Ethan Lee Vita

Government Solutions to Problems

2008-12-31T11:51:00.000-08:00

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down - The Band

2008-12-29T13:06:00.000-08:00

Virgil Caine is the name, and I served on the Danville train,
'Til Stoneman's cavalry came and tore up the tracks again.
In the winter of '65, We were hungry, just barely alive.
By May the tenth, Richmond had fell, it's a time I remember, oh so well,

The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down, when all the bells were ringing,
The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down, and the people were singin'.
They went Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na.

Back with my wife in Tennessee, When one day she called to me,
"Virgil, quick, come see, there goes Robert E. Lee!"
Now I don't mind choppin' wood, and I don't care if the money's no good.
Ya take what ya need and ya leave the rest,
But they should never have taken the very best.

The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down, when all the bells were ringing,
The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down, and the people were singin'.
They went Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na.

Like my father before me, I will work the land,
Like my brother above me, who took a rebel stand.
He was just eighteen, proud and brave, But a Yankee laid him in his grave,
I swear by the mud below my feet,
You can't raise a Caine back up when he's in defeat.

The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down, when all the bells were ringing,
The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down, and the people were singin'.
They went Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na.

The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down, the bells were ringing,
The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down, and the people were singin'.
They went Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na.

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

Statist Utopias vs Anarchist Realities

2008-12-28T11:27:00.000-08:00

People often want an answer for every solution. That is a flawed statist method of thinking. Anarchy can and often does provide answers to people's objections. However, this undermines anarchy in a very subtle way.

By having an answer to each solution before changing one's belief means that one still does not believe in the market's amazing ability to solve life's answers. It is still looking for a big answer when a big answer shouldn't be striven for.

The big answer comes naturally as each individual has his own little answer to the problem. The aggregate of these individuals' decisions makes the larger answer. However, by striving to form the larger answer over each individuals' answer you violate individuals' negative rights and form an inefficient system that does not satisfy each individual.

The market demonstrates this repeatedly. We've seen the disastrous consequences of price controls upon the market. This is one of the top-down answers to solving a problem(shortage). However, when the market system of prices operates freely the problem of shortage is solved quite efficiently. Instead of resources being wasted as prices are kept down, resources are reserved for more important tasks as the cost rises. In addition to resources being used with more discrimination, people begin looking for other methods of acquiring the good or other goods that accomplish the same task. This either brings the price back down as new methods are found or opens a new industry as other goods are found or produced. The The Wisdom of Crowds demonstrates numerous more examples of how aggregate decisions by groups solves problems better than a top-down approach.

Expanding the Thought

However, this applies to more than simple economics of goods and services. This applies to the more complicated industries of justice and law enforcement. Justice and law enforcement need to be left to the market. Individual decisions will aggregate to form a larger solution.

People are not more likely to murder people in an anarchy than in a government. In fact, the opposite is true. A state is based on a system of violence in order to accomplish its goals and encourages murder more than it discourages it. The murder it discourages is murder that it didn't endorse. It is much like the Bloods endorsing their own gang's murders but condemning the Crips' murders.

The very fact that people care about justice and law enforcement will show this to be true. If people didn't care, perhaps we could be worried. But people do care and they will work to solve the problem. A bottom-up approach is far more efficient and ethical than a top-down approach that does not satisfy each individual's needs while violating their rights at the same time.

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

Fear Russia! A Plea from Estonia!

2008-12-27T12:22:00.001-08:00

Russia: What's that? Is it some country in the east that has a habit of destroying its neighbors? Is that a super country who enslaves its people with the might of their weapons? Is it a country that uses propaganda and lies as reasons for war? Yes, it is that country, but can I eat it? No silly, Russia will eat you if you dare to live close to it — or even worse oppose them.

Russia, the land of Soviet Bear, is not all bad. Some Russians are one of the most friendly and warm people ever. At the same time, there are people who believe that everything bad, including the faults of their own government, comes from Nazis. These people believe anything that is fed to them, as long as it is from their government.

So are the Russians bad? No dummy! The government is! Russians have been fed lies and anti-west propaganda for generations. Even you would believe it when your parents and their parents and their parents tell you something.

The latest proof is that Russians voted one of the leaders of the Soviet Union, Stalin, as the Greatest Russian. Don't they know how many people died because of Stalin? How many Stalin ordered to death? Yes, more than Hitler. Whole villages were forced to starve just to accept what the government gives.

How come people don't know this? I tell you why; because the current government is not much better from the government of the Soviet Union. Peoples' heads are being messed with and they can do nothing about it. It is the strength of media and nationalism.

A lot of Russians in Estonia are speaking lies about the Estonian government. Saying that they are hurt here etc. That is utter lies. If there was really such a thing then why didn't they join their beloved homeland, Russia? Why? Because they know that life in Estonia is far better and democratic than it will ever be in Russia. If the people would integrate, communicate, and listen/watch/read the Estonian media or other western media, they would soon understand what lies they have eaten! I once watched a russian news channel when they covered an issue in Estonia and this was totally perverse report compared to the Estonian and western media. It allowed Russia to use the event against Estonia!

Fear Russia! It uses wild tools to give a false impression that their people are being threatened in foreign countries. For example, in Estonia one group of Russians organized a riot in the streets of Tallinn, Estonian capitol. There are sources that report that there were aggressors coming from Russia to help organize the riot. Now the same organization who worked with the riot are gathering votes from Russians in Estonia to form a supposedly independent state of Russia.

A minority wants to take land away from a neighboring country of Russia; a country who got morally destroyed by Russian (read: Soviet Union occupation). The farmers lost their land, riches, and cattle. Tens of thousands of people were carried away in animal trains to the destination of Siberia where 1/10th to 1/3rd of slave laborers died per year. A person was consigned to these camps for multiple years which made survival extremely rare. That is the way of Russia. That is the way of people who worship Soviet Union.

And hear me, this will all come back, maybe a bit more civilized and a bit more diplomatic, but Russia will show its claws again. It is certain. You can ignore me and tell me that I am speaking of nonsense. But soon, possibly five or ten years(or sooner), you will see it.

But still, that is the fault of the government! Don't blame the people! If you see a Russian in your city then please become friends with him and respect him for the great strength to leave the vile government! Respect those who are against the totalitarian and false rule. Let the people decide about the truth themselves.

Signed, the Anonymous Correspondent from Estonia.

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

Surveillance: Serial Killers Cloaked as Government Agents

2008-12-26T15:26:00.000-08:00

I recently viewed Surveillance for the purposes of this blog's first liberty-oriented movie review(without spoilers).

It starts out with the typical Hollywood violence as two serial killers murder a couple. From there, it transitions to a small rural community trying to solve several murders from the previous day while two FBI agents descend upon the community. Slowly, the story takes the perspective of each surviving member of the previous days' events. Finally, it speeds up as the serial killers are discovered from within and complete their violence before moving onto what we presume is another hapless rural community.

From a neutral point of view, it did go quite slowly through the beginning and middle of the movie. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but if one is looking for a high-paced action film, this is not it. Or if one has become accustomed to immediate gratification, as the internet and other contemporary parts of society teach us, they will find it difficult to stay focused. In my humble opinion, the ending is quite worth the wait.

The way the movie brought in characters with varied backgrounds was quite appreciated. It was good to see how the producer and/or director thought a soccer mom and the cocaine-snorting woman interacted peacefully while the step-dad seemed to look down upon the cocaine-snorting couple. The little girl was quite her own enigma in that she handled tragedy quite well without bursting into tears, observed events well, and connected the dots with skill.

From an anarchist point of view, it was quite refreshing to see statist law enforcement officers(both rural and FBI) divide amongst themselves. In addition to the division, the disastrous(in both an economic and civil liberty sense) consequences that result from the rural police officers' boredom are a vindicating relief from the pro-cop dramas and movies that plague our society. (I would note, for any non-anarchists that read this, that I do not believe all cops behave recklessly, but that I enjoy and support anti-cop fictional dramatizations when pro-cop fictional dramatizations are so prevalent. My objection to police officers is on a systemic foundational level.) The games played by the cops upon their hapless hostages remind me of scenes from Super Trooper while simultaneously causing me to wonder how often these cruel joke are unwittingly played upon us.

The little girl's observation of the events leading up to both the mass murders and her subsequent action was a lovely vindication to the idea that adults have superior wisdom. Cheers for Youth Rights whether it was intentional or not.

Overall, if you can handle violence and slow speed, this is a great movie with interesting character interactions and a fun serious of twists, though the major twist isn't completely out of the blue in that you can sense it coming if you pay attention. If you are an anarchist you can enjoy the added benefits of being reminded just why the statist system of law enforcement is horribly flawed. Whether you torrent or buy(unfortunately its not on DVD yet) movies, it should definitely be considered.

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

My First Cavity Search! Presented by Stalin the Friendly Government Agent

2008-12-23T10:37:00.000-08:00

Please leave humorous comments regarding this.

"Why I remember my first cavity search as a young lad."

"And today's letter is C for cavity search! - Stalin the Friendly Government Agent"

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

Peace Train - Cat Stevens

2008-12-22T07:50:00.000-08:00

And the first song-only post for those too busy to read lengthy posts during the weekday.

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

Wall Street's Bull: For Separation of Church and Economy

2008-12-19T11:40:00.000-08:00

I initially found this to be true. But as I thought of this image for several weeks, I realized I had concluded such truth too hastily.

The GOP has not betrayed Wall Street, nor has Wall Street just now begun worshiping a golden calf. These things have been true for decades, but people are only now realizing it. And it will be forgotten until the next economic crisis. The masses have a short memory.

The GOP speaks on behalf of the free market, but they do the true free market supporters a disservice. They do not support the free market, but big business as Kevin Carson has pointed out in The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand. This system has many forms such as corporatism, state capitalism, mercantalism, and crony capitalism.

The free market would support smaller businesses more than larger businesses. This is not to say I'm inherently opposed to big business. But throughout history, government has given corporates an unfair advantage. The most obvious one is their legal status as their own person.

What is this golden bull that Wall Street has always worshiped? The idea that wealth can be created out of thin air. And that is giving them the benefit of doubt of not having more sinister motives. Wealth cannot be created by printing more money; it only devalues the money. This increase in the money supply is called inflation. If one were to dump a bunch of dollars in your neighborhood(inflation) and wall it off, your prices would rise(inflation's result). This causes your currency to buy less than it formerly did.

And what is a more sinister motive? It is one where they know the above and act carelessly anyway to become more wealthy. The bankers and government contractors are usually the first to receive the government currency meaning they are gaining the currency to buy good and services that have not yet adjusted to the inflation through the rising prices.

It is no different than the benefit a counterfeiter gains. In fact, the government is a counterfeiter. Anyone creating wealth out of thin air with no value supporting it is a counterfeiter. Such actions are to be condemned as extremely foolhardy. Currency, the media of exchange, is one of the most integral pieces to our economy. Without a stable currency we are limited in our ability to act productively and resort to an economy barely better than a barter economy.

Both the GOP supporting big business under the guise of the free market and Wall Street's plundering of the economy(whether through ignorance or sinister motives) work together to damage the true free market advocates and our economy. The continued inflation and misallocation of resources has given us this economic damage. The free market rhetoric by Bush and his cronies has caused many to blame the free market unfairly and to support more government intervention in the economy. One must constantly work to point out the hypocrisy of Bush and the GOP's words and actions in their daily conversations on the topic.

And the song, by White Lion, the above image referenced:

(Image courtesy of PunditKitchen.com)

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

Another Attempted Return and Summary of Anarchist Thought

2008-12-18T12:01:00.000-08:00

Well, I'm giving this another shot. I plan to have more than just thoughts on theory here. Hopefully I can write about anarchist theory, how to put anarchy in practice, perspective on current events, along with liberty-oriented images, songs, and movie reviews. Along with these things, I hope to build more community with guest posts by fellow bloggers. To celebrate, I'm doing a bit of all of the above in this post(without a guest post of course, but please shoot me an email if you'd like to guest post next week).

For those unaccustomed to anarchy, allow me to detail this beautiful political philosophy. I believe I may have a few of you remaining on notification for this blog.

Anarchism has a diverse crowd of beliefs and there is often division within the thought. One shouldn't expect to meet two anarchists with identical beliefs. It would be like proclaiming statists are all uniform in their beliefs; there are many diverse beliefs within statism such as republicanism and monarchism.

However, anarchists do agree on a relatively simple philosophy: no government. They find government to be unethical and/or inefficient. The ideas on what will exist in place of government is where the sharpest divides occur. Beliefs range from older socialist ideas to newer, though with still quite a history, free market ideas. In between there are numerous groups but mutualists tend to blend both elements well. I am a free market anarchist, but I wouldn't force the free market on anyone. I just believe it will be the naturally arising system. Socialists can form their own societies within anarchy. I oppose socialism being forced upon people though and I find that to be another government, not anarchy.

Many people say that anarchy is chaos and reference numerous dictionary definitions. But that is nothing more than propaganda. The dictionary used to define atheism as immoral, but we do not accept that definition anymore. I don't mind discussing whether anarchy can result in chaos or not, but to define anarchy as chaos is quite inaccurate and would be akin to defining sex as rape. They may result in that attribute, but they are not inherently that attribute.

How does one practice anarchy? There are various levels of practice beginning with daily interactions with others. Notice that many actions are based on voluntaryist interactions. When you have a barbeque with your neighbor you do not force him with threats of violence to operate the grill. You invite him and ask him if he can help you with managing the grill. There are those who limit their activities to internet evasion of laws through torrenting, email encryption, and proxies and circumventers. Then there are people who evade taxes, dodge drafts, or become stateless. There are even communities of growing anarchist demographics.

How does anarchy relate to current events? In the U.S. there is the economic meltdown. Anarchists propose the end of the federal reserve while mocking the hypocrisy of Bush saying he is free market when he is one of the more regulatory presidents. In Greece, anarchists are rioting and protesting against the murder of a 15-year-old by state-sponsored murderers(cops). There are likely many more places involved with anarchy around the world, but at the time and due to my location these are the most known by me.

And to finish, I offer you a song about how the U.S. government stole a people's way of life.

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

A Response to Epistemological Anarchy

2008-09-16T12:02:00.000-07:00

First, I apologize for not staying current. Life is too busy. This will likely turn into just a mere collection of my thoughts as I need to write them down.

Second, this is a response to Epistemological Anarchy. I must commend Don for writing this almost three years ago. It offered quite an intellectual challenge despite the fact I found it at 3am. Regardless, my response follows.

Government agencies, while wanting to increase their power, also have incentive to increase their collective power. They rely upon each other to enlarge each other. For example, a government court seeks to create unnecessary retaliation, through arbitrary laws, which enlarges government police. Enlarged government police find and bring more cases to government courts, which enlarges government courts.

Of course, they can't be reckless in this task. They must punish minority offenders so that the majority doesn't feel attacked by their government and object. However, everyone is a minority in some issue. And people only look at this based on one issue at a time. A nonsmoker majority may support arbitrary laws against a smoker minority with claims they have been transgressed against, but one of those smoker minority members may be part of the anti-gun majority while one of the nonsmoker majority members may be part of the pro-gun minority. So their roles are reversed. With several issues like this, everyone has their turn being attacked unjustly through arbitrary rules while government grows.

There is no one to watch the government but those it controls or itself. Obviously, it wouldn't have incentive to truly watch itself since agencies work together to increase their power. And a watcher of the watchmen(government) cannot be under the authority of the watchmen.

Instead of government as a solution, the market would be the better solution. A business could be created to increase the flow of information about when retaliation must be used. And it would likely arise(for we cannot accurately predict market forces) that individuals may defend themselves, but not seek retaliation themselves. They would take their cases to a mutually agreed-upon court to decide the issue. That court would then exact financial retaliation from the criminal and toward the victim.

The watchers of these watchmen(business courts) are not under the watchmen's authority, but are their customers. These watchmen must please the customer or lose business. The business courts must conduct themselves reasonably if they wish to be chosen as a court system by both parties. If they are known to favor one side over the other unfairly they will be an unchosen business.

Why wouldn't people bypass the courts and seek retaliation themselves? People realize that violence is expensive and would not be worth it. They also would rather gain what they can from ther criminal. Examples of this has occurred in the past with bloodfeuds losing payment to financial payments for crimes committed in anglo-saxon cultures.

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

Gun Control: The Real Issue

2008-05-11T12:33:00.000-07:00

Gun control activists claim we need gun control laws to protect ourselves from cr sayiminals. They if people don't have guns, then they can't be shot by criminals. Then the gun rights activist reminds his opponent that criminals won't choose to follow gun control laws. Usually they both list their statistics on effects of gun control laws upon crime rates. However, there is a more crucial issue at stake than whether we are safer from criminals. Gun control laws enable persecution by government.

Basically, governmental persecution occurs through the ultimate act of a ban on possession, but such acts come after a gradual process of gun permits and registration (to aid collection of guns when a ban comes) and bans on supposedly more dangerous guns (assault weapons). Assault weapons are as necessary as handguns. It is foolish to fight a government possessing assault weapons when you only have handguns.

Gun control is a bad idea because it results in removing your ability to defend yourself and forces you (if you are a law-abiding citizen) to trust and depend upon your government. Most people cannot afford private security services so they rely on government, which is inefficient in the production of security. The government provides security based on bureaucratic rules, not market profit-loss efficiency. Instead of changing or removing a policy (or even going out of business) government suggests a policy should be enlarged to work. But this is the opposite of the market; if a policy fails it is because consumers do not approve, thus a change is made instead of trying to force it on the consumers.

Being dependent on government adds a risky element to the population. If the government has all the guns, they are the stronger force. We are reliant on them for security. There is an imbalance of power. If they were to betray that trust through some evil policy, we could not defend ourselves. For example, a child being attacked by a man is likely to be overpowered because the child has initially placed his trust in the adult, and second, because he has no method of defense.

If private security services are expensive, don't we need government to provide defense? Private security services are only expensive because government attempts to monopolize security with gun control laws; the government's security actions are considered more legitimate (through force) than market security actions. Government actions reduce the number of people providing security, causing supply to plummet, which causes price to rise.

There are numerous examples of government persecution during the 20th century alone. Most are familiar with Nazi Germany's gun control laws enabling genocide. And most are familiar with the Soviet Union murdering 20 million of its subjects. And, again, most know that communist China purged 10 to 35 million of their subjects through three different periods. But nationalist China purged 10 million of their political opponents too. In addition to these well known purges, Rwanda, Cambodia, Uganda, Guatemala, and the Ottoman Empire each murdered their subjects because their subjects were vulnerable. Last century governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all wars.

Armies have historically avoided well-armed populations. Nazi Germany chose not to invade Switzerland because the Swiss were heavily armed and the Nazi did not want to fight a guerrilla war to subdue the Swiss. The American military in Iraq does not move into highly insurgent regions without adequate preparation (air attacks). And the Imperial Japanese never wanted to invade mainland America because of our armed citizens.

The effects of gun control are many, but through an inefficient production of security, an imbalance of power, and an attempted monopoly on security, the end result is the enabling of governments to persecute their own population. However, where a population has been well-armed liberty has been better preserved, and people have been safer from governmental persecution. There is no complete safety, but it is exponentially increased within an armed society.

Chart of Death by Gun Control

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

LewRockwell.com

2008-05-11T12:20:00.000-07:00

LewRockwell.com is one of the two leading websites on libertarian philosophy. The site is directed toward the layperson through the usage of short, easily-understood articles. LewRockwell.com also tends to focus on more current issu4es and how libertarian theory is applied to them, however there are timeless articles studying the wider impact of libertarian thought.

In addition to the articles, LewRockwell.com charts gold prices, operates a blog on the daily news with relevance to libertarianism, and runs a small clothing store based from cafepress.

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

George Washington and the Future of the American Presidency

2008-02-08T15:59:00.000-08:00

The United States had survived the turmoil of the Articles of Confederation and the debates of the Constitutional Convention, and the first presidential reign was beginning. George Washington was a founding father who had gained respect among the colonists. As such, he was the first president, unanimously chosen, to step into the

United States

' newly created executive branch. He had the task of setting many precedents of procedure and policy. But since that first presidency, wars have changed our national opinion, intellectuals have arisen to challenge past ideologies, and, of course, history has been revised to reflect better upon modern presidencies.

Washington was a humble man who desired a humble nation. Instead of assuming he could micromanage the entire executive branch, he chose a system of knowledgeable advisers, a cabinet. Washington avoided the ostentatious titles of royal European courts and instead accepted simple titles. However, he did add some pomp and circumstance to the office, to give the office respect at home and abroad. Following the model of Rome's Cincinnatus, he eventually stepped down to allow another individual to hold office.

Modern presidencies continue to follow Washington's procedural precedents. Excepting Franklin Delano Roosevelt, all presidents limited themselves to two terms. After Roosevelt's reign, however, the idea of a 2-term limit was imposed through the 22nd Amendment. The president is still humbly, yet respectfully, referred to as Mr. President. Though respect is based more on action and belief than pompous formalities, the formalities do remain. As we will see, this is the only true similarity between Washington's presidency and our modern presidency.

Washington's foreign policy was rather simple as evidenced in his 1796 Farewell Address: "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world." Essentially, he argued that we should have open commerce with all nations, but avoid permanent alliances that draw us into wars and cause hatred of our nation by our allies' enemies.

Modern presidencies have rejected this essential foreign policy concept of Washington's presidency. Modern 20th century presidents and the majority of 2008 presidential candidates accept wars and alliances as necessary. It was entangling alliances that brought us into World Wars I and II. We have been involved in numerous wars across the globe, intervening in the name of national security and humanitarianism. Individual wars are criticized, while war itself often goes untouched. Even less common is the idea that we should stray from permanent alliances. In today's presidencies foreign policy is a distinct ideological split from Washington's day.

Washington firmly believed that national parties were a bane to governmental efficiency and stability, a common view among Washington's contemporaries, despite the fact two of his advisers formed the nation's first parties. In his 1796 Farewell Address he railed against the dangers of political parties. Despite his warnings, the country did not listen until the divisiveness of the Revolution of 1800.

Political parties are indispensable to political life today. Every president since Washington has belonged to one. There are voters who will vote nothing but their party's candidates. Every party adores their party's successful presidents: Republicans worship Reagan, while Democrats revere FDR. Likewise, each party vilifies the other party's incompetent presidents. While Washington and a few contemporaries feared political parties would fracture the nation and the government, parties have proved to be universal within you political system and do no appear to be disappearing any time soon despite the divisiveness of partisan political and the occasional voiced fear that partisanship divides the nation.

We have also changed with regard to economic theory. In Washington's day liberals and conservatives alike embraced the free market espoused by Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. Since that time, American liberals have accepted a more socialist economic theory. Following the idea that the market is cruel, they believe the government must intervene within the market and create a mixed economy. As the economic battle between American conservatives (who more classical liberal in their economic theory) and American liberals rages, our modern presidents have created a mixed economy for a welfare-warfare state.

Originally, government was not involved in the daily lives of its citizens. It kept a distant hand. However, with FDR's New Deal, resulting in the welfare-warfare state, government began to become a daily fixture in people's lives. And people grew to hold government more responsible for the problems of the world. Eventually, government stepped in with a solution to every problem. Now modern presidencies accept the assumption that government can solve every domestic and foreign problem.

Since Washington's presidency, there has been a shift in what our government is. Many people believe we are a democracy today, but historically we have been a republic. The Federalist Papers argue for a republican government and Hamilton, author of the Federalist essays, remarked, "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy." Look at the definitions of the terms. A republic is a government where the people elect representatives to debate and pass laws; a democracy is a government where the people themselves debate and pass laws. Modern presidents use the term democracy to espouse various actions, such as establishing foreign democracies from old tyrannies, economic equality, and affirmative action/equal opportunity hiring. Without the belief of an American democracy these modern policies are jeopardized.

A large part of this ideological shift from Washington's presidency can be contributed to a change in perception of an executive office. During early American presidencies, the memory of the American Revolution was still vivid. Ending only six years before Washington took office, the colonists had fought a system of a domineering executive. As such, Americans generally feared a strong executive. However, as political parties began to form during the Constitutional Convention and Washington's presidency, two naturally existing and opposing view took hold. Under the Federalists of Hamilton, a strong executive branch would exist within a strong central government. Under the Democratic-Republicans of Jefferson, power would be localized as much as possible to states, cities, and ultimately, the people.

These ideologies fought until the Northern victory against the South states under Lincoln's administration. Hamiltonian theory, though under a new party, became dominant. Occasionally, Jeffersonian theory would arise; nevertheless, Hamiltonian theory would quickly surge back. Since, FDR, Hamiltonian theory has maintained unparalleled dominance. Modern presidencies act under the assumption that government can fix any problem, domestic or foreign.

Ironically, many modern presidents voice admiration for our Founding Fathers, despite their obvious ideological split. They hold the same office and perform the same formal ceremonies and procedures, but they do not govern in the same fashion as their forebears.

The future of the American presidency is up for grabs. It constantly is. The course of the nation can change with a decisive election or charismatic president. That is the beauty (and yet the downfall) of our political system. For example, Jefferson was elected in the relatively peaceful (in terms of no bloodshed) Revolution of 1800, Abraham Lincoln solidified Hamiltonian theory during his presidency, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt brought about the welfare-warfare state of the modern presidency. We can continue to struggle with our current governmental ideology, evolve to a new ideology, or we can return to a successful past: a past where we were not despised by the world community, but were a model of freedom; a past where we were free, yet working towards greater liberty.

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

Freedom Fighters

2008-02-08T15:57:00.000-08:00

I have recently added a new feature under Archives: a few alphabetically-organized links to sites which support individual freedom. I will be writing some posts highlighting why I appreciate the work of each site for the following few days.

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

On Selfishness and Self-Interest

2007-12-21T14:34:00.000-08:00

Often attacks of selfishness are leveled against anyone acting in their own benefit as if no one should care for themselves. I propose that there is a difference between selfishness and self-interest.

What constitutes selfishness? Simply said, selfishness is acting in your benefit without regard, and often harming, other individuals. An example of selfishness would be stealing an old lady's purse, which contained the money she needed for her medications and food for the month; a milder case of selfishness would be not paying your full share of the bill between you and your roommate. Obviously, living by selfishness is not an ideal for society.

On the other hand, self-interest helps society prosper. Self-interest is acting in your benefit, but with consideration of others needs and a lack of harm towards others. Self-interest for an individual, company, or nation is necessary for survival. An example of self-interest would be an apple farmer trading a crate of apples for a metalworker’s pruner. Both individuals are happy with the result. They have cared for themselves, but not harmed anyone in the transaction.

These two behaviors affect individuals, companies, and nations to a great extent. Based on these behaviors, individuals ruin and build relationships, companies lose or turn a profit through business decisions, and nations fall and rise from economic policies.

Selfishness and self-interest affect individual relationships conversely. If everyone were to act selfishly, trust would break down between individuals as people were betrayed. However, if everyone were to act in their self-interest, relationships would build as beneficial transactions occur.

Companies often need to make decisions regarding employees, shareholders, and other businesses. If a company rips any of these people off through selfishness, they will eventually fall. However, a company acting in its self-interest, but caring about others will build interdependence in the economy, earn a trusted, respected reputation, and prosper.

Selfishness ruins a free market; self-interest creates a free market. Selfishness can be displayed in an economic system though cronyism. Cronyism is a free market where regulation exists to help certain companies who have put politicians into power. Self-interest does not result in cronyism; it is the necessary ingredient for free markets. Cronyism is the capitalist system where the workers are exploited; cronyism is the capitalist system that Marx and Engels condemned.

Selfishness and self-interest work together through individuals, companies, and nations to either produce a grand society, or a ruined one. However, each company and country needs individuals to speak up in favor of self-interest. It all starts with one.

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

Democracy, a Tyranny of the Majority

2007-12-20T10:22:00.000-08:00

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
- Benjamin Franklin

We frequently reassure ourselves that democracy is good, and that dictatorships are tyrannous. However, democracy is still tyranny. The only difference is who controls the tyranny, and people’s perception.

People have the opinion that democracy is good because everyone has a say in the government. They fail to realize that "a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine" as Thomas Jefferson said. People also say everyone is equal under a democracy. That is only if the 51% allow equality. It could just as well happen that they subjugate the other 49%. Examine the slaves of the south.

Democracy leaves a nation open to the majority promoting its own interests (nothing inherently wrong with that) with no counterbalance to protect minorities’ rights. Essentially, democracy is mob rule. It is time we stop promoting democracy as the ideal of political systems.

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

Summarized Argument for Free Speech

2007-12-17T14:50:00.000-08:00

Highly controversial, free speech is essential for a government based on people's consent. However, debates often rage about what free speech is. While libertarians and anarcho-capitalists support free speech in its entirety, statists believe in only protecting political speech.

While protected political speech is a beneficial right that guards against governmental coercion, we should not stop there. By protecting only political speech we limit individuals' rights. Statists base this censorship on their preferred morality. However, coercing an individual to accept a belief they did not accept on free choice is wrong (the Harm Principle to be explained in a later essay). And statists have not historically stopped at non-political speech. Eventually, they claim certain political speech is dangerous to the country and government, and attempt to censor it. Note the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, or McCarthyism.

Statists, arguing for governmental interference in our lives, base their political theories on collectivism as opposed to individualism. By their reasoning, the government should enforce societal morality. Often societal morality is more about personal choice than society-affecting damage. A government should protect against victimizing crime, not support the ruler's morality.

Wasn't free speech historically political? Was it not used for good? No, because the Founding Fathers and early politicians were often viciously personal in their attacks. Referring to Federalists in a letter to John Taylor on June 4, 1798 Thomas Jefferson wrote, "A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to it's true principles." Likewise, Federalist newspapers claimed that electing Jefferson would lead to the "teaching of murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest".

Won't the world be an unsatisfactory place if speak their mind (often offensively)? No, because a built-in mechanism exists for regulation: society. When an offensive statement occurs, society will censor them by the collected preferences of individuals. If the statement goes uncensored the statement was not offensive enough to warrant action. If people believe it is offensive they can advocate societal censorship. The government should not decide what is offensive or inoffensive.

Finally, we must remember that non-offensive speech does not need protection, only offensive speech does.

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

The Wall

2007-12-15T14:35:00.001-08:00

“All in all, you're just another brick in the wall” - Pink Floyd, Another Brick in the Wall, Pt. 2

Many are familiar with this song (and know that line refers to a teacher), but how many have truly analyzed its meaning? What else constitutes the wall besides the teacher? First, we must know why this teacher is a brick in the wall.

"We don't need no thought control"

The teacher has used an authoritative position to control the children. Consequentially, a brick is a policy or person using authority to conform others to a belief system. This occurs when a dominant group believes they hold the right belief and other beliefs hold no merit. Therefore, other beliefs are ignored, persecuted, or both. Various bricks include state or religion run newspapers and schools, repealed free speech, knowledge limited to elites, centralized police force, exile or excommunication, and globally intervening military.

The wall would be their collective efforts – symbolically separating people from open knowledge and free choice. Over many times and places the wall has been raised by states, religions, or both. For example, the Protestant Reformation, Counter-Reformation, Red Scare, Berlin Wall, Cold War, and War on Terror are walls.

Dismantled repeatedly and constructed repeatedly, the Dismantlers and Constructors are constantly in conflict. Fighting for freedom despite personal peril, Dismantlers proclaim open knowledge and free choice causing the wall to fracture and resulting in precious freedom for all.

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

Definition and Process of Fomenting a Revolution

2007-12-14T14:09:00.000-08:00

The art of fomenting a revolution is a difficult one, one bringing danger and ill repute. A revolution, or violent reform against authority, forms through reacting against either an administration's aggressive action or lack of action. Therefore, the administration is often to blame, not the revolutionaries.

However, what type of revolution is being discussed? It is merely a political revolution against state institutions? No, revolts can occur against any forms of administration (states, religions, schools, or workplaces. Furthermore, what does a revolution attempt to accomplish? Contrary to statist stereotypes, revolutions are not solely about gaining control of the administration. Even if a leader uses reforms as an excuse to gain power, his supporters, whom make revolution possible, revolt in the name of reform. In essence, revolutions attempt to accomplish reform despite leaders potentially using reform as cover for their own power hunger. However, reforms are not necessarily altruistic, they involve self-interest; self-interest is not selfish — self-interest considers others, selfishness does not. Revolutions and reforms are not as evil as the statist would like you to believe. Their morality depends upon their intent, not the action itself. Finally, is revolution a full-scale war against the administration (ignoring the fact most revolutionary wars are guerrilla wars)? If it were, schools would be a bad example, as a full-scale war against a school hasn't occurred. No, a revolution is a violent action against an administration closed to change. Violence may take the form of war, vandalism, murders or assassinations, theft, or violent protests and riots.

A revolution has numerous forms prior to becoming a formal revolution. Usually beginning mildly, each step grows in intensity.

Any reform starts with at least one person seeking change. That individual then persuades others to join the cause. These few reformers have two courses of action. Protracting their desired change to insure success, they could attempt to persuade the majority of the governed. Or they could work to enable risky, immediate change. Many reforms commit to elements of both. Devoted to change, various members use their distinct abilities for the cause — pamphlets are written, street speeches are shouted, protests are organized, donations are gathered, and influential patrons are recruited.

Slowly the reformers petition the administration for the desired change. If the administration eventually acquiesces to their demands, no revolution is likely. But if the administration censors their writings and speech, prevents or attacks their protests, or otherwise rejects their attempted reform, a revolution remains likely; revolutions also remain possible if administrations lack acknowledgment for reform.

When the reformers tire of either the administrations aggressive response or lack of response, they become infuriated, leading to two potential actions: secession or revolution. Secession, removing oneself from an organized administration and establishing your own authority and administration, is still a form of revolution; however, it is only successful if the revolutionaries are within one geographic location.

Once the reformers see revolution as necessary, actions are reallocated. Existent supporters are informed, currency is collected, weaponry is warehoused, and strategy is discussed. Eventually they will act on their preparations in order to achieve the desired change in a more violent process than the revolutionaries originally imagined when they were mere reformers.

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

The Right to a Free Market

2007-10-19T12:08:00.000-07:00

One often hears of the right to free speech, press, and religion, yet we hear little of the right to a free market. While it may not be a Constitutionally-protected right, it does remain an inherent right. Necessary for an economically successful society and naturally occurring, a free market deserve equal status with free speech and other accepted rights.

When one purchases a product, the seller of goods gains more capital to improve the business, therefore adding a valuable service to society. For as the business develops, it must buy goods and services from other businesses as well as employ workers, resulting in numerous improved individuals, businesses and society as a whole. Individuals gain a variety of quality products with a large distribution as well as money from working for the business or one of the businesses it relies on for goods and services. Businesses gain more business as money flows with successive improvements by each business. Society, economically, gains from the interlocking success of numerous individuals and businesses. Hence, a free market is beneficial.

When any government creates and enforces regulations on the free market they impinge on the natural order of markets. This is illustrated by the rise of black markets to sell and purchase goods unavailable elsewhere. Regardless of legality, supply and demand with voluntary exchange create the free market–they are unavoidably occurring and consequentially natural.

As a free market is beneficial and–more importantly–naturally occurring, free markets should not be restricted by governments of any form. The free sale and purchase of any goods should be open in the equal sense that spoken and written word should not be censored.

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

Two Deontological Systems of Ethics and Common Critiques

2007-09-27T18:21:00.000-07:00

Deontology is the branch of normative ethics that stresses rules; it focuses on the rightness of actions rather than the consequences of actions.

Within deontological thought there are many interpretations. The most famous philosopher of Deontology is Immanuel Kant.

According to Kant, there were two types of duties: contingent and categorical. Contingent duties were only absolute under certain circumstances while categorical duties were always absolute. Kant believed that the duty to promote human freedom and reasoning as the only categorical duty and as such named it the categorical imperative. As a result, he argued that the only moral correct action is to promote human liberties and reasoning and that it was morally wrong to follow duties that did not result in furthered liberties and reasoning.

The major criticism of Kant's system is whether one should tell a murderer the location of his soon-to-be victim. Kant responded in the essay On a Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives where he stated that to lie would remove the murderer's freedom to act rationally.

Another deontological system of ethics is Divine Command Theory. Simply explained, it states that what is commanded by God or the gods is morally right.

An often criticism of this ethical system asks, "Is an action morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is morally good?".

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

Chameleon Communication

2007-08-22T13:58:00.000-07:00

Chameleons are remarkable creatures. As I am sure we all know, they have the ability to change their appearance to blend in with their surroundings. This is a skill humans should adopt. I am not advocating changing yourself to whom you associate with; being yourself is important. However, I am promoting changing your communication style to better blend in with whom you are attempting to communicate with.

Why become a chameleon communicator?

Well, as the wise saying goes, "If you can walk with kings and keep the common touch, you will be successful."

Communication between different groups is like communicating across language barriers. You wouldn't use Spanish when speaking at a British convention; nor would you use Russian when greeting a South Korean diplomat.

Your style of communication should be dependent on whom you are attempting communication. Of course, communication is beyond what you say. Gestures and appearances are important too. The idea is to connect by becoming one of the audience. In other words, when speaking to construction workers, do not come in a suit.

Research the demographic of the audience in order to best prepare yourself. Many politicians practice this. They stress issues that people are concerned about, act like the working class for their vote, and court the rich for their donations.

Essentially, the more similar you are to whom you are trying to reach, the more of a personal connection is built. With connection comes the crucial element you are trying to achieve: trust. You want trust so they buy your product, vote for you, adopt your ideas, or otherwise accept your message.

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

The Gordian Knot of Ideological Unitarianism

2007-08-18T15:05:00.000-07:00

Imagine a world where everyone agrees, a world of ideological unitarianism. Incumbents are usually elected because there is no need for change. There are no political divides. Wall Street analysts are in unanimous consensus. One government and one religion are dominant. However, no one minds at present because all accept the religion and are equally loyal to the government. No arguments, debates, scandals, or controversies arise. Everyone watches the same channels at the same time, listens to the same radio stations at the same time, reads the same books, and visits the same websites. The status quo is readily accepted and never challenged.

Does it sound like a beautiful utopia? Well, let us look beyond the surface.

Perils of Ideological Unitarianism

When incumbents are continually elected, nobody gains experience under the wings of the veterans; imagine what occurs when the incumbents die. With the lack of political divide, there is no discussion of the issues. If someone ever began to question the accepted stances, they would be ignored and ridiculed at minimum. Remember, people with differing opinions do arise.

The market would be in stagnation because the market is driven by disagreement. When someone wants to sell stocks, they are counting on the fact that someone disagrees with the idea of selling and would buy the stock. If everyone agreed that the stock should sell, no one would be buying the stock; the stock market would stop moving. The same is true for the rest of capitalism; essentially disagreement is necessary for market forces to work.

Ideological Diversity

Evidently, differing opinions are necessary in life and do occur. Ideological diversity exists, and we need it. That does not mean we should accept all ideologies. It means considering and understanding other viewpoints. Additionally, surrounding ourselves with diverse perspectives allows ideas to be thrown around, between ideologically diverse individuals in order to come up with an idea that one person or ideologically unitarianistic group would not think of. Allow me to leave you with a story to ponder

There was once a successful sky resort town that attracted tourists and skiers. Snowfall was abundant. In fact, it was so abundant that it caused trouble. Every winter it would pile up on the power lines and power poles until the weight became unbearable, resulting in the lines snapping, consequentially plunging the town into powerlessness. As a result, the tourists and skiers would not return following years and income began to fall since the town's economy was based on the visitors.

A town meeting was held in response. They threw ideas around, but none were viable. Eventually a child spoke up, "Why don't you put honey on the lines and when the bears get the honey, the lines will shake, knocking the snow off?" Instead of ridiculing the idea because bears would be in hibernation during winter, someone jokingly entertained the idea by asking how the townsfolk would get the honey on the lines. Yet another individual answered, "a helicopter". It was then they realized they could use the wind from the helicopter blades to knock excess snow off the power lines. They could not have figured it out without the injection of the child's ideologically diverse perspective.

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

6 Results of Stunted Relationship Growth

2007-08-17T13:36:00.000-07:00

People often talk about forming communities of like-minded individuals. While being part of a community of like-minded people can be positive, you should not restrict yourself to only such social networks because there are two inherent problems with only participating in these communities. First, you stunt your relationship-building potential. Second, you lose ideological diversity. In this article I shall address the first issue; tomorrow I shall confront the second. Now, for the step-by-step result of isolating yourself within a community of only the like-minded.

As you would associate more with that community you would slowly lose touch with those outside the community. Eventually, you become isolated within that community. A community that becomes a society of hermetics is one fraught with danger.
As you communicate more within the community, you pick up on how they speak. Your diction and gestures become more alike. While this is not inherently egregious, it could make it harder to communicate with outsiders.
Likewise, it makes it harder for you to understand outsiders. This lack of understanding that arises from miscommunication only fosters stereotyping outsiders which results in further miscommunication and misunderstanding.
As you lose understanding of outsiders, you begin to fear outsiders and their motives. Evidently, such fear worsens the situation because when fear arises it usually results in action to find protection from the source of the fear.
We now have miscommunication, a lack of understanding, stereotyping, fear, and advancing protections against outsiders. n other words, the ground is fertile for the practice of intolerance. This exponentially exacberates the divide between community members and outsider. Any potential relations are immediately strained.
One evident collective result is that new members are immediately distrusted as outsiders and must prove themselves as like-minded community members to gain respect.

As you can tell, the results of isolating yourself within a community of like-minded individuals is disastrous for both community and outsider. Conclusively, it is imperative you avoid this situation and continually connection and build more relationships with people of man diverse interests and opinions.

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

7-Point Guide to Being a Responsible Individual

2007-08-16T15:13:00.000-07:00

The very core of any society rests on the idea of responsible, successful individuals. Consequentially I have produced a 7-point guide to being a responsible individual. There are likely many more tips, but if you follow this brief guide I believe you will become a successful person within your society.

Connect. All societies are founded on the idea of relationships. No society can exist on the idea that man is complete island. Humans need interaction to improve themselves and to do that they must connect with one another. So go out and build worthwhile relationships with whom you meet.
Understand. Of course, connecting with people requires learning to listen and understand them. Many problems have arisen unnecessarily from miscommunication. Sit down and spend time to listen.
Reason. Use reason when interacting with other individuals. Often, if you are thinking through what you say and do you get better results. That is because le respond better to reason than authoritarian commands.
Specificity. When you are vague, you are being irresponsible because you open the door to miscommunication, which ruins many relationships. While vagueness can be necessary at times, the majority of the time specificity works much more efficiently. If you ask for a drink, you might be unsatisfied with the result; but if you ask for decaffeinated coffee, you would get what you want.
Respect. One key element of responsibility is to act civilly. Try you best not to insult people, especially in public. If a person has insulted you publicly, you know how embarrassing and awkward it can be. People respond defensively to such attacks and grudges are often has as a result. If someone must be reprimanded, do it behind closed doors for the individual's dignity. Discuss the problem respectfully without belittling them.
Motive. Intention can be very important. Many people do what they do so people appreciate them; while being socially important is important, do not sacrifice everything at the altar of approval. Instead, base your motive on what is right. Even if you are scornfully mocked today, posterity will thank you. Remember that Socrates, Jesus, Martin Luther, Lincoln, and Reagan were all scorned during their day, but are now highly respected.
Adapt. Change has always occurred, is occurring, and will occur. Change has often been said, paradoxically, to be the only constant in the universe. Individuals and societies need to be capable of innovation. If we do not adjust with the times, we will stagnate; many people, governments, and companies have fallen behind by sticking with tradition above innovation. For example, Western Union fell behind because they did not realize the telephone would surpass the telegram. In order to survive, we must be flexible not rigid.

Hence, go forth connecting, understanding, reasoning, using specificity, respecting, utilizing correct motive, and adapting. Any feedback on what I have offered, its results, or what you find helpful in becoming responsible and successful would be much appreciated.

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.