A New Age of Reason

2008-11-07T21:18:00.001-08:00

Fun with Compulsory National Service....

Immigration Solution?

2006-04-10T13:30:00.000-07:00

With the immigration protests bringing the issue to the forefront,
I've decided to think on the issue. The border is broken. We know it and the Mexicans know it.

There are three solutions bandied about:

1. Do Nothing
2. Legalize the aliens.
3. Use the army and build a real wall along the 2000 mile border.

Option One is stupid. Option two is a slap in the face for legal immigrants.
Imagine it this way, you are waiting in line for a ride at disneyland. After a two hour wait you reach the front of the line only to have 300 people cut in front of you and demand to go on the ride. It strikes me a dreadfully unfair to those who tried to play by the rules, who spent time and money to come here legally.

Option three could be done for around 16 billion dollars. This is a real option. We would need to bring the troops home from around the world (a good thing IMO) and we could build a replacement for the panama canal as part of it.

But what if there was another option? One so crazy it just might work?

My suggestion:

We have the seven northern states of Mexico vote on whether to join the USA.

The consequences:

If all seven joined, the US would grow in land area by 10%. Those wishing to become Americans could move to these states and thus have a smoother transition. We could have a five to ten year transition period, were any work done in this area is tax free. This would probably drive skilled workers SOUTH from the US into these new states.

Currently 15 Billion dollars is transferred into Mexico from the US. Since Mexico has done nothing to stop the migration (indeed they encourage it) We make them an offer:

Allow your northern states the chance to vote on US statehood, or we cut off all wire transfers. The US could then pay Mexico for any state just like the Louisiana Purchase.

Imagine the explosion of jobs in such a huge tax free zone. We could even add a requirement that those here illegally MUST return to the new states and live there for 5-10 years at which time they would become citizens. Those who refuse to do so would be permanently banned from US soil (a mandatory 10 year jail sentence if caught in the US again).

These new states would see an explosion of jobs, the new citizens would have plenty of room to live, and a smooth transition into the American way of life.

Why Liberals and Conservatives just don't get it.

2006-04-03T16:58:00.000-07:00

Conservatives love to bash Liberals for their idealism, and Liberals love to bash conservatives for their moralism. Did you know however that neither word means what it originally meant?

Classical Liberalism is based upon the idea that Liberty, both social and economic go hand in hand and are INNATE. It stems from the idea that society is there as a voluntary construct, which serves to enhance the quality of life of those within it.

Classical Conservatism is based upon the idea that radical change is usually a bad idea, that the values and customs of previous generations have worth. The idea that these things have survived the test of time and thus should not be tinkered with unless there is a great need to do so.

Most of the world's societies are based upon the idea of private property.
Yet Both modern liberalism and modern conservatism violate this fundamental ideal.

Liberals violate this ideal by seeking to make the world "fair". They seek to redistribute wealth using the power of the state. Conservatives violate this ideal by intruding upon the private moral decisions of the individual. It always amuses me when liberals talk about those evil gun owners, and how we should do away with all guns (except for the police and army of course).

If you are one of these liberals I have a question:

You equate guns with violence. Yet, guns can be used both in a responsible manner for self defense, and an irresponsible one (murder,theft). My question is this how does this differ from voting?

Voting is the ultimate use of force. It is a mandate which subjects the minority
to the will of the majority. It allows elected officials to wage war, punish dissent, and use your property (tax dollars) as he sees fit.

If you were to have a consistent position, you would either support a ban of universal suffrage AND gun ownership, or admit that if a man is competent to use force at the ballot box, then he is competent to own a gun.

Conservatives amuse me whenever they try to mandate morality, on issues such as abortion. It is a typical conservative position on issues such as welfare that a person should be held responsible for their decisions. This is in my opinion a correct assumption. However they sidestep this position in a major way when it comes to moral issues.

To wit, If you seek to use governmental power to ban abortion outright, you have taken over freedom of choice from an individual, and thus YOU are morally responsible for the outcome. This means YOU as an individual now have a responsibility for raising said child.

If you seek to punish drug use, You are then responsible for providing treatment for those addicted, who now cannot use said substance. If you seek to ban adoption by gay couples, then ethically YOU must step up and adopt an unwanted child yourself.

In short any time you limit the freedom of an individual to make such a moral judgment YOU MUST then take responsibility for YOUR actions.

I started this post with the fact that society is based upon the idea of private property. I will end it with the question that should be the foundation of any political viewpoint. That question is Who owns you?

Your body is physical property just like anything else. Thus there can be three answers:
1. You own yourself.
2. The state or society owns you.
3. No one owns you.

Answer Three makes no sense in a world where everything else is owned by someone/something. Thus the remaining choices are either you own your body, or society does. If your answer is number one, then you consider yourself a free person. If you answer is number two then you are a slave.

Any rational political world view should be based upon answer number one. It follows that ALL men are free, and that any action which limits that freedom is a step towards slavery.

Government in its purest sense is the balance between pure freedom and slavery. It is a necessary evil, and thus the smallest possible government which allows society to work is its optimum size. From this flows a clear set of political ideals. Whenever any law is proposed, or any official runs for election, you must be willing to analyze the law or person, see which freedoms are being curtailed and then trace what responsibilities you take on by voting for it/them.

The Death of Dissent.

2006-03-06T11:43:00.000-08:00

Well it seems the Imperial Administration is at it again. This time going after
the press. Lets see what former presidents thought about it :

"Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels-men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine, as their heirs, we may never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion."
- Dwight David Eisenhower

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
- Theodore Roosevelt

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost."
-Thomas Jefferson

"The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. "
-Thomas Jefferson

"If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
- George Washington

2005-12-15T21:09:00.000-08:00

King George - "Constitution is just a goddamned piece of Paper!"

2005-12-12T08:53:00.000-08:00

Well well, the cat is among the canaries now. Reading through a pro Second Amendment site, I came across this news Story

Friends, there is a REASON for the second Amendment, and this story clearly shows WHY. Our right to bear arms is not and never has been about hunting. The founding fathers recognized that an armed citizenry is the LAST check against tyranny.

Am I saying we have reached despotism? No, but when the President can call the Constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper" (after swearing a LEGAL OATH to preserve, protect and defend it) that is a large step towards tyranny.

At a minimum Congress should hold impeachment hearings to determine if the president did indeed make that remark. If true, he should be immediately impeached and removed from office!

The Authority of the President and indeed the entire Federal government comes from that goddamned piece of paper. The troops which "Mr." Bush so blithely sent to Iraq also swore an oath to defend that goddamned piece of paper. Indeed although that goddamned piece of paper DOES NOT grant rights to the people (they are natural rights and thus INHERENT in ALL PEOPLE) it DOES GRANT power to the government FROM THE PEOPLE.

If King George uttered these words, he must be removed from office. Forward the story to your friends and family, call the news, and call your congressmen. Demand an investigation and impeachment proceedings.

Support Cindy, Buy Nothing

2005-08-17T09:14:00.000-07:00

For many years I've watched the slow and agonizing death of the republic. The fourth amendment is all but dead thanks in large part to the patriot act and the war on drugs. Both the fifth and sixth amendments are now meaningless in a world where every government act is justified in the "war on Terra". The ninth and tenth amendments are also long gone.

The federal government has grown from one with only the power of defense to a monstrosity whose tentacles reach into every niche of daily life, yet all without a change to the constitution, from whence its power comes.

I've watched the media with interest, noting what it says, and more importantly what it does not say. Some examples of what you did not see:

Did you know in the 2004 presidential election there was another candidate on the ballot in 48 states? (Ralph Nader was on the ballot in only 34)

Did you know he was a staunch anti-war candidate?

Did you know that he was arrested for trying to attend the presidential debates?

Yet none of this was mentioned on the nightly news. Ask yourself, If this had happened in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, would the news have covered it?

Today our troops are bogged down in Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and we are now there to spread "democracy". Strangely the administration no longer mentions Osama Bin Laden, the whole reason we invaded in the first place. We are told the troops cannot be pulled out because our prestige as a nation is at stake, or that if we do withdraw all the troops that have died will have died in vain.

If you lost your son in Iraq, would you want your neighbors son to die fighting just to make yourself feel better? Is the prestige of the nation worth more than your own son or daughter? If this war is so important, why do less than 10 members of congress have children serving in the military? Ask yourself, what would you do if Chinese or Russian troops were here in the USA to promote their version of "democracy"? Well intentioned or not, democracy cannot be imposed.

Cindy Sheehan, having gone through the loss of her son, is determined to ask the president (her public servant remember) exactly why it is he feels he can play at empire regardless of the consequences. One woman alone can be ignored. She has neither the wealth nor the influence to be taken seriously. Neither do we. Even a few hundred people gathered outside the presidential vacation house can be safely shunted aside.

What cannot be ignored is the corporate bottom line. My suggestion is simple:

Buy NOTHING. From this moment on until the troops are withdrawn from Iraq, until the Patriot Act is repealed, until the National I.D. is repealed we as freedom loving people refuse to buy anything from corporations. Stop buying from Wal-mart and McDonald's and Taco Bell. Don't rent movies from Blockbuster, don't buy music, don't buy airline tickets, don't go to major league sporting events. Boycott the corporate news networks. For the things you have to buy, use only local mom-and-pop shops.

How long would it take before the corporate donors are screaming in the halls of congress? Two weeks? A Month?

If you really want to restore our freedoms, tell your family and your friends.
Buy NOTHING.

Coming in from the Wilderness

2005-04-22T11:02:00.000-07:00

I must say I've been away for quite awhile. I have felt drained over the last few months. It seems as though the situation keeps getting worse. In the interim since my last post we've had the 9/11 intelligence bill pass.

I used to joke about this country hearing the term "papers please!"
Now it is coming to pass. It seems noone bothers to learn from history.
In addition it seems very few citizens have ever read and understand our constitution.

During the whole Schiavo debacle there were times I thought I had somehow slipped into an alternate universe.... I was watching CNN during that period, and actually heard for the first time in my life a Republican arguing for Federal power trumping a state decision, and a Democrat use the term "states-rights"!!?!?!?

During my hiatus I have been doing alot of reading. I was amazed to find how far the definitions of Liberal and Conservative have morphed from their original meanings.

I would say I am a Classical Liberal. I think the first sentence under the heading : "Usage of the word liberalism" describes me perfectly. In addition, the term Classical Conservative also seems to fit. Read the portion under the heading "An introduction to conservatism"

Finally, I believe it is important to catalogue the blatant violations of our constitution. I will be posting examples from time to time. To begin with,
I offer this example :

U.S. Constitution: Sixth Amendment
Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

As it currently stands this is no longer the case. As long as the penalty for EACH charge is less than 6 months you do not have the right to a jury trial.

To any sane person the word ALL means ALL not some nor a few, nor a subset but ALL.

If you know of any other examples please post me a link.

The Libertarian Party, A Failing Business

2004-11-03T21:27:00.000-08:00

Today's Libertarian party can be summed up by Veruca Salt and her famous line from Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory : "I Want It Now!" Although the idealism and principles of the Libertarian Party is admirable, like a teenager they never quite seem to understand that the art of compromise is required when dealing with other people.

For 30 years the party has struggled, never altering its no compromise message, never wavering from its stance of "I'd abolish program X on day one!" To use a quote we are all familiar with "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." Yet that is exactly what the Libertarian party keeps doing. Every election they send the same message, expecting that one day the people will suddenly wake up. The ONLY time that message will work is the day the system is so well and truly broken that voting will no longer be an option!

The one thing that has always struck me as odd is the contradiction between the Lib philosophy and the LP in practice. The principles of the free market are constantly brought up by the LP as the ultimate good. Yet in the political arena the LP has not learned that you MUST sell your product to the customer. If your product is not selling, then either:
A) your product needs revamping
or
B) your advertising message is off

Just like any MONOPOLY, the "purist" Libertarian camp has blocked the free market reform of ideas that need to take hold if the Libertarian Party is to become successful. Again we need to view the party as a business in the market of politics. If the business performs poorly, you either shut it down, or look for a new board of directors.

So how do we improve it? First I think we need to emphasize the general principles our party stand for. This means Economic Freedom, and Personal Liberty. Second we need to set our plank based upon the direction we would take the government, NOT the ultimate goal we wish to achieve. Third, we need to press those portions of our platform which the local voters will respond to.

For example, in a conservative district we need to OUT-conservative the standing republican. That means taking a tough stance on issues we support like the 2nd amendment, a balanced budget, illegal immigration. In a liberal district we emphasize our social positions. Drug war reform, gay marriage, anti-patriot act etc.

We need to be able to strip the incumbents of the very issues they run on. We hammer the republicans for passing big government. We hammer the dems for passing the patriot act or the war. But we give our local candidate the freedom to run on part of our platform without running on the whole thing.

Finally just like any business, we need to do customer research. Each local district needs to find what issues made the incumbent a winner, and see which of those promises he broke while in office. If we run the LP like a business, we will win elections. If not we need to declare bankruptcy and close up shop.

Alea iacta est

2004-11-03T18:33:00.000-08:00

The Die Is Cast. I feel ill. I am not sure whether it is the thought of Bush being president for another four years, or the fact that the people believed his drivel. I expect more fear, more terror and more security (All in the name of Liberty of course).

The patriot act redux will sail through congress and it will usher in defacto National ID cards. It remains to be seen whether the Department of Homeland Security will gain control of the Social Security employment eligibility database. If so, I'm sure we will see people become "unfit" for employment.

It may be that we've gotten too soft for Liberty. That seems to be the paradox, a Republic starts out destined for greatness because of Liberty. Yet, Liberty itself is its own undoing. It creates wealth and luxury, which in turn breed envy, sloth, and avarice.

The question that keeps going through my mind is: "Is the Republic Dead?" We've had a little over 200 years. That seems to be the natural lifespan for a Republic. Just like Rome we'll talk the talk, as we stride across the globe.

I have read too much History. I can see the path clearly before us, an empire built upon constant war, the division of the rich and poor as the middle class evaporates. Bread and circuses, to placate the poor. If we pay lip service to justice, we'll go back to giving the faithful soldiers of the empire a plot of land in the new territories upon retirement.

With Bush believing he is the voice of god, perhaps he will be the one to finally declare the constitution null and void. Enjoy the Empire, at least one of us should....

Ave Caesar!

Tired of Evil? I.N.V.E.S.T. Your vote.

2004-11-01T23:10:00.000-08:00

I have talked to many people this election season who were disgusted with both candidates. The "Debates" were a sham, the Democratic and Republican conventions were merely infomercials, as the candidates were both picked beforehand.

Both candidates are irresponsible at best, and dangerous at worst. Neither candidate could bring themselves to propose a balanced budget. The best they could promise is cutting the 400 Billion dollar deficit in half in 4 years. Either way that will be roughly 1.2 Trillion dollars added to the 7.4 Trillion dollar debt. They both supported the Patriot Act and strongly support the war in Iraq. Both plan to keep American troops there awhile.

Now I know many of you are probably saying "Yeah but what can I do, I REALLY hate candidate X and I don't want to waste my vote!" What if there was a simple way to send a message, AND help your lesser evil candidate at the same time?

What would it be worth to you to see REAL debates? What would it be worth to hear differences on REAL issues? Would five minutes of your time be worth it? Well here it is:

Whoever you think is the lesser evil, find someone you trust who thinks the opposite. If you think Bush is the lesser evil then find a family member or close friend who thinks Kerry is the lesser evil. Make a Deal to vote for neither Bush nor Kerry and both vote third party. What will this do? It will give you peace of mind. You have taken an opposing vote off the field, AND voted FOR a third party.

The best part is, you can sit back and relax, knowing you took a vote from the greater evil, and gave TWO votes to the greater good! It will take no money, no campaigning, no major effort, except talking to that one member of your family who "MUST be nuts voting for that other guy!" If enough people were to do this every year, we could keep the political process on the straight and narrow.

So Don't WASTE your Vote, I.N.V.E.S.T. your vote. And Pass it on.

I'm
Not
Voting
Evil
Starting
Today

Moving the Libertarian party towards the Real World

2004-10-31T08:40:00.000-08:00

The Libertarian party has become a haven for Idealists. Some LP members have written they would rather keep the party "pure" than win elections. That is not the definition of a political party, rather it is the definition of a self-help group.

Pure libertarians tend to think in absolutes. This is the same problem that George Bush has. "You are either with us or against us." This mentality ensures that the Libertarian Party will accomplish nothing. As long as the Party views the world in terms of black and white, the scope of government will continue to grow.

How do we change this?

First we need to adapt. It makes no sense to create an extreme and detailed party platform which can be used against local candidates. Neither the republican nor democratic parties have a platform which goes into such excruciating detail. Libertarians must realize that many of our ideals are taken to the extreme, and are presented as such. Until we adopt the idea that change can be incremental, we will never gain an audience.

We need to present oursleves as thoughtful and responsible thinkers. For example instead of proclaiming items such as "We would abolish the Department of Education." we need to state this in a professional manner: "We would transition The Department of Education back to the states. According the the Constitution that is its proper place."

Finally we need to realize that each person will find a differing degree of government vs private ownership acceptable. Would Thomas Jefferson be classed as a libertarian today?

"As to the new Constitution... Would it not have been better to assign to Congress exclusively the article of imposts for federal purposes, and to have left direct taxation exclusively to the States? I should suppose the former fund sufficient for all probably events, aided by the land office." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:395

According to the current "Pure" Libertarian stance on taxation EVEN JEFFERSON would not be seen as Libertarian. There is something wrong with the party when it venerates the founding fathers but would find they are not members by today's standards.

A New age of Reason

2004-10-31T01:27:00.000-08:00

There comes a time when all men must place principle before personal gain or loss. This election is just such a time. Many people are disgusted with both George Bush and John Kerry. Yet in the end many will choose the lesser of two evils.

We as citizens are failing in our duty whenever we do this. Choosing the lesser of two evils does a disservice to this country, the Republic and the Constitution it was founded upon. Whenever you vote from fear you are treating with disrespect what the founding fathers and countless others risked their very lives for, your freedom to CHOOSE.

Freedom of choice is the cornerstone of this country. To pay it lip service by choosing one of two distastful candidates for fear of wasting your vote is not only ludicrous but unpatriotic. In the end only one candidate will win. According to this theory, Everyone who did not vote for the winner will have wasted their vote.

If we as a country refuse to stand against such limited choice, we all will lose.