Walmart Must Ask Someone First

More comments from me in response to the current conversation taking place in the Myspace groupWalmart is the Devil. So far no one has responded to my previous comment in the forum, maybe this one will stir the pudding a little bit.

I agree that Walmart and Sams Club stores are large and zoo like, and I attempt to avoid them as much a possible for those reasons.

But I have a few questions for those who feel the same. Do we not live in a free country anymore? Can a business not purchase land and construct a building in which to sell goods to the local residents of the community in the free market without asking someone first?

Of-course they must ask someone first. Walmart, or Sams Club must ask the person or persons who they wish to purchase the land from (except in cases of local city councils abusing eminent domain) if that person or persons will sell them the land. Then they must ask or attempt to persuade the various individuals of the community to purchase items from their new store in order for them to stay in business. All of these various actions are voluntary on the part of all parties.

No ones natural rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness is being infringed upon by any of these aforementioned actions (once again, except in cases of eminent domain abuse on the part of local governments).

So I ask the members of this group, where is the tort? What has Walmart done to you that is worse than such programs as social security, which takes 14 percent of your income and gives it to someone else. When did you consent to this action? If you did not consent, which pretty much covers all of us, then that means this income redistribution program fell upon you by the use of deadly force.

What do I mean by Deadly Force? See what happens if you stop paying your taxes for a while. Eventually the IRS will contact you about the taxes you owe them. If you refuse to cooperate with them, a court date will be set to determine what to do about you not having paid your taxes. If you refuse to show up for court, eventually the guns will come out. Men with guns will come to your home to take away your liberty and pursuit of happiness.

That is called deadly force my friends.

Why can the government do all this without asking someone first? They did not ask me and they did not ask anyone else that I know if they could confiscate 14 cents of every dollar you and I earn to give to someone else.

The Hate Wal-Mart Mentality

I was wandering around Myspace tonight when I discovered an anti-Wal-Mart group. I am not a Wal-Mart shopper and I do not own stock in the company, but the hate Wal-Mart venom was so staunch that I had to post a reply. Most of the people speaking their minds about Wal-Mart were young, and I just wish that they would find someting much more noble to speak out against. Perhaps something that actually has the power to use deadly force to accomplish its' goals. My response was as follows:

Even though so many of you all seem to hate Wal-Mart so much, I find it odd that it sounds like some of you frequent the place more than I do - which is not very much. Almost everyone here seems to be forgetting a vitally important concept. In America we still have a slightly quasi-free market capitalistic society, and it is the consumers (read: you, me, and everyone else) who get to decide if companies such as Wal-Mart live or die. If you have such a problem with them, then I have the perfect solution for you - don't shop there. If you disagree with anything they are doing, you have the ultimate power to decide for yourself that you will give them absolutely no economic support.

It would be really wonderful if all of this hate Wal-Mart venom could be redirected at putting a stop to something much more painful and unjust to the American consumer. I'm talking mainly about the 15 cents that is taken from every dollar you earn before you even realize it is gone. I am talking about the ponzi scheme being pulled on us by our government otherwise known as Social Security. None of us has a choice to peaceably abstain from participating in this draconian program, and all of us know that it will not be there for us when we reach that sacred age of eligibility - what is the age this year 65 or have they raised it to 67 yet. How can it be right for the government to confiscate 15 cents from every dollar you earn as part of a retirement program, and not even be required to pass that money on to your next of kin should you die before you reach a certain age? Any company competing in the free market could not survive running a retirement program such as the government's social insecurity scheme, but we let the government get away with it.

Why?

I can't wait to find out why all of the "hate Wal-Mart" people give the government a pass on its' tyrannical activities, but torch Wal-Malt everyday.

Rising Gas Prices

As the prices at the pump continue to rise, the people seem willing only to point their fingers at those greedy oil companies, rather than the government that has created the problem and then exacerbated it with outrageously high taxes on the product. How can Exxon Mobil justify such high gas prices, all the while paying CEO Lee Raymond a $400 million retirement package? Tom Doggett of Reuters called this action a "shamefull display of greed." But is it shameful for a successful and profitable company operating in a quasi-free market to reward its’ CEO for a job well done? Most people do not realize that the profits collected on a gallon of gasoline are actually lower than the tax collected by the government on that same gallon of gasoline. And now the politicians are playing on the ignorance of the American people by calling for a “windfall profit tax” on the oil companies to off set these rising gas prices. It is too bad that corporations do not pay taxes; they pass them on to consumers via higher prices. So how does this help the situation?

The focus of anger towards the oil companies at the problem of rising gas prices has been wholeheartedly misdirected by the people. When reporters like Doggett along with many other members of the media, and both Republican and Democrat politicians speak out against the oil companies as the root of the problem they fan the flames of an anti-capitalist, anti-free market mentality. They are doing the U.S. a great disservice with their rhetoric.

People should realize that it has been the government’s environmental policies that have created this problem, not the oil companies. Mandates set forth that have not allowed a new refinery to be built in the last thirty years have stifled competition in this industry. Regulations that require so many different blends of gasoline depending on the region the gas is sold in also contribute to higher costs associated with producing and distributing the product. Since only certain blends can be sold in certain areas, shortages are created – thus we pay higher prices.

Environmentalists have blocked oil drilling in Alaska for many years now. Floridians do not want U.S. oil companies to be able to drill for oil of the coast of Florida because they are afraid there might be an oil spill of some kind so close to their homes. Many people are probably unaware of the fact that Fidel Castro has signed agreements with Spain, Canada, and China to explore offshore drilling northeast and northwest of Havana just about 50 miles from Key West. I wonder how the Floridians feel now. They have blocked U.S. companies from exploration of this area due to fears of oil spills, but U.S. oil companies are much better equipped to safely drill for oil than China and Spain.

Now I support protecting our environment, but there has to be a way to do it without creating virtual monopolies and oil shortages as unintended consequences. World wide oil demand has increased to a point that these reckless environmental policies are going to create a gasoline price disaster. Something must be done, or better yet undone, to allow for more competition, and easier production and distribution of gasoline.

But perhaps the vilest aspect of this whole debate lies in the hidden truth about the secret taxes paid on a gallon of gasoline. I say secret because this is the one product consumers purchase that they are largely unaware of the tax rate they are paying. Why is this so? The federal government takes 18.4 cents of every gallon of gas sold and the states take an average of 27.5 cents per gallon. This is taken from consumers at the pump before they even realize that it is gone much like the federal withholding tax from their paychecks. It just so happens that the average profit made on a gallon of gasoline by the companies that produce the gas is only about 8 cents per gallon. And then these same companies pay taxes on those profits.

It is time for the American people to wake up and understand what is really going on here. We need to hold our government accountable for its’ unjust actions that have put us in this position, not the oil companies who are only responding to market forces and unjust government policies.

Martha Stewart

I know this is old news, but I was assigned a paper on this topic so I decided to put my preliminary thoughts here.

I was thinking about the Martha Stewart conviction tonight as a result of an assignment in my Business Law II class. The assignment requires the reading of several newspaper articles about the development and analysis of the trial, followed by several articles on business ethics. After having read the articles I am supposed to write my own analysis on business ethics as it relates to the Stewart case. The Prof. said that students may cite other articles if necessary. So I decided that perhaps I should cite one article I remember from Reason Magazine a year or so ago titled “Why Martha Stewart Should Go to Heaven and the SEC Should Go to Hell.” I think the title of that article alone might be enough to receive a grade of F on the assignment.

Before I even went back to reread that article from Reason for more information, I have written down my general thoughts on this case from over a year ago. I will use this assignment as an opportunity to argue that the government was the guiltiest party of ethics violations in prosecuting Stewart for allegedly lying about the reasons she dumped her stock in Imclone.

In the government’s never ending quest to punish people for crimes in which there is no victim, it created hundreds if not thousands of victims by calling out the dogs on Martha Stewart. How many stock holders of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia as well as stockholders of K-Mart lost large percentages of their investments when those stocks tanked after news of the government’s prosecution and subsequent conviction of Stewart broke? A verdict based on the government’s contention that Stewart lied to federal agents about her reasons for selling her stock in Imclone.

Which action was the greater evil?

V For Vendetta

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

How Evil Are You?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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