I finally saw V For Vendetta last night. It was one of the best works of anti-state expressions Hollywood has produced in quite some time.
The hero V was not only a bad ass knife thrower and combat expert, but he was also quite the intellectual. One of my favorite lines from the movie came when V, played by Hugo Weaving, was explaining to Evey, played by Natalie Portman, the reasons for his mission to take the current government down. He spoke to her in terms of Newton's Third Law - for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This was in reference to the physical and emotional scars the state had left on him and many others. He was merely the eventuality of such a tyrannical state that would rise up to lead a revolution.
I also enjoyed the references to “America’s war”, and the destruction that it had caused so many other people of the world. Of-course this movie being set some twenty years in the future, America had erupted into some kind of civil war. There was some mention of the war in Iraq, and the subsequent wars in several other Mid-Eastern countries that happened later on.
The opening scene takes place on the streets of Britain, and depicts Evey, being harassed by state thugs for being out after curfew. It is at this point that the audience is introduced to the hero V, who saves day. I know this movie was based on a graphic novel written in the 1980’s, but the opening scene really reminded me of the opening scene in Vin Suprynowicz’s novel, The Black Arrow. Now I know where Vin got his inspiration for his great tale of resistance.
I highly recommend readers check out The Black Arrow, as it is a similar tale of a revolution in the USA.
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
That Does It!
I have got to break my streak of avoiding movie theaters for, I think about 19 months now, and go see this great anti-state masterpiece everyone keeps talking up. That movie would be V For Vendetta.
I told myself I was going to see it last weekend, but I foolishly destroyed several parts of my lawn mower, don't ask, costing me several hours of otherwise productive time and the unecessary use of certain choice swear words while attemping to fix the damn thing. I think this weekend is shaping up to be a little lighter on the work load, so I will once again put V For Vendetta on the weekend agenda.
I told myself I was going to see it last weekend, but I foolishly destroyed several parts of my lawn mower, don't ask, costing me several hours of otherwise productive time and the unecessary use of certain choice swear words while attemping to fix the damn thing. I think this weekend is shaping up to be a little lighter on the work load, so I will once again put V For Vendetta on the weekend agenda.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Guantanamo Bay
I was listening to Rusty Humphries today on my commute from work to school. He was talking about his recent visit to Guantanamo Bay where he interviewed a high ranking Army official about conditions there. Rusty's main point that he kept driving was about how much the mainstream media skews the picture of what is really happening at Gitmo. He kept telling the army officer that he wanted to see all the areas of the base including any secret rooms that might be there. At one point he asked the man if there were any secret rooms at gitmo, and of-course the man replied that there were not. He then asked if there were any "beatin' rooms" at the base, and if so he wanted to see them. I thought this was hilarious. I could just imagine the officer taking Rusty into a room at the base where large banner hangs on the wall displaying the words "beating room."
I am not alleging that there are definetely beating rooms at that base, however I do not discount the possibility that such secret rooms do exist. I just thought it was funny that Humphries was trying to prove to the listeners that said rooms do not exist based soley on the fact that his tour allowed him unfettered access to any room he wished.
I think the main point that we should be concerned about was not whether or not there are beating rooms, but that the people being held there are so held without being charged with a particular crime. For the U.S. Government to simply name someone an enemy combatant in the war on terror and hold them at Guantamano Bay indefinetely is not only unconstitutional, it is a blatant abuse of power. Our government needs to be held to account for its' actions, including those actions that violate the Constitution, the Two Laws, and basic human rights.
I am not alleging that there are definetely beating rooms at that base, however I do not discount the possibility that such secret rooms do exist. I just thought it was funny that Humphries was trying to prove to the listeners that said rooms do not exist based soley on the fact that his tour allowed him unfettered access to any room he wished.
I think the main point that we should be concerned about was not whether or not there are beating rooms, but that the people being held there are so held without being charged with a particular crime. For the U.S. Government to simply name someone an enemy combatant in the war on terror and hold them at Guantamano Bay indefinetely is not only unconstitutional, it is a blatant abuse of power. Our government needs to be held to account for its' actions, including those actions that violate the Constitution, the Two Laws, and basic human rights.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
The Presidential Veto
I was driving to work this morning listening to President Bush defend his policies on the radio on everything from Iraq to his lack of the use of the veto. My ears perked up when he mentioned the criticism from many conservatives on the veto.
Mr. Bush gave as his excuse for never having vetoed a single spending bill passed on to him from congress the fact that under current law, the president does not have the ability to use a line item veto. He actually said that many times he agrees with the size of the pie, but he just does not agree with the slices. So he is basically saying that he only has disagreed with the types of pork barrel projects contained within past appropriations bills, not that total amounts of the bills. This proves from his own mouth that he cares nothing about limited government conservatism.
Of-course he espoused the usual rhetoric about his tax cuts, and the great things they have done so all of the uneducated Republicans in the audience will feel good about having voted for him. He failed to mention that with his out of control spending habits his tax cuts mean nonthing, because we will still have to pay for all of these new government ventures through inflation.
I'm thinking about buying the book Getting America Right by Edward J. Feulner and Doug Wilson, which measures the performance of Washington politicians based on true libertarian, conservative values.
Mr. Bush gave as his excuse for never having vetoed a single spending bill passed on to him from congress the fact that under current law, the president does not have the ability to use a line item veto. He actually said that many times he agrees with the size of the pie, but he just does not agree with the slices. So he is basically saying that he only has disagreed with the types of pork barrel projects contained within past appropriations bills, not that total amounts of the bills. This proves from his own mouth that he cares nothing about limited government conservatism.
Of-course he espoused the usual rhetoric about his tax cuts, and the great things they have done so all of the uneducated Republicans in the audience will feel good about having voted for him. He failed to mention that with his out of control spending habits his tax cuts mean nonthing, because we will still have to pay for all of these new government ventures through inflation.
I'm thinking about buying the book Getting America Right by Edward J. Feulner and Doug Wilson, which measures the performance of Washington politicians based on true libertarian, conservative values.
Friday, March 17, 2006
Happy St. Patricks Day
It is friday and I don't have anything particularly intelligent to say today so I thought I would take this time to wish everyone a happy St. Patrick's Day. Today is one of my favorite days of the year, perhaps second only to Independence day, and the best part about this year is that St. Patty's day has fallen on a friday.
I hope any of you who plan on celebrating this evening have a safe and exciting time. Cheers!
I hope any of you who plan on celebrating this evening have a safe and exciting time. Cheers!
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Senator Bill Frist
I just finished watching a Neil Cavuto interview of Senate majority leader Bill Frist on the current state of government. Neil began to take the senator to task by stating that the republicans have been spending like drunkin' sailors for several years now. Senator Frist responded like the typical poltician by rattling off excuses such as the war on terror. Of-course Neil failed to call him on the fact that non-defense spending is up at the highest levels since WWII.
The comment that Senator Frist made wich angered me the most had to do with his final comments on the "rebublican way." He actually had the gall to mention that the republicans were for limited government. I just about lost it when he said that. How much longer is their charade going to continue?
We have witnessed the largest growth in the size and scope of the federal government since World War II over the last six years under a Republican Congress and Executive branch, and Mr. Frist pulls out the limited government card. In the words of Senator Zell Miller, "I wish we lived in a time when you could challenge someone to a duel."
Shame on you Senator Frist.
The comment that Senator Frist made wich angered me the most had to do with his final comments on the "rebublican way." He actually had the gall to mention that the republicans were for limited government. I just about lost it when he said that. How much longer is their charade going to continue?
We have witnessed the largest growth in the size and scope of the federal government since World War II over the last six years under a Republican Congress and Executive branch, and Mr. Frist pulls out the limited government card. In the words of Senator Zell Miller, "I wish we lived in a time when you could challenge someone to a duel."
Shame on you Senator Frist.
Libertarian Reform Caucus
I was reading my April, 2006 edition of Reason magazine when I stumbled upon an advertisement for somehting called the Libertarian Reform Caucus. Its' stated goal is to put together a new platform for the Libertarian Party to make the party more inclusive so that it may grow faster, which would allow the party to have more clout now rather than later. The caucus asserts that the current platform is too radical for some folks who might join if the party simply made a few changes.
After having visited the caucus's website, it seems that one of their main goals is to work on changing the party's pledge. They have ten proposals, each one a rewritten version of the pledge that members may vote for or against.
The site looks nice and seems to have a sizeable amount of information, but I just kept wondering to myself while I was sifting through the pages if these people are wasting their time.
My gut feeling tells me that most democrats, republicans, and independents who do not join the LP, choose not to join based mostly on other reasons that have nothing to do with the pledge or most of the platform. I believe that most democrats and republicans could not even tell you what their own respective party's platforms state.
The people who do not join the LP do so for the same reasons that consumers continue to shop at the same grocery store week after week, or purchase auto insurance from the same agent year after year. They do not believe that their lives have been affected enough by any external factors that would motivate them to exert the effort to make such a change, much less advocate for others to change. I believe the only solution to this problem is to wake these people up with a little history about the gradual decline of personal and economic liberty in this country. The movement is still in desperate need of people who will spread the ideas of liberty to others.
One point the group makes that I believe to be a good thing is the bottom up theory. This theory is based on the idea that unknown candidates who get involved in local politics have an easier chance of being elected, and therefore an area that can have a more immediate impact on our local lives.
I am not quite sure if this effort is going anywhere, but if is succeeds in bringing large numbers of people into the party, then best of luck to it. I just hope that they do not end up de-radicalizing the party so much that it no longer adheres to the founding principles.
After having visited the caucus's website, it seems that one of their main goals is to work on changing the party's pledge. They have ten proposals, each one a rewritten version of the pledge that members may vote for or against.
The site looks nice and seems to have a sizeable amount of information, but I just kept wondering to myself while I was sifting through the pages if these people are wasting their time.
My gut feeling tells me that most democrats, republicans, and independents who do not join the LP, choose not to join based mostly on other reasons that have nothing to do with the pledge or most of the platform. I believe that most democrats and republicans could not even tell you what their own respective party's platforms state.
The people who do not join the LP do so for the same reasons that consumers continue to shop at the same grocery store week after week, or purchase auto insurance from the same agent year after year. They do not believe that their lives have been affected enough by any external factors that would motivate them to exert the effort to make such a change, much less advocate for others to change. I believe the only solution to this problem is to wake these people up with a little history about the gradual decline of personal and economic liberty in this country. The movement is still in desperate need of people who will spread the ideas of liberty to others.
One point the group makes that I believe to be a good thing is the bottom up theory. This theory is based on the idea that unknown candidates who get involved in local politics have an easier chance of being elected, and therefore an area that can have a more immediate impact on our local lives.
I am not quite sure if this effort is going anywhere, but if is succeeds in bringing large numbers of people into the party, then best of luck to it. I just hope that they do not end up de-radicalizing the party so much that it no longer adheres to the founding principles.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Online Freedom of Speech Act
James Wilson of Independent Country has made me aware of the House of Representatives upcoming vote on a very crucial piece of legislation. It is called the Online Freedom of Speech Act, and it will seriously affect our blogging lives.
It seems that the Federal Election Commission is under court order to impose campaign finance regulations on the internet. That means that political expression on blogs, webpages, and even possibly emails would be regulated for content. Of-course the mainstream media would be exempt from these regulations.
We need to urge our representatives in congress to support and pass this bill if our freedom of speech is to continue unabated from government in this country.
Visit this page at DownsizeDC.org to contact your congress person to urge their support of this bill.
It seems that the Federal Election Commission is under court order to impose campaign finance regulations on the internet. That means that political expression on blogs, webpages, and even possibly emails would be regulated for content. Of-course the mainstream media would be exempt from these regulations.
We need to urge our representatives in congress to support and pass this bill if our freedom of speech is to continue unabated from government in this country.
Visit this page at DownsizeDC.org to contact your congress person to urge their support of this bill.
Monday, March 13, 2006
The Evil Quiz
I am apparently a little bit more evil than James Wilson of Independent Country.
| You Are 34% Evil |
 A bit of evil lurks in your heart, but you hide it well. In some ways, you are the most dangerous kind of evil. |
Agorism
I have been reading about agorism, which is a, "...new ideology which asserts that the Libertarian philosophical position occurs in the real world in practice as Counter-Economics..." I would like to thank Brad Spangler for introducing me to this apparant new libertarian ideology, which attempts to bridge the gap between all persons who practice counter-economics. Counter-economics is basically the study and or practice of all human interaction not allowed by the state.
Agorism, as I understand it, is intended to help improve civilization through market processes as opposed to state institutions. Agorists recognize that every time the state intervenes in the free market, whether through tax increases or new regulations, civilization is harmed. This is true because all state imposed law is backed up by the threat and or use of deadly force.
Lew Rockwell has said before that he advocates radical changes in favor of more liberties and less government, but that he does not believe politics is the way to do it. I have wondered for a long time now how the task of achieving more liberties and less government could ever come about without the use of politics. This philosophy might be the way that it happens.
Agorism, as I understand it, is intended to help improve civilization through market processes as opposed to state institutions. Agorists recognize that every time the state intervenes in the free market, whether through tax increases or new regulations, civilization is harmed. This is true because all state imposed law is backed up by the threat and or use of deadly force.
Lew Rockwell has said before that he advocates radical changes in favor of more liberties and less government, but that he does not believe politics is the way to do it. I have wondered for a long time now how the task of achieving more liberties and less government could ever come about without the use of politics. This philosophy might be the way that it happens.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Cell Phone Blues
I was working in my yard again the other day, because I'm on a never ending quest to have the best looking yard on the block. It was time for the first application of fertilizer on my "lawn care annual plan." Of-course the stuff is slightly dangerous when exposed to skin, so upon completion I emmediately threw my clothes in the washing machine and jumped in the shower.
It wasn't until the washer stopped and I went to pull my clothes from it when I saw what a stupid thing I had done. I had washed my cell phone. And not just my cell phone, but also my phone numbers list and daily planner that are contained in that amazing little digital device. I will have to wait a few days for my cell phone company to send me out a replacement.
Maybe I should have been smarter than this, but I did not have any of that information stored anywhere else. This really made me think how dependent I am on the digital world. Why is it such a big deal when I have to go without a cell phone for a few days?
Then that lead me to think how dependent our entire society is on modern civilization. What would most people do if this vast network of communications, electricity, running water, and all the other things we take for granted suddenly stopped working for even a few days.
I have been reading a book called Lucifer's Hammer, which is about a comet that hits the earth and wipes out civilization. The people who survive are challenged with the task of rebuilding everything from the ground up.
The book and the cell phone incident have really been making me think about how dependent I am on our modern civilization. When I think about these types of things I want to buy a generator, grow my own vegetable garden, and stock up on water. Will I act on any of those thoughts? Perhaps not any time soon, but I will continue to dream of a day when I might have a home on a larger piece of property with my own power generorating capabilities.
It wasn't until the washer stopped and I went to pull my clothes from it when I saw what a stupid thing I had done. I had washed my cell phone. And not just my cell phone, but also my phone numbers list and daily planner that are contained in that amazing little digital device. I will have to wait a few days for my cell phone company to send me out a replacement.
Maybe I should have been smarter than this, but I did not have any of that information stored anywhere else. This really made me think how dependent I am on the digital world. Why is it such a big deal when I have to go without a cell phone for a few days?
Then that lead me to think how dependent our entire society is on modern civilization. What would most people do if this vast network of communications, electricity, running water, and all the other things we take for granted suddenly stopped working for even a few days.
I have been reading a book called Lucifer's Hammer, which is about a comet that hits the earth and wipes out civilization. The people who survive are challenged with the task of rebuilding everything from the ground up.
The book and the cell phone incident have really been making me think about how dependent I am on our modern civilization. When I think about these types of things I want to buy a generator, grow my own vegetable garden, and stock up on water. Will I act on any of those thoughts? Perhaps not any time soon, but I will continue to dream of a day when I might have a home on a larger piece of property with my own power generorating capabilities.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Beautiful Sunset
I was on my way home from dining out tonight when I noticed the sunset looked so beautiful that I had to take a picture of it and share it here. I get such a strong inner feeling of peace from nature when it looks like this.
Monday, March 06, 2006
The Roe v. Wade Challenge
South Dakota has recently made criminal the practice of aborting a fetus, except in cases where the mothers life is at risk. Instances of rare birth defects and incest will not be considered exceptions to the ban.
Of-course this type of state defiance to the Roe decision could have been foreseen with the recent nominations and subsequent confirmations of Justices Roberts and Alito. South Dakota and other states that might eventually follow suit are going to test the waters of the more conservitive Supreme Court.
Although it seems the religious right in this country would rather see abortions take place in dark alleys with coat hangers for forceps instead of in clinics with sterile instruments, I support their right to make decisions governing there own local geographic locations. Because when you get to the heart of the Roe decision, it was basically a slam against state's rights. I support the right of the states to make there own decisions, as stupid as they may be, about these matters. People of small local areas coming together deciding on laws that reflect their culture and values are exhibiting the kind of activity that contributes to a free society.
Of-course the ideal situation would be to have all the governing be done at a level even more local than the states. Back in 1993 Murray Rothbard wrote, "Pro-choice paleos should hope that Roe v. Wade is someday overthrown, and abortion questions go back to the state and local levels-the more decentralized the better." Perhaps this is the beginning of the overthrow of Roe that will bring about the decentralization of state power in Washington that we paleo and left-libertarians have been waiting for.
Of-course this type of state defiance to the Roe decision could have been foreseen with the recent nominations and subsequent confirmations of Justices Roberts and Alito. South Dakota and other states that might eventually follow suit are going to test the waters of the more conservitive Supreme Court.
Although it seems the religious right in this country would rather see abortions take place in dark alleys with coat hangers for forceps instead of in clinics with sterile instruments, I support their right to make decisions governing there own local geographic locations. Because when you get to the heart of the Roe decision, it was basically a slam against state's rights. I support the right of the states to make there own decisions, as stupid as they may be, about these matters. People of small local areas coming together deciding on laws that reflect their culture and values are exhibiting the kind of activity that contributes to a free society.
Of-course the ideal situation would be to have all the governing be done at a level even more local than the states. Back in 1993 Murray Rothbard wrote, "Pro-choice paleos should hope that Roe v. Wade is someday overthrown, and abortion questions go back to the state and local levels-the more decentralized the better." Perhaps this is the beginning of the overthrow of Roe that will bring about the decentralization of state power in Washington that we paleo and left-libertarians have been waiting for.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Voting in my state
Every time there is an upcoming election I am reminded of how harsh and restrictive my state's ballot access laws are. There happens to be a mayoral race quickly coming up on the horizon, but of-course the choice is between big government and bigger government as usual.
The best part of this race so far has been that the most dominant news stories have centered around corruption and scandal.
On the democratic side we have Don McCorkle accusing opponent Kathy Taylor of voter fraud in voting in two states during the 2000 elections. McCorkle also accuses Taylor of tax fraud in applying for and receiving a homestead tax exemption for homes in both Florida and Oklahoma. Although, as a libertarian, I support Taylor's right to be exempt from any tax that may present istelf, I am not sure why she would have filed for exemtption status in both states if she knew she would be possiblly entering a political race in the future. If she is going to enter the nasty game of politics, then she better know that any law in existence will be used against her in her run for mayor.
On the republican side we have the incumbent Mayor Bill Lafortune. Now I'm not sure, but he may be the most loathed mayor by both the republicans and the democrats in the history of Tulsa politics. He is seen by many Tulsan's as being a nice man, but not necessarily a great leader - and that was sugar coating his reputation.
He has a challenger by the name of Chris Medlock, who is currently a city councilor. Mr. Medlock's views are probably the most liberty oriented in contrast with the rest of the candidates, but when tea comes to the price of China he is still a statist.
What is a Tulsa libertarian to do with his vote? Answer: NOTHING.
The best part of this race so far has been that the most dominant news stories have centered around corruption and scandal.
On the democratic side we have Don McCorkle accusing opponent Kathy Taylor of voter fraud in voting in two states during the 2000 elections. McCorkle also accuses Taylor of tax fraud in applying for and receiving a homestead tax exemption for homes in both Florida and Oklahoma. Although, as a libertarian, I support Taylor's right to be exempt from any tax that may present istelf, I am not sure why she would have filed for exemtption status in both states if she knew she would be possiblly entering a political race in the future. If she is going to enter the nasty game of politics, then she better know that any law in existence will be used against her in her run for mayor.
On the republican side we have the incumbent Mayor Bill Lafortune. Now I'm not sure, but he may be the most loathed mayor by both the republicans and the democrats in the history of Tulsa politics. He is seen by many Tulsan's as being a nice man, but not necessarily a great leader - and that was sugar coating his reputation.
He has a challenger by the name of Chris Medlock, who is currently a city councilor. Mr. Medlock's views are probably the most liberty oriented in contrast with the rest of the candidates, but when tea comes to the price of China he is still a statist.
What is a Tulsa libertarian to do with his vote? Answer: NOTHING.
Friday, March 03, 2006
We Lost a Great One Thursday
I was going about my life as usual yesterday, when I got this weird, fleeting feeling that lasted for only a few seconds. I thought to myself that it had been a while since I had visited Harry Browne's website to read any of his latest articles. I remembered that he sent out an email a few months ago announcing that he had developed Lou Gehrig's Disease, and then I got this really strong feeling about him and the state of his health. Then I went on with my daily activities not giving it a second thought.
Fastforward to friday morning when I was getting ready for work. I always have the TV tuned to Fox News in the morning before I leave the house. I was walking through my living room after having eaten breakfast when someting on the ticker at the bottom of the screen caught my eye. The line read that Harry Brown had died on thursday, March 1st after having struggled with Lou Gehrig's Disease. It really shocked me that I had just been thinking about him for the first time in a while just the day before. It felt like one of those supposed inter-connectivity moments that human beings might be capable of.
I have to give Harry Browne most of the credit for introducing me to the more in depth concepts of the libertarian movmenent. After having read his books "Why Government Doesn't Work" and "The Great Libertarian Offer," I joined the Libertarian Party. Although my membership has since lapsed, I will always remember the strong, postiive influence that Harry Browne had on my path to discovering the libertarian philosophy.
Harry will be missed.
Fastforward to friday morning when I was getting ready for work. I always have the TV tuned to Fox News in the morning before I leave the house. I was walking through my living room after having eaten breakfast when someting on the ticker at the bottom of the screen caught my eye. The line read that Harry Brown had died on thursday, March 1st after having struggled with Lou Gehrig's Disease. It really shocked me that I had just been thinking about him for the first time in a while just the day before. It felt like one of those supposed inter-connectivity moments that human beings might be capable of.
I have to give Harry Browne most of the credit for introducing me to the more in depth concepts of the libertarian movmenent. After having read his books "Why Government Doesn't Work" and "The Great Libertarian Offer," I joined the Libertarian Party. Although my membership has since lapsed, I will always remember the strong, postiive influence that Harry Browne had on my path to discovering the libertarian philosophy.
Harry will be missed.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Coercion in New Jersey
Eminent domain strikes again, this time crushing the lives of residents living in Long Branch, New Jersey. The local authorities are attempting to remove, with force if necessary, the residents of Beachfront South, an ocean side neighborhood. City officials, including the slimy Mayor Adam Schneider have apparently been salivating like a pack of wolves for a few years now at the thought of higher tax revenues for the cities coffers. They plan on handing the 30 residential properties over to developers of luxury condominiums and other such endeavors. The condos will encompass five buildings totaling 350 units.
The repugnant Mayor Schneider was on the Sean Hannity radio show today slipping and sliding, like the venomous snake that he is, around Sean’s questions. Sean hammered at him for several minutes about his attempts to use the deadly force of the government to kick innocent people off of their property. The mayor just kept on repeating the same line about the progress of the city, and how that relates to his plan that has been in effect for the last ten years or so. I was very surprised and delighted to hear Sean Hannity giving this government official such a hard verbal thrashing for his disgusting behavior.
I suppose one good thing to come from the Kelo v. New London decision is the amount of national media attention it has fostered for this issue. It seems that states all over the country have begun to see proposed legislation limiting the government’s use of eminent domain. Hopefully rational thinking people all across the country will wake up and take a stand for private property rights as a result of this recent rash of government intrusion
Sunday, January 29, 2006
To Vote or Not to Vote
I wrestle with this topic in my mind on a somewhat regulare basis. The logical conclusion I always end up at is an outcome of not voting.
The idea that those who do not vote have not the freedom to complain is assinine and must be squashed out if society is to achieve progress. It is my position that those who do vote are the ones who have forfeited their rights to complain. The act of voting implies an endorsement of what the politicians are doing. It is a means by which a citizen can put his individual seal of approval on all the things that government is doing and will do.
The economic freedom that Americans are losing every year as government grows will not receive my approval through voting. The fact is neither the republicrats nor the demopublicans are actually working to restore our lost freedoms, whether they be economic or social in nature. Both parties love to talk a good game at election time, but they never cease to disapoint year after year as they continue to encroach on our wallets and private lives.
Most Americans are probably unaware of the Heritage Foundation's recently published 2006 Index of Economic Freedom, which ranks 161 countries of the world based on the amount of economic liberty enjoyed by the citizens of said countries. Those Americans who do become familiar with the index should not be surprised that the USA is no longer number 1. That spot currently belongs to Hong Kong. The USA is setting comfortably, or perhaps not so comfortably, at number 9.
It is time to wake up folks! We are losing our freedoms year after year, and you who vote for the two dominating parties in Washington year after year are responsible for it. If there is not an alternative option on your ballot when you step into the voting booth that offers a true change in the direction of more freedom, then by voting you are committing a disservice to liberty and the American way.
In my state, I have only the Republicans and the Democrats to choose from. Third parties, including the Libertarian Party, have been kept off of the ballot for years due to the most restrictive ballot access laws in the country. And since I strongly believe in the idea that if you do vote you should vote your conscience, I have only the option of non-voting at election time. It is the only choice I can make under the current system that truly reflects my beliefs. And as Tucker Carlson has said of this issue, "there is no shame in that choice."
The idea that those who do not vote have not the freedom to complain is assinine and must be squashed out if society is to achieve progress. It is my position that those who do vote are the ones who have forfeited their rights to complain. The act of voting implies an endorsement of what the politicians are doing. It is a means by which a citizen can put his individual seal of approval on all the things that government is doing and will do.
The economic freedom that Americans are losing every year as government grows will not receive my approval through voting. The fact is neither the republicrats nor the demopublicans are actually working to restore our lost freedoms, whether they be economic or social in nature. Both parties love to talk a good game at election time, but they never cease to disapoint year after year as they continue to encroach on our wallets and private lives.
Most Americans are probably unaware of the Heritage Foundation's recently published 2006 Index of Economic Freedom, which ranks 161 countries of the world based on the amount of economic liberty enjoyed by the citizens of said countries. Those Americans who do become familiar with the index should not be surprised that the USA is no longer number 1. That spot currently belongs to Hong Kong. The USA is setting comfortably, or perhaps not so comfortably, at number 9.
It is time to wake up folks! We are losing our freedoms year after year, and you who vote for the two dominating parties in Washington year after year are responsible for it. If there is not an alternative option on your ballot when you step into the voting booth that offers a true change in the direction of more freedom, then by voting you are committing a disservice to liberty and the American way.
In my state, I have only the Republicans and the Democrats to choose from. Third parties, including the Libertarian Party, have been kept off of the ballot for years due to the most restrictive ballot access laws in the country. And since I strongly believe in the idea that if you do vote you should vote your conscience, I have only the option of non-voting at election time. It is the only choice I can make under the current system that truly reflects my beliefs. And as Tucker Carlson has said of this issue, "there is no shame in that choice."
Friday, January 20, 2006
Eminent Domain
It appears that the Centennial Baptist Church of Sand Springs is the most recent victim of eminent domain. Sand Springs authorities are trying to develope the "keystone corner" area of town by booting out several small businesses and churchs. Sand Springs Centennial is standig up against emminent domain with the help of Oklahomansinaction.org through a petition that would put the issue of emminent domain on Ohlahoma in life support.
From what I understand of this issue, if enough signatures are gathered, the Representative who is sponsering the bill would not need the governor's signature to bring the initiative to a state wide vote.
This little church in Sand Springs is just the beginning if Okhlahomans do not demand back their lost private property rights. This is certainly an issue that if brought to a state wide vote, would certainly beg my conscience to vote for.
From what I understand of this issue, if enough signatures are gathered, the Representative who is sponsering the bill would not need the governor's signature to bring the initiative to a state wide vote.
This little church in Sand Springs is just the beginning if Okhlahomans do not demand back their lost private property rights. This is certainly an issue that if brought to a state wide vote, would certainly beg my conscience to vote for.
Friday, November 25, 2005
Natural Rights and the War on Terror
This information comes from an email I recently received. It was written by someone named General Chong. I enjoyed reading it, but I found some of it a little misleading. I have cut out certain parts of it and put my responses in blue font.
This is incorrect. The General skipped a few minor details that go back a bit further. I would argue that the threat to us started when the U.S government got involved in the quarrels and eternal wars of Europe during the Barbary Wars of the 1800's. As historian Richard Maybury has explained in his book The Thousand Year War in the Mideast, America entered the thousand year war between the Europeans and the Moslems in the Mideast during the Barbary Wars. The following is an excerpt from the book of exactly how America really got involved in this mess.
“In those days Moslems living in the Barbary States of North Africa were refugees from the European Inquisition, or descendants of persons killed by the Crusaders. They were levying a tax on European vessels sailing along the African coast.
European merchants somehow convinced their governments to pay this tax for them, so the Moslems knew they could make the tax quite heavy.
Resentful of the crusades and Inquisition, the Moslems raised the tax frequently. Finally in 1801 the tiny American government could no longer afford to pay.
U.S. merchantmen continued sailing through the area anyhow, and the Pasha of Tripoli captured and imprisoned the tax evaders.
European rulers saw a golden opportunity. They called the Moslems pirates and said someone should teach the pirates a lesson.
Americans knew little of Europe’s continual war with the Moslems and they apparently believed this propaganda, never suspecting that in the minds of the Moslems this conflict was just the latest chapter in the Crusades."
So you can see that over the last thousand years western governments have had a constant stream of troops on the ground bearing arms in the Mideast. Western states have had troops over there ruling and propping up puppet governments causing all kinds of chaos and instability in that region for centuries. The countries over there today were not created and drawn up by the people living there.
The Mideast started off as a region of many different Arab tribes that have never been able to get along with each other. Over time European governments carved out the Mideast into different countries so that they could more easily rule over the territory. Until the American people see it from the other side they will not understand why the “terrorists” truly hate us.
This next part about giving up our liberties especially disturbed me.
This is a very dangerous precedent to set. It is precisely a time like this that we should be as vigilant as possible in preventing our government from taking our liberties. This War on Terror is exactly the kind of thing that those in government who have wished for more power over us all along will use to grab up all they can get. Ben Franklin warned that those who are willing to give up some of their liberties in exchange for security deserve neither liberty nor security. Americans need not forget his advice or we will continue to slide into our own form of tyranny. Not the kind of tyranny like Hussein imposed on the people of Iraq, but the kind that actually convinces a man he is free while it takes almost half of the fruits of his labor each year.
For how long does the General believe that we had better give up some of our rights? Does he think we should hand over our God given rights until the last “terrorist” is killed? Who will decide when the world is safe enough for us to have our natural born rights back?
Well I have some news for all who subscribe to the General's theory. It really doesn’t matter that the General thinks we should hand over our right to privacy, which is backed up by the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment prohibits the federal government from performing searches of our person or property without probable cause. It doesn't matter because the right of law abiding citizens to privacy is a right we are born with. It is not something that is granted by the government. Once the principle of natural rights is understood then everything else falls into place logically. If the government did not give us our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then it can not take those things away from us without due process of law of-course.
Too many Americans forgot, or never learned in the first place, why the government was instituted in the first place. It was to protect those fundamental rights.
But even if the fourth amendment did not exist, the government would still not have the right to perform “sneak and peak” searches of our homes. A “sneak and peak” search is an action congress gave to the federal government vis-à-vis the U.S.A. Patriot Act, whereby the government enters your home, rummages through your things, and copies your computer hard drive without your consent or knowledge. If the government chooses not to prosecute you they do not even have to tell you they were there.
Even if the fourth amendment did not exist government agents working in airports would still not have the right to molest our bodies and rummage through our carry on bags every time we choose to board a commercial airplane.
The reason is simple really. We as individuals do not have the right to search the homes or personal belongings of others without their voluntary consent. Since we as individuals do not have that right, we can not give that right to others, or government agents in this case, to perform for us. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
That point is asinine. What is this, we gave up plenty of civil rights, business. I don't recall reading in the history books about people lining up to sign away their civil rights. These rights were taken at the point of a gun, and by virtue of natural law, the government has no authority to take the rights of any person not encroaching on some other persons natural rights. I don't remember the part about the estimated 112,000 people of Japanese decent, most of which were U.S. citizens, agreeing to pack up and move their families into concentration camps. I can't seem to find it written anywhere on the agreement of the some 6,000 people, a majority of which were Jehova's Witnesses, to be imprisoned because they morally objected on religious grounds to being dragged off to war.
The government does not have the authority to simply remove and restore the natural rights of the people when it sees fit. The fact that most Americans do not see this as tyranical and outragous is beyond my comprehension.
My Beliefs
It is my belief that the only way to be safe from the “terrorists” is to do like the Swiss. An immediate withdrawal of our troops from foreign lands and a declaration of neutrality by our government would send a strong message to the rest of the world that we will no longer meddle in the affairs of others. I do not believe this plan will solve all our problems. But I do believe we will be safer and freer as a result. If we cut our entangling political alliances with other countries and encourage trade with all, we will be much better off. History proves that quite well. Political alliances are good for one thing and that is making enemies.
We should deploy our troops to action only when there is a clear and present danger to this country, and only this country. It is not our responsibility to fight for the freedom of other sovereign nations. I’m sorry to break this news, but Iraq has not ever posed a clear and present danger to the U.S. President Bush believed that Iraq posed a danger back in March of 2003. He was wrong! As soon as the army discovered that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq the President should have pulled them out. It is not the job of United States troops to build sewer systems and schools in Iraq. It is not the responsibility of U.S. troops to secure Iraq from any danger it might be in as a result of the President’s invasion and current occupation. If Iraq can not defend itself by now then it does not deserve freedom. Anyone who is not at least slightly suspicious of the fact that Iraq does not have a ready and able army by now should read I Have a Question for You by Charley Reese.
But as far as our great country is concerned, we should follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and engage in trade with all nations and entangling political alliances with none. Nations that trade with each other typically do not fight each other.
This WAR is for REAL!
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country
is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it,
that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are
very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who
realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:
1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United
States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks…
This is incorrect. The General skipped a few minor details that go back a bit further. I would argue that the threat to us started when the U.S government got involved in the quarrels and eternal wars of Europe during the Barbary Wars of the 1800's. As historian Richard Maybury has explained in his book The Thousand Year War in the Mideast, America entered the thousand year war between the Europeans and the Moslems in the Mideast during the Barbary Wars. The following is an excerpt from the book of exactly how America really got involved in this mess.
“In those days Moslems living in the Barbary States of North Africa were refugees from the European Inquisition, or descendants of persons killed by the Crusaders. They were levying a tax on European vessels sailing along the African coast.
European merchants somehow convinced their governments to pay this tax for them, so the Moslems knew they could make the tax quite heavy.
Resentful of the crusades and Inquisition, the Moslems raised the tax frequently. Finally in 1801 the tiny American government could no longer afford to pay.
U.S. merchantmen continued sailing through the area anyhow, and the Pasha of Tripoli captured and imprisoned the tax evaders.
European rulers saw a golden opportunity. They called the Moslems pirates and said someone should teach the pirates a lesson.
Americans knew little of Europe’s continual war with the Moslems and they apparently believed this propaganda, never suspecting that in the minds of the Moslems this conflict was just the latest chapter in the Crusades."
So you can see that over the last thousand years western governments have had a constant stream of troops on the ground bearing arms in the Mideast. Western states have had troops over there ruling and propping up puppet governments causing all kinds of chaos and instability in that region for centuries. The countries over there today were not created and drawn up by the people living there.
The Mideast started off as a region of many different Arab tribes that have never been able to get along with each other. Over time European governments carved out the Mideast into different countries so that they could more easily rule over the territory. Until the American people see it from the other side they will not understand why the “terrorists” truly hate us.
This next part about giving up our liberties especially disturbed me.
Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the
duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have
become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to! lose some of our civil
rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.
This is a very dangerous precedent to set. It is precisely a time like this that we should be as vigilant as possible in preventing our government from taking our liberties. This War on Terror is exactly the kind of thing that those in government who have wished for more power over us all along will use to grab up all they can get. Ben Franklin warned that those who are willing to give up some of their liberties in exchange for security deserve neither liberty nor security. Americans need not forget his advice or we will continue to slide into our own form of tyranny. Not the kind of tyranny like Hussein imposed on the people of Iraq, but the kind that actually convinces a man he is free while it takes almost half of the fruits of his labor each year.
For how long does the General believe that we had better give up some of our rights? Does he think we should hand over our God given rights until the last “terrorist” is killed? Who will decide when the world is safe enough for us to have our natural born rights back?
Well I have some news for all who subscribe to the General's theory. It really doesn’t matter that the General thinks we should hand over our right to privacy, which is backed up by the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment prohibits the federal government from performing searches of our person or property without probable cause. It doesn't matter because the right of law abiding citizens to privacy is a right we are born with. It is not something that is granted by the government. Once the principle of natural rights is understood then everything else falls into place logically. If the government did not give us our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then it can not take those things away from us without due process of law of-course.
Too many Americans forgot, or never learned in the first place, why the government was instituted in the first place. It was to protect those fundamental rights.
But even if the fourth amendment did not exist, the government would still not have the right to perform “sneak and peak” searches of our homes. A “sneak and peak” search is an action congress gave to the federal government vis-à-vis the U.S.A. Patriot Act, whereby the government enters your home, rummages through your things, and copies your computer hard drive without your consent or knowledge. If the government chooses not to prosecute you they do not even have to tell you they were there.
Even if the fourth amendment did not exist government agents working in airports would still not have the right to molest our bodies and rummage through our carry on bags every time we choose to board a commercial airplane.
The reason is simple really. We as individuals do not have the right to search the homes or personal belongings of others without their voluntary consent. Since we as individuals do not have that right, we can not give that right to others, or government agents in this case, to perform for us. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.
That point is asinine. What is this, we gave up plenty of civil rights, business. I don't recall reading in the history books about people lining up to sign away their civil rights. These rights were taken at the point of a gun, and by virtue of natural law, the government has no authority to take the rights of any person not encroaching on some other persons natural rights. I don't remember the part about the estimated 112,000 people of Japanese decent, most of which were U.S. citizens, agreeing to pack up and move their families into concentration camps. I can't seem to find it written anywhere on the agreement of the some 6,000 people, a majority of which were Jehova's Witnesses, to be imprisoned because they morally objected on religious grounds to being dragged off to war.
The government does not have the authority to simply remove and restore the natural rights of the people when it sees fit. The fact that most Americans do not see this as tyranical and outragous is beyond my comprehension.
My Beliefs
It is my belief that the only way to be safe from the “terrorists” is to do like the Swiss. An immediate withdrawal of our troops from foreign lands and a declaration of neutrality by our government would send a strong message to the rest of the world that we will no longer meddle in the affairs of others. I do not believe this plan will solve all our problems. But I do believe we will be safer and freer as a result. If we cut our entangling political alliances with other countries and encourage trade with all, we will be much better off. History proves that quite well. Political alliances are good for one thing and that is making enemies.
We should deploy our troops to action only when there is a clear and present danger to this country, and only this country. It is not our responsibility to fight for the freedom of other sovereign nations. I’m sorry to break this news, but Iraq has not ever posed a clear and present danger to the U.S. President Bush believed that Iraq posed a danger back in March of 2003. He was wrong! As soon as the army discovered that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq the President should have pulled them out. It is not the job of United States troops to build sewer systems and schools in Iraq. It is not the responsibility of U.S. troops to secure Iraq from any danger it might be in as a result of the President’s invasion and current occupation. If Iraq can not defend itself by now then it does not deserve freedom. Anyone who is not at least slightly suspicious of the fact that Iraq does not have a ready and able army by now should read I Have a Question for You by Charley Reese.
But as far as our great country is concerned, we should follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and engage in trade with all nations and entangling political alliances with none. Nations that trade with each other typically do not fight each other.
Saturday, October 15, 2005
City Permits
What an asinine joke!
I get this tiny two page newsletter with my monthly water bill that communicates information to me from my wonderful public servants, aka the mayor and the city council. There was a particularly interesting feature in last months issue entitled "Test Your City I.Q...."
It reads as follows:
"If you’re going to be 'dressing up' your back yard with a deck, storage building, concrete patio or a swimming pool, do you need to get a City permit first? Yes, Yes, No and Yes! You can add a concrete patio without a permit, but any of the other three require a permit first. Don't start building a feature that's going to have to be removed! And it’s easy. Contact the City's One Stop Center at 25*-**** for information on how the process works."
I could not believe my eyes, but at the same time I was not the least bit surprised. I had been recently contemplating two of the four things listed there, and was not at all thinking about going before the local magistrate and begging for permission to build a deck. I was especially taken by the part about not starting to build a feature that is going to have to be removed. I can just imagine agents of the city demanding that someone remove a small backyard deck, which is visible to no one but the property owner from his back yard. Where is the outrage?
Where is the anger at this insane behavior of our local law makers all across the United States?
Private property rights are one of the key ingredients for a free society to prosper. The ability for one to buy property and do with it as he sees fit was one of the main points of the vision of our Founding Fathers in 1776. It gives people something to work for. Private property can be used to either build a store on to earn a living or to build a home on in order raise a family. The vision of our current public leaders is to give you the illusion that you actually own the property, but to control every aspect of that property you supposedly "own."
So I ask you my fellow Americans, where is the outrage? When are we going to say to our power hungry politicians that enough is enough, they have taken too many of our rights and they will not take any more! How much longer will we let this nonsense go on?
I get this tiny two page newsletter with my monthly water bill that communicates information to me from my wonderful public servants, aka the mayor and the city council. There was a particularly interesting feature in last months issue entitled "Test Your City I.Q...."
It reads as follows:
"If you’re going to be 'dressing up' your back yard with a deck, storage building, concrete patio or a swimming pool, do you need to get a City permit first? Yes, Yes, No and Yes! You can add a concrete patio without a permit, but any of the other three require a permit first. Don't start building a feature that's going to have to be removed! And it’s easy. Contact the City's One Stop Center at 25*-**** for information on how the process works."
I could not believe my eyes, but at the same time I was not the least bit surprised. I had been recently contemplating two of the four things listed there, and was not at all thinking about going before the local magistrate and begging for permission to build a deck. I was especially taken by the part about not starting to build a feature that is going to have to be removed. I can just imagine agents of the city demanding that someone remove a small backyard deck, which is visible to no one but the property owner from his back yard. Where is the outrage?
Where is the anger at this insane behavior of our local law makers all across the United States?
Private property rights are one of the key ingredients for a free society to prosper. The ability for one to buy property and do with it as he sees fit was one of the main points of the vision of our Founding Fathers in 1776. It gives people something to work for. Private property can be used to either build a store on to earn a living or to build a home on in order raise a family. The vision of our current public leaders is to give you the illusion that you actually own the property, but to control every aspect of that property you supposedly "own."
So I ask you my fellow Americans, where is the outrage? When are we going to say to our power hungry politicians that enough is enough, they have taken too many of our rights and they will not take any more! How much longer will we let this nonsense go on?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
