One of my arguments against government is the system within it works. It operates in a monopoly of force and hence enables people do that which they might otherwise not do.
When people become cogs in a wheel they tend to do things they otherwise wouldn't, like not use force on others to get them to do something that doesn't even have any consequence. Or hurt someone because they are in a position of power.
A great example of this is a recent fire fighting incident where the firemen refused to put out a fire because the person didn't pay the annual fee (the firefighters were city employees and the house was on county land, so if the person would have liked the service they could have paid the city $75/year). People blamed this incident on the free market. But they don't understand that this incident had nothing to do with the free market. The firefighters were city employees taking instruction from bureaucrats with no customer satisfaction incentive for them to put the fire out. Instead of acting with compassion or offering to put the fire out for a certain amount of money or having the customer pay full price they just let the house burn down. This is not an example against the free market but against government and bureaucracy. Just as we see this incident we will see similar incidents in the new universal health care as more and more people just follow orders and have no incentive (as found in the free market) to go above and beyond their station in life.
Power Corrupts
It's useful to keep this in mind because, while the overwhelming lesson of the last half century of social psychology is that situational influences can easily swamp the effect of individual differences in character, our political rhetoric takes scant account of this. Political campaigns focus heavily on questions of “character”—which especially in the case of “outsider” campaigns should be of limited predictive value. Republican candidates and officials try to portray Democrats as arrogant and out of touch, while Democrats cast Republicans as callous and greedy. In each case, the message is that these are bad people, and their character flaws are somehow related to their specific ideologies. The remedy is, invariably, to replace them in positions of power with better people from the other team. These social science results suggest that this is unlikely to work: The problem is power itself.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Friday, October 1, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
We Are Not Free: The Secret Government - The Constitution in Crisis
The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis, by Bill Moyers
History is so incredibly important to understand the world we live in. It let's us know the pattern of the world and how it repeats itself. In this video we see the recent history of the United States during the Iran Contra scandal. We see how the CIA and FBI are organizations that are counter to a free society. We see how war is truly the health of the state. We see how we are repeating ourselves.
I wouldn't be here if my father and my brothers were involved in the secret war. I am here because I have no choice of being here...[The] CIA goofed up because they weren't willing to carry through with their goals. They think it's so simple that people are like pawns in a game like a chess game. In a game you can move them wherever you want but you have to understand that human life is very different from playing a game because a game once you lose there's nothing at stake, but when you lose a person's life or devastate a whole country, as they did to my country. - Hmong man from Laos
Can we have perpetual war and democracy? - Bill Moyers
If we continue these policies to rob ourselves in order to feed this national security monster we're going to continue to degrade American life. That's real national security. National security for the United States is making the United States a good place to live where people want to be active, intelligent, involved citizens. For people at the top to say this world is so complicated and so dangerous, just a few of us need to govern it and hold the secrets in, and we will tell you what's good for you. That is moving down the road to dictatorship. - Roger Wilkins
Oliver North was the Colonel who was spot lighted in the video. He believed in obeying orders of the president (king) regardless if they were legal or ethical.
The person that posted this video had the following commentary. Not all his beliefs are necessarily mine.
This is the full length 90 min. version of Bill Moyer's 1987 scathing critique of the criminal subterfuge carried out by the Executive Branch of the United States Government to carry out operations which are clearly contrary to the wishes and values of the American people. The ability to exercise this power with impunity is facilitated by the National Security Act of 1947. The thrust of the exposé is the Iran-Contra arms and drug-running operations which flooded the streets of our nation with crack cocaine. The significance of the documentary is probably greater today in 2007 than it was when it was made. We now have a situation in which these same forces have committed the most egregious terrorist attack on US soil and have declared a fraudulent so-called "War on Terror". The ruling regime in the US who have conducted the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, are now banging the war drum against Iran. We have the PATRIOT act which has stripped us of many of our basic civil rights justified by the terror of 9/11 which is their own doing.
History is so incredibly important to understand the world we live in. It let's us know the pattern of the world and how it repeats itself. In this video we see the recent history of the United States during the Iran Contra scandal. We see how the CIA and FBI are organizations that are counter to a free society. We see how war is truly the health of the state. We see how we are repeating ourselves.
The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad. - James Madison
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. . . .
[It should be well understood] that the powers proposed to be surrendered [by the Third Congress] to the Executive were those which the Constitution has most jealously appropriated to the Legislature. . . .
The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war . . . the power of raising armies . . . the power of creating offices. . . .
A delegation of such powers [to the President] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments.
The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.
The separation of the power of raising armies from the power of commanding them, is intended to prevent the raising of armies for the sake of commanding them.
The separation of the power of creating offices from that of filling them, is an essential guard against the temptation to create offices for the sake of gratifying favourites or multiplying dependents. - James Madison from Letters and Other Writings of James Madison.
Excerpts from the film:I wouldn't be here if my father and my brothers were involved in the secret war. I am here because I have no choice of being here...[The] CIA goofed up because they weren't willing to carry through with their goals. They think it's so simple that people are like pawns in a game like a chess game. In a game you can move them wherever you want but you have to understand that human life is very different from playing a game because a game once you lose there's nothing at stake, but when you lose a person's life or devastate a whole country, as they did to my country. - Hmong man from Laos
Can we have perpetual war and democracy? - Bill Moyers
If we continue these policies to rob ourselves in order to feed this national security monster we're going to continue to degrade American life. That's real national security. National security for the United States is making the United States a good place to live where people want to be active, intelligent, involved citizens. For people at the top to say this world is so complicated and so dangerous, just a few of us need to govern it and hold the secrets in, and we will tell you what's good for you. That is moving down the road to dictatorship. - Roger Wilkins
Oliver North was the Colonel who was spot lighted in the video. He believed in obeying orders of the president (king) regardless if they were legal or ethical.
The person that posted this video had the following commentary. Not all his beliefs are necessarily mine.
This is the full length 90 min. version of Bill Moyer's 1987 scathing critique of the criminal subterfuge carried out by the Executive Branch of the United States Government to carry out operations which are clearly contrary to the wishes and values of the American people. The ability to exercise this power with impunity is facilitated by the National Security Act of 1947. The thrust of the exposé is the Iran-Contra arms and drug-running operations which flooded the streets of our nation with crack cocaine. The significance of the documentary is probably greater today in 2007 than it was when it was made. We now have a situation in which these same forces have committed the most egregious terrorist attack on US soil and have declared a fraudulent so-called "War on Terror". The ruling regime in the US who have conducted the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, are now banging the war drum against Iran. We have the PATRIOT act which has stripped us of many of our basic civil rights justified by the terror of 9/11 which is their own doing.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
National News & Blogs 9/9/2010
- Free market medicine vs. the AMA and government
- My thoughts: The best argument I've heard so far against socialized medicine based on current regulations and not just principles.
- Charts: College Tuition vs. Housing Bubble vs. Medical Costs
- It's a story of an industry that may sound familiar. The buyers think what they’re buying will appreciate in value, making them rich in the future. The product grows more and more elaborate, and more and more expensive, but the expense is offset by cheap credit provided by sellers eager to encourage buyers to buy.
- What kills you after an Economic Collapse
- Poverty, crime, auto accidents, & stress.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
The Simple Case for Limited Government or Ordered Anarchy
The Two Party System
If you objectively compare the two parties they are pretty much the same. Lets see, Bush increased socialized health care more than any other previous president, he got us into two wars (one where all the reasons have been proven false), and he took away many of our civil liberties (patriot act, Guantanamo, etc.). Obama has increased socialized health care more than any previous president, he has continued two unpopular wars (after receiving the Nobel Peace prize) and has expanded or increased them to other countries (Yemen, Pakistan, Iran (economic sanctions is a form of war), etc.), he has taken away our civil liberties (made it possible to kill American citizens by presidential decree, etc.).
Governmental or Non-governmental Systems
God said, “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not covet.” He has also given us commandments to help our neighbors and treat them well, these commandments are individual mandates, not group mandates.
What does it mean to steal? Wiktionary says this: "To illegally, or without the owner's permission, take possession of something by surreptitiously taking or carrying it away." What does it mean to covet? Again, Wiktionary says this: "To yearn, have or indulge inordinate desire, notably for another's possession."
So how does that equate to political philosophy? The government steals and covets the wealth of others. Therefore, the only moral government would be one that only taxes those who voluntarily contribute to its cause. This would necessarily create a small, limited government.
What about the golden role? It’s said in the scriptures "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Government necessarily doesn't do this. I would not have someone come into my house, kill my dogs, terrorize my spouse and children all because I have an ounce of marijuana.
Government is a monopoly of violence and consequently will attract those who love violence. It is also a monopoly. Monopolies tend toward inefficiencies since they have no true competition. Hence the reason no matter how much we vote and care government will continue to grow and do things that no one can agree on. It's the nature of the beast, it can't be stopped.
Government also likes to take credit where credit isn't due. Take unions. They were once completely voluntary organizations (well, I don't know the entire history but they weren't forced to begin with) and they created great changes in how labor was done. The government first was against unions but then embraced them and said they were responsible for them and now create unions. This can be said for the civil rights movement too.
I know government isn't all bad, some things they do are good, but immoral actions will have immoral consequences. What's the best solution? I don't really know. If the necessary evil is true then give me limited governments that protects our individual rights. If the necessary evil is not true then give me voluntarism (ordered anarchy).
What do I worry about anarchy? Will it lead to tribalism? I think that depends on the righteousness of the people, just like any governmental system. Take the quakers of the 16th and 17th century. They had brief periods of anarchy (as mentioned in the book "Conceived in Liberty" by Murray Rothbard) and had a wonderful non-taxed people with little or no violence. The only thing that was bad about it is that they were unable to fend off the greedy men that wished to rule over them and take for themselves that which was not theirs. Apparently the Irish lived in anarchy for some time but I haven't read about it yet. Also, some Asians purposely lived a subsistence life in the mountains to avoid living under governmental control.
The Israelites at one point lived with less laws and compulsion as the scripture says "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." This scripture alludes to two things. That the people were free but that also the people were not united which caused great evils to occur. Anarchy needs a united and righteous people to function properly. But even with this great evil the Israelites were warned against kings.
Case study, Greece by Stefan Molyneux see also The Stateless Society: An Examination of Alternatives.
If you objectively compare the two parties they are pretty much the same. Lets see, Bush increased socialized health care more than any other previous president, he got us into two wars (one where all the reasons have been proven false), and he took away many of our civil liberties (patriot act, Guantanamo, etc.). Obama has increased socialized health care more than any previous president, he has continued two unpopular wars (after receiving the Nobel Peace prize) and has expanded or increased them to other countries (Yemen, Pakistan, Iran (economic sanctions is a form of war), etc.), he has taken away our civil liberties (made it possible to kill American citizens by presidential decree, etc.).
Governmental or Non-governmental Systems
God said, “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not covet.” He has also given us commandments to help our neighbors and treat them well, these commandments are individual mandates, not group mandates.
What does it mean to steal? Wiktionary says this: "To illegally, or without the owner's permission, take possession of something by surreptitiously taking or carrying it away." What does it mean to covet? Again, Wiktionary says this: "To yearn, have or indulge inordinate desire, notably for another's possession."
So how does that equate to political philosophy? The government steals and covets the wealth of others. Therefore, the only moral government would be one that only taxes those who voluntarily contribute to its cause. This would necessarily create a small, limited government.
What about the golden role? It’s said in the scriptures "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Government necessarily doesn't do this. I would not have someone come into my house, kill my dogs, terrorize my spouse and children all because I have an ounce of marijuana.
Government is a monopoly of violence and consequently will attract those who love violence. It is also a monopoly. Monopolies tend toward inefficiencies since they have no true competition. Hence the reason no matter how much we vote and care government will continue to grow and do things that no one can agree on. It's the nature of the beast, it can't be stopped.
Government also likes to take credit where credit isn't due. Take unions. They were once completely voluntary organizations (well, I don't know the entire history but they weren't forced to begin with) and they created great changes in how labor was done. The government first was against unions but then embraced them and said they were responsible for them and now create unions. This can be said for the civil rights movement too.
I know government isn't all bad, some things they do are good, but immoral actions will have immoral consequences. What's the best solution? I don't really know. If the necessary evil is true then give me limited governments that protects our individual rights. If the necessary evil is not true then give me voluntarism (ordered anarchy).
What do I worry about anarchy? Will it lead to tribalism? I think that depends on the righteousness of the people, just like any governmental system. Take the quakers of the 16th and 17th century. They had brief periods of anarchy (as mentioned in the book "Conceived in Liberty" by Murray Rothbard) and had a wonderful non-taxed people with little or no violence. The only thing that was bad about it is that they were unable to fend off the greedy men that wished to rule over them and take for themselves that which was not theirs. Apparently the Irish lived in anarchy for some time but I haven't read about it yet. Also, some Asians purposely lived a subsistence life in the mountains to avoid living under governmental control.
The Israelites at one point lived with less laws and compulsion as the scripture says "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." This scripture alludes to two things. That the people were free but that also the people were not united which caused great evils to occur. Anarchy needs a united and righteous people to function properly. But even with this great evil the Israelites were warned against kings.
Case study, Greece by Stefan Molyneux see also The Stateless Society: An Examination of Alternatives.
AZ US Representative Primaries (District 1)
Wrote this some time ago but never posted it.
The number of candidates for the Republican nomination is quite amazing. I'll go through each one and give my opinions. I'll also give the resources where you can find more information about each candidate.
The number of candidates for the Republican nomination is quite amazing. I'll go through each one and give my opinions. I'll also give the resources where you can find more information about each candidate.
- Bradley Beauchamp
- Link to audio interview
- Immigration: This guy wants a police state on our national border. He doesn't address the core issues, like the drug war (etc.) that is causing the border problems so it doesn't seem like he is a deep thinker when it comes to politics.
- Member of the NRA. Not too conservative and not a freedom loving organization. There are other Rifle associations (like Gun Owner's of America , etc.) that actually supports the 2nd amendment. Listen to Ernest Hancock talk on the corrupt NRA with Sherriff Mack.
- Government Healthcare: He says we shouldn't have nationalized healthcare but turns around and says we should keep medicare/medicaid. Where's the principled stand?
- Energy: He says the government should be involved and that it shouldn't be led by the free market.
- Overall view: I think Beauchamp doesn't understand the principles of freedom. Although he seems like a good guy I can see him losing his "principles" quickly once in Washington. Beauchamp doesn't stand for individual freedom.
- Russell "Rusty" Bowers
- Rusty was a state legislator for nine years starting in 1992 and state senate for five years. Here's what he has posted on his legislator record :
- Growing Smarter Land Planning: That sounds bad but I don't know enough abou it to have an opinion.
- Senate Appropriations Chairman and Senate Majority Leader: He sounds seasoned. Should I be afraid of this guy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)