Tuesday, December 8. 2009
What My Baby Is Eating
Friday, December 4. 2009
The Difference Between Obama And Bush
Thursday, October 29. 2009
Pelosi redefines "affordability"
Friday, October 9. 2009
War Criminal Wins Nobel "Peace" Prize
No. It can't be!. Say it ain't so! Tell me that someone sent an Onion article to the MSM:
One can fondly look back at his first murders as president, back in the early and apparently forgotten days of January of 2009, and clearly realize that this man truly is a hero of peace.
What next, the Nobel in Economics for his work in confronting the crisis and contributing to global recovery?
President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation.
One can fondly look back at his first murders as president, back in the early and apparently forgotten days of January of 2009, and clearly realize that this man truly is a hero of peace.
What next, the Nobel in Economics for his work in confronting the crisis and contributing to global recovery?
Friday, September 25. 2009
We are moving to Orlando
After three and a half years in central New York, we are leaving Ithaca for The Sunshine State. That's right, we are moving to Orlando.
People issues aside (we are leaving behind good friends), let's take a look at the pros and cons:
Pros
Cons
We expect to be out of here by late November. Until then I will enjoy the fall colors and the crisp, cold air.
People issues aside (we are leaving behind good friends), let's take a look at the pros and cons:
Pros
- Orlando has more of everything: shopping, restaurants, entertainment, major airport, schools, resources, photography groups, etc.
- I've been wanting to teach Benjamin Spanish. It will be easier there.
- Better chance of finding work on the long run. Ithaca is very small.
- Significantly lower cost of living, especially housing.
- No state income tax; lower sales tax.
- Closer to my family in Florida.
- Weather: no freezing cold, car starts easily, no need to bundle up, no mountains of snow.
- Orlando is the Las Vegas for children. Having The Mouse nearby might be fun. There are also dozens of other similar attractions.
- New opportunities to explore nearby areas.
Cons
- We would no longer be driving distance from my parents or my sister-in-law. But at least there are affordable non-stop flights.
- What one can expect from larger cities: traffic, crime and other inconveniences associated with large metro areas.
- Weather: hot and humid almost year round.
- Flat topography. I am biased against this since I love hills, mountains, waterfalls but will have to learn to see things different with my photo eye.
- Starting over: finding doctors, dentists, child resources, getting oriented.
- Moving sucks.
We expect to be out of here by late November. Until then I will enjoy the fall colors and the crisp, cold air.
"Unlawful Assembly"
Take a look at this BBC video of the clashes between G20 protesters and cops.
The feel of the video eerily reminds me of the Peruvian nightly news that I used to watch in the 80s and early 90s when the military/police would crush protesters (and non-protesters). It was a time of curfews, searches and seizures and road blocks. Freedom of speech, and especially of assembly, were barely tolerated but usually abolished. The cop and the soldier become one and the same. And in its efforts to eradicate terrorism (funded by the global U.S. war on drugs of course), the national government, then a military/left-socialist/right-nationalist mix, itself become another source of terror for the average citizen. One wrong move and the police had the legal authority to execute you on the spot. For your own good.
So when I hear an aggression bureaucrat declare an assembly to be unlawful (about 15 seconds into the video), it brings back memories.
It's a shame that it is all happening in the land of the "free" now. What we call the "police state" should from now on be called the "military state" instead.
Just for kicks, here's another video, this time by CNN. You can hear the same creepy voice in the background.
The feel of the video eerily reminds me of the Peruvian nightly news that I used to watch in the 80s and early 90s when the military/police would crush protesters (and non-protesters). It was a time of curfews, searches and seizures and road blocks. Freedom of speech, and especially of assembly, were barely tolerated but usually abolished. The cop and the soldier become one and the same. And in its efforts to eradicate terrorism (funded by the global U.S. war on drugs of course), the national government, then a military/left-socialist/right-nationalist mix, itself become another source of terror for the average citizen. One wrong move and the police had the legal authority to execute you on the spot. For your own good.
So when I hear an aggression bureaucrat declare an assembly to be unlawful (about 15 seconds into the video), it brings back memories.
It's a shame that it is all happening in the land of the "free" now. What we call the "police state" should from now on be called the "military state" instead.
Just for kicks, here's another video, this time by CNN. You can hear the same creepy voice in the background.
Tuesday, August 11. 2009
What Is The State?
"It is the result of an unprincipled society that does not respect truth and justice. "Liberty" is nothing but an odd and embarrassing word to them, almost meaningless, and destined for the memory hole scrap heap. They want to control the next person, and are willing to put up with being controlled in exchange. They have never wanted liberty, nor have they even understood it, since they were a year and a half into their state run elementary school’s socialistic indoctrination system that conspired to hide and eradicate the idea from their minds." ~Paul E.
Monday, July 20. 2009
War, Secession, and Libertarianism
I have an article today on LRC.
Usually libertarians tend to agree that war bolsters nationalism, props up taxes, and distorts the economy in a multitude of ways. There is also an increased probability of conscription and of the loss of civil liberties. Over the last couple of weeks, however, I have witnessed something that I never thought possible: the open and apparently completely unprincipled support of war – by libertarians.
Take a look at the following recent blog posts and especially the follow-up comments and discussion:
One would expect a principled, radical libertarian to oppose war. Indeed, I’d say most tend to be solid on the war issue: they oppose the destruction of life and property by the US government and by various other governments across the globe, not to mention the constant deterioration of international affairs.
As expected, we saw some defections of the less principled, more moderate types at the beginning of the Iraq war (many of them recanted and crawled back when things went bad; we can only imagine that many of them would now be crowing that a pragmatic approach is best, had there been a quick American victory). What’s the shocking thing is that even hardcore antiwar types seem to have exceptions to their usual antiwar stance if the results are "worth it."
When it comes to wars of secession, and in particular the American Revolution, all bets are off. You see, because the war was heroic, the argument goes, that war is fine. Unlike every other war in the history of the United States, the American Revolution and the war it unleashed had as its objective the political separation of the colonies from the British Empire. And that’s fine, right? Such a view is virtually compelled if one is wed to the idea that the early American nation was a near-libertarian utopia, or the closest the world has ever come. But was it? And was the Revolutionary War justified?
As libertarians, we favor peace, property rights, and voluntary interaction based on contract and consent. We are therefore against the invasion or trespass of property rights; we recognize such actions as crimes and those carrying them out as criminals. It does not matter whether the person committing a crime is a thief wearing a ski mask or wearing a uniform of a county with a patch stamp on the shoulder. Bastiat calls state action against property rights legal plunder:
Thus, we libertarians oppose and condemn both "private" and "public"/government crime. In many – if not most – cases, war is the most immediately destructive force that a state can unleash not just on those beyond its borders but also on those within.
It’s hard to deny that war invariably requires a state, taxation, and even conscription. The Continental Army resorted to taxation and states often resorted to drafting. And when recruitment was down, slaves were drafted to fight in the war (to add insult to injury).
So let me get this straight. In order to fight that most evil of persons, the King, we must empower an aristocrat such as Washington (oh sorry – a local aristocrat ... is this better now?) to lead an army composed of doubly-enslaved folks, and funded by theft. An army in which deserters were often held and executed without trials. And if you had the audacity to hide or protect them from searching officers, you could have been .
It looks to me like the war of secession was more of a traditional war for power than an act of secession from evil tyrants. The Revolutionary War did not even enjoy widespread support; the majority either did not care or was against it. Sure, some of the reasons for the war sound libertarian: freedom from monarchs, lower taxation, self-determination. But what about the means? War, as the saying goes, is the health of the state. We are told that George Washington was a war hero. Yet the same person, in collaboration with very evil Hamilton, would later on be ready to crush anti-tax rebels in Pennsylvania. Come to think of it, it’s almost as if the United States was conceived in tyranny! (See this article by William Marina for the not quite libertarian origins of the United States.)
Unlike war, secession is legitimate, libertarian and – depending on the circumstances – can be a bloodless or mostly bloodless way to separate politically. Take a look at India, the several former Soviet bloc nations, and East Germany. Granted, there were statist efforts here as well, but these did not involve mass murder and mass taxation. Both Lincoln and Davis, for example, were brutal – both resorting too all kinds of violations of rights. (My view on this issue is that I wish both sides would have lost, and that The Confederacy, like the Union was also an economic basket case. See Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation.)
"But what if secession can’t succeed without resorting to war?" it will be asked. So what? War is war. And though libertarians are not generally pacifists, it’s one thing to favor self-defense and another to favor aggression. Otherwise we, too, would have to join the ranks of those who clamor for "war for peace." What if the free market "doesn’t work" to alleviate poverty or to provide health care? From the fact that something might not work if we leave it to the market does not follow that we should put aside charity and favor welfare, or that we should put aside true market health care and favor government action. Besides, laws can be changed without aggressive (and even defensive) violence. I’m not even referring to the political system but instead to things like civil disobedience, outreach, communication and other forms of activism.
To have to write this article is itself somewhat of a concern. If libertarians of all people are not good on war, taxation, conscription, and slavery, what good are they? What’s worse is that some of the more principled and radical libertarians have come to the defense of the Revolutionary War because it "allowed" a small government to protect our freedoms, turning the US into the best experiment* for liberty. Minarchy, after all, is the belief that the free market should be protected by a socialist monopoly. Go figure.
Libertarian warmongers! Amazing. What next, voluntaryists for taxation!?
*Even supporters of the Constitution should realize that, at "best," as Dale Everett puts it, "it was a noble effort, but the founding fathers were misguided to expect a magic scroll to protect their contrived republic." I’d say that this is perhaps a bit too optimistic still, for those "efforts" involved the creation of a (more powerful) state, supposedly controlled by the Constitution compared to the Articles. And at least the political aspect of the Revolution was not anti-state but pro-local state. Down with the king! Down with the republic!
War, Secession, and Libertarianism
Usually libertarians tend to agree that war bolsters nationalism, props up taxes, and distorts the economy in a multitude of ways. There is also an increased probability of conscription and of the loss of civil liberties. Over the last couple of weeks, however, I have witnessed something that I never thought possible: the open and apparently completely unprincipled support of war – by libertarians.
Take a look at the following recent blog posts and especially the follow-up comments and discussion:
- Happy We-Should-Restore-The-Monarchy-And-Rejoin-Britain Day!
- The Murdering, Thieving, Enslaving, Unlibertarian Continental Army (alt)
- Revising the American Revolution
- http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/029113.html / Re ‘Untold Truths About the American Revolution’
- The Declaration And Conscription
One would expect a principled, radical libertarian to oppose war. Indeed, I’d say most tend to be solid on the war issue: they oppose the destruction of life and property by the US government and by various other governments across the globe, not to mention the constant deterioration of international affairs.
As expected, we saw some defections of the less principled, more moderate types at the beginning of the Iraq war (many of them recanted and crawled back when things went bad; we can only imagine that many of them would now be crowing that a pragmatic approach is best, had there been a quick American victory). What’s the shocking thing is that even hardcore antiwar types seem to have exceptions to their usual antiwar stance if the results are "worth it."
When it comes to wars of secession, and in particular the American Revolution, all bets are off. You see, because the war was heroic, the argument goes, that war is fine. Unlike every other war in the history of the United States, the American Revolution and the war it unleashed had as its objective the political separation of the colonies from the British Empire. And that’s fine, right? Such a view is virtually compelled if one is wed to the idea that the early American nation was a near-libertarian utopia, or the closest the world has ever come. But was it? And was the Revolutionary War justified?
As libertarians, we favor peace, property rights, and voluntary interaction based on contract and consent. We are therefore against the invasion or trespass of property rights; we recognize such actions as crimes and those carrying them out as criminals. It does not matter whether the person committing a crime is a thief wearing a ski mask or wearing a uniform of a county with a patch stamp on the shoulder. Bastiat calls state action against property rights legal plunder:
But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
Thus, we libertarians oppose and condemn both "private" and "public"/government crime. In many – if not most – cases, war is the most immediately destructive force that a state can unleash not just on those beyond its borders but also on those within.
It’s hard to deny that war invariably requires a state, taxation, and even conscription. The Continental Army resorted to taxation and states often resorted to drafting. And when recruitment was down, slaves were drafted to fight in the war (to add insult to injury).
So let me get this straight. In order to fight that most evil of persons, the King, we must empower an aristocrat such as Washington (oh sorry – a local aristocrat ... is this better now?) to lead an army composed of doubly-enslaved folks, and funded by theft. An army in which deserters were often held and executed without trials. And if you had the audacity to hide or protect them from searching officers, you could have been .
It looks to me like the war of secession was more of a traditional war for power than an act of secession from evil tyrants. The Revolutionary War did not even enjoy widespread support; the majority either did not care or was against it. Sure, some of the reasons for the war sound libertarian: freedom from monarchs, lower taxation, self-determination. But what about the means? War, as the saying goes, is the health of the state. We are told that George Washington was a war hero. Yet the same person, in collaboration with very evil Hamilton, would later on be ready to crush anti-tax rebels in Pennsylvania. Come to think of it, it’s almost as if the United States was conceived in tyranny! (See this article by William Marina for the not quite libertarian origins of the United States.)
Unlike war, secession is legitimate, libertarian and – depending on the circumstances – can be a bloodless or mostly bloodless way to separate politically. Take a look at India, the several former Soviet bloc nations, and East Germany. Granted, there were statist efforts here as well, but these did not involve mass murder and mass taxation. Both Lincoln and Davis, for example, were brutal – both resorting too all kinds of violations of rights. (My view on this issue is that I wish both sides would have lost, and that The Confederacy, like the Union was also an economic basket case. See Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation.)
"But what if secession can’t succeed without resorting to war?" it will be asked. So what? War is war. And though libertarians are not generally pacifists, it’s one thing to favor self-defense and another to favor aggression. Otherwise we, too, would have to join the ranks of those who clamor for "war for peace." What if the free market "doesn’t work" to alleviate poverty or to provide health care? From the fact that something might not work if we leave it to the market does not follow that we should put aside charity and favor welfare, or that we should put aside true market health care and favor government action. Besides, laws can be changed without aggressive (and even defensive) violence. I’m not even referring to the political system but instead to things like civil disobedience, outreach, communication and other forms of activism.
To have to write this article is itself somewhat of a concern. If libertarians of all people are not good on war, taxation, conscription, and slavery, what good are they? What’s worse is that some of the more principled and radical libertarians have come to the defense of the Revolutionary War because it "allowed" a small government to protect our freedoms, turning the US into the best experiment* for liberty. Minarchy, after all, is the belief that the free market should be protected by a socialist monopoly. Go figure.
Libertarian warmongers! Amazing. What next, voluntaryists for taxation!?
*Even supporters of the Constitution should realize that, at "best," as Dale Everett puts it, "it was a noble effort, but the founding fathers were misguided to expect a magic scroll to protect their contrived republic." I’d say that this is perhaps a bit too optimistic still, for those "efforts" involved the creation of a (more powerful) state, supposedly controlled by the Constitution compared to the Articles. And at least the political aspect of the Revolution was not anti-state but pro-local state. Down with the king! Down with the republic!
Friday, July 10. 2009
Turn In Your Neighbor For $1000
Cory Booker, Mayor of Newark and member of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition has a video explaining how to turn in your neighbor for $1000 cash, no questions asked. He calls this the best program in the country. Awful, of course. But there's more.
On the CoryBooker.com site, there's this PDF where Booker refers to the Heller gun case to continue his anti-gun activities:
There's that word again, "reasonable," coming out of the mouth of a local tyrant, mimicking the same attitude echoed by the Supreme Court. "Sure," they say--there are gun rights, "as long as there are reasonable restrictions." Nothing is reasonable with the state. Including you, Mr. Booker. Maybe he should be turned in for having an entire and terribly dangerous police department. All with evil guns.
(Also, there is no gun freedom in NJ. I guess that's what passes for "reasonable" these days.)
On the CoryBooker.com site, there's this PDF where Booker refers to the Heller gun case to continue his anti-gun activities:
In District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court affirmed an individual's right to bear arms, effectively striking down the ban on hand gun ownership enacted by the District of Columbia. In its decision, the Court clearly recognized and affirmed a government's right to take reasonable measures to limit gun ownership in order to ensure community safety. It is within this space that we must now act.
There's that word again, "reasonable," coming out of the mouth of a local tyrant, mimicking the same attitude echoed by the Supreme Court. "Sure," they say--there are gun rights, "as long as there are reasonable restrictions." Nothing is reasonable with the state. Including you, Mr. Booker. Maybe he should be turned in for having an entire and terribly dangerous police department. All with evil guns.
(Also, there is no gun freedom in NJ. I guess that's what passes for "reasonable" these days.)
Saturday, July 4. 2009
7/4/09
Wednesday, June 17. 2009
State Department Loves Twitter!
When the Iranian government decided to (attempt to) clamp down on the Internet, users turned to social networking tools such as Twitter.
What's ironic is that the US State Department asked the Twitter folks not to shut down the service (due for maintenance) so that photos, videos and text would be available to those seeking updates about the mess in Iran.
But why is this ironic? Because Lord Obama wants to create an Internet czar with the power to control the Internet in times of emergency. (See the Cybersecurity Act of 2009--I think they forgot the scare quotes around security, btw).
If we ever had (major) election turmoil in this country, would it also be considered an "emergency"? To ask is to answer.
What's ironic is that the US State Department asked the Twitter folks not to shut down the service (due for maintenance) so that photos, videos and text would be available to those seeking updates about the mess in Iran.
But why is this ironic? Because Lord Obama wants to create an Internet czar with the power to control the Internet in times of emergency. (See the Cybersecurity Act of 2009--I think they forgot the scare quotes around security, btw).
If we ever had (major) election turmoil in this country, would it also be considered an "emergency"? To ask is to answer.
Wednesday, June 3. 2009
The Wedding of Virginia & Rich
(Page 1 of 80, totaling 1200 entries)
next page »
