What if the government did nothing?

via Campaign For Liberty Blog

by Tim Shoemaker

The left asks us to imagine how bad things would be if the government had not engaged in massive economic "stimulus" programs. The right asks us to imagine how bad things would be if the government had not intervened in the Middle East.

The answer from statists on both the left and right would be that things would be much worse off without government interventions.

In his latest segment, the Southern Avenger (Jack Hunter) takes on the hypothetical from both the left and right and logically concludes we would be better off if the government had never intervened on either account.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22cC3i3mDOc

This is one of those things that makes me a libertarian. Why must the federal government do anything? Their "solutions" can not work for every situation. It's much better at a local level. It's too easy for the federal government to assume power and not return it, and it's too difficult to remove that power once its been taken away from the people.

Let's look at No Child Left Behind. How about Obamacare? Prohibition, the War on Drugs. Any number of federal programs with good intentions, incidentally take away the rights of individuals. If this were done at a local level, at least you'd have the option to move or a stronger voice in the policy. I have no problem if Massachusetts instituted health care, the people spoke and the people of that state can enjoy and suffer under their choices. Under the federal government there isn't any escape (moving to another country is not an option).

Listen, how about this...when something happens, how about the local and state governments help out. How about churches, charities, communities, and families helping out? Or how about this shocking thought: Just leave me alone.

An Argument Against Drunk Driving Laws

I really enjoy these kind of articles. Most people would react with shock when confronted with an argument that may seem to run contrary to popular belief. I particularly enjoy the look on people's faces when I say that they don't have a right to education. It's been around so long and the benefits are so far reaching that people can't imagine life without it. But if they simply stopped to think about it they might realize the inconsistencies within laws and privileges.

In this article, Radly Balko, AKA The Agitator, makes the case against drunk driving laws.

Last week Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo  advocated  creating a new criminal offense: "driving while ability impaired." The problem with the current Texas law prohibiting "driving while intoxicated" (DWI), Acevedo explained, is that it doesn't allow him to arrest a driver whose blood-alcohol content (BAC) is below 0.08 percent without additional evidence of impairment.

    ...

    The right solution, however, is not to push the artificial line back farther. Instead we should get rid of it entirely by repealing drunk driving laws.

    ...

If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldn't matter if it's caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage.

Ah, consistency, something that lawmakers lack. Mr. Balko makes a good case for consistency. If eating is just as dangerous as someone with a BAC of .05, then that person should also be fined or arrested. It's not the alcohol, but the impairment that should be the focus. When argued from this standpoint, I find it hard to support inconsistent drunk driving laws.

Boxes of Liberty

I recently read a certain quote for the first time; I thought that it was very elegant. When you can distill an idea or course of action in so very few and memorable words, then I think you have accomplished a literary feat, few have attained.  Winston Churchill, I believe was a master of such things, as well as Mark Twain.

This is the quote that made me drop my jaw.

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: Soap, Ballot, Jury, and Ammo. Please use in that order. --Ed Howdershelt, UT Arlingon, 1971.

Upon further research it appears that he was a fan of Fredrick Douglas:

A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box. --1867

Later, it seems, that Libertarians found or realized a fifth box in 2008.

Among an individual’s innumerable rights, a critical few directly defend the others. You should recognize, appreciate and exercise these defensive rights, without which you will eventually lose the rest. The United States Constitution mentions at least five defensive rights, easily remembered under the mnemonic "The Five Boxes of Liberty." They are:

1. The Moving Box—right of association, in particular territorially via migration
2. The Soap Box—right of free speech
3. The Ballot Box—right to a voice in your government
4. The Jury Box—right to a trial by jury of your peers
5. The Ammunition Box—right to threaten or use appropriate violence in self-defense

Obviously this last one is not quite as elegant as the former two, but the moving box is a form of defense against tyranny. In other words, if you don't like it somewhere, then you can move. This is another reason why federal laws should be limited. State laws can vary and offer alternatives for individuals. If federal law is passed then there is no escape.

Currently the first three are being used extensively, the fourth is known and used by only a very small and informed groups. It's called jury nullification. The last box is known, but discouraged. However, if things get bad enough, I wouldn't be against it. History has shown, that those in power are not moved unless forced to move.

Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes

Sound good right?            It is.

Sounds easy right?            It is.

You have to do it in your house, and so should the government.               Hypocrisy can suck it!

The politicians in Washington don't like to make cuts because they want to give out cash to their friends. So what are they to do besides raise taxes? Well, take a gander at a proposal from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity.




It takes will to make these changes, to do the right thing, to see reason and logic and apply it forthrightly. The batch that are in now can piss up a rope for all I care. It can be done, just look at New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

How Ink Is Made

This is pretty cool! I enjoy watching the Discovery Channel to watch how things are made, don't you? The only drawback is the Canadian accent, but I can forgive him since he's good at his job.



Via Gizmodo

Too Controversial NOT To Talk About

My head just exploded!

Just look at this title and then consider it.

Parents Push Surrogate To Abort Fetus Because of Birth Defect

Ok.

You got it?

Now a few choice bites.

Here's a case that pushes all kinds of ethical boundaries: a Canadian couple who discovered that their fetus was likely to have Down's Syndrome decided that they wanted to have an abortion.  The practice of aborting fetuses because of birth defects is controversial enough, but to make matters even knottier, the fetus was being carried by a surrogate, who wanted to carry the pregnancy to term.

...

The problem is that although parents have the right to decide whether they want to raise a child with birth defects (and I would argue, have the right to abort the fetus when they are carrying their own child), the surrogate's presence adds the complication of another adult who should be given input over what happens to her body.  If the parents feel that they can't raise the child, they should not be compelled to do so simply because they were having the child with the help of a surrogate - that would, ultimately, be cruel to both the parents and the child. 

But if the surrogate is opposed to abortion for any reason, she should not be compelled to have one.  The question is whether the surrogate is then compelled to raise the child herself, and what rights the parents have.  What if the surrogate wants to give the baby up for adoption?  Are the parents obligated to help her do so - and if not, are they obligated to give her monetary support?

Read the rest here.

Whoa.

What can anyone do in this situation? Do you really want the government involved in something like this? I know contracts are already involved, but jeez! I supposed, just like in the article, a couple extras questions should be added to the questionnaire to determine compatibility.

Deduction - Mr. Wonderful Has It

It's refreshing, like a backhanded slap right after a cold Tobasco shower.

Mr. Wonderful, author of An Idiot's tale had these very honest things to say:

We're in a terrible debt crisis. In fact, we've had a REAL unemployment rate of nearly 17 percent for the last two years.

Check the U6 figures.

And we shall continue to have high unemployment for at least a decade.


Just do the math.


There is no recovery. Only a cover-up.

...
If we continue to follow Bernanke's lead, we're doomed to slip into a Japanese-style endless recession.

If we follow the Republicans and opt for austerity, we'll slide into a depression.

The American economy is fucked either way. It's a case of pick your poison.

It's nice to see like-minded people in Korea. Too often I see or run into the likes of socialists that want to enable the poor or tell me how I should help this group or that fad. You know what, that unholy trinity of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid has cemented what Bush started. Oh, I'm not letting Dubya off the hook, and if you want to call me a racist, I'm ok with that. Mr. Wonderful is right, "the American economy is fucked." Now, do we draw the pain out for years with inflation and stimulus or do we go for a sharp, very painful year or two and get things back on track. The former gives the government more control, like we see with health care; the latter gets the government out of the way to let the free market work. I hope we can elect a leader that will go for the latter. It means that bailouts would end, corrupt companies would crumble, overextended homeowners would be responsible for their decisions, and interest rates would rise. This is the cure to our low-interest-rate hangover. When the dust settles, new companies will sprout up, stronger than before. New homeowners with 20% will come into the market and purchase the cheap houses. And the dollar will deflate and stabilize.

Repeal Amendment

Courtesy of the Richmond Times-Dispatch comes a bit of information about this "Repeal Amendment."  I suppose it's so new, so far unknown, that there isn't a wiki page for it yet.

What Virginia House Speaker William Howell, R-Stafford proposes is an amendment that will allow the states to repeal any federal law with a 2/3rd majority. I don't know all the details but I imagine that each state legislature would approve/disapprove certain federal laws. According to Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, the amendment would allow states to make changes in federal laws without having to challenge them on constitutional grounds. Creating the new state power over congressional action would "strike a balance between the central government and the will of the people."

I'll have to give this some thought, but my initial impression is that it's a good idea. Although I wonder if it isn't superfluous. We already have the 10th Amendment, which should allow a state to nullify any law that it deems unconstitutional. Even while federal judges have consistently redistributed power to the federal government, the states could simply not enact them or ignore the court's ruling. The supremacy clause wouldn't apply because so-called laws, such as Obamacare, are not explicitly stated in Article I Section 8. Contrary to what some liberals believe, this is not for the general welfare. While some will indeed do better, there will be others that will suffer or have increased hardship in order to support those beneficiaries. It's just another entitlement.

The Agitator Cites Another Isolated Incident

Radley Balko is one of my favorite writers at Reason magazine. In his blog, The Agitator, he writes about similar topics as your truly, but with more flair and panache!

In this posting, Radley touches on one of my favorite topics, Wrongful Entry (all under the category of Bad Cops). Here's a bite:

Son Andrew said the most potent drug in the home is aspirin.

"They don't smoke, drink or even watch TV. They believe in America," he said.

He added that his father, Andrij, suffers from Alzheimer's Disease and has terminal cancer.

"He won't even take pain medicine," he said…

His mother, he said, called him after the raid at the request of the supervising sergeant on the scene. 

When he got there, he said he was told the officers had raided the wrong home.

Now don't go thinking that I like the idea of cops kicking down doors and shooting innocent seven year-old girls. I detest these events, their paramilitary tactics, and attitude when they get it wrong. The very least they can do is provide contact information where the victims can file a claim (to include cleaning services from their ransacking). This is not war. Since when did the citizens have to fear the police?

Good Cop Records Bad Cops, Then Gets Fired

Take a listen to this and tell me this doesn't make your blood boil..

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/414/right-to-remain-silent


Lies, quotas, the blue line, things that cops use against us, and when cops are held accountable they close ranks. Who watches the watchers? WE DO! Record them because if they can get away with it, they will. Good cops will be vindicated and bad cops will be exposed. If the good cops can't or won't police themselves (no pun intended), then we'll just have to do it for them. In some states, they're confiscating video under wiretapping statutes. How twisted is that? They can record you, but you can't record them because you might be invading their privacy in a public area?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I'm going to continue to look for stories like this and circulate them to any one that will listed. If I ever go back to the states, I'm going to try and get myself on a police review board and will be very watchful.

Encouraging Good Behavior For First Daughter

My first daughter is currently having a tantrum. She's almost two and she's living up to that age's reputation. Right now she wants chocolate, but while I don't have a problem giving her a bit when she's good and says please, she isn't behaving. She's crying and rolling on the ground and screaming and demanding the goods. I don't want to encourage poor behavior with a reward so I'm just ignoring her for now. When she calms down and asks nicely, I'll reward her.

I know what some of you may be thinking...just spank her. Well, if I were my father, yeah, I'd have dished out a beating. But I'm not my father. It's difficult not to spank a child when they're misbehaving. I mean, after all, I could really give her something to cry about. I don't want to do that. I want to reward good behavior and discourage bad by ignoring the bad behavior. If she doesn't receive attention when she's bad then she'll be more inclined to do good, right? I hope?

My wife likes to remind me that our two year-old is basically a caveman. The description is apt, and it's also hard not to sink down to their level when they throw tantrums. I have to remind myself to stick to ignoring such behavior and to be a mindful father by not spanking her when the urge shows itself. I'm better than that.

Well looky here! She's calmed down, crawled into my lap, looked up at me and asked politely. Of course my darling, you can have a chocolate. Enjoy! You earned it!

So my good readers, do you like these kind of posts? I'm not sure if this is more interesting than economic, cultural, or political posts. Let me know by leaving a comment, below.

US Dollar Continues To Fall While the Aussies Push Upwards

Why should you care?

Well, about a week ago, the Swiss Franc is broke parity with the US dollar, trading at $1.02 per Franc. Never before has this happened. Other currencies of note, the Canadian and Australian Dollars are just short of trading at parity. Gold is constantly breaking records and while silver has beaten it's 30 year high, it has yet to beat its record of $50 an ounce, and if things keep going they way they are, it will.

All these things point to inflation. The dollar is simply losing its value due to the Federal Reserves' short-sighted monetary policies. You know, it's interesting to look back at the Republican debates of 2007. Ron Paul was the ONLY one to talk about getting rid of the Federal Reserve and returning to a sound monetary policy backed by gold and silver. In other words, a return to the Constitution.

It saddens me when I see smart individuals like Obama act so backward. He wanted change, and if he was sincere, he'd enact real change. Change, such as repealing regulatory laws that increase costs to business. How about repealing legal tender laws and allow gold and silver backed money to compete with federal notes. I bet the poor that he bemoans would make out even while the rich did also. If he wanted to change education, then how about repealing that horrendous "No Child Left Behind?" Or how about giving everyone a tax holiday for the year, since the economy's so bad.

Before this gets too far off track, there are a lot of things that Obama could have proposed that would have given us a better financial outlook, a stronger dollar and a quicker recovery. While we inflate our dollar, Australia has decided to increase its interest rate to above 5%! Let's mark this down in our notebooks and come back to in a few years and see who's better off. My bet's on the Aussies.

Appropriate Response

You're walking through the forest.





It's a sunny day.






The light flickers through the leaves, you feel the crunch of leaves beneath your feet, the air is cool and moist.







The sweat is just building as you hike the mountain trail and the weather can be best described as crisp.








You close your eyes, not a care in the world, a smile involuntarily comes through then you walk into this.....

via Gizmodo



The appropriate response is:








A) Calmly brush off the web and spider


B) Roll around in the leaves, creating a leafy cocoon


C) Collect and send to Brian in Jollanam - do, a lover of the arachnid


D) Piss/Defecate/Vomit/Scream all at once

Legal System Thoughts

I've been thinking lately about our courts. They are supposed to be bastions of reason in a sea of bias and corruption. They are supposed to be a neutral third party, never political nor swayed by threats or incentives. It's a fantasy, I know. Judges are human, but they're supposed to be humans with wisdom and compassion that interpret the imperfect laws that the legislative branches pass. The best we can hope for is an impartial judge with integrity. I think most of us would be satisfied with that.

As I watch the news I see an alarming trend of judgments that seem to be increasingly political or driven by some force that is not justice. I see cops going free when there is overwhelming evidence against him. I see the Constitution being interpreted in ways that pervert the original intent. I see innocent men being convicted, and even if they are exonerated years later, the damage done is more than any compensation.

I guess what brought this up was a simple traffic stop article. I mean if you're ticketed and you challenge it in court and the cop shows up, you're pretty much screwed. This is what I was thinking:

1. The cop is an arm of the government.
2. The judge is an arm of the government.
3. If there is just the cop's and your testimony then they should cancel out and you shouldn't have to pay any fines.
4. Since the judge is an arm of the government, he gives more weight to the cop's testimony, so that means there is bias.
5. If the accused has a right to a fair trial, then the judge, as an arm of the government should make an effort to be biased towards your testimony. If you're innocent until proven guilty then there needs to be more effort by the cop to prove your guilt.

Now if we take this and move it from traffic infraction to Constitutional dispute, then we can see that the Supreme Court should not be trusted. It's already obvious that they are influenced by politics! My fellow citizens at the 10th Amendment Center make a good point that it should be up to the states to decide what is or isn't Constitutional especially if the federal government has disregarded it.

I'm probably missing something here that some pre-law student could point out. I'll have to discuss this with one of my lawyer or paralegal friends. How about instead of state-licensed judges that are arguably in the pocket of the government, there are private judges. A company could hire judges, the two parties could contract a judge for a decision, and at the end both parties could rate him. That way there aren't any questions of bias, the judge truly is impartial and the ratings ensure that judgments serve justice and provide an outcome that is satisfactory.

Gold Glorious Gold!!

Ahhh Gold and other precious metals. In case some of you haven't noticed, precious metal prices have been going up. They've been breaking records and continuing to march upwards. F-ing A!  As you can guess I'm an investor in precious metals. I believe that the dollar is decaying and loosing value all the time due to the Federal Reserve's and federal government's policies. They advocate and support inflation which devalues our money. It's an invisible tax that discourages saving and keeps the poor in poverty. Why intelligent liberals don't see or understand this, I'll never know. By the way, the Board of the Federal Reserve doesn't think there is ENOUGH inflation -- w-w-w-what?? They want more!! HOLY CRAP!

Even if you don't think gold is a good investment, you should be able to understand basic economics. If you know that inflation was constant at about 1 - 2% per year and you had bought gold then the price would generally reflect the amount of inflation. To put it a different way, if 1 ounce of gold cost $35 in 1971, and the same ounce of gold costs $1310 today, did you really make out? Not really. Your $1310 could buy the same amount of goods today as $35 did in 1971. Essentially you saved the value of your hard earned money.

Price of gold from 1975 - 2010.

Look, if you're lucky enough to be able to have enough disposable income to invest in something, I suggest precious metals. That's not only the libertarian in me saying this but also my broker, Peter Schiff. He was Ron Paul's financial adviser during Ron's campaign. This is the same guy that was laughed at by so-called economic experts when Peter was predicting the real estate bubble. Now these same fools are talking about a precious metals bubble. Peter says there isn't one because the underlying indicators aren't there. The increase in prices are real, not inflated. Of course I'm not a financial expert, but if you decide to get out of your dollar-based securities, I humbly suggest you take a look at EuroPacific. I'm pimping them not only because they are badass, but they follow non-dollar based securities that are difficult to acquire through a traditional broker.

What I'm Currently Reading

How to Win Friends & Influence People by Dale Carnegie

I've heard a lot of positive things about this book and I think I'm long overdue for some introspection. I could use some advice and perhaps a fresh way of looking at myself and others. To be sure, I don't have a problem meeting people, but I think I can do better. I've noticed in myself plenty of cynicism and I sometimes antagonize people. I'm trying to take a more positive approach and maybe this book will give me some tips. I'd hate to see my children become sarcastic so young...I'll probably have to stand it when they get older.

I've read a few pages and this is going to be what I call a "workbook read." I'll read, re-read while underscoring certain points, and try to apply and evaluate my application of the recommendations found in the book. If you know me and you're reading this, be prepared, because you are my unwilling guinea pigs. MUAHAHAHAHA! 

What I've Been Reading

A Separate Peace by John Knowles


At a private school for boys, in Vermont, in the summer of 1943, the war rages and the boys prepare to ship off, but before they do, they play -- sometimes it's taken too far.

It's a short read and talks about the emotional struggles faced by adolescents. The characters in the book take on different aspects of growing up from care-free and wild to dutiful. Many people have spoken highly about this book, but while I can see the fine writing skills of Mr. Knowles, I did not prefer this book. It is a book for teenagers and I would recommend it to them.

A Time For Choosing

A friend recently introduced this speech to me. I was surprised at how similar and how long these arguments have been going on.



Best Line:  Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's not that liberals are ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

I've heard talking heads spout off about Goldwater's campaign, but I never thought Ronald Reagan was advocating so strongly back then what needs to happen today! Goldwater and other like-minded individuals were fighting for our rights, arguably, since FDR took so many away.

I have a hypothesis about why these ideas may not have been so popular back then; it's a generational theory. At the time of this speech, 1964, the generation that was in power was "The Greatest Generation" or "GI Generation" (born 1901 - 1924). They had weathered the Great Depression and fought during WWII. They were a generation of cooperation and can-do and sacrifice. The following generation, "The Silent Generation" (born 1925 - 1941) often times supported what the GI Generation was doing. Too young to help during the depression or WWII, they grew up in silence, watching and listening to what their parents were doing. It follows that the highly independent-minded ideas of personal and economic liberty and took a backseat to the group-think/teamwork mentality of the GI's. That's what they believed in to get through that 10 - 15 year national crisis.

Of course, people always have different ways of thinking and there were debates and arguments about who is right and what is the right thing to do, but the majority of Americans believed in this societal teamwork and sometimes individual rights and freedoms had to be sacrificed for the greater good. This thinking is still evident today in our contemporary political system. Perhaps it is time to get back to the Constitutional route. I truly hope so. I hope that my generation, "Generation X" and the young adults of "Generation Y," can face our current crisis period and turn things around.

Back Again

I've been occupied for some time. I'm back and trying to make time to blog again. A new baby and a toddler make time management an Olympic event.

In the meantime here's some pics...NONE of them are of my children.

Birth of a Daughter

Today at about 2:30pm, my second daughter was born! She's 51cm tall (long?) and 7.34kg. She's under observation right now probably because of the anesthetics given to the wife. Both are just fine and will get better over the next few days. 

Now I have the unenviable task(s) of getting her report of birth, ssn, passport, and bank accounts set up.  That paperwork-shuffle is the easy part and gives me an excuse to leave the house. Feedings every 2 hours, irregular sleep schedules, and juggling the first daughter will provide much distraction for the next two months. Such is the dad life.