Edward Browning Bosley

I Stand By What I Said...Ha Ha Ha

2011-12-11T10:29:00.001-08:00

Apparently another blogger by the name of Jesus General (I expect a link back from him) noticed a blog that I wrote in which I said that there is good and bad in killing the president of the United States. He then blasted it across his blog in an effort to shame me but I stand by what I said for several reasons.

The first reason is that wishing someone was dead is not off limits because that happens all the time without anyone raising a certain objection. A good example is Adolf Hitler. No one would ever erect a single argument condemning those statements because most people feel that the actions of this person warrant such feelings. Now some people might say that the current president hasn't done anything to ever justify such feelings but that is a matter of opinion that each individual is allowed to have and my particular individual thinks that the current president is a total shithead who does warrant such feelings. A lot of other people probably feel differently but no matter what opinion you have each person is entitled to be the judge of what makes them happy and if millions of Americans can be happy about the death of Osama Bin Laden and at the same time millions of Arabs can be sad then their is plenty of room in this world for individuals to decide for themselves whose existence on this earth makes them the happiest. I would say that existence of the current president of the United States makes me the least happiest.

The second reason is that I never advocated that someone should kill the president of the United States. I only expressed a F-E-E-L-I-N-G which, by itself is not an action. Perhaps this is a huge difference between rational and irrational people in that they can not differentiate between impulsive thoughts and actions. This naturally leads the confusion (in their minds alone) that someone expressing a feeling is identical to advocating for an action to take place. This also leads to the observation that some people can't differentiate between facts and opinion. The Jesus General blog said I advocated for the killing of the president of the United States when the statement I made merely reflected both positive and negative consequences of such an action. The good consequences will be the end of the current administration (which some people think is good) and the bad will be the death of a human being. It is a statement that merely states that there is both positive and negative consequences of taking such an action. It is not a statement advocating for someone to take the action itself.

The third reason I stand by my statement is that each person is entitled to equal protection of the law and killing anyone whether they be the president of the United States or a bum on the streets is both equally illegal, immoral, and infamous (will Jesus General blast that statement on twitter?). This is where equality under the law differs from the coveted social equality that so many people like Jesus General prize. Equality under the law means each person receives the same benefit from the law as the other which means that the law must extend the same benefits to anyone whether they are gay or straight but this requirement only exist for interactions between the state and the individual. It does not exist for interactions from one individual to another which allows each individual to extend any benefit that they are capable of extending in any manor that they choose. This eliminates social equality because social equality requires each individual to extend all benefits equally to each person in society so if a person wants to socially accept straights and not extend the same privilege to gays then they are free to do so because only the law is required to do this. Individuals are free to decide what privileges they want to extend to other individuals which gives them a lot of freedom over how they treat other people.

It also highlights the danger social equality poses on individual liberty since it demands that each person in their own private lives must extend the same privilege to each person which is why the left says you must TREAT gays the same way as you treat anyone else. If you recognize marriage between a man and a woman then you must recognize a marriage between a man and a man which denies your ability to make whatever moral choices you want and, by design (I think), denies you the power to make whatever independent choices you want with regards about your interactions with other people.

This differs from equality under the law because only the law has to do treat everyone equally which ensures that the power of the state won't be misused to apply arbitrary authority against particular individuals. A good example is separate drinking fountains during segregation in the south. Would white southerners have elected to make black southerners drink out of crappy water fountains if they had to drink out of the same ones? Because the law did not extend the same exact privilege to each person it allowed racist to demean other human beings. The same southerners would not have done such a thing if they had one to drink out of the same water fountains. It is the ultimate check on government power but it only exist in cases of how the law treats people not how people treat other people. The same white southerners were free to think and treat black southerners as they want but the state was not free to do so because it had to treat everyone equally which makes equality under the law is superior to social equality. It doesn't attempt to inhibit the free minds of other human beings but it does ensure that the law will not be used as a tool to destroy someone. Could racist southerners have gotten away with separate but equal if they themselves had to use the same water fountains as black southerners?

Now that I have gotten off of my soapbox I must finish this and explain what did this have to do with Jesus General condemnation of what I wrote. I was pointing out that I, as an individual, am free to extend whatever privilege that I am capable of extending to anyone I like because the fourteenth amendment does not apply to me personally. It only applies to the government which means I am free to withhold the privilege of esteeming someone enough to think their life is a valuable contribution to humanity. The state can not make such a distinction because it must extend all privileges to everyone.

Lawmaker condemns question about shooting Obama

2011-02-26T07:41:00.000-08:00

A part of me really does condemn people who make such statements in congress but such talk is hardly new and quite healthy when people perceive their rights as being taken away. Even Booth believed he was acting to free the United States from a dictator. As much as the violence is condemned I can't help but think how much Obama really does deserve some of this. He really is an object of hate because of his politics and his methods he decides to use. The healthcare bill was complete bullshit and that, in itself, makes people really angry. I'm being completely honest about how I feel in that there is both good and bad in assassinating the president or any elected official. Should we have the same reservations about Hitler? How do we decide when to much is to much for us to take. The TSA pat downs are not really needed and are a way for the people in power to intimidate the public. There is no other explanation than that so it makes me wonder if the anger is deserved.

The Selfish Act of Forgivness

2011-02-19T15:50:00.000-08:00

Ayn Rand's philosophy of the Virtue of Selfishness may seem a little hard to grasp at times but the more I think about it the more I realize that our moral code is backwards. A good example is forgiveness of others. In an altruistic thinking forgiveness is seen as a gift to them which makes it dependent on whether they repented of the original deed and makes it harder because you may not care if the person has mended their life. In a selfish way of thinking it becomes a benefit for myself. In my own life I can think of a few people who make me really angry and it was impossible to forgive them in an altruistic system but I could do it using a purely selfish motive which was for my own emotional benefit. It did not depend on their behavior but depended on whether or not I wanted the anger to be a drag on my own life. This is a selfish motive because it was done for me alone and not for anyone else. It did not depend on whether or not these people accepted it or not because it was only done for my benefit only. It freed me from the control that others place on me which is why all virtues descend from selfishness and not from selflessness.

The Rule of Law

2011-02-05T13:42:00.000-08:00

There are basically two ways a society can be ruled. The first and most primitive is that it can be ruled by people which means that each person is subject to the authority of a dictator. There are no rules for the people to follow since the people follow commands of the dictator.

This is the essence of a tribal society but the rule of law stops that because laws provide a zone where people can't be told what to do. This is where we separate legal and illegal actions that any person can take and all legal actions are simply actions where the law can't stop us from doing something. It is where those in power can't touch us with their authority since we did not violate any rules.

The rule of law is not meant to restrict our freedom but to provide for it by declaring a boundary between where our behavior can be controlled and where it can't. Where it can't is our own free-space that we may play around in and we can't be told what to do by those in power until we cross the boundary into the legal sphere. The rule of law is a self-limiting limitation on those in power and it only works when those in power follow it to a letter.

Elitist Food Police

2011-02-03T10:32:00.000-08:00

While I was at work the other day they scheduled the former Miss. Arizona to come in to talk to us about eating healthy. She did her routine and told us about all the normal stuff that we often hear such as eating right and exercising and while she was doing that I had some common sense questions about what she was recommending.

These questions used simple reasoning to expose the false motives behind these people and the nature of the questions exposed a greater fault in society in that we do not use reason as the justification for our thoughts. The justification for our thoughts come from authoritative sources that we are not suppose to question thus short-cutting our own internal use of our intellect in favor of someone else's. This will be addressed later in the blog.

The first question I had was about the recommended amount of time we should exercise a weak which she said was about seventy-five minutes. While this sounded like the standard advice but why do we have to exercise when the job we had was already put our muscles to work. It seems pointless to require us to do additional exercise outside of work. It doesn't make any sense why exercise at work didn't count as the same beneficial exercise in gym when it is the same physical activity that any exercise program would put us through. The only difference is that we are not getting paid.

The second question was about the foods they seem to recommend. She said that fast food hamburgers should be eaten with a salad in order to counter the negative health affects of the hamburger. This clearly suggest that the badness of the hamburger is canceled out by the goodness of the salad. Its like people who order a diet coke with their fast food combo meals. It seems logical at first until we wonder what are the negative side affects of ordering a hamburger with no lettuce or tomato but took the lettuce, pickles, and tomato from the salad and put it on the hamburger? That would seem to be just as healthy as a hamburger with salad because we took bits of the salad and put it on the hamburger. The next logical assumption is to just order the hamburger with that stuff already on it. A hamburger with lettuce, tomato, pickles, mayonnaise (all things you might find in a salad) should be just as healthy as a hamburger with a salad. Wouldn't it be wonderful if they would sell hamburgers that way?

My third question was really a question about inconsistent demands about why would they want us to eat certain foods and engage in certain activities when we are already doing them. It almost seems as if they are proscribing a regiment for us to follow and using whatever it takes to get us to follow that regiment. We even see this in 'saving the planet' logic where eating fatty hamburgers causes global warming because cows either eat to many trees or annihilate the atmosphere with their flatulence. They even try to make the connection in their save the planet commercials by associating bad dietary choices with global warming so, in order to save the planet, we better eat right and exercise. Do you see the pattern?

What people don't realize is that progressives, fascist, and communist all wanted the people to be healthy and they were going to decide what methods were to be used to be healthy because they knew what was best. Hitler often paraded German youth as examples of a physically fit society and, while our own nanny-stater won't impose a dictatorship to make us be healthy (other than Obamacare) they are willing to manipulate us into doing these things. This is why they say exercise even though we already get exercise or to eat right when we are already eating much of the same things they already want us to eat. They have regiment for society to follow and they are willing to use any lie to get us to do it. Its all motivated by the 'we know what is best for you'.

The last part of this blog is about why people listen to the 'experts' over everything? Doesn't our own opinion over our own life count for anything anymore? It was simple reasoning that I used to theorize about a hidden motive behind the food police but simple reasoning is often criticized as being quote-unquote simple. It implies that good ideas are not simple and clear to the average person because the average person is to stupid to think of good ideas. They have convinced everyone that clear reasoning that is understandable can not be the correct solution since the source of the understanding is the average person and not ordained experts. They have proclaimed that the nature of expert opinions are such that its natural for you not to understand since you are their intellectual inferior. This makes it easier to tell you what to think since your own thought process is to simple and the nature of their logic is so complex for you to handle that it is natural for you not to understand their advance ideas. The proper thing for you to do is to just trust in what the experts say and don't question them.

This makes it easier for them to tell you what to do because you will not reject their opinion when it conflicts with your own. You will follow their advice, run their obstacle course, and comply with their wishes. Its sinister and you have fell for it.

Capitalism is the Vehicle of Freedom

2011-02-01T20:23:00.000-08:00

Conservatives often defend capitalism as a way of prosperity for society. While this is true it is ultimately a collectivist view of society because they champion it as a benefit for the whole. The truth behind capitalism is that it benefits the individual but what is not understood about a capitalistic society is that it is the basis of all freedom and human happiness. Conservatives fail to understand the arguments behind capitalism and only see it as a mechanism for generating wealth.

I encourage all people to sift through the early arguments for capitalism and they will see that it was not about wealth but about freedom. Once we understand that argument then we can finally destroy the socialist agenda in this society.

Ayn Rand and Objectivist Philosophy

2011-01-29T21:12:00.000-08:00

I think I understand Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy in that our opinion of the world around us is shaped by reality. It is the opposite of a subjectivist philosophy because a subjectivist way of thinking basically says that the world is what we think it is which is nothing more than saying your opinion determines reality. Its a subjective reality versus an objective reality.

Subjectivist view of the world is ignorance of reality itself because they deliberately create the reality that fits their thinking. This puts them in a state of ignorance of reality because their opinion is always reality so nothing they think is capable of conflicting with reality. This is a false way of thinking because reality is unalterable which means that it is our opinion of it that must alter itself to fit its design. Objectivist opinion of reality is always shaped by reality and must always conform to it while a subjectivist's opinion of reality is always shaped by their opinion. It is a dream world.

In some way subjectivism is like religious faith in that a person believes even when their reasoning comes to a conclusion that goes against their own faith. When that happens the sacrifice reason in order to maintain the faith. Any thought process that evades reason only leads to subjectivist thinking.

This is faith, mysticism, denial, love, insanity, and other thinking processes that do not use the higher functions of our brain known as reason. We must state our reasons why we think something is true. It is nothing more than questioning everything in order to determine what idea is true where truth is the idea that matches reality. It is simple part of our mental process that often gets unused but God gave us those abilities to discover reality so we should not be afraid to use those. It is a part of us and makes us above the animals since they do not have this ability.

Faith, God,and Reason

2011-01-28T21:28:00.000-08:00

The belief in God is one that is often made on faith since believing by the use of faith requires us to suspend our reasoning which makes it easier for the religious to escape not having to explain things to possible worshipers. He ask them to suspend their rational thought process which is not the proper way a free mind and a free person thinks. This is because faith requires us to bend how we rationally evaluate the world to some pre-determined answer and it puts each person in their own dreamworld. It is saying that God exist because I believe even though it may conflict with my rational judgment and observations.

One wonders what would happen if we had to accept the existence of God on the basis of reason and not of faith. It would mean that we have to accept the possibility that God may not exist and accepting that outcome if that is where our reasoning takes us. It requires that our thoughts align itself with truth which seems redundant for a religion whose main deity deems truth as one of the most important of its virtues. This means that if God is real then we accept it because it is true but if he isn't real the very same faith requires us to accept that as well.

I am not advocating atheism in this piece but more advocating the proper process that a person comes to believe in something. I reason that their is a God because of the natural order of the universe in the same way that their is order in all things that we make. Everything we make functions by rules and without those rules it would not function the way we designed it to. A good example is a watch in which the watchmaker establishes the rules which allow it to tell time the way the watchmaker wants it to. The rules establish how it is to function and for what purpose it functions for. It would have no form or substance that would distinguish from any other invention of man without those rules.

The universe seems to operate in a very orderly manor to the point where we can have our own 'laws of physics' to help us understand that order. These laws are really discoveries in the same way that an alien may discover the rules of a watch piece. The alien can not assume it is his rules because he did not design the watch piece itself. In many ways, we are the alien where we discover rules of how the universe works otherwise known as the 'laws of physics' that existed before us since those rules were in operation millions of years before our existence. This means we did not make the universe since we did not make the rules of its operation that define its order. Only the watchmaker can claim such a right.

That is a reasonable argument because it uses reasons as the basis for an idea. Atheist often cite that the bible is full of indiscrepancies (quite correctly) that invalidate the existence of God. That to is a reasonable and rational argument because it uses the reasoning process of the mind which is what I am advocating for. We should only use of that part of our mind and nothing but that part in all things which will allow us to free of all things. It frees the part of our mind that determines the actions we take which allows us to have freedom over the choice of actions we take in life.

Republicans == Democrats and Democrats == Republicans

2011-01-27T13:36:00.000-08:00

I'm always impressed by the level of fascism displayed by the left. I know they don't see themselves that way but fascist differed from communist in one way and that was they believed in capitalism or more precisely state capitalism. It was the idea that a free capitalist society had to be managed so as not to destroy the economy. The decisions were to complicated to be left to individuals so the fascist had to regulate those industries and ensure they were functioning properly.

They also had to do it for the collective good versus their own individual good. The difference is huge in that a free-enterprise society basically stipulates that the individual works for his own good and no one elses. Socialist of any variety despise this so free-enterprise was destroyed in both communist and fascist systems. Note I said free-enterprise and not necessarily capitalism. Free-enterprise and state capitalism are identical in that individuals are allowed to prosper by their own work but under fascist collective thinking the individuals had to direct their efforts to the collective good. They had to make whatever state thought was best for the greater needs of society. This allowed the social planners to dictate what is to be made and how much is to be made.

The difference is the difference between Henry Ford Model T and Volkswagen's VW Bug. They were both cars of the common man but Ford made it to benefit his own pocketbook and not for the people and not under the command of a economic dictator. The bug was made by Hitler's order. The company made profit but were ultimately forced to do something that they did not want to. One was born out of the free-will and labor of one man and the other was born out of the dictates of dictator.

We often call lefties socialist and instantly compare them to communist but that is not accurate. The accurate description is fascist because no lefty wants to destroy capitalist companies. This is evident in the bailout of the banks and car companies. According to them, they had to be rescued so that we can have cars for the nation. In the same Hitler would have rescued Volkswagen so that they can keep making bugs we rescue big companies all in the name of the greater need of society because society can't tolerate the loss of these businesses. They are to big to fail and their destruction would bring about the end of America.

I'm exaggerating a little but there is a similarity between fascist and today's socialist parties of both the left and the right. I find that the republican party is partially to blame for this in that they to think in terms of 'to big to fail' which makes it hard to pick a side because both parties essentially adopt the same policy. Have you notice this? We laughed at Kerry for faking his belief in gun ownership yet republicans pass just as many laws against gun ownership as they do. I wish that people would begin to see that we are dealing with the same party who have the same socialist philosophy as 20th century fascist.

Glenn Greenwald: GOP Pushing for ISPs to record user Data

2011-01-25T09:01:00.000-08:00

Glenn Greenwald tweeted this accusatory message:

The faction doing this is the one claiming to stand for limited government, individual liberty and privacy: http://is.gd/ZQmnL2

At first I was mad but he is right to point out that the GOP shouldn't be pushing for this crap. I don't see why ISPs have to do anything whatsoever but before the left rips into this GOP senator I would like to point out that they established the legal mechanisms for doing so.

The first and most obvious one is the right to regulate commerce. This interpretation gives congress the power to regulate every transaction and business in the world which allows them to force ISPs to do record our data. The second is the organizations like the FCC that has the power to establish their own rules without congress. Only if congress had to vote up or down on such proposals then they would feel the wrath of the voters but since the FCC is doing it they escape any retribution from the voters.

Now that I have said my piece about this I would like to point out that Glenn Greenwald doesn't even know what individual liberty is. Individual liberty is based on one-hundred percent self-interest and without self-interest you have no individual liberty. People no longer act for their own interest and what is best for them but for society's interest. This removes the idea that we act for our own wishes and wants in life of which is the selfish desire to live.

The left established all the mechanisms that allow us to fight in foreign wars because it is our 'duty' to do so. More people have died in foreign wars under democratic presidents in the 20th century than under true conservative presidents. How many people died in foreign wars under Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagen compared to Wilson and FDR. They even started Vietnam!

Yes--all the things the left hates is the fruit of their ideas. Conservatives just get the blame for it.

Keith "Dipshit" Olberman's new job--Good Luck

2011-01-23T13:11:00.000-08:00

The New American Left

2011-01-18T08:12:00.000-08:00

I realize that this is a dirty tactic but why shouldn't the tea party label themselves as the right and everyone else (republicans and democrats) as the left. Its a dirty mass manipulation tactic but I think it would be one that works. It obviously worked for Stalin by labeling communist as left and everyone else as right (which included fascist, social democrats, liberals, and etc). Now we live with communist to the left and fascist to the right hence the reason why republicans and conservatives are fascist.

Why can't this work for the tea party but in reverse. Tea party radicals to the right and everyone else is the new left. This would force the political spectrum to shift widely in our direction. George W. Bush compassionate conservatives would be on the same side as Obama socialism. Its clear that both these groups despise the tea party so why not put them on the same side?

Rise Above Politics

2011-01-13T12:15:00.000-08:00

Time dragged on, and still Hitler was not in power, but he continued to campaign. In left-oriented Essen--in front of fifty thousand on October 30, 1932--he said his aim was to unify the 'body politic' (volkskorper), overcome all social divisions, and create the racially based "community of the people." He had to succeed because "Germany had to be German or it will be Bolshevik." The goal was to create a new and unified Reich. One half of the nation could not rule the other nor terrorize it into submission. The entire "community" had to be in agreement: "One can not construct from the top down, nor from the top down falsely invent a constitution, but it has to grow naturally out of the community." His aim was to attract "the broad masses, that are difficult to conquer because they are thickheaded and stubborn." Yet "in times of need they are the basis on which one could build".

This came from a book called Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler and in it Hitler expresses the same desire we often hear in American politics about the need to unify the body politic. It seems to be ideal to be in the middle where there is no discord at all. This was beneficial to authoritarians who could define what idea people can be united in and make those who don't agree seem like enemies of the solidarity and unity of the body politic. One has to wonder why we hear such similar language about "healing", "uniting", or "rise above politics" in our own political debate. We have to wonder who and why this is being introduced into our political thinking.

Obama: "The one thing we have learned from this great tragedy is we have come together"

Why the Tuscon Murderer Deserves Death

2011-01-09T07:30:00.000-08:00

To be honest, I'm not very sympathetic about the murders (accept one which I will get to at the end) that occurred in Tuscon Arizona. Gifford voted for the health care reform bill which was nothing more than health care control bill which eliminates my choice and my freedom to do as I want. That is the reason I am not sympathetic to her death. Its just an honest feeling that I have that I am expressing. I'm sure her family is in a lot of pain and I would be completely inhuman not to acknowledge that.

The judge's murder, from what I know, merits the death penalty. This is according to stories I have heard but this is just a selfish desire on the part of people in the government to protect themselves. It seems that if you or I were killed then the criminal who did it is basically given a blow job by the same people who want the death penalty for the murder of this judge. It seems unfair that our lives are worth less to the people in charge of our government than theirs.

Its another reason I am not sympathetic to it. I mean really...there was a nine year old girl killed for God sakes! The innocent victim who did nothing to no one. This is the reason why the guy deserves the death penalty. This makes the only true victim in this was the little girl herself.

Katie Couric: We need a Muslim Television Show

2011-01-02T16:46:00.000-08:00

I wouldn't have a problem with this if the show was entertaining but what I do have a problem with is an attitude in the left that America needs fixing. Its as if the authoritarians have decided that America shouldn't think this thought and we have to stop them. My attitude is--so what!

Its sad that so many of my countrymen can't see the we-orchestrate-how-and-what-America-should-think kind of attitude. Its obvious that they have a perception that America hates Muslims. I don't agree with that but what should concern us more is the collectivist view of society that authoritarians flourish in. The idea that their is one policy, one thought, one correct attitude to have about anything is simply collectivism since it does not allow for anyone else's thought especially when it opposes what the authoritarians think we should be like. Its obvious that there is an attitude of this is not right so it should be fixed.

In the same way social reformers during the progressive era decided to fix the problems of society the social reformers of our current age seek to do the same. They both seek to eradicate the choices individuals can make in society in favor of the greater uniform matrix that they define as correct. Its ultimately the removal of an individuals right to decide for themselves which they believe they have the right to do. They invokes their self-appointed right to tell another person how to live which requires them to deny any individual's choices over the same matter.

In this case Katie Couric believes that individuals can't have a negative view of Islam. Can we say thought-police? It definitely seems like that to me.

NAZIism, Communism, and the Democratic Party

2011-01-01T14:11:00.000-08:00

This is what Hitler said in 1922 when he compared National Socialism to Fascism. He was asked what it had in common with Italy's fascism.

"...in common the unconditional love of fatherland, the will to tear the working class from the communist international, and the fresh and comradely spirit of the front"

What modern political party does this resemble? The democrat and most leftist parties always rant about the middle-class just like Hitler is here. They share the same affinity and almost paternal caring for this segment of society. The left always uses the term middle-class while Hitler used working class. They refer to the same segment of society.

This particular quote came from a book called Lenin, Stallin, and Hitler The Age of Social Catastrophe by Robert Gellately. In it there was also this text which shows that their is a great deal of simularity between NAZIism and Communism.

Anti-semitism was symbolically inscribed in the new flag, put together by Hitler himself. He said that the red background of the flag stood for "the social idea" of the movement. This was an attempt to snatch the attractive red color from the Russians, for whom red held a traditional religious significance. The white on the flag of the NSDAP referred to the "nationalistic idea," and the swastika--which Hitler first saw in prewar Austria--symbolized the mission and struggle of "Aryan man." He claimed that the swastika also stood for "creative work, which has been and always will be anti-semitic." The swastika, therefore, certainly in Hitler's mind, was a visualization of the Party's anti-Semitism.

There is a lot here but the important thing to show is that the red was always meant to represent the communist thinking of society while the white represented the nation. This is why they called it national socialism versus international socialism that was referred to above. Above it said 'communist internationale' which refers to a socialism on an international scale versus a national scale. This was one of the main differences between NAZIism and Communism.

Property Rights would End Adult Children Living at Home

2010-12-31T16:43:00.000-08:00

We now have a generation of deadbeats living with their parents. Adult child at home syndrome is what it should be called and one day Nancy Pelosi will make it a law that you have to take care of your adult children. To bad we don't believe in property rights anymore since enforcing property rights would actually prevent such things from coming into law.

A parent who has to take care of their child by law can simply say that they don't have to transfer their property to another person (their deadbeat children). Protecting the right to transfer your property as you see fit would protect the parents individual freedom since they can't be forced to dispose of their property (home, food, and etc) to another person against their will. Their free-will would be protected which is another example of how property rights protect individual freedom since all things in society involve the transfer of property from one person to the other.

True Grit: A Politial Review

2010-12-26T15:32:00.000-08:00

I thought the recent release of True Grit was a good movie but the thing I notice about it is its interesting way of avoiding the politically correct mandate that we often see in movies during this time period. There was a scene where a black man was 'dismissed' by the main character. Of course, he wasn't a slave but an employee but it showed accurately the relationship between whites and blacks in those days and didn't try to artificially create some B.S. or having a feel-good 'blacks are good as whites' type of scene.

It is true that a lot of people in this country in the 1800s were a little racist in their attitudes but nothing has really changed since then. I say this because people are still a little racist to some degree and the fact that laws of today and back then were usually geared around this. This is why they made the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment. It was designed to ensure that whatever protections one person got then every other person had to receive the same protections. This shows that while people had racism they believed in a sense of fairness under the law and that people had to be treated equally by the law in order to ensure a just application of it.

This is all we can and should hope for because human nature remains constant. It just regurgitates the same feelings over and over again. Societies of any age don't improve but reconstitute themselves from the same human material so societies don't change over time. Its like the law of energy in that the same amount of good and evil in human beings remains the same in the universe.

The same amount of good is what we should focus on. Human nature doesn't change but that doesn't mean that human nature is necessarily evil. It just means that the amount of good and evil that exist in humanity doesn't alter itself so that means that their is as much good in humanity a hundred years ago as there is now and hundred years from now. It doesn't change and never will.

The one thing in the movie I noticed that was different from all other societies is freedom. The freedom for society to be itself whether that course be good or evil. Evil was not a concern of the law back then because that was between a person and there own conscience. The law was there to mediate the free-space by enforcing the social compact. It was society in a free state where each person was a free-radical that functioned as its own body and unconcerned with the greater whole.

Restraining Federal Agents through Restaining Orders

2010-12-19T10:09:00.000-08:00

Can a person get a restraining order against a federal agent who attempts to arrest a person for violating federal law? This is a question that I ponder to myself and I hope that the reader (that's you) think about seriously. Restraining orders are issued by state and local governments that keep a citizen of that local safe from the actions of another.

Usually they are orders that keep a person a certain distance from that particular person. The question is why can't such legal protection be used against federal agents since they are also people. Most restraining orders do not list exceptions to who can be restrained which is probably due to the fact that no one ever thought that a restraining order can be used against a federal agent. That is not my fault they allowed a huge loophole in the law but since it is there then it should be exploited for our advantage as much as possible.

Restraining orders have to be respected by the arresting federal agent for several reasons but the most powerful reason is the tenth amendment itself. The state has that power so any law made using that power has to be respected by the federal government. There is no prohibition stating that states can't hinder the federal government from making an arrest.

Such a tragedy--NOT--as they would say on an old show Wayne's World.

The Two Classes of People in the World

2010-12-12T13:36:00.000-08:00

As I get older I am moving quite quickly to the far right. I've read some of the arguments about government and its relationship with the people and I am dumbfounded how modern Americans can so willingly comply with government TSA searches. I've come to the conclusion that people would much rather be 'good citizens' and comply than be free citizens and not comply.

It seems to me that the TSA searches would not be tolerated if they were done by a private company. Could you imagine a bank security guard demanding that they feel your private areas before entering? No one would tolerate that from a private entity and the reason is is that on some level we understand that no person has any authority over us. We would not tolerate such behavior from a non-government entity yet the people in government seem to be immune from this. What makes them so special that they can do this without any our permission?

This was the question that many of the people asked during the age of reason and that was what made kings so special that they can do things that no one else could do? They could launch wars, torture, punish, and do just about anything and the people would comply willingly yet if another person did that they would not. I think we should ask ourselves a serious question and that is; are we reverting back to divine right of the king but in some more democratic form.

What else would explain the fact that modern Americans now seem to comply with violations of our person when we would not tolerate that from anyone else? In the same way kings could do God knows what we now allow the state to do the same.

It seems that in both eras there were two classes of people on this earth and one was the class that existed within the government and the one that existed outside of it. The one who live outside of it seem to live in a subjected state and the ones who live in it are free. They get to live in a natural state and get to deprive others of that same natural state that they enjoy. Its seems rather unfair in many ways but that is what the modern American has accepted.

Gov. Palin Versus Wikileaks.

2010-12-08T16:56:00.000-08:00

Let me start out by saying that both Gov. Palin and Julian Assange are both wrong. I'm a fan of Gov. Palin but I believe she fails to understand that the first amendment prevents congress from enacting or using any law to prosecute Julian Assange. Its one of the finer points about our constitution that people may not understand in that the constitution is the supreme law that has more authority than anything the people in power can create. It prevents the people in power from enacting any law that abridges freedom of speech even when that law may be justified.

Many politicians have violated this law which is why those laws were struck down and it is a good thing because politicians will lie to the voters by saying they won't abridge freedom of speech and will still pass laws abridging it. Can you imagine if we didn't have a law with more authority than what the people in power can create? There would be no limitations on what the government can do since they themselves would be the supreme authority.

Now Julian Assange is either a saint or devil depending on who he upsets. He is wrong to endanger U.S. soldiers or release information that could harm efforts that protect America from terrorist but the limitations of the first amendment prevent the government from going after him. I know some readers might be upset about this but can you imagine if the U.S. government passed a law preventing every third party who hears of this information (not the employee who leaked it) from talking about it? You, I, and every person who hears about it would be thrown in jail just because we decided to say what is on our minds.

The Difference between Liberal and Libertarian

2010-12-01T19:12:00.000-08:00

What is the difference between libertarian and liberal? This is a question I have been asking myself lately and I realize that both pursue right aggressively but there is a difference between the two. A libertarian concept of rights are not founded on law as a legal permission but on property. The thing that secures all individual rights is property and the government secures our individual rights when it resigns itself to the role of protecting property.

A liberal (or conservative) might believe that rights are created by law but those rights end up stepping on the right of someone else. In a natural setting that person may reject another person's request for something but under the force of law that person can not reject another person's demands. This is why positive law violates the freedom of the individual since an individual somewhere will have their rights transferred to another person and when I say transferred they are redistributed to another.

The law may require a parent to take care of there child until the age of eighteen but what if that was raised to twenty-eight? The parent definitely would not accept that but the law removed the parent's choice. What if the law was resigned to protecting the property and the right to transfer a person's property to another. The parent then has the right to transfer their resources to the adult child and the law would protect the parents choice or their free-will.

Liberty of the individual was protected when the law protected property. This is the difference between liberal and libertarian. Libertarians see a person's rights belonging to them and is protected by securing their property with the force of law.

What is an Individual Right

2010-11-28T14:34:00.000-08:00

The new word with the left is individual rights but I fear that the left really doesn't understand what individual rights really are. They confuse it with individualism which is not the same thing because individualism is the natural product of people choosing their own path and be who they want. Most people do this naturally so there is nothing special about it but what doesn't exist is individual liberty. This is a much different concept than just individualism itself because individual liberty is simply the right of a person to reject any demand another person makes of their own behavior.

In order to understand what this is we must think of the kind of liberty nations have. Each nation, when dealing with another nation, has a collective right (because they are acting as a whole with respect to other nations) to reject any demands any nation may make on it. This is the only place were collective rights exist since the entire society is acting as a whole unit to reject what another society wants them to do.

An individual right works almost the same way accept that it applies to a much narrower unit in society that is known as the individual. In the same way nations have a right to reject the demands of other nations individuals within society have the right to reject any demands other individuals may make on them within the society that they live. In this state each person is sovereign over there own destiny just as nations are sovereign over there own destiny and each person is free to do whatever they want.

The only real limitation is when they make a demand on someone else that is rejected by that person. In this view, individuals are actually quite limited in their behavior since every interaction requires the voluntary cooperation of the other person. They have the same right to reject your demands just as you have the same right to reject theirs.

Its when one person loses the right to reject the demands of others that we lose our individual liberty and freedom.

The War on Christmas

2010-11-25T11:32:00.000-08:00

It seem like every year we have a war on Christmas in some form or the other. In the last few years I've noticed it is turned down but I still see remnants of that war still being fought. The left wing media often paints the holidays as a time of stress and misery. Its as if they want to bring everyone's enthusiasm for the holiday down. I personally have never noticed how miserable the Christmas season is. Anyone who complains is just being unrealistic. There is a lot of stress but there is also a lot of joy in the holiday season so get over it, man-up, and be fuckin merry for God's sake.

Have a happy thanksgiving and a Merry Christmas (notice I did not say happy holidays? That is another issue for another time).

ur a dumb asss

2010-11-23T20:03:00.000-08:00

ur a dumb asss

The most intelligent comment I have ever seen. It was so good I decided to dedicate an entire blog to it. Amazing...