June 30, 2003
OnPower.org
The Independent Institute--the libertarain think-tank--has just launched a new website, www.OnPower.org, dedicated to the study of the growth of government power. It has a great selection of essays organized by topic (e.g. civil liberties, defense, etc.). It looks like it will be a great resource (and sadly ever more relevant).
Check it out.
Posted by Lee McCracken at 07:31 PM | Comments (508) | TrackBack
June 28, 2003
Geroge W Bush Claims Stupidity not Lying
How ironic! George W Bush has always had to deal with questions and insinuations about his mental capacity. Yes, he often has an ignorant expression on his face and he has been known to mangle the language, but we were encouraged to believe that Dubya is a lot smarter than he appears - until recently that is. When the going gets tough, it seems George W gets stupid. Here are a few examples:
Experts in US intelligence repeatedly stated that evidence that Iraq bought uranium from niger was a forgery, yet George W didn't lie when he made that claim in the State of the Union address, he was just too stupid to believe definitive evidence when he saw it.
The same experts repeatedly stated that there were no Iraq ties with Al Queda, but George W didn't lie to us when he told us there were ties, he was just too stupid to believe his own intelligence services.
George W claims he is stupid enough to believe that plummeting morale and hourly attacks against US forces are "militarily insignificant" and "making progress"
There are plenty more examples, I'm sorry to say.
So now we are to believe that a President who claims to be stupid and who others believe is stupid is competent to make life and death decisions regarding war. It seems he is smart enough to know lying is an impeachable offense and being stupid is not. It is a sad day when stupidity is the best explanation for the President's actions.
The man is dangerous. If he is only half as stupid as he claims to be, he is clearly too stupid to know that the only way he can support the troops now is to bring their "sorry asses" home. Futher escalation leading to more death, expense, etc. would be stupid.
Posted by David Wiggins at 12:47 AM | Comments (348) | TrackBack
June 27, 2003
Globocop?
The U.S., according to the LA Times, is considering the creation of a "global peacekeeping force" that "would operate outside the auspices of the United Nations and NATO and would include thousands of U.S. Army troops trained for, and permanently assigned to, peacekeeping work."
Back in 2000 I took Bush at his word that he was opposed to this kind of liberal-imperialist do-goodery. Shows how much I know.
Posted by Lee McCracken at 05:12 PM | Comments (396) | TrackBack
Patrick Kennedy lets the truth slip out
From today's Washington Post: "As sometimes happens with Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), he let his mouth race ahead of his brain Wednesday night at a gathering of Young Democrats at the Washington nightspot Acropolis. After presidential candidate Howard Dean spoke, Kennedy delivered an impassioned peroration against President Bush's tax cut. We hear that Kennedy told the crowd: 'I don't need Bush's tax cut. I have never worked a [bleeping] day in my life.' With that he got the audience's attention -- the dropping-jaws kind. 'He droned on and on, frequently mentioning how much better the candidates would sound the more we drank,' a witness told us. 'Finally, he had to be stopped by a DNC volunteer.'"
Posted by Rob at 11:30 AM | Comments (352) | TrackBack
June 26, 2003
Welcome to Gattaca?
The British National Health Service is looking into creating a database where the DNA of every child born in the UK could be stored for future medical treatment.
The government also claims that it will use this information to protect people who might face discrimination because of something in their genetic make-up. But, as the recent affirmative action decisions here remind us, governments have their own agendas when it comes to sorting people according to some arbitrarily selected characteristic.
Plus, when the government is already paying your medical bill and it knows all about your genetic history, what sorts of infringements of liberty might seem to be jusifiable? "I'm sorry sir, but your genetic profile indicates a disposition to alcoholism. And since the state pays for your health care, we can't permit you to have that pint of stout with your dinner."
I can't help but be reminded of the underrated 1997 movie Gattaca, which depicts a dystopian near future where the authorities determine people's place in society by their genetic make-up. Such knowledge will almost surely offer a pretext for "planning" society in some way or another. Or for coercive measures to redress the "unfairness" of inequalities in genetic endowment. Or, worst case scenario, the return of coercive eugenics.
I'm reminded of what C.S. Lewis said regarding the "conquest of nature" through technological manipulation: "Man’s power over nature is really the power of some men over others with nature as their instrument."
Posted by Lee McCracken at 03:27 PM | Comments (539) | TrackBack
June 25, 2003
Our protectors are so thoughtful
The 9-11 disaster is giving the State too much fun. We don't need to stop the COG amendment. We need to eliminate the State, as our Founders should have done.
Posted by George F. Smith at 11:38 PM | Comments (451) | TrackBack
Intolerance and Rejection of Faith
Re: A Critique of the Declaration of Independence
by Paul Wakfer
It is unfortunate that Mr. Wakfer dismisses the beliefs of a Creator and Supreme Being that many Founders shared. His emphatic statement that “nature - reality - is all that exists” is arrogant, to say the least. How does he know? The belief that there is, definitively, NO Supreme Being requires faith, the same as required of those who believe there IS one. He argues that believing in such heresy “promotes a continuation and strengthening of the irrationality of supernaturalism from which the state and all the forces of anti-rationalism gain strength.” I would argue this only occurs when religious tenets (Christian, the ones to which I’m most familiar) are distorted and abused.
Mr. Wakfer seems to want to shortchange the value of the Scriptures, as well. He states our inalienable rights are, “fully derivable from the nature of man and of reality, as the conditions of interaction of intelligent volitional beings which are necessary for each to maximize his integrated lifetime happiness.” How is this any different than the lessons that many of the Founders insist they derived from Biblical scripture? I would argue that the thought that the existence of these rights be necessary for happiness came to most through scripture, either directly or indirectly, whether they’ll admit to it or not. Or did thoughtful, isolated individuals merely come to these truths through “emanations of the penumbra?” Where have I heard that before?
His insistent atheism mars what otherwise is a brilliant analysis.
Posted by Roger Young at 10:58 PM | Comments (650) | TrackBack
The Initiation of Force Is Always Wrong
From a Democrat/leftist/statist reader: "My argument with Libertarians is that they are dogmatic in their views about State Power! It is my view that all judgments about right and wrong, about good and bad, true and false is determined not by a sacred dogmatic political belief, but by the specific situation, circumstances and conditions that happen to prevail at a particular point in time!"
Libertarians don't make any judgements about what is true or false, but we do make judgements about what is right and wrong, and the initiation of force against peaceful people is always wrong. That is what distinguishes libertarians from everyone else. Non-libertarians believe it's OK to use force against peaceful people, usually when the politicians they support are in power.
Posted by Rob at 07:05 PM | Comments (346) | TrackBack
Cato vs. the Neocons
This editorial by Ed Crane and William Niskanen of the Cato institute is getting a lot of buzz in libertarian circles today. They basically come out in four-square opposition to the neoconservative program to extend government at home and abroad.
"Underlying neo-conservatism is a desire to reshape America and the world through the efforts of a robust federal government. For years The Weekly Standard, the neo-conservative magazine, has pushed for initiatives to reinforce US international power. Merely living in a free society appears to be insufficient for neo-conservatives."
They call for an alliance of limited government conservatives, leftist civil libertarians and plain-old libertarians against the post-9/11 federal power grab. Cato is a pretty mainstream organization; it's a hopeful sign that not everyone has been blinded by propaganda.
Posted by Lee McCracken at 04:59 PM | Comments (282) | TrackBack
June 24, 2003
Tyrannical Tattle
I gave up some time ago watching network TV news. I have, however, sporadically watched local news, as a lot can be going on in a large metropolitan area. But watch your local newscast(s) some day and notice how a large percentage of the stories (sometime all of them) have a component of the State involved. Whether it be a politician, bureaucrat, law enforcement officer, health inspector, etc., chances are some individual or group associated with one or more of the myriad levels of State encroachment will be party to the story or issue discussed.
There are two explanations for this:
1) Journalists tend to be statist-oriented and look toward that corner of the world for news, that to them, is most meaningful. They also tend to be lazy. My God, look how many murder trials are covered even though 99% of the audience will not be affected by its outcome. There’s easy material there for a shiftless reporter.
2) The State has become so involved and entangled in every societal nook it can reach that it is nearly impossible to view a story or issue where government doesn’t have it’s tentacles reaching in, toward or about. And where do reporters tend to go to for comments- a government official. It’s very eye-opening when you notice this; when you realize just how enslaved we are becoming. The State has come to occupy every minute facet of our lives.
I think I’ll just stick with watching the weather, for now. It’s usually the most (sometimes the only) relevant information given on your local newscast.
Posted by Roger Young at 09:32 PM | Comments (423) | TrackBack
The IRS Mission
The other day I received some forms in the mail from the IRS, including Publication 1, "Your Rights as a Taxpayer." It states the IRS mission: "Provide America's taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all." That sounds great, doesn't it? But what if I don't want their "service"? What are my "tax responsibilities," and how did I get them? How would the IRS help me "meet" them?
Using words like "responsibilities" and "integrity and fairness" to describe looting and plunder is really Orwellian.
Posted by Rob at 09:29 PM | Comments (381) | TrackBack
Is there a "Lesser of Two Evils" anymore?
In some quarters (mostly among left-liberals and some libertarians) it has become conventional wisdom that it doesn't matter who wins in 2004 so long as it's not Bush.
The argument is that the crucial issues of our time are issues like privacy, civil liberties and war, and that with respect to these almost any Democrat would be preferable to Bush.
But those who argue this seem to have short memories. After all, it was Clinton who used Oklahoma City to justify the egregious 1996 anti-terrorism bill that some have called PATRIOT beta version. Not to mention the assault weapon ban, Waco and a host of other domestic outrages.
Plus, it appears that the Dems have recovered from their post-Vietnam aversion to the use of U.S. power abroad. How many Democratic congressmen voted yes on the Iraq resolution? And which president presided over the war on Serbia and near-daily bombings of Iraq along with sanctions?
Barring the nomination of someone like Dennis Kucinich (who for all his statist economic views has consistently opposed the Iraq war and the erosion of civil liberties post-9/11), from a pro-civil liberties, anti-imperialist perspective, there may not really be a lesser of two evils in '04.
Posted by Lee McCracken at 07:50 PM | Comments (452) | TrackBack
Freedom is Not Free
A friend of mine e-mailed me the following, which is good:
So, as I was driving through town today, I saw that an addition had been made to the Welcome to Moosup (CT) sign. Sadly, it was not "Where cousins marry cousins" or "Drugs sold in rear." No, instead, someone somewhere decided to paint in the phrase "Freedom Is Not Free!!"
Later on in the afternoon, as I enjoyed my shower/beer (which I highly recommend if you have not tried it, nothing beats a cold beer in a hot shower), I thought to myself, what does that mean? Freedom is not free? So freedom has a cost, eh? What is the cost of freedom? To whom do we pay it? When the government extorts money from my paycheck, am I subsidizing freedom? Whose freedom? Certainly not mine...
Then I got to considering, we have mostly seen this phrase since the attacks two Septembers ago. Freedom is not free seems to mean we will somehow have to make somebody else pay for our freedom. Hmm, says I. So, perhaps killing lots of brown-skinned non-Americans is how we pay the cost of freedom...
Seeing as to how I seem to disagree in every way with this conception of freedom, and certainly do not want to subsidize it, do you think I could get my contribution back, so I could spend it on alcohol, tobacco, and/or firearms, and really celebrate freedom?
Posted by Jacob Halbrooks at 07:30 PM | Comments (502) | TrackBack
In Praise of Dictators
According to the BBC, President Bush praised Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf as "a courageous leader" and an ally in the war on terror.
So let me get this straight: Musharraf, an unelected strongman who keeps a lid on Islamic fundamentalism in his country: good.
Saddam, an unelected strongman who kept a lid on Islamic fundamentalism in his country: bad.
This "democracy" stuff sure can get confusing.
Posted by Lee McCracken at 12:47 PM | Comments (490) | TrackBack
Free Market and Wal-Mart
Hello everybody. I just was arguing last night with a friend of mine about Wal-Mart. She read this piece on it in Fortune, and is upset about their business practices. I read it and told her the free market would eventually smooth out any problems (if Costco pays better, employees will leave Wal-Mart and eventually Wal-Mart will have to raise prices to match up with their demand). I had no idea they were America's number one private employer but at 1 million employees they pale in comparison to the federal gov. at 9 million employees.
Posted by Bernard Chapin at 12:30 PM | Comments (360) | TrackBack
Are We Safer Yet?
There is a tremendous mass self-deception regarding the war on terror. "The majority" of americans will say when asked that they feel Bush's efforts have made us safer from terrorism. The gut feeling is the opposite. We all feel like we are more likely to become victims. Warnings such as this did not seem to be so realistic just months ago. As humans we know that if we stir up trouble, trouble will find us no matter how bravely we talk or how much rhetoric our so-called leaders spew. In our own self-interest and our children's, we must rid ouselves of Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheny, Rice, Powell, and these other dangerous, power-mad government officials. (peacefully) If we do not do what we can to accomplish this, we cannot really call ourselves innocent civilians and history will treat us similarly to civilians who enabled the Nazis
Posted by David Wiggins at 12:02 PM | Comments (335) | TrackBack
Nine Against Porn
"It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly." - Henry George, 1839-1897
Apparently a majority of the Nine Supremes believe to the contrary. In fact, they also believe, as evidenced by yesterday's ruling, that FedGov has the right to withhold Fed funding from libraries that do not install filtering software on their computers. This reinforces the fact that the Tenth Amendment has been dumped into the fabled dustbin of history.
As with the 55-mph speed limit and the national .08 percent blood-alcohol level for driving under the influence, FedGov calls the tune and states and cities do a marionette dance because of the strings attached to FedBucks. The Don Vito would be proud.
Even those of us who believe in private funding for libraries must admit to the current existence of the tax-funded kind, and the desirability of local control as opposed to typical Federally-extorted heavy-handed one-size-fits-all regulation.
Posted by at 09:33 AM | Comments (313)
Left and Right
From a reader:
Thought you might enjoy the following, a reply to Mr. Michael Leon at CounterPunch on Waco, the link to which I found at STR. Pretty much sums up my thoughts.
========================
Mr. Leon,
Having just read your piece re: Waco, all I can say is, "well done!"
While holding views that would be considered diametrically opposed to "progressivism," I welcome anyone that has the vision to discern the lies, death and corruption that is modern government. And that is all that is needed.
The false left-right, republican-democrat divide is just that, false. A means by which to Balkanize and divide freedom minded Americans, and divert their attention from the actions of government.
This coming from a person who used to consider himself an "extreme right wing Republican." I have come as far from that sophomoric view as a journey from the moon.
Bush I was bad, Clinton was worse, and Bush II is worse still. And Democrats, for all their heated rhetoric, are just as bad. (Read the sponsors list of SB 22, the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act," a version of Patriot Act II and III and IV essentially, a who's who of "leading" Democrats are the sponsors of this freedom killing bill, which, of course, Bush has indicated he will sign.)
Many of us on the "freedom minded right," for want of a better term, have come to grips with many of the concerns of the "progressive left," such as drug legalization, homosexuality, minority rights and so on. If the progressive left could come to the same understanding that economic liberty, the right to keep the fruits of one's labor and their property free from oppressive taxation and regulation, and that the right to keep and bear arms is there to protect, as a last ditch effort, against the enslavement of all, there could then be forged a common cause between left and right, and we might just be able to seize our country back from the merchants of death and tyranny that now control it.
Posted by Rob at 09:09 AM | Comments (365) | TrackBack
June 23, 2003
How to kill a republic
If you want to switch sovereignty from the individual to the state, promote war. As James Madison wrote:
Of all enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
You'll find this quote and others in Ralph Raico's six-part essay, American Foreign Policy -- The Turning Point, 1898-1919, available at the Future of Freedom Foundation.
While you're there, see Joseph R. Stromberg's The Spanish-American War: The Leap into Overseas Empire, Part 1
Stromberg notes that the "Spanish-American War launched the United States [on a path] of a modern nonaristocratic empire founded on state power but oriented towards commercial gain for well-connected friends and associates."
Posted by George F. Smith at 11:40 PM | Comments (1135) | TrackBack
Killing
"It is forbidden to kill, therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." ~ Voltaire
Posted by Rob at 10:27 PM | Comments (976) | TrackBack
The REAL reason behind Gulf War Syndrome
Here is the real reason behind Gulf War Syndrome. Depleted Uranium. This exposes troops to tremendous increases in radioactivity over the normal background radiation levels - especially when fine dust due to explosions is inhaled. The cases are ALREADY showing up. Expect an epidemic in the next few years. Regarding costs of war - you can double the cost when the cost of health care for this is added in. Remeber Clausewitz's "friction of war"? Seems the US has introduced the "radiation of war."
Posted by David Wiggins at 03:30 PM | Comments (1186) | TrackBack
Race Does Matter
According to the Supremes, as of today race does matter in the University of Michigan Law School admission criteria.
Two hundred years of American history, including a war that wasted 620,000 lives, had supposedly resulted in a society that was supposed to be "color blind." "Well," say the Nine Eunuchs, "it just ain't so. We do see color."
Since U of M is a State of Michigan operation, today's conclusion will have far-reaching impacts on government, governmental operations, quasi-governmental organizations, and, coming soon to your neighborhood, private businesses doing business with government.
You folks in personnel—excuse me, Human Resources—departments in the private sector: get ready.
The rules, they are a-changin.'
Posted by at 02:22 PM | Comments (1007) | TrackBack
Paint It Black
Regarding the proposed new Union Jack flag, why add just a few black stripes? I say paint the whole thing black.
Posted by Rob at 11:53 AM | Comments (1081) | TrackBack
Iraqi Tet Offensive July 17th?
It surprises me that the US is suffering as few attacks as they are in Iraq - a nation of 25 million and many large cities. One attack per major city per day would be small. It strikes me that the resistance to US forces is in a reconnisance phase - gathering information, using probing attacks to test responses, and a few spectacular attacks such as pipeline explosions to keep up morale. Look for real resistance to begin on or around 17 July - Iraq's version of US July 4th. This much has been stated or implied numerous times by Iraq resistance fighters and even Saddam himself (possibly) see:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/14/1055220808849.html
http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030623-122738-6832r.htm
Posted by David Wiggins at 11:40 AM | Comments (544) | TrackBack
Exploiting the tyranny
This article about the new "Rave law" gave me an idea: Exploit the tyranny for our own purposes. I think I'll talk to some of my local "Food not Bombs" friends (since they frequently organize events with the intent of getting arrested, anyway) about attending fundraisers for organizations like the Fraternal Order of Police with a few joints in hand.
Posted by Andy Henke at 02:25 AM | Comments (362) | TrackBack
Revolt of the Conservatives?
It can't be a good sign for the Bush administration when even quintessential establishment conservative George Will is beginning to smell something rotten in the state of Denmark.
In yesterday's column Will points out the devastating impact the failure to find WMD could have on Bush's doctrine of pre-emption:
"To govern is to choose, almost always on the basis of very imperfect information. But pre-emption presupposes the ability to know things--to know about threats with a degree of certainty not requisite for decisions less momentous than those for waging war."
Of course, one could make the familiar Hayekian argument that "imperfect information" is precisely why governing should be strictly circumscribed, but let that pass.
Will then floats some mostly unpersuasive theories about how Saddam's WMD could've been destroyed immediately prior to the war. But he ends with this sobering thought:
"...unless America's foreign policy is New Age therapy to make the public feel mellow, feeling good about the consequences of an action does not obviate the need to assess the original rationale for the action. Until WMDs are found, or their absence accounted for, there is urgent explaining to be done."
When even hawkish neocons can voice these thoughts, there may yet be hope.
Posted by Lee McCracken at 01:25 AM | Comments (444) | TrackBack
June 21, 2003
mystery ships
Remember those three mystery ships that were supposedly sailing around the Arabian peninsula before the war? We were told that they were suspected of having some of Saddam's WMD on board, so the US Navy was tracking them but didn't want to stop and search them because they might blow up. Whatever happened to them?
Posted by Rob at 08:29 PM