stalin.

If Justin is right, and the GOP is dying and about to be buried... then good riddance.

3. The Monroe Doctrine Works

I totally agree with Rep. Ron Paul on this. The Founding Fathers realized that the rest of the world was full of crooks and evildoers—much like now—and decided that for as long as they could, the US would stay out of foreign affairs.

Anyone care to guess how many countries in the world currently station US troops? Well, we’ve got Germany, Bosnia, Japan, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan... that’s six, and we’re scraping the surface. Ever since Woody Wilson and FDR, we’ve started putting our hands down other countries’ blouses... and look were it got us. I’m behind the belief that something like 9/11 was less likely to happen if we weren’t constantly screwing with other people. The CIA has always and will always do much more harm than good.

But, Obama has already said he’ll meet with foreign leaders without any prerequisites. Killed six million people? Can’t wait to meet you!

4. The Handling Of The Financial Crisis

This one is simple. Leave it the fuck alone.

AD Adkins can be reached at brkville42ny@aol.com.

A Vote for McCain Was More Wasted Than a Vote for Barr

2008-11-26T21:58:00.001-08:00

More from this crucial article that highlights the internal problems Libertarians face before we can get down to political business. This one's a real nugget that I want to delve into:

(For their part, Barr campaign workers blame Obama, or at least McCain's ability to frighten right-leaning voters of him so much that even if they liked Barr better, they felt they had to tactically vote GOP.)

I know numerous people right here in Pennsylvania who (claim they) would have voted for Barr except they felt like they had to vote Nobama (i.e., McCain). That's fundamentally broken, for several reasons.

1. The point right now, at least in a presidential election, isn't to win; it's to create and consolidate momentum. You claim you're 'wasting your vote' on Bob Barr, but what do you call it when you vote for a candidate you don't even support, just to stop an even less desirable candidate from achieving power? If everyone that claims they liked Barr better than McCain had voted for him, Obama would have won the election in a major landslide... and Bob Barr might have polled upwards of ten, twelve percent of the country at large. Obama would have become president, and the Libertarian Party would have become a national sensation, positioning itself very well for the future. People must be made to see this.

2. There is effectively no difference between Barack Obama and John McCain. They both will attack every conceivable problem in exactly the same way all Republicrats have for 100 years: By making the government bigger. By taking away, inch by excruciating inch, more and more personal freedoms (and more and more personal money). The only difference between Democrats and Republicans at this stage in the game is where they spend the money they forcibly rob the people of: Democrats like to waste it on social bureaucracies, and Republicans like to waste it on military/intelligence bureaucracies.

The Libertarian Party as a whole--Barrites and non-Barrites--massively failed to pound this into the national consciousness. What's more, I can't see that we really even tried.

3. John McCain was, from day one, doomed. He never had a single solitary droplet of a chance. The Republicrat media did a wonderful job of pretending, and tricking the populace, into believing the election was in doubt, when in fact it never was, not for a moment. There were a handful of individual states where one could justify voting for McCain as an anti-Obama measure--Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina--but mostly what we had was Libertarians or Libertarian sympathizers in places like Pennsylvania, where Obama won by 12 points and it was obvious for months he was going to win by 12 points, voting for McCain because they were afraid of Obama. It makes no sense. Voting for McCain was wasting your vote every bit as much as voting for Barr, in most states.

By the way, consider: Why do both major parties benefit from everyone believing the election is close? Because if people know the election isn't close, many more of them are going to be inclined to vote for third parties. If every non-hardboiled Democrat in the country knew Obama was going to win in a landslide no matter what they did (which was true and was always true), more than five percent of them would have voted for Bob Barr.

You see, one of the primary reasons the media spent months lying to us about the closeness of the election was specifically to keep the Libertarian Party down.

I'm going to write more on this later, but the Republican party is in deep trouble. I mean, deep trouble, trouble that's going to threaten its existence in the years to come. And we need to be the hyenas circling around and waiting for the right chance to jump in and kill it. A lot of us aren't comfortable with that, but the Republican party is where it is today because its leadership has betrayed its voting masses, stabbed them in the back. And we're the ones that need to be telling them about it. I don't feel bad about killing the Republican party, and you shouldn't either. The country is looking for a reminder of what 'conservative' means--IT MEANS SMALL GOVERNMENT, STUPID!--and if we don't show them, no one will. Ever.

I'll stop there since this is turning into something of a manifesto, and continue fisking this important article in the near future. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

Ending the Libertarian Civil War

2008-11-26T21:10:00.000-08:00

This article, entitled "Where Did the Libertarian Party Go Wrong?" serves nicely as a beginner's primer to the challenges the Libertarian Party must solve before it can move to the next level of public consciousness and become a real player in politics. To wit, the first major challenge is: The party as a whole needs to want to move to the next political level. Believe it or not, there is a large, noisy faction of the party--and more, they're the Libertarian Party's old guard, the original Libertarians, and they aren't shy about telling you about it--really would prefer to remain at the party's present level, best described as Tiny but Vocal Minority. They like the idea, you see, of being the only people who really get it while everyone else just accepts the Matrix.

In addition to that there's a simple philosophical disconnect between what I would call the Progressive Libertarians (represented by Bob Barr, and the group I myself fall into) and the Traditional Libertarians (whose views I do respect): namely, much of the latter group is fundamentally anarchist.

With all of that said, I strongly encourage you to read the article, and I'm going to take some time to fisk it here.

The folks who had dominated the party in those long, lonely pre-Barr years, [Barr staffer Shane Cory] said, “had changed it from a political party into a debating society. It was the church of Libertarianism. I’m not saying that in a condescending way. But we’re turning it around. This is a more pragmatic approach.”

I think he's slightly wrong; the party had always been fundamentally a debating society. Barr is the point man for a movement to turn it into a political party. This is a problem among the traditionals for a simple reason: The whole reason they're Libertarians is their loathing of political parties. Well, it's not quite correct to say the whole reason I'm a Libertarian is I loathe political parties, but it's pretty close, and I can easily grasp where they're coming from.

I do not like the world pragmatic in there; even if it's mostly accurate, it's not a good word to use. That word suggests, you see, that we're changing some things not because it's the right and proper thing to do, but because we have to water down our views to gain public acceptance. Well... that may be true, but we also should water down our views (as it were) because some of them don't work in the real world anyway.

Instead of getting bogged down in specific platform issues--which has been the very thing the Libertarian Party's been internally warring over the past few years--we need to remind both ourselves and the outside world that we are the party that stands for liberty. Everything else in our platform, which should be flexible enough to allow for minor deviations by individual prominent party members, needs to trickle down from that. It's time to put an end, EMPHATICALLY, to the Republican Party's lie that it's the party of individual freedom, and the Democratic Party's even more flagrant lie that it's the party that stands for the little man. We'll never accomplish that while we're bickering over our platform.

Well, for an approach Cory frames as pragmatic, it didn’t really work. It’s all over now, and Barr failed as both fundraiser and candidate to even approach those high early expectations. The total money raised was $1.2 million; total votes came in at 510,000.

Now, the backbiting and, as Barr media consultant Audrey Mullen put it to me last week, the intra-libertarian “circular firing squad” may begin.

It sounds to me like Barr media consultant Audrey Mullen is taking self-defensive shots at the traditionalists in the party through the writer of this article (and other media and quasi-media avenues.) Audrey Mullen: You're wasting your very valuable time and energy at this. If we can't solve our differences without using up our rare and precious media attention to take thinly veiled shots at each other, we're in serious trouble.

I heard plenty of anecdotal evidence describing hardcore LP activists so disgusted by Barr’s right-wing past (and, in their reading, present) that they sat out doing any volunteer work, providing donations, canvassing, or even voting for him; I heard some LP watchers assume that because of these anecdotes, Barr only got about half the straight LP vote that a candidate more congenial to the party's hardcore would have received, and that the rest of his votes must have come from right-wingers disgruntled with McCain.

There's no nice way to put this: If the progressives in the party (the "Barr people") maintain control of the party going forward, it's likely we're going to lose the traditionalists/anarchists, which is half the party. I think the notion that 'half' of registered and voting Libertarians voted for Barr is extremely exaggerated; I don't know the official figure, but I'd guess it's more in the 80% neighborhood (which is still horrifically low). This problem isn't going away; in fact, it's only going to get worse, and we'd better face it and overcome it now if we want to move forward later.

There are some problems with Barr's views, several of which (as we'll see shortly) aren't Libertarian at all. But to refuse to vote for the Libertarian nominee for president at a time when every single vote helps advance the party's core value--liberty--while the Republicrat tyranny is explosively growing is ill-advised and reactionary in the extreme. This infighting will doom not only us, but everyone, as it allows the Republicrats to achieve total domination while we keep bickering.

There's more, but we're going to hold it out for subsequent posts (one of which, as I type this, is already up, so check it out.)