Take a moment to reflect at 3 p.m. on Memorial Day

According to the White House Commission on Remembrance, Americans are supposed to take a moment to "honor those who have died in the cause of freedom."  I completely concur.  We should definitely stop for a moment, and reflect on those who have died in the name of freedom today.  Unfortunately, I don't know or don't think I could pronounce the hundreds of thousands of Korean names, the two million Vietnamese names, or the several hundred thousand Iraqi and Afghani names who have died "in the cause of freedom."

The last time the United States fought a war for freedom, my grandfather was a young man and my father was not yet a twinkle in his eye. Every war, every major conflict since has been fought for special interests, for political maneuvering, and to assert and grow the worldwide American empire.  The United States has a long and sordid affair with revisionism.  Every single politician you see on television always espouses how "proud" they are of America's troops, out there fighting and dying for American freedoms.  Never once do the White House Administrations stop and reflect themselves on just whether or not all this violence and bloodshed is worthwhile.  No, we must stay the course, support the troops, fight the terrorists abroad so we don't fight them at home, remember the Alamo, the Spirit of '76, or whatever other patriotic Hallmark-esque slogan the Propaganda department at the Pentagon can cook up to keep the public approval rating of today's conflict high.

Even now I can feel people's heads swelling in anger at my un-American temerity to question the sacrosanct and august body called "the troops."  Unfortunately, it is I, not you, that is the true lover of our nation's military and our "freedoms" so dearly purchased at the cost of so many brown people's lives.  I wish to protect our troops not only from dying, but from the little deaths that must, surely, occur within them each time they are told to kill on behalf of our Government's business partners.  I pray that never again will one of our soldiers have to bear the stain on his soul of launching an attack, firing a missile, or pulling a trigger that results from the death of an innocent civilian. When it happens to someone else's family, its just "collateral damage".. an acceptable cost.  So very Christian of us.

War is a harsh mistress, and only an errant fool or deceitful knave could ever truly argue that war "protects freedoms."  It is perhaps the greatest case of doublethink ever perpetrated on the American people, for our freedoms are always the most quickly diminished in times of war.  It is precisely at these times in history that Governments seize unprecedented powers, and like any fat, angry child who has latched onto a tasty morsel, extremely loathe to give it up again.

One only has to look at the brilliant track record of our success thus far. After all, America has the mightest military in the world. We are the economic superpower on this planet, with 4% of the population and consume 25% of the world's resources, and after more than 200 years, we have never had more freedoms.  After all, its not like we Americans have to put up with showing our ID while travelling within the country, or on a plane.  Our conservations via phone and email are sacred and never listened to or read without a warrant.  We would also never imprison anyone, anywhere, without the benefit of basic human rights, like a fair and speedy trial, a jury of his or her peers, and a lawyer.  Luckily for us, we have a military that only acts in self defense.  America would never arbtrarily invade another sovereign nation unless that nation had first attacked or prepared to attack us, right?  After all, we're the good guys!  And as good guys, we would never have a President or Congress that lied to the American people about reasons for going to war, about whether we did or did not torture prisoners, and about what the definition of "is" is. Right?

So take a moment to reflect at 3 p.m. today, and think real long and hard about just what freedoms it is that we've won by bombing the rest of the world to hell. 

Taxpayers to lose billions loaned to Chrysler

As reported by CNNmoney.com senior writer Chris Isidore, Chrysler LLC will not repay U.S. taxpayers more than $7 billion in bailout money it received earlier this year as part of its bankruptcy filing.

A nameless Obama administration official said, "While we do not expect a recovery of these funds, we are comfortable that in the totality of the arrangement, the Treasury and the American taxpayer are being fairly compensated."

If the money isn't going to be recovered, then how precisely can it be said the Treasury and American taxpayer are going to be 'fairly compensated'?

I am also curious to know if Chris Isidore and the Obama Administration truly view "The Treasury" and "The Taxpayer" as being a single fiduciary unit. Last I checked, money that goes to the Treasury is VERY different from money that goes to the American taxpayer.

To make matters worse, after we find out that Chrysler is unable to pay back billions of taxpayer dollars in loans, the Federal government is poised to loan Chrysler ANOTHER 1.5 Billion dollars by June of 2010!

What sort of banking institution in its right mind would loan money to a company, see that company declare bankruptcy and be unable to pay back its loans, and then turn around and loan MORE money to the same knuckleheads that lost first loan??

Is it not about time for some common-sense economic policies to start taking place in Washington?

Obama's Pick for Supreme Court Justice

As I read articles about who Obama will pick to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court, over and over again I see only female names on the list. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought the whole point of the feminist movement is that women wanted to be treated as equal to men. For such a position as a Justice of the Supreme Court, why isn't the policy to pick the absolute best person in America for the position, as opposed to the 'absolute best female' in America?

Let's call it like it is: Sexism. Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines sexism as: prejudice or discrimination based on sex. Choosing to only consider a nominee if they are female is no different than choosing a nominee only if it is a man! What do these advocates of a female replacement think will happen if a man is nominated for the replacement? Will he be less likely to vote in favor of female equality?

Is this the lesson we are wanting to teach the young girls and women of this nation... that women struggled for over 200 years against men having a favored status, not for equality, but merely to replace men? This kind of collectivist thinking is what gave us these problems to begin with; isn't it about time we started thinking about people as individuals, and NOT by their sex, or color of skin, or any other identifying characteristic?

I don't have any problem with a woman being on the Supreme court. For the matter, I don't care if the person is young, old, male, female, hermaphrodite, black, white, or green: What SHOULD matter is "Is this person the BEST person for the job!" Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines feminism as "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes." Funny, I thought women were tired of being thought as a weaker sex that needs to be protected and coddled, and given hand-outs by the men of the world. Where are the feminists with self-respect?

Lawyerin'

I'm working on an English degree currently, but history and philosophy are also big passions of mine. I've often thought of going for law school as well, specializing in constitutional law. I'm not 100% that I even want to be part of America's legal system, though. I'd have to start watching what I say unless people took it as some kind of legal advice, for one. :p I'm kind of pissed that the lawyer's union (the American Bar Association) has such influence that it is impossible to become a lawyer without going to three years of law school, which is at a minimum about $15,000 a year.

I was reading on the ABA website and apparently they believe that no amount of self-study or working with a current lawyer or combination of the two is a sufficient substitute for law school.

And why is that, exactly? I mean, assuming one can find a lawyer to "apprentice" to, AND they can learn enough to pass the Bar... why not? It sounds kind of biased against poor people, to me. If you're rich, you can go to law school and become a lawyer. If you're not rich, you can't become a lawyer unless you're also brilliant enough to get scholarships, or unless you are willing to go deep in debt. God forbid people learn lawyerin' on their own... just imagine, if everyone could become a lawyer, maybe people could start to afford one finally. (Which is the real reason they want it to cost so much, I wager... to keep their hourly rate high).

Its not enough that a person could have developed excellent logic and reasoning skills, not enough that he could pass all the same tests of aptitude that lawyers have to take... not enough to learn case history and procedure from front to back. Unless you empty your pocketbook... you can't be a lawyer.

It reminds me of the situation that Lysander Spooner (1808-1887) went through. When he was a young man he wanted to become a lawyer. The law at the time stated if you were college-educated, you could become a lawyer after three years of apprenticeship, but if you did not go to college, you had to study under a lawyer for five years. After three years, he opened his own law office and sued the government for bias against the poor who couldn't afford to attend a formal school, and was able to successfully change the law to make it three years of study under an attorney for everyone.

It appears whatever progress he made has since been lost to the annals of time and history. There once was a time when we thought highly of autodidacts and natural genius and talent. Today, all we want to know is if they have an expensive piece of paper on the wall... as if that can adequately determine someone's worth.

How I started on the path to freedom

My family has been admirers of Paul since the 1980's, although to be honest, politics rarely came up in conversation. In fact, it was not until I returned home from college and announced I was a libertarian, that I learned, mouth agape in shock that my parents were as well. As it turns out, my brother was a libertarian, too!

I believe much of it to be a product of my environment growing up. Ours was certainly not a household without rules; indeed my father was the definitive ruler and tyrant. I shudder to think of the many times we butted heads on a variety of issues. As it turns out, the old man was right on pretty much every account.

When it came to the outside world, it was a completely different story. As a young lad I visited upon myself troubles from time to time, and sometimes they were visited upon me. I’d been having a problem at school. I believe I was about twelve, maybe thirteen years of age. Certain boys were bullying me at school. It would range from simple name-calling and exclusion to having my books stolen and hidden, and my personal items stolen. One of my hobbies was drawing. I had spent several weeks on a collection of at least twenty colored pencil drawings. I was especially proud of them, because they were a definite improvement in my art. A classmate saw my folder of drawings and asked to see them. They ended up getting passed around the classroom. My head was in the clouds until they got passed back, and I found someone had taken scissors and cut them all to ribbons.

It wasn’t hard to know who did it. It was never difficult. So I went through all the channels. School for a child is much like government is for an adult. I would complain to the teacher, who wouldn’t do anything. I would then complain to my parents. They would call the teacher, and request the harassment to stop. When it continued, they moved up the line, contacting the principle, the superintendent, and even the school board. Nothing worked. Children are nothing if not opportunistic and sneaky. It’s very difficult for a teacher to catch bullying, and they have even less time to deal with it in the classroom.

So, my father gave me an answer; one that I recognize today as being rather libertarian. He said, “If someone harasses you at school, you have my permission to punch them in the face.” He went on to classify the rules by which my combat was permissible. “You must hit them right then and there. You must inform them as to why they are being hit. You may not meet them outside, you may not jump them in the hallway later. You must act then and there and when it is over, you must stop fighting and work to become friends.”

Needless to say, the principal was not pleased at my response to his query of “Why did you hit Norman?” when my answer was simply, “He was harassing me, and the school wouldn’t do anything about it, so I took care of it myself.”

As Prime Premier Lord Principal, this self-defense, self-regulating simply would not do. He quickly called up my father, and informed him in ominous tones, that his son had been involved in fighting! The look of amazement on the principal’s face is still etched in my mind as my father informed him that not only was he not upset at my fighting, but he had given them his blessing!

My school rarely expelled students out of school. Instead, we received solitary confinement at the school. Fighting got you two days of hard time, in a small bathroom adjacent to the principal’s office that was used by referees when we would have sporting events at our school. They would drag a small chair and metal desk in there, and there I would sit for two entire school days. My homework would be brought to me, and I would dutifully write time served in hash marks upon the painted cinder brick walls.

That year, I spent over forty days in school suspension, in my solitary confinement. My hash marks upon the wall extended far past the most unruly of my classmates. I wish I had learned more about libertarianism back then, but perhaps it is a blessing that I did not. Armed with the full knowledge of self-determination that I have today, I doubtless would have found myself on the outside of a school who believed that students were incapable of thinking for themselves, let alone taking care of themselves, and their property, with just force.

A Confusion of Terms

I was reading some articles over at The Daily Kos, where many people took major exception to Ron Paul’s stance on public education.  They seemed to equate his being against government-run schools as to mean he was against schooling in general.  I was reminded of Frederick Bastiat’s book entitled, ‘The Law’.

 

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

Oddly enough, up until this point I’d believed that ‘neo-conservativism’, that new brand of conservative, was one of the greatest threats to the classic American ideology so eloquently espoused by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, et al.  The scathing vile and and vitriolic venom that was spewed on the comment section of a Daily Kos article, who *dared* suggest that progressives should support Ron Paul as the ‘best of the Republicans’, indeed truly shocked me.   

 

The common consensus, when one could find a semi-logical posting, was that if ‘Government’ wasn’t running the show, we would all fall into a “Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome” scenario.  Society would crumble.  Hospitals would collapse.  Children would run amok, uneducated.  Sadly, they were actually being serious.   Given time, a dose of ‘The Law’ and real-world examples of the free market succeeding (cell phones anyone? Computer manufacturing? Open source?) some of the more rational on the left may be convinced that more ‘governing’ is not always better.  (I’d like to cite: The hurricane Katrina situation as a prime example of a huge government bureaucracy that absolutely failed people when it was time-critical.  I don’t really understand how someone in Washington, D.C., is supposed to be in touch with the needs of everyone, everywhere in the country.  Perhaps if the State of Louisiana had been better prepared, more tragedy could have been averted.   Even to this day, there are thousands of FEMA trailers sitting unused, because of hazardous chemical smells that were in the trailers. And the answer to this is: More of the same?  If the treatment doesn’t cure the patient, don’t just keep doing more of the same thing! 

 

Allow me to paraphrase and learn from the above passage by Bastiat.  I am against the Federal Emergency Management Agency.  I am NOT against helping others in an emergency.  I just believe the solution to situations such as this, should fall at the state or local level, and should be handled as much as possible with private donations, private charities and services, and people, working together with other people, to take care of one another.

 

I’m not saying FEMA has never helped anyone. And certainly, using federal money to help in a disaster situation is not the worst use of taxpayer dollars; perhaps it is the best.  What I am saying, though, is that the amount of money poured into FEMA is much greater than the amount of money and actual ‘assistance’ that flows from FEMA.   We’re pouring billions more into a program that has no great record of competency. We’ve had FEMA directors that have had zero emergency management service, due to the nature of the ‘appointed’ position.  

 

Here’s to hoping that those on both the left, and the right, will consider for just a bit longer, the possibility that people being responsible for themselves, and for each other, may indeed be the best way to go after all.

Re: Ron Paul=Protest Vote?

Megan McArdle at The Atlantic.com wrote recently about the option of casting a vote for Ron Paul as a 'protest vote'.

Ron paul=Protest Vote?

Andrew Sullivan views a vote for Ron Paul as a protest against everything the Republican Party has become. Bryan Caplan says that even if he were elected, he couldn't enact the crazier parts of his agenda.

That's fair, but if I'm going to cast a protest vote, I need to know: what elements of Ron Paul's agenda am I going to empower? The problem with expressive voting is that politicians may not actually get the message you're trying to send.

If I vote for Ron Paul, am I ratifying his views on foreign policy, only a small part of which I agree with? Or am I telling Republicans that they should tack to the right on immigration and abortion? And if, in some alternate universe, Dr. Paul got elected, it is true that he would not be able to put the country on the gold standard--but what parts of his agenda might he enact? And who would he appoint to key jobs? One doesn't like to imagine who his nominee for the position of Chairman of the Federal Reserve might be.

As one commenter noted, if you disagree with Ron Paul's foreign policy of non-interventionism, then why consider it a protest vote at all? The underlying basis for Paul's campaign is one that promotes freedom, individual rights, and fiscal conservatism. Congressman Paul's first order of business is going to be to radically alter our foreign policy by withdrawing our troops from the approximately 130 countries U.S. troops are currently stationed in. This is the basis of his foreign policy plan; this method will save us half a billion dollars a year to start, and will allow us to secure Social Security and other entitlement programs for those in need, while giving us the ability to allow the younger generation to opt out of the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security and Medicare, and to begin paying down the National Debt.

The Economy is headed for a disastrous contraction; Paul's policies are meant to ensure it happens smoothly, without a panic, and as is often the case in medicine (something Dr. Paul, an ob-gyn, would know about), while there may be some temporary discomfort as we cut away the cancerous parts of our budget, the benefits to America in the long run will be to ensure a free, peaceful, and prosperous nation for our posterity.