Individualism - Accept No Substitute

The Road to Tyranny

2010-07-15T12:12:00.000-07:00

NSA's "Perfect Citizen" Program

Should you feel safe in a world where your every movement is tracked, traced, followed, and watched? Should you, as an American, only feel secure when you know government has every piece of information you write, read, and possibly even think? Suppose, you “knew” confidently, that no harm would ever come to you if you lived in the “secure” world. Would you want to? I can hardly think that such a world would be good. It certainly wouldn’t be a free world, free to act, think, speak knowing each word uttered would be recorded and evaluated. Currently you have governments that want to regulate your energy usage, what food you can consume, your physical activity, and so on. Imagine when government begins to regulate speech itself, and when it has the means to do so. Once a system like that is in place, with the means at their disposal, dissent will be impossible.

Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech (The New-England Courant) -Ben Franklin, July 9, 1722

Everyone is so eager to listen to reasons of why they should do something, but more often, they are never explained the negative impact –of why they shouldn’t do it. Have you ever been traveling somewhere you’ve never been? You were given directions, and you followed them. The people genuinely gave you what they thought you needed. They had your best interest in mind. You trusted them, because you had no reason not to. You knew where you wanted to go; you just didn’t know how to get there. You traveled, taking in the scenery as you went. The trees were lush, green, beautiful. You were captivated. Surely this is where you were going. You arrive, but it is not where you wanted to be. In fact, you had no idea where you were. How did you get here? You followed the directions! You began to think of the directions you took, but now you aren’t so sure. You can’t remember all the turns you took. You look around, but there is no one to help you. You think about the road, but all you remember is the trees. The road itself didn’t tell you your destination. It was merely a road. You have faint recollection of the way at all. Was it dirt, pavement, rock, what was it? Your memory of it vanished just as easily as you had traversed it. You have no idea how to get back to where you started. Just how did you get here? You did everything right, at least, you thought you did. How could you know, really though? You never once thought about how you were getting there. You simply did what you were told.

Had the people of Germany in the 1930s known the path they were on, would they have made the same turns? Or would they have elected to turn differently? Each turn they took seemed innocuous. It was just a little step further. It was just a little more freedom they gave away. Every time, it was justified! It made perfect sense, at the moment. It was for the benefit of the nation! The individual, well, they were just removed one at a time.

Sure, one can chalk up everything to an overreaction. “You’re blowing things out of proportion,” they might say. Is that so? I guess time will tell. But in the world I live in, when you take enough steps, you go somewhere. Each step, in and of itself, didn’t mean very much. Taken together, however, they mean the world.

Each generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it. -George Orwell

Travis

The Link between Immigration and Monetary Expansion

2010-07-06T15:19:00.000-07:00

I have been posed a question recently by several people, independently. I specifically remember a colleague posing the question in the following way.

People ask me if I am for illegal immigration laws, or as a libertarian, if I am for open immigration. I tell them I don’t know yet.

It’s definitely a difficult question until one can observe certain variables involved. I commend my colleague for taking reservation. By not choosing a position purely for demagogic or emotional reasons he has not pigeonholed himself into defending one side or another. He has elected to not commit until he gained more information. If only more people had this mindset.

I answered his question in this way. If we didn’t have all the welfare state safety nets in place, that non-citizen foreigners take advantage of, then open immigration (the way it was in the early years of the United States) wouldn’t even be an issue.

Open border advocates always point out that open border policies to immigrants were never as severe as they are now; however, they also fail to point out that we didn’t have the welfare programs during those “good” times. You cannot address one without addressing the other.

To the counter, a big argument against illegal immigration today is a good amount of U.S. Dollars that are being exported to Mexico. What people don’t realize is that, this is actually a benefit, not a detriment. It is excess dollars in circulation that drive prices higher. When dollars are sent abroad (or in this case south of the border), this puts a short term check on price inflation. Since all governments impose legal tender laws allowing only the local national currency to be used in every day transactions, the U.S. dollars accumulated simply sit in cash balances of foreign citizens until they wish to buy something from the United States. This helps our export industry. It also effectively creates export related jobs as demand for U.S. goods rises abroad.

I say that the check on inflation is short term because all paper currency will ultimately be used, as that is its intended purpose –to be exchanged for purposeful goods. There is no permanent form of inflation exportation (which is our biggest national industry by the way). The dollars, one way or another, will find their way back into the U.S. economy. The questions are, when, and for what purpose? Not to sidetrack the topic at hand, but if the conditions are broad and severe enough, we’ll find that dollars will come flooding back uniformly, in short order. This will unveil the true price structure of goods, in the form of dramatic price rises, within the United States. Those that currently believe goods are still “inexpensive” because prices are currently low, are engaging in an egregious amount of self-deception. However, those of us that realize the current price structure is artificial can take advantage of it while it is still in this state.

Due to the welfare apparatus, non-tax paying foreigners have access to healthcare, public schooling, colleges, grants, government subsidized food, shelter, and so on. In many cases, the illegal population has access to certain funds that actual citizens do not. Clearly we are going to find an irate citizenry hell-bent on removing this parasitic class. Unfortunately this mindset is ripe for government manipulation. As the cries aren’t going to be to remove the problem, the welfare system, instead the onus will be put on the removal of the non-citizen class themselves. With ever more government spending and bureaucratization commences, the result is government growth.

As I stated above, exportation of inflation does have short term benefits, however if this were based on a gold standard, there could never be a “flood” of money into the market because the amount of paper money printing would have definite limits. This means that even though a set number of dollars flow out of the U.S. economy, new dollars couldn’t be created to replace them. The result is U.S. dollar holders will see prices for goods fall as the dollar strengthens (few dollars in circulation).

In the pre-World War I “classical” gold standard, every currency unit, be it dollar, pound, franc, or mark, was defined as a certain unit of weight of gold. Thus, the “dollar” was defined as approximately 1/20 of an ounce of gold, while the pound sterling was defined as a little less than 1/4 of a gold ounce, thus fixing the exchange rate between the two (and between all other currencies) at the ratio of their weights.

Since every national currency was defined as being a certain weight of gold, paper francs or dollars, or bank deposits were redeemable by the issuer, whether government or bank, in that weight of gold. In particular, these government or bank moneys were redeemable on demand in gold coin, so that the general public could use gold in everyday transactions, providing a severe check upon any temptation to over-issue. The pyramiding of paper or bank credit upon gold was therefore subject to severe limits: the ability by currency holders to redeem those liabilities in gold on demand, whether by citizens of that country or by foreigners. If, in that system, France, for example, inflated the supply of French francs (either in paper or in bank credit), pyramiding more francs on top of gold, the increased money supply and incomes in francs would drive up prices of French goods, making them less competitive in terms of foreign goods increasing French imports and pushing down French exports, with gold flowing out of France to pay for these balance of payments deficits. But the outflow of gold abroad would put increasing pressure upon the already top-heavy French banking system, even more top-heavy now that the dwindling gold base of the inverted money pyramid was forced to support and back up a greater amount of paper francs. Inevitably, facing bankruptcy, the French banking system would have to contract suddenly, driving down French prices and reversing the gold outflow.

-Murray N. Rothbard, The Case for a 100% Gold Dollar

As you can see, a fixed gold relation of paper currency puts a limit to government spending, and thus welfare programs could not be possible (at least long term), without a tax base to pull from. As government tried to grow, it would be forced to downsize or go into bankruptcy. In both cases, welfare safety nets couldn’t be possible. It is only through fiat currencies (no commodity backing) and an ever increasing government spending via money printing / borrowing that welfare programs can exist. At each turn, the government expands.

It is no coincidence that the first national welfare programs really started appearing at the same time government confiscated gold from the citizenry (1933-1934) and made it illegal for citizens to own gold bullion. As the welfare programs continued to expand and put tremendous pressure on the monetary system, there were two potential outcomes.

File bankruptcy thereby reducing government size and scope.
Float the currency by removing the gold standard.

In 1971 the government chose the latter. We haven’t had a gold standard worldwide ever since. It follows then that there would be a social welfare boom, fueled purely by monetary expansion. This boom has attracted numerous foreigners to take advantage of the “freebies.” I can’t exactly fault them anymore than I fault people who show up to restaurants on “free food days,” or cinemas on “free movie day.” People go where the best value is.

To recap, our problems in the illegal immigration debate stem from the social welfare state. The social welfare state exists because of government intervention into monetary affairs. The government monetary intervention exists because there is no direct limit on monetary expansion. There is no limit on monetary expansion because we do not have a commodity (gold) tied currency. If we still had a gold standard, as a result no welfare programs (or very limited ones), people wouldn’t even consider illegal immigration a problem, because there would be very little incentive to immigrate unless one wanted to become part of the culture and enjoy the idea of freedom. Any impact on the economy would actually be neutral. Any money a non-citizen would make would be spent locally, saved, or sent abroad. If it is saved or sent abroad, prices would fall. When the U.S. dollars sent abroad came back home, it would increase export demand, thus creating export related jobs.

Open immigration policies with the current welfare systems in place would exacerbate the current situation. It would be economic suicide. However, I am of the opinion that we are still on this path, only in slow motion. We will get there; it’s simply a matter of how soon.

As in all things, we must properly identify the underlying source, not the symptom, in order to rectify the problem.

Travis

Incentive of the Political Caste (Deconstructing the Wicked)

2010-06-15T14:01:00.000-07:00

To the general person, it is inconceivable –unfathomable that an agent of government, elected or appointed, could work to the detriment of the people. This idea is so foreign, so forlorn, and so extreme to the average person that any reference to it is met with vitriol. A common rebuttal, “How could it be? They would have been found out.” Perhaps, but suppose for a moment that the facts were laid out in plain view, and the same layman just couldn’t grasp what was directly in front of him. Imagine a puzzle of five thousand pieces with no reference picture to guide your progress. Worse yet, suppose you were provided a reference picture, however when assembled, the puzzle was very different. In fact, the image resembled nothing of what you were led to believe. The layman response isn’t to accept what is before him. His reaction isn’t to see the picture to better understand the outcome. It is to ask, “Why?” The fact they could be deceived so easily is an affront to their intellectual standing. To admit deceit or more to the point, to acknowledge that government could intentionally manipulate in order to achieve some unknown aim is beyond their comprehension. They recoil rather than engage. The recourse of the layman is to ask the question, whether he understands or not, to which cannot be answered directly, but only in the abstract of human action. For we know not the direct motive of each politician for each action they take. We do know that they do, in fact, take the actions. Should you follow the pattern, that is to say put the pieces together, the image becomes lucid.

At this point, it is important to briefly address the nature of government. Government, in any form, should be understood as the monopoly of force –coercion, in point of fact. From taxation, to compulsory education, to interrogation, to conscription, and so on are all activities that the government engages in daily, yet the common man is okay with this. This double standard is at best inconsistent with morality. Theft is theft no matter who does it, or how one tries to rationalize it. Somehow though, the state gets a free pass because the common man associates a benevolent veneer associated with elected officials. Whether this mindset of the common man comes from indoctrination via government school, media, or blind nationalism misattributed as patriotism, is immaterial. The fact is that the common man is blinded by this false ideal. Because government is a system built on immorality, one cannot expect moral outcome because of it. One cannot use force to achieve morality. The two are antithetical. What we see is a power structure, one in which a body of people –albeit a very small body of people, have direct control over another body of people. Like moths to a flame, power breeds evil and corruption. Lord Acton’s dictum applies,

All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It stands to reason those who will seek power will be drawn to sectors that emanate said power. This group of miscreants who have no moral compass, no sense of ethic, no concept of loyalty, no principles, no respect for life, no respect for property, will seek that very power. This Machiavellian crew will let nothing stand in their way. They will lie, cheat, steal, kill, maim, torture, anything they must do to attain this end by any and all means necessary. Like the crocodile, nimble, silent, cunning, and most of all patient. This is their drive, and the means they have chosen. They prey on their fellow man as if one of them. As demagogues, they pretend to share value, plight, and purpose. Of course this is a facade, for the common man is their quarry. When one has no morals, duplicity and betrayal are merely tools for the slaughter. There is no honor among thieves, there is no quarter. The end, political office, trumps all means.

Once in power, the political caste has common goals, and common ideals, this is to fleece their flock –the people. It has been established, and history shows that no matter how well intended or justified the expansion of government, it always leads to further expansion until ultimate despotism. It is no coincidence throughout human history that private cabals and dictators of the worst order have come to power –usually at the outcry of the people. From Caligula, Pol Pot, Mau, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, et al, the rise of despotic tyrants is not unique in human history.

So, to answer the original retort of, “Why?” power, of course. Even this explanation is unsatisfying for the layman, as they haven’t the tools nor the mentality to observe what they have been witness to. Let us view this from an analogy of chess. The novice chess player typically observes moves in isolation. They haven’t the capacity to see combinations or several steps ahead, thus each move is seemingly innocuous. The master chess player, aware of this reality, utilizes this advantage. Ever patient, he can draw the game out to whatever degree to watch the layman essentially make himself vulnerable. This allows minimal effort on the part of the master player. The chess master will merely position his pieces and sacrifice when necessary, as the only objective is the win. All pieces are merely means to achieve this. Where the layman wants no sacrifice, doesn’t even consider the option of it, yet the cunning master has none of these reservations. When the end of the game has been realized, all the master player’s moves finalized, the novice is left bewildered knowing he lost but is unable to see the process of how. All he saw were a series of unrelated moves to his detriment; he is never privy to the interconnected series of methodical changes that took place right before his eyes. This isn’t to say he cannot understand them, or that he is incapable of grasping the idea. Before this can happen though, he must not ask “why,” but observe things as they are. I am no chess master, nor am I a tyrannical control freak who wants to run peoples’ lives. I do acknowledge those people exist, and their presence in government are legion. Their lust for power is ubiquitous. We must accept what is transpiring, instead of our emotional aversion to it. If we fall into the claptrap of unreason, we are no better than the layman observing the moving pieces on the board, one step at a time.

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery."
--Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. (*) ME 1:193, Papers 1:125

Travis

GMO Causes Sterility, Study Finds

2010-06-09T09:59:00.000-07:00

A study from the Russian Academy of Sciences has found that Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) causes sterility in hamsters, birth defects, high mortality rates, and other effects. There are numerous other studies with similar findings; however the depth of this study is impressive. One of the conclusive elements of the study finds that by the 3rd generation, the hamsters were completely sterile.

The release of this new information provides yet another health risk, and confirmation on earlier problems related to fertility, birth weight of offspring, and infant mortality.

In this feeding study they used hamsters, an animal which has not been previously featured in GM safety studies. One group of hamsters was fed a normal diet without any soy whatsoever, a second group was fed non-GMO soy, a third ate GM soy, and a fourth group ate an even higher amount of GM soy than the third.

Using the same genetically modified (GM) soy that is produced on over 90 percent of the soy acreage in the US, the hamsters and their offspring were fed their respective diets over a period of two years, during which time the researchers evaluated three
generations of hamsters.

First they took five pairs of hamsters from each group, each of which produced about seven to eight litters each, totaling about 140 animals. At first all went well, but serious problems became apparent when they selected new pairs from the offspring.

The first problem was that this second generation had a slower growth rate and reached their sexual maturity later than normal.

However, this second generation eventually generated another 39 litters:
The no-soy control group had 52 pups
The non-GM soy had 78
The GM soy had only 40, of which 25 percent died

So these second-generation GM soy-fed hamsters had a five-fold higher infant mortality rate, compared to the 5 percent normal death rate that was happening in the controls.

But then an even bigger problem became apparent, because nearly all of the third generation hamsters lost the ability to have babies altogether. Only a single third-generation female hamster gave birth to 16 pups, and of those, one fifth died. In short, nearly the entire third generation of GM soy eaters were sterile! But it doesn't end there. In the GM soy-fed groups they also found an unusually high prevalence of an otherwise extremely rare phenomenon - hair growing inside the animals' mouths.

The complete report will be available in July. Pretty scary stuff. You should be startled to find that GMO is in most foods that you eat. Monsanto holds the patent for the majority GMO used in the United States. This is the same company behind Agent Orange too. As if all this wasn’t enough, in 2009 Obama appointed Monsanto executive Michael Taylor as his “food czar.” With this conflict of interest, you can expect no backlash to Monsanto. Of course, this is assuming Obama and other elites aren’t aware of the mischievous Monsanto.

Let us not forget about Obama’s “science Czar,” John Holdren, who wrote the (1977) science text-book Ecoscience. This eugenics book talked about over population of the planet and how there should be forced sterilization (through food and water supply), forced abortions, and so on.

Below are direct quotes from the text book.

Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions “One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through doption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”

Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn’t harm livestock “Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for nvoluntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”

Page 786-7: The government could control women’s reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control Involuntary fertility control “A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

Page 838: The kind of people who cause “social deterioration” can be compelled to not have children “If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.“

Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size “In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”

There are more. Remember this is just one of Obama’s Czars, and his “science Czar” to boot. With Michael Taylor being his “food Czar,” is this a pattern? Just some non-GMO food for thought.

Sources:

http://www.mmshealthyforlife.com/?p=3735
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34198
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

Lessons from Rome

2010-04-27T11:21:00.000-07:00

In the latest book I am reading, by Albert Jay Nock (The Theory of Education in the United States -1931) he explains that the Great Tradition (the pedagogy before 1890) had no curriculum for ‘English,’ to my surprise. That is to say, there were no English Studies. The idea of it in that time, and prior to, was completely absurd. Nock had this to say on the matter.

“With regard to "courses in English," I suspect that if you have not already done some such thing, there is a surprise in store for you when you make an estimate of the number of them that our institutions offer annually. I suggest that you look into the matter, and meanwhile I shall not anticipate your findings, being desirous that they should make their own impression on you and carry their own intimations. I therefore say only that there are a great many such courses, whereas forty years ago no such thing was known. Why should this be so? Forty years ago, our English-speaking students learned English quite informally; it was our own tongue, we were bred to a native idiomatic use of it, such a use as none but a native can ever possibly acquire. To say that English was not taught in our higher institutions means merely that everybody taught it. No matter what the stated subject under discussion might be, if we expressed ourselves inaccurately, loosely, unidiomatically, we heard about it at once and on the spot, and in terms that forcibly suggested a greater carefulness in the future.

As for English literature, it was our literature, our concern with it was proprietary, everything in it was open to us, and the critical judgment, the standards of taste and discrimination that we applied to it, were such as had been bred in us by our long acquaintance with the literatures of Greece and Rome. No one dreamed of teaching English literature; indeed, I do not see how it can be effectively taught in any formal fashion, how a really competent acquaintance with it can be brought about in any other way than the way by which it was brought about in us.”[Emphasis mine]

This had never actually occurred to me, but it does make perfect sense. The fact that we use the English language natively, thus its usage and perfection would be acquired over time within the framework of any subject matter, as other subjects are conveyed in our native tongue. So to have a class specifically for English, in essence, is a complete waste of someone’s time. Nock goes on.

“Why, then, is it that "courses in English" should hold so large a place in the newest type of institutional organization? They do so for a very simple reason. Under the conditions that we have been describing, great masses of ineducable people come into our institutions. They must be kept there, and must nominally be busy with something or other as a pro forma justification for keeping them. Therefore something has to be found for them, to do that they can do, and this is a hard matter because they can do almost nothing. One thing they can do, albeit after a very poor fashion, is to read; that is to say, they can make their way more or less uncertainly down a printed page; and therefore "courses in English" have come into their present extraordinary vogue.”

Pretty hard hitting stuff, to say the least. Since a large number of, well –dummies infiltrate the learning “institutions,” they are given busywork to justify their presence, and consequently their diploma upon completion. Take note that one subject that English literature replaced was that of Greece and Rome. By contemporary standards, the significance of this is unrealized. Nock explains the importance.

“The literatures of Greece and Rome comprise the longest and fullest continuous record available to us, of what the human mind has been busy about in practically every department of spiritual and social activity; every department, I think, except one—music. This record covers twenty-five hundred consecutive years of the human mind's operations in poetry, drama, law, agriculture, philosophy, architecture, natural history, philology, rhetoric, astronomy, politics, medicine, theology, geography, everything. Hence the mind that has attentively canvassed this record is not only a disciplined mind but an experienced mind; a mind that instinctively views any contemporary phenomenon from the vantage-point of an immensely long perspective attained through this profound and weighty experience of the human spirit's operations.”

Based on this clear logic, Greece and Rome should be the core subject-matter of any student at any level. The lessons of Greece and Rome are unparalleled in the breadth and scope, along with it an unbroken length of recorded history at their respective periods. I have to tell you; all throughout my schooling I had mere glimpses of Rome in passing, barely worth mentioning. I did, however, have at least one English class every year of school on and through college. It’s a sad realization, but one that must be made for an individual to correct. It further emphasizes the point that salvation in education cannot be made with an institution whose concept, and theory behind, is abject failure and unattainable. Nock’s central premise is that everyone is not educable. The system in place denies this truism, at the detriment of all other educable persons who enter it with the ineducable at their side. In it, they will find no education, only instruction. There is a world of difference between the two.

With all that said. A lesson from Rome.
Crime and Complicity by: Tim Case.

In case you are interested in reading Nock’s, The Theory of Education in the United States. It is available for free at Mises.org in PDF format, or you can buy a copy for ten dollars.

Travis

Regulating Behavior - Morality Via Force

2010-04-07T13:19:00.000-07:00

Texting While Driving Leads to Arrest

When laws make specific behavior illegal, the state can pretty much do whatever it wants. Under this precedent, the state basically asserts itself as the morality judge where it now can determine what is a ‘good’ society and by consequence, what is ‘good’ for society. As a result, those who do not meet this requirement become the undesirables. We know where this path ultimately leads.

There is an old first year law school definition of crime, which according to Judge Andrew Napolitano is also an ancient definition, which says that crime is harm. Thus if one is doing something and no one is harmed, then there is no crime. To say with absolutely certainty an act that is not a crime, but infer it will lead to crime is disingenuous and non sequitur. It presumes government has foresight into the future, a completely absurd notion. Thus by implication, the act in question must be made a crime. Worse yet, it allows government to make any wild non-provable claim to demonize specific activity. For example: “If we don’t reform healthcare, millions of uninsured will die.” Well, those same people have been uninsured up to this point and haven’t died, so why would they suddenly die now? What about this whopper from the 1920’s, “Alcohol use leads to crime.” We happen to know that the alcohol prohibition exponentially increased crime. For one, it created huge profit incentive for organized crime. Two, anyone who continued to drink was now considered a criminal.

Anyone should be able to discern that to act of your own will, without impediment, is freedom. In this framework of freedom you have responsibility, and are responsible for those decisions that you make. Could you crash your car into another vehicle if you are texting? Yes. Could you also crash when applying lipstick? Yes. What about talking to someone? Yes. What about changing the radio? Yes. Should all of these activities be outlawed because you could potentially crash? Put another way, what shouldn’t be considered illegal under this pretense? If crashing constitutes damage (harm), then fault determines who is liable. Since there are laws against damaging another’s property already, why do we need laws against the infinite amount of situations or conditions that could occur to allow this accident to happen? If a person is negligent, an accident will happen. Whatever behavior was being exercised at the time of the accident is irrelevant. A person did harm, they were negligent thus they were at fault and are responsible to compensate for damages incurred.

The bottom line is, with each law you become less free. With each regulation of behavior comes more tyranny. Can anyone honestly say (without laughing) that government is moral? When one forfeits their ability to determine what is moral to an immoral institution, people lose their compassion and humanity. To demonstrate, I give you citizen A. This is a real comment by a person from the article linked above.

“They should give the death penalty for people caught texting while driving. That will get them to stop, and it will keep the roads safer.” - Mr. Lucas Brice, Nashua

The fact that there are people out there, who think like the above comment disturbs me greatly. The idea that morality can be shoved down your throat via the barrel of a gun is to engage in doublethink. Doublethink is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas in your head simultaneously, and believe both of them. From the novel 1984, there were three specific pieces of doublethink the party espoused to maintain ignorance of the body public, and kept them compliant.

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

I don’t think it’s difficult to find these forms of doublethink in the common day thinking of the everyday individual. An apt one from the article in question would be:

Morality is Force

If one can’t be moral under force, then one can’t force morality upon another. It’s self-contradictory. This actually falls within the Freedom is Slavery doublethink, in that if you’re not in control of your actions, then how can you be free?

This fallacious spiral we have observed follows, in that all behavior will continue to be restricted until crime disappears. We know this is impossible, yet this is the logic behind each regulation of behavior. Every activity which could possibly result in crime must be regulated through law or licensure. The people continue to be deceived that laws will make them safe, so they sacrifice whatever freedom they have left for “security.” Well, if safety means being tracked 24/7, being watched 24/7, needing permission to move from place to place, being searched at checkpoints or airport terminals, having no ability to speak without being sued for hurting someone’s feelings, requiring me to carry my ID (papers) with me at all times, needing government permission to protect myself (gun permit), and needing the state’s approval (license) to work. If that's my options, "security" as imposed by the state, or freedom?

I choose freedom, and all the responsibility that comes with it.

Travis

U.S. Secret Police? The McCain Bill

2010-03-16T13:30:00.000-07:00

Below is proposed legislation in the Senate by John McCain and Joseph Lieberman, which basically establishes a secret police within the United States, at the President’s discretion. It’s is a particularly chilling piece of legislation. The bill doesn’t have a Senate Bill Number associated with it. The following is my breakdown. The full bill is only 12 pages.

ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERROGATION GROUPS.—(1) ESTABLISHMENT AUTHORIZED.—
The President is authorized to establish an interagency team for purposes as follows:

(A) To interrogate under subsection (b) individuals placed in military custody under section 2.

(B) To make under subsection (c)(1) a preliminary determination of the status of individuals described in section 2.

So the interrogation groups (read: torture groups) are responsible for preliminary determination of "High-Value Detainees."

(2) UTILIZATION OF OTHER PERSONNEL.—
A high-value detainee interrogation group may utilize military and intelligence personnel, and Federal, State, and local law enforcement personnel, in conducting interrogations of a high-value detainee.

Executive personnel at federal, state, and local level can be in these interrogation groups. Below it gets real nasty.

(1) PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION BY HIGH VALUE DETAINEE INTERROGATION GROUP.—
The high-value detainee interrogation group responsible for interrogating a high-value detainee under subsection (b) shall make a preliminary determination whether or not the detainee is an unprivileged enemy belligerent. The interrogation group shall make such determination based on the result of its interrogation of the individual and on all intelligence information available to the interrogation group.

The interrogation group interrogates you first, then decides whether or not you're a enemy belligerent.

(2) FINAL DETERMINATION.—
As soon as possible after receipt of a preliminary determination of status with respect to a high-value detainee under paragraph (1), the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General shall jointly submit to the President and to the appropriate committees of Congress a final determination whether or not the detainee is an unprivileged enemy belligerent for purposes of this Act. In the event of a disagreement between the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, the President shall make the final determination.
(3) DEADLINE FOR DETERMINATIONS.—
All actions required regarding a high-value detainee under this subsection shall, to the extent practicable, be completed not later than 48 hours after the detainee is placed in military custody under section 2.

In a nutshell, they have 48 hours to "interrogate" you, for being "suspected" according to the interrogation group, while the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense decide whether or not you actually are a high-value detainee. Also note the following. Two of the items that can make you a HVD (High-Value Detainee) are:

(C) The potential intelligence value of the individual.

And

(E) Such other matters as the President considers appropriate.

For another perspective on the bill, see the following link.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/congress/3090-mccain-lieberman-bill

Travis

The Police State Apparatus via Incrementalism

2010-03-12T16:02:00.000-08:00

All government action is sold to the public “as a good thing.” Like salesmen, the focus is always on the positive aspects of new policy. The issue of whether the policy violates your rights is never seriously questioned, if it’s even brought up at all. Of course seeing beyond the surface of government policy, the long term/slippery slope should be everyone’s thinking process. If you give someone power, it will be used indiscriminately and abused ultimately.

Orwell’s dystopian vision of Big Brother in his book (1984) is coming into view. When the government enforcement agencies have the capability to watch the populace at their leisure, abuses by the state will magnify –as they always do. All one must observe is the TSA’s behavior to witness this truism in action. We, of course, will have no privacy, but the state will have supreme secrecy. The following quote should send a chill down your spine.

“…the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no ‘reasonable expectation of privacy...’”

They’ll be able to watch you, but you have no idea who the watcher is, nor what exactly they are watching –or watching for. When crime continues beyond the view of the governments’ eyes (the cameras), the clamor won’t be about the obvious failure of the surveillance apparatus or how it is a complete affront to your rights. The government will cry out for even more cameras. It will not stop until they are in your very home, just as Orwell wrote:

The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/britain-to-put-cctv-cameras-inside-private-homes/

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9158818/Pennsylvania_schools_spying_on_students_using_laptop_Webcams_claims_lawsuit

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1164091/Council-uses-spy-plane-thermal-imaging-camera-snoop-homes-wasting-energy.html

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23391081-george-orwell-big-brother-is-watching-your-house.do

It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself—anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face ... was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime ... (George Orwell, “1984”)

It is true that Britain is further along than us in the surveillance realm, but one cannot deny that we are on the same path. In Britain, the surveillance program started with street cameras.

Travis

Healthcare Subsidies and Why They Suck

2010-03-12T15:50:00.000-08:00

I am no fan of our current health insurance system. In a true free market it would have collapsed long ago, and prices would have plummeted as a result. However because it operates via endless government subsidies, this pushes prices ever higher to the point where one can’t pay for doctor visits without health insurance. It is monopoly via government regulation and subsidy. You are forced into the health insurance racket due to healthcare costs being too high. It becomes your only option.

It is important to note that this is the exact opposite effect as what it was sold to the people as. Insurance subsidies are sold to help more people get coverage. However, because individuals make their monthly insurance payments, they can dip into the insurance money “pool” whenever they want and use as much money as their plan allows, indiscriminately. Because the money allotted is always greater than the pay-in, one can see mathematically there isn’t enough money in the pool. It is this economic reality of why this type of system can never work without subsidy. The money will always deplete faster than it will come in.

Let’s put this into perspective. Take gasoline usage for example. You limit your gas consumption based on its current market cost. As the price falls, you will use more (on average), when the price goes up you will cut back your consumption (on average). Let’s say at a roughly fixed price of $3.00 per gallon, you spend roughly 300 dollars per month on gas. Now imagine if you paid gasoline insurance, where you paid in 600 (2 times more than your usual) dollars a month for gas in your car. Let’s also say your plan is capped at 1200 dollars worth of gas per month. How much gas would you use? The odds are you would use closer to the 1200 dollar area, and why not? You’re only paying 600 dollars a month after all. What’s more, you will use at least 600 dollars worth to make sure you’re getting the value you’re paying in.

As you can see, the cost of gas will rise, because more gas is being depleted –thus the demand is at least 2x (and as high as 4x) your ordinary usage. In fact, usage has been increased artificially because people are driving more than they normally would. So supply is also being depleted. Costs are driven up, and price controls may be put in place which would cause shortages (that is another discussion). Those people who didn’t have gas insurance are seeing prices go from 3 dollars to roughly 12 dollars. The odds are they would elect to be paying the 600 dollar monthly fee instead of market prices. What about the people who were barely scraping by at 3 dollars a gallon? Well, they’re out of luck.

Back to healthcare. Because price increases become so dramatic, the subsidy dries up and insurance costs rise. This obviously prices people out of the market altogether and thus they do not have coverage and also cannot afford walk in medical visits. Government grants further subsidy, which drives costs higher, which ultimately pushes insurance premiums higher when the money dries up, which further pushes even more people out of healthcare. It’s an endless vicious cycle. Of course the government solution is always more government and more money. They also blame the market for the failure, never the government intervention itself.

I think it’s interesting to note that when Obama was promoting government centralized healthcare, he did so by demonizing health insurance providers. All the while he was planning to give them 336 billion over 10 years. Obama = monopoly enabler. I guess Obama is saying that they are so bad, we should hand them 336 billion of tax payer money.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/03/a-complicated-enemy-obama-seeks-to-vilify-health-insurers-give-them-336-billion-check.html

Travis

Truth Seekers and Why They are Rare

2010-03-12T15:33:00.000-08:00

People wonder why there aren’t more truth-seekers out there. You know, the ones who won’t succumb to the clamors of the crowd, the ones who aren’t bothered by the status quo. The ones who, no matter how much they are mocked, ridiculed, ostracized, or marginalized, they continue to expose popular myths as fallacious and put forth unpopular realizations that no one wants to face. Most don’t have to walk in the shoes of the truth-seeker, so they never know the path they travel. It’s so much easier for people to believe the lie, or the myth.

The truth is dangerous. It uproots ideas people take for granted. It disturbs a comfortable nest people have made for themselves that they call reality. For if one thing they have believed all their lives is false, what other things might be false? This puts them in an uncomfortable predicament. They must now reevaluate all they believe to be true. They might have to awaken, but sleep is so much more preferable. This being so, most will fight and resist the truth to protect the lie. The battle to preserve the lie is a much shorter battle and easier to accept. Should they acknowledge the truth –the comfort nest will be destroyed.

We must also not forget those who profit from the lie. When an establishment settles, a power structure is formed. Those in the power structure will protect that power and squash all who try to expose or remove said power. So the battle for truth is two-fold, with no reward –other than doing what is right. You must fight the proles (the willfully ignorant), and the power structure.

Ultimately the truth wins, but not before the true patriots have been abused and litter the intellectual battlefield. And with that, I’ll link a tragic story of one such truth-seeker, and some quotes about truth –those who seek it, and those who distort it.

Why Journalist Gary Webb Died
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/120909.html

George Orwell said:
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

John Kennedy said:
“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.”

Mark Twain said:
“In times of change, the Patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot.”

Mahatma Gandhi said:
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Adolf Hitler said:
“The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies."

Joseph Goebbels said:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

I will sum up with a quote by Edward R. Murrow:
“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men — not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.”

Travis