Category Archives: Freedom

Gunwakler Guns Not ‘Allowed’

Posted on by

If you believe the BATFE merely “allowed” criminals to buy the guns,  you have to believe that there were regular, on-going attempts, by Mexican gangsters, to make huge purchases at U.S. gun stores, that these huge purchases were being regularly denied, and that the Mexican gangsters simply kept trying, failing, trying, failing, and then one day, all of a sudden, the gigantic sales start being approved, one and another and another, simply because our local dufi started pushing the green button instead of the red button.  And nothing else.

Sorry; I can’t believe it.  I say those purchases were engineered.  Someone had to be in contact with known criminals, asking them, or ordering them, to come here and make those purchases and take delivery down south.  Can we please stop using “allowed” or “let” when talking about this?  It defies logic.

Let’s also be very careful about getting indignant, saying in essence, “Allowing guns to be sold in the U.S. resulted in crime.”  No, Little Grasshopper.  Criminals result in crime (and the sons of bitches who work with them at our expense).  I cannot be convinced, in any case, that said criminals couldn’t have gotten, wouldn’t rather have gotten, their guns from any of multiple sources in their own country including U.S. government arms supplied ostensibly as aid, from other Central and South American countries, and from the black market.

Criminals and tyrants will always be armed.  The only question is whether the good guys will also be armed, and Gunwalker was an attempt to engineer a crisis so as to help answer this question in the negative.

Quote of the day—The Vancouver Action Plan

Posted on by

Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings-and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.

The Vancouver Action Plan
June 1976
Agenda item 10 (d)
[Via an email pointer from JoeyD Sr. to a web page about Agenda 21.

I am reminded that Stalin had a particular interest in the land owners of the Ukraine and several million people died as he tried to “create a better society”. He and his followers considered themselves “progressives” and those that opposed him were called “regressives”. Sound familiar?

I would like to remind “public planners” (I prefer to call them “the central committee”) that rural land owners in this country are much more likely to own firearms than the population at large. My limited sample suggests nearly 100% of them own firearms.

Μολὼν λαβέ! can equally well and should apply to acres as well as guns.—Joe]

From the Horse’s (Jihadist’s) Mouth

Posted on by

Here we go again I suppose.  I posted a few days ago that I wanted clarification of Ron Paul’s military and foreign policy.  No one offered any, but it sure provoked a storm of comments.  I asked in a comment on RP’s own web site, what he would suggest we do about small, rogue states that want to kill us, don’t yet have the means to do it, but are very active in working to attain the means and the allies to eventually kill us.  Not only did Ron Paul or his web site managers attempt an answer, none of his supporters offered any answers, AND there was an instant troll patrol mobilization that buried the discussion in an argument over the definition of Zion.

Strike One; No coherent position on his own web site.

Strike Two; No answers to a serious and level-headed series of questions.

Strike Three; He seems to have a troll patrol that can be dispatched on demand on short notice, to provide a smoke screen.  Whether they operate at his behest, or totally on their own, someone clearly sees a need to cover for Ron Paul’s foreign policy ideas, or lack thereof.

The primary response I get from those willing to talk, i.e. not Ron Paul, is; “Pfffft!  That little fly spec is no threat!” followed by a litany of sins committed by the U.S.

As for the first part– the “pfffft” part, it doesn’t take a super power to do a lot of serious damage.  As for the second part– it’s hard to square with the first part, unless I translate it as, “we don’t deserve to survive” or “we don’t deserve to take action against any but the most cataclysmic of threats, because that would be meddling and meddling is evil”.  Without that translation, the litany-of-sins part of argument is nothing but a change of subject in that it does not address the question of what we should do about specific current threats, or future threats as they might emerge.

There are plenty of threats in the world, and a few that wander in from the outer solar system once in a while, but jihad seems to be a popular one for discussion.  I’ve heard quite a few words from the jihadist’s mouths before, and Joe, years ago, posted a list of demands from Bin Laden.  From what I’ve actually seen and heard, The Reasons for jihadists hating us center around the basics of our culture and not our foreign policies of the past or present, except for our support of Israel, which is only sometimes mentioned.  Whole jihadist diatribes exist that don’t mention it at all.  You will also remember that Israel was not created by the U.S. and that the Soviets, the Germans and more recently the Chinese, have had their long and sometimes brutal fingers in the Mid East, and THEY are not “The Great Satan”.  We are.  The facts, as I understand them then, do not support, do not even suggest other than in the most ethereal way, the idea that they hate us enough to want to wipe us off the map simply because of our meddling foreign policy.

This recent explanation, from an actual “Sharia Shall be the Law of the World” jihadist, is right along the lines of everything else I’ve heard;

Aside from railing against democracy, he goes on to unabashedly claim that sharia is his ultimate goal. Further showcasing his view that “rule by the people” is completely unacceptable, he continues with the following:

“once Allah’s law is applied, the role of the people will end and Allah will reign supreme.”

I’ve heard that many times– “The Koran, God’s law, is the only law.  Man-made laws have no place in the world.  Rule by the People is rule by Satan.  Stuff like that.  Very common theme. And from the same report;

Shehato said that if the mujahideen came to power in Egypt, they would launch a campaign of Islamic conquests aimed at subjecting the entire world to Islamic rule. Muslim ambassadors would be appointed to each country, charged with calling upon them to join Islam willingly, but if the countries refused, war would be waged against them.

The Islamic state he’d like to see Egypt become is an equally concerning picture — a nation that would have no trade or cultural ties with non-Muslims. And because tourists “drink alcohol and fornicate,” all of the sites that have made Egypt a popular destination for foreign vacationers. will be shut down. Art, dancing, singing and other exercises of talent and self-expression will also be prohibited.

We “Drink alcohol and fornicate”.  I believe Bin Laden said the same thing, along with demanding an end to trading money with interest.  Exercises of art and other forms of self-expression have also been mentioned before, by other radical Islamists.  That’s what I’m seeing, supposedly in their own words.  Now you could argue that all the translators and/or reporters, from any and all walks of life, are mistranslating and/or misreporting the messages, but I’ll have a very hard time believing that.  If that were the case, there’d be people here, who speak the language, raising a fit– “That’s not what he said…!“

So far as I can tell, Ron Paul says “no sanctions” while at the same time saying that we should “put (undefined) pressure” on certain, undefined, entities but absolutely avoid them by staying out of their business while the jihadists ally with Russia, China and Venezuela, etc. and we should totally mind our own business because anything else whatsoever is “Imperialist”.  That is, so far as I can tell.  I’ve given up on my attempt to get clarification from Ron Paul.  I now know I’ll never get it.  There’s something seriously f’d up with him, that people close to him want very much to hide.  I don’t know what it is, but I can smell its horrible stench wafting out through my monitor.

So.  Again.  Please.  Focus like a laser beam this time.  Forget our litany of past and present sins for the moment.  Forget Ron Paul.  That’s a different subject from “what should we do now that the house seems to be smoking?”  I don’t want a sermon on why I shouldn’t play with matches while the house seems to be on fire.  OK?  There are possibly some rather more important matters that need our immediate attention.  Or do you believe we should just forget the smoke and argue amongst ourselves until we see naked flames?  How high do the flames have to be then?  Should we be at all concerned about these jihad jackwagons, who seem to be making progress while we’re losing liberty in our own house, and if so, what should we do about it?  Or do they even exist?  I’ve heard that argument– “There is no terrorist threat”.  Exactly what would your dream candidate say?  Please be clear and to the point. (assuming your dream candidate would be clear and to the point).  If you’re for Ron Paul I don’t waht to hear from you.  I already read his own words and they make no sense, and since he can’t speak for himself I don’t care what you have to say about him because you clearly don’t know any better than I.

Quote of the day—John Robb

Posted on by

Looking for a safe asset class today, is like a Soviet bureaucrat in 1989, sensing trouble ahead, looking for the directorate with the safest job.

John Robb
August 30, 2011
JOURNAL: Where Should I Put My Money Before Things Collapse?
[I think there is some truth in the statement above but there are some flaws in the rest of the post. He seems to believe the problems are with capitalism rather than government interference in the free market.

What do I think are safe “asset classes”? The essentials of life: water, food, shelter, communication, health care, security, and the means to produce them. Which isn’t all that far off from what Robb advocates.—Joe]

Consequences for their actions

Posted on by

I’ve been listening to The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy by Thomas Sowell and something he said resonated with a theme Robb has been blogging about and the latest news in Fast and Furious (H//T to Rob for this last link). Governments (actually people in general but the present context is government) will not abide by the law (or contracts) unless there is some punishment they fear if they fail to comply with the terms. When people in government spent other peoples money (OPM: pronounced “opium”) they have virtually no incentive to spend it wisely.

Had the people responsible for Fast and Furious been handed over to the Mexican Government within a week of the request being made most of the gun community would have considered justice had been mostly served. But more importantly future excursions outside the law, such as the long gun reporting rule, would have been given much greater scrutiny before being implemented. As it is the message sent is that the worst that will happen is those responsible will be given boring jobs and the whistle blowers will be punished to the fullest extent possible without bending the law too far.

As Sowell expresses it the self-anointed implement government policies with OPM, other peoples lives, and no consequences for failed outcomes except those that are truly and obviously disastrous. The outcome is as you might expect. It’s no different than letting your children run wild and giving them whatever they ask for. They end up as spoiled brats who cause problems for everyone and are incapable of functioning in society. Only as government officials they are in a position to destroy society.

Most of our government officials have “qualified immunity” which protects them from breaking the law unless they clearly should have known better. IIRC the argument is that we need to give them this sort of immunity so that “good people” won’t be afraid to enter public service. This argument never held any water for me because there is no similar immunity granted to corporate officials or individuals who unknowingly break (there are some exceptions to this) laws. And you don’t hear people arguing that “good people” are scared to become corporate executives or individuals living their lives as if they in constant fear of arrest and punishment.

Government officials, more so than individuals, need to have consequences for breaking the law. It’s working in Florida and it would work everywhere.

It’s a start

Posted on by

I’ve often wondered if budget cuts would lead to less infringement upon our freedom. This is just a drop in the bucket and the effect will probably go completely unnoticed at our level. But it is a start:

The Transportation Security Administration is soon hoping to offer buyouts to about 3,000 administrative workers, one of dozens of federal agencies aiming to trim the payroll amid a budget crunch.

TSA is seeking authority from the Office of Personnel Management to offer buyouts to about 3,000 administrative and managerial workers based at its Northern Virginia headquarters and at regional offices nationwide, the agency said late Thursday.

Something that is more than a little telling about this organizations is the following from the same article:

The agency has offered voluntary early retirements to workers since December 2004 — about a year after the agency first opened.

It sounds to me like a major function of the agency is redistribution of wealth. When the budget crunch really hits I won’t have any probably advocating for the letting these guys and the politicians who enabled this sort of crap fend for themselves.

Quote of the day—phlcstgan

Posted on by

The fact that “gun blogs” are a thing makes me really worry about America.

phlcstgan
August 24, 2011
Comment to Gun Blogger Ignores NRA Undermining Gun Law Enforcement Measures
[The fact this person has such an aversion to our Bill of Rights makes me really certain they do not belong in the U.S.—Joe]

What could go wrong?

Posted on by

The most obvious problem with this it is that it’s part of the continuing degradation of our privacy:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is beginning real-world trials of cars equipped with prototype vehicle-to-vehicle technology, deploying a communication network where cars can talk with one another to increase overall road safety.

Starting in August, 2012, the agency will begin gathering data from 3,000 cars equipped with wireless communication technology. Known as The Safety Pilot, the trials will run for one year in Ann Arbor, Mich., to provide data for setting V2V standards and determining what data streams are most helpful.

…

Here’s how it works: Using existing, universally accessible technology such as GPS and on-board diagnostic data, cars broadcast what’s called a “Here I Am” message at 5.9 GHz. All V2V equipped vehicles will be able to communicate on this band, sharing data such as speed and location. On-board computers sense the presence of other nearby vehicles, calculate the risks they may pose and even taking action — such as hitting the brakes or warning the driver of an impending collision.

From a privacy point of view as long as the vehicles do not broadcast a unique ID I don’t have a problem with it. But if they broadcast an ID that can be traced to the individual car this fails my Jews in the Attic Test.

But what really looks bad to me is the potential to cause accidents with this. Imagine some jokester/terrorist/whatever turning on one of these ‘”Safety Pilots”, broadcasting a signal indicating a stopped (or going the wrong way) vehicle in the middle of a busy freeway with vehicles traveling 70 MPH. People could use them to block emergency vehicles. It could make escapes easier and delay firefighters and/or police to terrorist events.

It’s possible, I suppose, the creators thought of these sort of problems and successfully addressed them. But my guess is they did not.

People need to think of the not only the benefits but the problems created with new technology. Especially those associated with government mandates.

Hunger is coming

Posted on by

I’ve been saying for years that hunger is coming and that lots of people are going to die. I can’t find it on my blog but I know I have said it many times in private, “People have to get hunger before they revolt.”

Instapundit linked to the overview (via Kenneth Anderson) and David linked to the paper supporting my claims.

One of the biggest questions that comes to mind is what about the government forced famines in the Ukraine in the 1930s? Were there riots then? If so we know they weren’t sufficient to overthrow the communists but they didn’t have personal firearms either.

I agree with some of the others, the August 2013 date is a little too precise. The world could have bumper crops for a while and push the date out or there could be a bunch of crop failures and the date gets closer. But the bottom line is the conditions for revolt are approaching. As a general rule revolutions are bad for liberty. Will the U.S be different? What needs to be done to hold on to a free market and freedoms in general if there is a revolution? Would the preservation of private property via the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms be sufficient? Or will the forces demanding the abolition of private property be overwhelming? If the latter then it is my opinion that many more millions will die.

A Little History

Posted on by

I’ve long suspected (“suspected” as in I hadn’t set out to prove it, though I knew for sure anyway) that many of our gun restriction laws were vigorously supported by the gun industry.  It’s the only explanation for some of the import restrictions, and it makes sense to explain licensing requirements for manufacturers– protection for the established companies against cheap imports and upstart competitors, respectively.  This motivated American companies, and even the NRA, to get into bed with the anti-rights movement.  Add to that the government’s multi million dollar contracts potentially held over company’s heads, and you have an extremely powerful influence against liberty.  I bring this up because this sort of thing has been going on all throughout our society for, well, essentially forever.

Researching an answer for a customer, which is something I spend a lot of my time doing, I came across this (emphasis mine);

“The patent on the M1 carbine was owned by Western Cartridge Co. and David “Carbine” Williams, and still in effect when Penney and Arnold wanted to begin manufacturing M1 carbines in 1958. Penney and Arnold contacted Winchester-Western and offered them a percentage per carbine manufactured, in return for permission to manufacture the M1 carbine. John Olin, owner of Winchester-Western, refused. Olin, Winchester-Western, and more than a few other American manufacturers were opposed to all of the surplus weapons being returned to the United States, where they were being sold at prices the manufacturers couldn’t compete with. This opposition eventually led the manufacturers and the National Rifle Association to support the Gun Control Act of 1968, which, amongst many other things, prohibited the importation of U.S. military surplus.“

The capitalist in me, which comprises my entire being, says; “Why didn’t Winchester and other manufacturers buy up all the cheap imports, then, or at least strike a deal with the new company?”  But some obvious questions often go unanswered, or un-asked.

Point being; a huge number of the vast mountain of restrictions and barriers to entry into the marketplace we have now, started with a politician getting into bed with someone in business, and working out a deal.

What to do about it?  First be aware of it.  Then understand that our government was set up, partly, to avoid this sort of thing.  Hence I lay the majority of the blame on the corrupt operators in our government.  There will always be one person willing to sell out his country for money, but government is specifically charged with protecting liberty.  Tar and feathers, anyone?  And be aware of what your favorite advocacy group is really doing before you give them money.

Quote of the day—Janet Napolitano

Posted on by

Let me be very clear: we monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States. We don’t have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence.

We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not – nor will we ever – monitor ideology or political beliefs. We take seriously our responsibility to protect the civil rights and liberties of the American people, including subjecting our activities to rigorous oversight from numerous internal and external sources.

Janet Napolitano
Head of Department of Homeland Security
April 16, 2009
Homeland Security chief responds to right-wing extremism report
[Really? I wonder what sort of action Ms. Napolitano and her organization have taken in response to those responsible for operation Fast and Furious. It involved criminal activities and arguably terrorist activities as well as strong hints that it was aimed at infringing upon the civil rights of American people.—Joe]

Current news from Israel

Posted on by

From our friend Howard Linett, Dateline Aug. 19/11, 4:12 AM PDT;

Friends:

I am speechless that the Washington Post On-Line Headlines do not include mention of the extensive attacks in southern Israel carried-out by as many as 20 terrorists between noon and 6 pm yesterday.  The terrorists infiltrated from the Sinai and used AKs, RPGs, IEDs and mortars to attack civilian vehicles and to ambush the military and police units responding to the attacks.  We have 8 dead – 6 civilians, 2 security personnel and more than 30 wounded.  In addition there have been over a dozen missiles and rockets fired at Israeli cities since last evening – 6 more wounded.   For more information check out YNET.com.

Anyway nothing like an attack to focus one’s concentration.  Up at 05:00 for Israeli Riflemen Association rifle (7.62×51 caliber ArmaLite with Black Hills Match) practice, I can report 100, 200 and 300 meters – damn I’m good!  I may be old, but I’m ready.  Quiet confidence now exudes from my pours.

Today is the 3rd Friday of Ramadan.  After yesterday’s attacks and Israel’s response and today’s incoming Kassam and Grad missiles and Israel’s continuing response, no surprise that there is rioting in East Jerusalem now that prayers have let-out.

Finally, I really do not know if it is for real or a joke, but on the way home from practice I pointed to the metal skeleton of the palace King Hussein was building in June of 1967.  You can see it from the road and I like saying that my home in 300 yards down from the hilltop on which the palace’s construction stopped when Israel recaptured Pisgot Ze’ev from the Jordanians.  One of the guys in the car, a senior contractor, exclaimed that the palace was undergoing “restoration” in anticipation of the present King of Jordan needing somewhere to go – soon.  The current King lacks his father’s resolve and will not institute another Black September.  The King now also knows US backing is an illusion.  Personally, I think he would be better-off in LA.

Howard

I don’t want King Whatshisname here.  We’re Americans.  We don’t recognise royalty.  I’d let him in only if he promises to be polite if we call him by his first name and don’t genuflect or any of that garbage, that he go through the regular immigration process, pay all his own expenses without expecting protection or special treatment of any kind, and not bring in any of the loot his government extorted from the Jordanian people.

Anyway; why report these attacks?  They aren’t news (“news” being any story, true or otherwise, that bolsters the leftist cause).

Twenty attackers and eight dead.  Good thing the attackers were run-of-the-mill jihadists then.  When the Americans go in somewhere, there are more like eight attackers and at least twenty dead.

Quote of the day—John Milton

Posted on by

Nations grown corrupt
Love bondage more than liberty;
Bondage with ease than strenuous liberty.

John Milton
[I think there is more than one way to bondage. But bondage is a form of corruption so it may be that the correlation is so strong that it is difficult to distinguish them under many circumstances.

The key lesson to be learned here is that bondage is easy and that liberty is strenuous. It would be so easy to let the government make all my decisions for me and to provide me with my basic necessities. Everything that I need and in return I give them the minimum of what I can make them think are my abilities. Wouldn’t life be much easier then? Shouldn’t everyone do that?

As a friend of mine explained, “Here. Have this piece of candy. It tastes really good. It causes cancer and it will kill you 20 years from now but for now it tastes really good.”—Joe]

Jesus the Socialist

Posted on by

This has come up over and over, but then the leftist playbook is only about four pages, and those are all double-spaced.  If you have to lobby for your B.S. for 150 years without pause, you end up being very repetitive.  When your repetitions are all lies, you also end up looking both stupid and insane, which of course makes a good enough definition of socialism right there.  This was my comment over there;

I never read the whole Bible, but I did see the movie. [back when I was a kid]
If Jesus ever lobbied the Roman government, calling for forced redistribution and centralized control, I haven’t heard of it.  Let’s demand that the socialists point us to that passage in the Bible.  He didn’t lobby the government employees to form public employees’ unions who would then take to the streets, calling for revolution if they didn’t get their way, did he?  Let’s see THAT part in the Bible.  (if Jesus did that, he must have been a dumb jerk anyway, and I wouldn’t listen to him)

If we were put here with free will, then forcing “charity” takes away that free will along with the distinction between those who give willingly and those who “give” only under threats from the government.

The socialists know all this of course, so let’s not make the mistake of taking their gibberish seriously– they’re just making up lies to sow doubt among the less attentive of Christians.  The only time we should ever take socialists at their word is when they’re making their threats.  They have a long history of carrying out the most outrageous of threats.  In that case we must be very serious in our resolve to defeat them.  Otherwise, socialism is nothing but a sick joke.

When Jesus shows up in person, dressed in a black ninja outfit with his own team of storm troopers to take my property, I’ll believe he was a socialist.  Until then; Girls, you be trippin’.  I’ll go with Douglas Adams’ definition of Jesus; “A man who got nailed to a tree for suggesting we be nice to people.”  I suppose today he’d be labeled a “terrorist” and the Brits would shut down his Twitter and FaceBook accounts.

Quote of the day—Rick Perry

Posted on by

We don’t see the role of government as guaranteeing outcomes, but allowing free men and women to flourish based on their own vision, their hard work and their personal responsibility.

Rick Perry
Texas Governor
August 13, 2011
Texas Gov. Perry jumps into 2012 Republican race
[Those are the right words to get my vote. But I have a feeling those same words absolutely inflame some people. The same sentence that included the quote above completed with, “said Perry, who has never held a private sector job…”

How does what Perry said relate to a “private sector job”? It appears to me the reporter was just looking for some way to draw some blood from Perry. And, of course, like most people on the left the truth is of little importance if a falsehood serves their purpose better. It appears Perry was in the cotton farming business from 1977 until 1984.—Joe]

The War Got Us Out of the Depression?

Posted on by

That’s the claim.  World War Two got us out of the Great Depression.  It’s become an almost Pavlovian response.  Mention the end of the Great Depression, and the pre-programmed, rapid-fire response is “The-War-got-us-out-of-it!”  Ring the bell and the socialist dogs drool.  No thought about how such a thing could be– Just blind faith that it was so.

I heard one of the talk shows hosts (I think it was Limbaugh) bring this up recently.  The very same people who claim that W.W. II “got-us-out-of-the-Depression” are now the ones claiming that the current “Bush Lied, People Died/Inside Job” wars are dragging down the economy.  I don’t think the socialists can have it both ways.  We have troops in active fighting in what, four countries now?  I lost count, and it’s not “fighting” anymore, but “Kinetic Somethingorother” anyway.  We should be doing great about now if their Keynesian economic theories are correct.

Sure.  Just try this experiment with your own business or family; apply all your best efforts, using all your best resources, to build all your best products, for four years, go deeply into debt doing it, and then package up all of that best stuff, along with all your best workers, and send them overseas to be expended with no compensation.  Then build new houses for a German family and a Japanese family, going further into debt to do that, while you engage in years of litigation and appeals with a Russian family with no clear outcome.  See how rich you are at the end of it.

You can’t advocate two opposite ideologies at the same time.  One negates the other.  Either Keynesian theory is spot on, or it’s crazy.  Your perpetual motion machine either works or it doesn’t work.  Don’t claim both or you’ll look even more blitheringly stupid than you looked when you only said your perpetual motion machine generated a net energy output (oops; I’m assuming you know what “net energy output” means, which, if you believe in Keynesian economics, you don’t. Sorry).

PS.  I read several years ago that we don’t have “Infantry” anymore.  Oh no.  That would be much too.. “yesterday”.  Now we have a “Soldier-centric Force Structure” so it’s all new and shiny, you see.  Makes all the difference in the world.  To a moron.

Since having a “War Department” to fight real enemies sounded too unfriendly, and we now have the “Defense Department” and “Peace-Keeping Forces” instead, I figure it won’t be long before we have the “Department of Peace” that will bomb the shit out of you if you advocate liberty.  You’d better hope that the Peace Squad never shows up in your neighborhood.  It’ll be a bunch of government hippies shooting up your private flower pots.  Or something.

Quote of the day—Lyle @ UltiMAK

Posted on by

The disease is socialism. Every little bit of it, and the perpetrators aren’t on the front lines. They use the poor for their dirty work. So regardless of the system to be used, the perpetrators, who tend to work from cover and often hold official positions, are the ones who need “schooled”. Go after the queen bee and you get the whole hive.

Lyle @ UltiMAK
August 10, 2011
Comment to What caliber for riots?
[In essence I agree and have a big blog post in mind about this. My disagreement with the above is that removing the “queen bee” will not be of any use if there isn’t an appropriate replacement for “her”. In the case of Europe and probably several states in the U.S. the great majority of the population cannot comprehend a free society.

I remember having a conversation with one person who insisted that “someone or something” had to be “on top”. It was either government or God that must rule the people. He didn’t trust government, governments were corruptible and had a strong tendency toward evil. Therefore it had to be God that ruled. Our government must be subservient to (his, of course) God.

I explained that is not how our government was set up and it didn’t have to be that way. Our government was found by the people and for the people with only certain enumerated powers that were granted to it by the people. Any involvement by god(s) was merely as an observer. The “one on top” is the people that granted the powers to the government.

The concepts presented yield a confused look and a mild protestation that “the people” couldn’t exercise power sufficiently wisely for that to actually work. The discussion was dropped after that because I think the light bulbs were starting to come on with the realization that god(s) and governments always communicate through people anyway so the situation wasn’t any better with his view of the world.

I think the same mindset exists in the socialists/progressives/leftists. They think of it as their people or their opponents ruling over the losers rather than a free society with government defending the rights of everyone.—Joe]

Capitalism: A Necessity

Posted on by

My 17 year old wrote this essay for his English class this summer.  While the Brits are rioting over what kind of socialism they want, and American public employees have taken to the streets for more of our money, calling for revolution if they don’t get 100% of the coerced funds they think they want, this is a timely piece.  Advocating freedom is always timely though.  I didn’t help him a whit (other than to try to raise him right) and here I left in the parts with which I had minor gripes over syntax, or over a word or two;

Capitalism: A Necessity

We live in a world full of criminals, fools, rapists, murderers, and countless other evil-doers. Many of us are left to deal with the ramifications of these burdensome people. However, evil-doers are not the only issue; many well-intentioned people make mistakes that affect millions. In considering these seemingly never-ending problems of the world, one is left with quite a dismal picture. The subsequent thought is, how can these problems be solved? Is it possible? How can we make society better? There are many ideas about how to best deal with society, some of them promising to perfect it and eradicate crime and evil. In all reality, there will always be evil and evildoers. However, a condition can be imposed which makes life better for all of us, protecting us, and allowing us the freedom to think, create, and trade with others. This condition is Capitalism.

Capitalism is the only system of government which allows individuals the most possible freedom while, at the same time, protecting them from the potential harm of others. This is because its main function is the government recognition [of] individual rights. Individual rights are “conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival” (Rand, Man’s Rights). Among them are:  that a person has the right to their  own life, that a person has the right to liberty (or the freedom to think and act), and that a person is free to “pursue happiness,” or to do what they please. A person assumes these rights with the caveat that they may not violate any other person’s rights. A system such as this protects individuals, while still allowing them freedoms proper for their survival.

All rights are actually corollaries of the right to life. Man is a living creature; naturally, he must have the freedom to perform all actions necessary to stay alive. Also, Man is a thinking creature; he relies on his creative faculty to produce the tools necessary to live. Therefore, in order to have the right to his own life, he must have the freedom not only to create, but to own what he creates. Otherwise, he is a slave, subject to the whim of a master (Rand, Man’s Rights 322) and has no right to his own life. Essentially, all other rights ensure Man’s right to life which, in itself, is a basic condition for his survival.

Capitalism holds that government’s only enterprise is the protection of these basic rights. It was also the form of government originally intended for the United States by its founders. As stated in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” (Declaration of Independence). It is clear in this excerpt that the founders of the United States thought of government as a protector of the people rather than a controller or a regulator.

A well known  aspect of Capitalism is the absence of economic regulation, or a free market system. No economic regulation can exist in a capitalistic system because it inherently inhibits people’s right to free trade – therefore violating their right to life. A common argument against Capitalism is that a lack of regulation would allow business to grow exorbitantly, take advantage of society, cause poverty and contribute to a general degradation of people’s lifestyle. However, in a free market, if a business is not practicing in a manner that is beneficial to the public, a niche is created for another business to enter, and the public is free to boycott the business in support of an emerging one. As long as a business does not violate another’s rights, they are free to act as they wish. However, in the situation where a business is violating other’s rights, judicial action would be appropriate, just as with any other criminal.

Capitalism is the only system of government that does not require, and in fact prevents, control by force. It ensures that no force may ever be initiated and that the only appropriate force is self-defense. The only method by which any trade may occur is by mutual consent – a transaction in which both parties involved must agree. In this system, it is inherent that both parties benefit; both consensually walk away with something they consider more valuable than what they traded. Other systems of government such as Socialism and Fascism are based on the notion that each individual in society is less valuable than a “public good” and that force may be initiated on society for the sake of this “public good.” In reality, this translates to an ever-growing government control of the citizens. These systems, unlike Capitalism, fail to recognize that society is actually a group of individuals rather than a single entity. In a capitalistic system, individuals are free to act in their best interest and are barred from violating another’s right to do so, creating an optimal situation for the success of society.

An argument made against Capitalism is that it inherently results in people unable to take care of themselves being left to starve because of the lack of redistribution programs such as welfare. However, in a Capitalist system, people are free to help other people as they wish. If an individual believes another person or group should receive help, then that individual can provide monetary support or bolster more widespread support. Additionally, charity organizations can flourish and help millions worldwide. By no means does Capitalism prevent needy people from receiving help. It actually works more efficiently than a welfare system; Capitalism does not support people who, entirely capable of caring for themselves, decide instead to take advantage of a government redistribution system unless other people willfully decide to support them. In a Capitalistic system, force upon any party is forbidden because it violates people’s rights, so redistribution is impossible.

Capitalism is the system that best allows man to produce wealth – anything of value which helps improve his survivability. It does this by giving man the freedom to think, discover, and act on his own volition without oppression from any entity (government, criminals, etc.). Man did not evolve as a highly specialized community species such as bees or ants. By nature, man works best if he is allowed to make his own choices. The early caveman did not create the spear because his only motive was to work for a “public good” – to improve the lives of other cavemen – he created the spear out of his self-interest in his own survival. Even so, the result was an improvement in mankind as a whole; because they saw the first, other cavemen’s lives were improved by using his idea for themselves. Capitalism does not ensure a perfect society. Rather, it ensures the conditions which best allow society to function. It does this by protecting Man’s rights.

 

Works Cited

Decaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson (1776). Print.

Rand, Ayn. “Appendix: Man’s Rights.” Capitalism the Unknown Ideal. New York: Signet, 1967. Print. This chapter specifically outlines the nature of man’s rights and their necessary existence.

The public college teacher gave him a “B”.  I’m a little bit suprised she didn’t lose composure and start breaking things.  Maybe she’s been in contact with her higher-ups, trying to find ways to deal with this problem “under the radar”.

Quote of the day—Chas

Posted on by

Their extremist rhetoric against the Tea Party is outrageous. People who peacefully participate in the political process are not terrorists. Let me say that again, since important things are worth repeating: Peaceful participation is not terrorism.

This is an administration that won’t call terrorists, terrorists, but they have no problem slapping that label on the American middle class, which kinda lets ya know who they really regard as being the enemy.

Hint: It’s not the jihadis, with whom they share an anti-American agenda. It’s the people who want America to succeed with whom they have a problem and with whom they do not share an agenda.

If we’re terrorists, then shoot us, or shut up and stop making fools of yourselves!

Chas
August 8, 2011
Comment to You’re all a big bunch of meanies!
[As son James pointed out after I showed this comment to him last night, “Well… we are their enemies—ideologically.” Yup. And as Lyle (and here) and history frequently points outs, when the left starts loosing they do crazy, scary, violent stuff. We may be headed for those times where they do treat us as terrorists. The rhetoric is ramping up for it.—Joe]

State Sponsored Media?

Posted on by

Speaking of the tools and mechanisms of oppression, have any of you noticed how many government or Ad Council ads there are on AM radio lately?  We’re being told where to find out how to raise our kids, fasten their car seats, talk to kids about drugs, notice the signs of a stroke (call 911) quit smoking, and ZOMG– be afraid of your food!  In the 20 minutes or so I listened to KMAX this morning, there were two or three government ads to one commercial ad.

Now; I haven’t looked into who runs the Ad Council or where its funding comes from, and I don’t know how many of the government ads are actually paid for as opposed to being forced as “public service announcements” but it’s looking more and more like there is already a mechanism in place to further control radio stations– threaten to their pull ads, which are becoming a majority of the ads on the air.

I thought y’all might want to look into this, as there has been “chatter” for years about how to clamp down on talk radio and yet no one is talking about the recent uptick in Big Brother ads.  I smell “Hope and Change” in this.