Tuesday, November 18, 2008

The Madness of Presidency

There are so many soaring expressions that exist regarding what it takes to be president, one does not know where to begin.

Fortunately for you, dear reader, I do! There are so many that I will narrow them all down to one sweet, fuzzy, warm, paternal word: strength.

What a curious word when taken beyond the surface. More than just brute, muscle bound burliness, the word in a social sense implies a compelling phrase: tough choices.

Ah, yes. The tough choices a politician must make require incredible strength. Decisions they make affect hundreds, thousands, millions of people. They decide who to give to, and who to take from. Examples of this include the ebb and flow of state social programs. These programs help some groups, and are all too easily taken away, much to the collective groaning of the very same groups, now harmed by such coercive action.

Sometimes, if one is a really REALLY powerful politician, they decide who lives, and who DIES! Whoa! I bet THAT'S a rush.

Imagine looking at a map, advisers whispering in your ear, and making a decision that you know will kill innocent people: perhaps a man walking to a store with his wife, maybe some children at recess, maybe a fucking WEDDING, for chrissakes. Now imagine going to sleep, your nightmares populated by the souls you've murdered.

Or maybe you sleep like a cloistered child, the decisions you make possessing an unreality to you, as if nothing more than abstraction; the innocents who perish do so for the common good, even though they don't know it, and you tell yourself they will not die in vain, and you tell this to the public...and they believe you. At least enough of them to get you reelected.

But I, as usual, digress.

The president must make decisions that get innocent people killed. They KNOW this going into the job. And they still apply for it. Last time I checked, if you are willing to swallow enough of what makes you human to do such a thing, you're a sociopath.

Being president requires not strength, but madness.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Obama and the Left's War

Over the course of the passed 8 years we've witnessed the train wreck awfulness that is the Bush regime. It's been pretty bad. Seriously. The most horrifying of it all has been the war. So many dead or maimed people. Dead by our government's guns, and funded by us.

But we've come up with a wicked AWESOME plan! Electing someone else!!!

Now I won't deny that Obama's election is historic, important, etcetera. Socially, it's awesome.

Politically...it's the same shit.

The state will continue to bomb, or fund the bombing of, poor countries. The difference now, though, is that it will be done by the left. Rather than act like hardass, right wing war-hawks, the left presents a fuzzier kind of interventionist foreign policy.

The moralizing has already begun. "Obama may authorize the bombing of other countries, yes, but he won't WANT to." Is that all it takes for the lefty to give a resounding "meh" against war these days? As long as it's a democrat it's a softer kind of murder? Does it smell like roses and bubble-gum too?

More like burning flesh and blood, but why quibble about WORDS?

Some of Obama's more inspirational war rhetoric has been "...the surge succeeded beyond our wildest dreams," and "...I believe this has to be our central focus [Afghanistan], the central front, on our battle against terrorism."

Whew, glad I don't live THERE.

I can already hear it, "Well, you don't have to agree with ALL of his policies. He wants to improve our schools! He LOVES puppies!"

I know there are many who are still opposed to war and voted for him in hopes that he will end the war in Iraq. Maybe he will. However, we will always have a military presence there. Having a new president does not mean the American empire will cease to expand, and that military action against other nations will cease. Not to mention imposing economic sanctions which do immense harm to the citizens of sanctioned countries.

Time for tough love: war is the biggest evil ever created by humans. We have perpetuated it with ALL of our institutions, whether it be theocracy, communism, or democracy. And when we are willing to look the other way because he/she is the "lesser" of two evils then maybe we deserve to devour each other like jackals.




Sunday, August 3, 2008

The Evil of the Lesser Evil is...uh...Evil.

That's such a curious phrase: "lesser of the evil." It's been in my head a lot over the passed few days, and I've been finding it rather sickening.

We choose our political leaders via this sophisticated methodology, and then we watch as our government murders other people of the world, directly or indirectly.

But we don't REALLY watch, do we? If I vote for someone I deem the lesser of the evil, and they enact new military laws, or sell weapons, or bomb a land, I am willing to look the other way. I have government programs, I have a cleaner domestic conscious. The violence doesn't bother me as much as it might otherwise.

What is the otherwise? The evil I consider greater is elected. Dammit! I worked so hard to get the less evil guy in, and now this! The greater evil murders many more people, lets many of my programs degrade, and man it sucks! I'm gonna work extra hard next time and get a better leader in there!

I find myself far more disturbed by the first scenario. It is very sociopathic, and very disturbing. With the "lesser of the evil" paradigm, we create a moral complicity for the atrocities of the state. We are willing to look the other way as long there are merely less murders and more domestic government services.

If we are willing to sacrifice lives for single pay health care, or a department of education, then we should volunteer to pick who dies. But would we really do that? Of course not. We elect people for that.

Is the state ALWAYS murderous? In some countries, not necessarily. Is the state ALWAYS violent? Absolutely. And violence begets violence, in some fashion or another, giving us our wars and discord.

So when we choose the lesser of the evil, we choose evil. The worst part is that we submit willingly under a series of shallow guarantees from our masters, who in turn wreak havoc on the poorest and the weakest, and we subsidize it all under the "moral obligation" of paying taxes. We even tell ourselves we're being charitable.

In short, the more power we are willing to give to the state, the more it will be abused, if not now, then in the near future. When we use violence to achieve our goals, it boomerangs back at us in some way or another. The reason is because at its core, the state is rotten. We reap what we sow. It's in our hands.

Let's sow some peace, eh?

Friday, July 25, 2008

The Progressive Problem

Here I am, sick for the passed 3 days, up early in the morning to give my poor fiancee a break from my sweating and grunting. The flu sucks.

So why not write a new blog? Awesome proposal, brain, thanks!

Ah, progressives. God bless 'em. So noble, so painfully misguided. Now I'm as liberal as they come (no drug laws, open immigration, health care for all), it's just that I don't think we should be pointing guns at one another to accomplish our noble ideals.

A gun? Who said anything about guns?!

If you and I are walking down the street, and we see a homeless guy asking for food, arguably the moral thing to do is give him food. Now, if I point a gun at you and tell you to feed him, and we'll assume you do because you don't want to get shot, have you acted morally, or under duress?

Here's the point: none of us pays taxes voluntarily, we pay under duress. If there's any question as to whether or not that's a fact, then stop paying your taxes. Eventually, men with guns will come and take you to a cell, and if you try and escape, you'll be shot. Again, since most of us don't want to be shot, we give the thugs their money.

The progressive will argue that we just need to get a really NICE aggressor into office, then they will use their criminally acquired revenue to provide services we liberals want.

This is a VERY high risk venture. For if one is willing to grant the state this kind of power, then one must be willing to allow the state to murder people. Yes, kiddies, I said murder. I can guarantee that if Obama wins the election, people in other countries will be murdered, and WE will be funding it. But, hey, as long as we have some services here at home, that's a price worth paying, right?

A system built on the threat of and/or the initiation of violence is one that begets murder. Always. That is the price of "progressive" politics. These are individuals who are willing to expand state power (and pay the aforementioned price for their expanded state), so that they can have services provided for their populace. And while, again, it is noble to want everyone to have health care, security, etc, it is not so noble to accomplish said goals through violence.

The notion of how to provide services without violence I'll leave for a later blog.

If you progressives want your government programs, then I better not see you protesting wars, because your whole methodology is based in violence. And violence begets violence.

Remember, it is not individuals that wage war, it is governments. And governments often acquire their power through the desires of many well meaning voters.

If you are willing to grant ever more power to the state for some notion of "the commons" then be ready for Patriot Acts, wars, and the like.

Be ready to support murder.

Sleep tight.

Sunday, July 6, 2008

Anarchy VS Planning in...LOST!

LOST is the greatest television show...ever. I'm not kidding. It rules. If you wanna know why, watch it. It's cool, it's mysterious, it's thoughtful, and it's philosophical.

If you watch LOST and are have not caught up with season 4, then you might encounter spoilers, so beware!

Now, on to the issue at hand. My question is this: who is the anarchist, and who is the planner? You were wondering the same thing too?! No way! Well, here's the answer.

Sawyer is the Anarchist.
Jack is the Planner.

How so? you ask. And what is with the 4-toed statue?!

One thing at a time, good readers, one thing at a time.

1. The Anarchist: In the effort of honest blogging, I gotta say: Sawyer was a dick in season 1 and 2, a little dickish in 3, and was pretty much heroic in season 4. But he was an ass a LOT of the time. However, did he obey the principle of non-aggression and voluntary exchange? Yeah, pretty much.

The first thing to keep in mind before we go further is that Sawyer was a con-man prior to the island. He made his living out of defrauding people out of their property. That's bad. Off the island he frequently defied the principle of non-aggression and voluntary exchange.

(By the way, Detractor, a person cannot be said to have made a voluntary exchange if they have been conned into making the exchange. Since they have been defrauded, they are making a decision they likely wouldn't make if they knew what was happening.)

On the island, however, he changes a bit. (That's kind of a thing in LOST.) He doesn't generally come into other people's camps to steal their stuff, and if you want something he has, you have to pay for it. If you are REALLY in need, Sawyer will give it to you, as when Hurley asks for the manifest. While he is an individualist, he acts very selflessly later in the show. After some time of being a prick, the community has an effect on him, and as it is natural for humans, as social creatures, to organize and cooperate, he eventually does very heroic things like: Getting shot trying to protect Walt, protecting Claire and the baby, keeping a close eye on Hurley, and jumping of a fucking HELICOPTER for Kate.

While quite flawed, Sawyer embodies some of the more authentic heroic moments in the show.

2. The Planner: Jack Shephard is a bad ass. No lie. He performs an INSANE spinal operation while under duress. He gets his appendix out and actually tries to direct the operation while it's being done to him. He makes it his priority, nay, his modus operandi, to make sure everyoone and everything is under his control. His intentions for such an approach are simple: to make sure everyone is safe, and to get them off the island.

These are very noble intentions, and are a big reason why his character is so important. But, alas, while the Planner is able to help a few, most die or are left behind on the island by the end of season 4. His painstaking, and exhausting work only got 6 of the original passengers (including himself and Aaron) off the island.

It has recently been argued that there is a statistical happiness gap between liberals and conservatives. This has been debated endlessly, of course, but check out http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/the-politics-of-happiness-part-2/ to check it out.

Basically, think about all the times you've seen Jack, bug-eyed and freaking out, when he can't maintain control, when his central planning clearly is only really going to work for a small few. He wants it to work for everyone, but alas, it doesn't, which makes him go kinda crazy sometimes. The fact is, central planning can only really benefit a few, because the planner is forced, by the nature of their position, to make choices as to who gets what, and is forced to make people's decisions for them. Jack, unfortunately, cannot force anyone to do anything on the island, so again we watch him go bug-eyed and crazy because he cannot control the population.

In conclusion, I'd say that Sawyer's individuality eventually leads to a natural cooperation with others, whereas Jack's approach as planner makes for polarization and leads to many deaths and only a few escaping the island. I'd say that Sawyer is more authentically helpful in the end, as it is by his sacrifice that the Oceanic 6 are able to stay in the air and find the boat.

Think Jack would have jumped? Me neither.

Monday, June 23, 2008

Political Irresponsibility and You!

For the anarcho-capitalist voting is kind of stupid. Democracy in the context of a coercive state is moot. When we vote, we are merely proceeding with the logic that we must work to get a much NICER person to point the gun at us.

Again, it's stupid.

But, I say one can participate in the system, and yet continue to exist within the philosophical framework of anarcho-capitalism.

1. Never vote politically, it is coercive in nature. For the anarchist, everything we do must be with the intent of advancing the ethics of liberty. Voting philosophically means voting for people who don't win elections. And that's ok. The Ron Paul movement was never about winning, it was about ideas. Occasionally, we have the opportunity to give statistical credence to the idea of liberty, and while those folks who run don't win elections (again, not the point anyway), they allow us to advance a philosophical framework within the context of the state machine. And while I disagree with RP and others on certain details of their platform (they are minarchists, I am not), I started down this philosophical road because of the idea of the minimal state, therefore the possibility exists for others to do the same when we influence the state against itself to advance the philosophy of liberty.

2. Not voting is voting! Yay! Seriously, it is. When you opt out of the state machine you are making a powerful statement. Now, many will tell you how irresponsible it is for you to not vote (although, if we employ the method of #1, then usually we'll end up voting for what statists see as "spoilers," and they will call us irresponsible then too). Opting out of the system brings it ever more to the public awareness that there are many in the population who see the state as nothing but a leviathan of bureaucracy, and therefore ultimately ineffective against social ills. This, coupled with all the state's wars that are so costly morally and economically, drive many to oppose the whole mess by opting out completely. If nobody shows up to vote, then how can elections be won? This, again, is influencing the state (albeit ironically) against itself.

3. Volunteer, Bond-style! If there is actually a person running for public office that you can mostly get behind, then volunteer and take every opportunity to spout your enlightened philosophy at the candidate. Maybe they'll get pissed and fire you, that'd be awesome. Maybe they'll bend their ears to you and start talking about some of those things in the public. Again, any anarchist activity within the state machine must always be about the advancement of philosophy, and never about legislation. Granted, if the state is dismantling in a healthy manner, then "legislation" would likely be created to foster that. Nobody ever said that it'd be easy to create a free society from one that is utterly possessed by the state. Plus, you must never get paid because taking a salary from taxes collected by violence is morally wrong, and you want to be sure to tell this everyday to the candidate you work under. They should not be getting paid through violence. They should work for free. They'll probably be STOKED at the suggestion! It's a weird dance, I know, but the whole point is not to use the state for more coercion, it's to influence the state against itself in order to bring about its peaceful dismantling.

Ok, I'll be honest with myself. None of the above is pretty, and is likely wrought with ethical dilemmas. But cut me some fucking slack, the state is a wicked, slathering, growling, hairy, stinky beast.

In short, it's dirty. Like wet dog dirty. And any peaceful methodology we employ will also have flaws and issues. Let's face it, if the free society is coming, it'll be here in about 100 years if we start right NOW. My good friend Frank said that right now we are laying the groundwork for the development of the future free society, and perhaps we are. Maybe history will look back and find my blog and its two subscribers (one of which is my main Detractor), and say, "Whoa! This is old-school!"

But really, I take solace in the fact that the state doesn't have my mind anymore, and there are more freed minds to come.

The Beez

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

A (somewhat) Fantastic Voyage!

I change my mind.

Seriously. I mean, what was I thinking? How could I have thought? What was my major malfunction?!

Lemme think back!

I was hanging out, minding my own business, perhaps doing some laundry, mayhap I was tending to the cattle. Or better yet, maybe I was playing video games like an asshole! I don't know. Maybe it was all of the above, maybe it was none.

I digress. Here's what I'm saying.

I read Murray N. Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty. And now I kind of think we should abolish the State, peacefully and through persuasion, but, yeah, ABOLISH. It sucks to think I ever bought into the validity of the State, but it is also a bit refreshing. It's like a headache that finally went away after 30 FRIGGEN YEARS!

The State is a machine of aggression, a wicked scion of violence and force. And while I basically think those two words mean the same thing, I'm REALLY trying to emphasize here: the State is a systemically corrupt machine, and we must ever bend our minds to to it elimination.

But this is a peaceful revolution. It is one of ideas, of philosophy. Our evolution will never come with violence toward each other. It will come through peace. Peace cannot be achieved by the State. It can through individuals.

And from here on out I intend to prove this. And I've changed my name and the title of my blog just to prove the IMMENSITY of my awakening.

So there.

The Beez

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Polygamy: The New Testament Version!

Oh, those fundamentalist Mormons and all their wives. Those AWESOME colonial dresses that the women wore in The Village are so VOGUE in Mormon cults.

Ah, cults. So strange, so cut off. So wrapped up in religious dogma, with a healthy splash of superstition. Not to mention brainwashing.

Sounds yummy!

But hey, it's none of my business. And that's what's key in the recent story of the raid on a Mormon sect in Texas. We are knee deep in a very slippery slope.

The allegation that underage girls were being forced into sex and marriage is valid if there is evidence to support it. And if there is evidence, the State has a right to intercede and protect those who are being acted upon against their will. If the people of a state have set a legal age of consent and this law is broken, punishment can ensue.


The bigger issue is the State's "moral" stance against polygamy. In 1878 the supreme court ruled it illegal on the grounds that polygamy was ""almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and African people," and that it was "contrary to the spirit of Christianity"" (Falk 11). I don't need to tell you all that the Christian bible oozes polygamy, but I will say that the State has no place regulating marriage. While creating laws that decide on an age of consent is acceptable, interfering with consenting adults making non-violent decisions that affect only themselves is NOT the domain of the State.

This is, indeed, the larger issue, not statutory rape. The State outlaws polygamy and seeks to quash it where it can. We also saw the same behavior over the non-issue of same sex marriage.

If women are being raped and beaten, the State plays an important role in protecting these individuals. But it serves no role in non-violent, consenting decisions made by adults.

The State's involvement in yet another social issue is, again, the result of a systemic issue within the framework of a "planned society" that we see our ever expanding government moving toward. It has no place, ever, in the private lives of consenting adults.

The term is Liberty. And the State seeks ever to dismantle it before our very eyes.


Work Cited:

Falk, William, et al, eds. "Married to the Mob." The Week. 16 May 2008: 11.

Thursday, May 1, 2008

Got Pork?

Being right has a downside. I know, it feels awesome knowing the political philosophy I eschew proves correct TIME and TIME again.

It's almost tiring.

But, alas, it has a downside: I wish I wasn't right.

But WHAT, you ask, could have me so down?

Pork Spending!

The short definition is that pork spending is "the congressional habit of using taxpayer money to reward or benefit a specific constituency, company, or campaign contributor" (Falk 13). The money is doled out according to earmarks set out by congress, which sets up the budget to include provisions that direct funds to specific persons/places (13).

What are some of these persons/places? GREAT question!

A.) In 2005 there was Republican Senator Ted Steven's "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska that cost 223 million dollars (13).

B.) Hillary Clinton recently put a million bucks into a Woodstock museum (13).

C.) Republican Rep. John Peterson put 500 grand into buying 21 train cabooses to be repurposed for a "caboose motel" (13).

D.) This one is my favorite: Democratic Rep. James Clyburn sent 3 million smackers to "an organization called the First Tee, whose mission, according to its website, "is to promote character development and life-enhancing values through the game of golf"" (13).

Now is all pork spending bad? No. It can be used by members of congress to assist their districts. They may try and help small businesses, or start up some local social programs.

But here's my beef with pork:

It's doled out in favor of the ruling political party. Again, we have a clear as day example of statist government at work. Our hard earned money is at the whim of whoever rules.

We have no say. They make us dependent on them by taking ever more of our money, and yet encouraging us to fuel the status quo.

I have a small, humble suggestion:

I am in no way opposed to taxation. It is taxes that fund our infrastructure, our government. But why not massively reform our foreign policy in favor of non-interventionism, bring our troops home, stop nation building, and waging war, and take the resultant resources saved and give it back to the people?

Each county in each state should have the money on hand to truly tackle their own unique issues, whether it be drugs, bridges and roads, education, etc. Only then will the complexity and diversity of America be addressed. It is safe to say that my mayor knows the issues facing my county much better than Washington DC.

By working toward an end to the income tax, and allowing us more control over the money we earn, we allow ourselves to build stronger communities. EVERY community would be stronger with more money on hand locally. Does that mean some areas would struggle? Yes. They struggle NOW.

But let's all be honest with each other: having extra casholla is always cooler than being broke and helpless.

There shouldn't be any need for things like federal pork spending. By eliminating the income tax, you help provide local governments the chance to do far better than the Fed could ever hope to do. Eliminating this tax is far more socially responsible than any entitlement program.

And now I shall retire to my chamber of rightness wherein I eat grapes and ponder my own personal Lost theories.


Work Cited:

Falk, William, et al, eds. "Pass the pork, please." The Week. 25 April 2008: 13.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

The Ugly Courtship

As Roe vs Wade is slowly chipped away at by the federal government, I wonder what will happen with abortion is America.

Will the federal government outright ban it? Or will the overturning of Roe vs Wade result in mass outlawing of abortion nationally?

Here's the thing:

I support a woman's right to have an abortion in my state or anywhere else. The thing is, as a practical libertarian I know that many other people vehemently disagree with me, and that they have the right to vote the opposite. Moreover, I also don't believe the federal government should be regulating abortion at all.

Here's why:

Abortion is a complex social issue with a myriad of positions that one could take. A planned society, a society wherein a framework of social uniformity is legislated from the central government, cannot address complex social issues adequately. Anti-abortion agenda finds its way into different states' legislation constantly, the government flip-flops on it (all the while continuing to take our money and use it for its consistent moral changes), and we end up with this ugly courtship.

The United States government has evolved into a massive central power that focuses ever more on the planned society. Things are further exacerbated by the two party system. Whatever social programs the next president begins, or renews, etcetera, are the the whim of the next president, who may be of the other party. This president will let those programs degrade, or he/she may cancel them all together.

Some of us will shake our fists. Others will cheer.

In the end, the status quo will continue, and the change so many of us want to see within our society will never come about. They will only ever be hinted at. If we think local, however, then we can begin to truly help shape our society. In a free society the communities that vote for freedom of minds and bodies, are the ones that flourish.

Is it utopia? There's no such thing. In fact, that word sounds like a turd. I refuse to use it anymore.

It would, however, allow those of who do believe in progress to have more effect on the immediate world around us: our towns, cities, counties and states.

Morality cannot be legislated. Central planning assumes that it can, and will be. When aggression is used, it is resisted.

In short, the federal government does not have the right to regulate abortion. It is too complex of an issue, and the citizens, for better or worse, have to work it out.

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

We Don't Need No (more) Regulation.

As the Bush regime stumbles through its death throes, they endeavor to inject ever more regulation into the market (Falk 35).

Now, rather than rant and rave about how the free market needs to be free in order to be, well, a free market, and therefore needs less government meddling, and more of a legal framework that protects competition rather than stifling it, I just want to say this:

Government meddling has got us right where we find ourselves today: broke and stuck in a war, among other horrible things. It's not a matter of some wicked republican doing wicked things at some point, nay, it is statist domestic policy that has granted the central power so much power over the passed 60+ years that they freely manipulate our economy on top of marching into war when it suits them.

These are FACTS.

In order to have a free society with free markets, free minds, and open borders, a nation cannot have an interventionist foreign policy based on nation building and policing the world. If it adopts this sort of policy, one can safely assume that the central power has the same kind of control in it's homeland. In order for a planned, domestic, social framework to exist, the people must give up some freedoms. They start small, and end big. Always. Over time, the people find themselves with ever shrinking civil liberties.

Basically, what I'm trying to say in that empires suck because they try, and fail, to control everything. A free society means a redistribution of power and wealth, and the status quo will always resist such a redistribution.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Mccain all represent this same domestic trend. They will dress it up differently, with different rhetoric, but it is all the same movement: central, absolute, societal planning. They all vie for a global government, which again can only exist by amassing massive amounts of power to a small body who, guaranteed, will abuse it.

Sorry folks, it's in our nature to abuse large amounts of power. That's why it needs to be spread out. It's a lot easier to fight that way.

At the end of the day, it's not just about ever more regulation of the economy. It is about the further regulation, and eventual elimination of, freedom. It is about big business and big government merging together into a one world government. Sounds sci-fi and such, I know, but again, it's the observed trend.

And it stinks like cat's breath.


PS-If further regulation means legalizing and protecting competition thereby fostering fertile soil for a redistribution of wealth through freer access to the marketplace due to the elimination of corporate welfare, well, that's cool with me. Regulate away!

Work Cited:

Falk, William, et al, eds. "The Return of Regulation." The Week. 4 April 2008: 35.

Monday, March 31, 2008

Smells Like EPA Spirit!

The EPA is a noble idea.

On a federal level, we make sure that there are certain standards of environmental protection legislation so that we can all, you know, live on the earth and not go extinct and what-not.

Now, I'm a big supporter of state's rights. The whole idea of the American experiment is for us to be a unified nation of independent states. However, we find ourselves in a conundrum.

Last December the EPA blocked California legislation that would have made stricter vehicle emission laws. They blocked this because they claimed that California is not in danger because of global warming (Klebnikov 1)

Let's get this out of the way really quick: Global Warming is real, and humans have dramatically accelerated the process. That's what a whole BUNCH of scientists say, and I believe 'em.

Sooooooooo, Californnia can only tighten up their laws with a waiver from the EPA, and while it has let California alway tighten their legislation since 1968 (1) (even during Republican years for all you "red vs bluers"), this time it didn't.

These kind of government departments are ultimately detrimental, as they allow for the central body to interfere with state legislation processes like this one. And while they may only do it once in awhile, as in the above case, they will still interfere.

The EPA also creates a legal environment for corporations to pollute to a certain amount. They LEGALIZE pollution for their corporate buddies. This department needs a major overhaul. I say make it into a department which takes away all federal protection for polluters, and creates a legal framework of 100% liability, thereby making class action lawsuits against these polluters much easier, and likely.

Think about it: how many new law firms would spring up who would be only in the business of suing polluters for infecting our air, and our lungs?

You have to make it unprofitable to pollute.

The EPA is a noble effort, and I agree with some federal role in environmental policy, but this whole business of actually STOPPING a state from making even better environmental policies for itself is NOT the role of the federal government.


Work Cited:

Klebinikov, Peter, Ed. "Car Wars." Solutions Apr. 2008: 1-2.

Monday, March 24, 2008

Getting Used to Those Bars.

Sounds like a blues song, doesn't it? But alas, it's the mantra uttered for many a poor soul languishing in prison.

Yes, the world's leading prison state must be stopped!

Who is this TL? China? Russia? IRAQ?!

Nay, good, friendly readers, it is none of the above.

Welcome to America. That "free-society" wherein 1 out of every 100 people is in prison. Hey, it's good to be number one in something in the world, right? Why not be the leading prison-state? It's all the vogue right now anyway!

And this is the shocker: most of that population are there for the sale and/or possession of drugs. DRUGS. Not murder, rape, or pillaging, but the sale and/or possession of drugs.

I mean, yikes.

So anyhoo, America also recently sent out a big admonition to China, Burma, and Russia for arbitrarily imprisoning too many of their respective politicians (14).


A.) I'm not going to comment on the hypocrisy. That's like declaring the sun is hot.

B.) I am going to say that once again we see the necessary result of statist intervention on the part of the federal government in terms of the DEA. It should be abolished. Yes, throw the baby out with the bath water. The DEA is a frightening ethnic cleanser, clearly targeted at specific demographics. One in 15 black men is in JAIL, people, and that's compared to 1 in 106 whites (Falk 14). We all know how many white people are out there, doped to the gills, but will never see jail time simply because of the skin color. This persists due to a collectivist outlook on society, in which people are put into groups together, and therefore their individual dispositions are broadly interpreted by the powers that be (news media, statist government, and then citizens) and so individuals become targets. Let us not forget the volumes of stories there are about black individuals with no record whatsoever, being stopped arbitrarily a lot more often than whites.

Now, I'm not here to preach about racism. I AM here to preach about a free society. This kind of society is dependent on individuals being free to involve themselves in drugs if they want to. It is dependent on individualism, so as to not create false demographics in which particular individuals of a specific color or creed are singled out by the prison-state as the dominant criminals, when in fact, we all know this to be false. Does that mean we wouldn't see states enacting regressive drug laws? Of course not, but what we would see is a movement toward a freer society in which the states that voted progressively in terms of drugs would see a drop in crime, and therefore a drop in prison costs, and therefore a boost to their respective economies. This model would eventually spread, as nobody really LIKES a crappy economy.

Get rid of the federal involvement in the complex social issue of drugs, and let us deal with it ourselves. The money saved by the removal of this federal tool of racism/imprisonment would save lives and money, as opposed to the rinse/repeat cycle of death and taxes.


Work Cited

Falk, William, et al, eds. "America, Land of the Unfree." The Week. 28 Mar. 2008: 14.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Education is NOT just for federal judges.


So a federal judge in California ruled that home-schooled kids must be taught by a certified teacher (Falk 5).

Again, sigh.

Now, the judge made this decision based on an education law passed in California in 1950. But I'm going to go ahead and say it: this has nothing to do with a law passed in 1950. This has everything to do with our bumbling, bureaucracy of a government again stepping into the lives of citizens. It is a microcosm of a bigger picture.

I understand that many parents home-school their kids so as to cloister them from a world they believe to be too secular, and I know that many of them teach their kids that global warming doesn't exist, and that the world is 10,000 years old.

Do I think these people are narrow-minded nuts that would rather sign on to superstition and myth rather than empirical evidence that gives much credence to a planet billions of years old and getting hotter as hell everyday?


Do I think, therefore, that the government should step in and make sure such narrow-minded nuttiness is curbed as much as possible so as to save the commons from such idiocy?

Nay, good readers, nay.

Here is the scenario: The Federal government muddles with an education issue in California. Advocates of said education issue get mad. The governor also gets mad and declares that he will fight this decision. The system gets more bogged down, nothing really gets done, and we all pay for it in one way or another.

People of this country have a right to be stupid individuals. They have the right to opt out of the federal education system and do their own thing. They pay taxes too, and they can decide what they want to do, even if we all think they are the aforementioned narrow minded nuts.

And that is why, as a practical libertarian, I say: leave em alone judge! Don't worry your pretty little gavel about whether or not home-schooled kids are getting what the Federal government defines as education. Do we really need to talk about the broken machine known as the Department of Education?

That is what is happening here, not a decision based on a technicality, but continued statist intervention into the lives of individual citizens.

I've got an idea! Get rid of the DoE, give us our money back, create the legal framework to protect competition of private education institutes, thereby providing as many educational options as possible with lower prices, and let individuals decide ALL of their educational needs for themselves and their children.

Hell, I'll even compromise and say give us our money back and let each independent state maintain it's own department of education. At least that way, those legislators couldn't hide in some tower in D.C.

Is it practical to say that education can be handled by the states, and even the people?


Will some states have crappy education systems?


Should we allow that?


But why, TL, why?

Because to be free, we must allow others to be free. They must be free to create and manage their own affairs. To assume that crappy educational for all is worth a Federal DoE, consider this:

They take our money for this department, yet schools are being forced to make contracts with soda pop companies to get money. Now, maybe a new administration will come in, take more of our money, and seemingly improve the system a little bit; but then those same resources are subject to the next administration's moral whim, and they keep the extra money the previous administration took while letting the program degrade.

I have 60 years of American domestic policy history on my side to show the pendulum constantly swinging, and costing the people ever more as the years go on. In order for the system to improve, we the people MUST reclaim it.

The federal government cannot manage education anymore than it can manage the other social issues facing us today.


Work Cited

Falk, William, et al, eds. "The World at a Glance..." The Week. 21 Mar. 2008: 5.

Monday, March 17, 2008

The Practicality of Change

It seems I've decided to start blogging about practical libertarianism. As a writer of fiction, I have, as of late, found myself less interested in Harry Potter, and more interested in F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. Don't get me wrong, I'm still going to finish Harry Potter because it's awesome, but Hayek has really grabbed my attention.

So why blog about practical libertarianism? Is there such a thing? So many in the libertarian party (which will from now on be referred to as LP, as I am clearly too lazy to type full words when I don't have to) argue for change, but I don't feel we talk enough about how to pragmatically move into the system we espouse.

Let us keep in mind that America finds itself up to it's teeth in a 3 trillion dollar war (Falk 16), a broken welfare state, and a marketplace prominently owned by a few parties. How do we begin to get out of this muck? How long will it take?

And how in God's name do we find ourselves here?!

I'm not here to figure it all out, but this libertarian is a practical one, and I am here to look at the complex issues facing us today, and share what one libertarian perspective is on it all.

I am one individual, but I have a voice, and hopefully my writings will find an audience, no matter how small, so that ideas can continue to swim amongst us, freely.


Works Cited

Falk, William, et al, eds. "The $3 Trillion Dollar War." The Week. 21 Mar. 2008: 16.

Hayek, F.A. The Road to Serfdom. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1944.