"Truth Is Treason In The Empire Of Lies."

-Ron Paul

I like that.

Amen.

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.1133

"It occurs to me that, in these wartime years, I have a lot more in common with my left-wing associates than the right. Except that there's one stumbling block which makes them look askance at libertarians: "What about the poor?"

Now, I have no objection to helping the poor. We donate to our local food bank. I help refurbish computers so that poor kids can have one for their schoolwork. Part of my volunteer work for the Red Cross involves helping families who have experienced personal disasters (like a house fire). Indeed, one of the aspects I like about where we live is that when a family suffers a fire, or has a child with special medical needs, collection boxes will pop up in all the local businesses, and I'm among the many kicking in.

I'm all for helping the poor. I just think it should be private, and voluntary.

At this point I usually hear the objection, "But that's not enough! Small scale solutions like that will never solve the problem!"

Today it hit me: why the hell not?

To be more specific: the question should not be how do increase the scope of the (private) solution. It should be, why is the problem so damned big?

Let's face it: if you're living in a society in which anywhere from one-quarter to one-half of the population can't meet their basic needs through their own efforts -- where a half-trillion dollar enterprise is needed to "help the poor" -- then there is something fundamentally wrong with your society; and redistributing wealth, from those who have managed to succeed to those who have not, is avoiding the real problem. Whether the problem is the legions of overpaid bureaucratic parasites, the erosion of savings through inflation, confiscatory taxation, the countless costs of busybody legislation, or all of the above, you need to fix the underlying cause before you can ever really help people.

Put another way: if transfusing a few units of blood doesn't help the patient's condition, you'd better start looking for the bleeding....not look for more blood donors.

As a (small-l) libertarian, I am working toward a society where everyone can sustain himself/herself; where being poor is a misfortune and not a chronic condition; and where the needy will be at most a few percent of the population. In that society, private charity will be more than sufficient to help them. And I'll be there, contributing."

Good points. The ONLY thing the welfare state has created is a near-permanent dependency underclass. They have no stake in the future, so they trash theirs. Crime and bastard kids are their only legacy. Thanks so much LBJ you stupid liberal fuck.

So What's The Biggest LIE In Our Country's History?

Reflecting on Vox's blog discussion about female suffrage. (Women suffering? Yeah, gotta get rid of that!)

So now I'm wondering what aspect of U.S. History has been the more destructive to the social, political and/or legal fabric.

My top picks:
1) The Federal Reserve, the establishment of inflationary fiat currency in the U.S.
2) That FDR bureaucratizing everything & WWII saved us from the Great Depression?
3) That Lincoln fought the War of Northern Aggression to free slaves / destruction of state's rights
4) female suffrage and the incoming nanny state
5) something else I've omitted?

My personal fave has to be #3. I think it cemented the supremacy of the feds over the states once & for all.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I was not ranking the lies, just listing some and asking for more for the list. Josh says "Reagan being a small government guy." That's a lie, and a pretty big political one, but IMO small compared to the others.

Exactly.

"Why are pundits and politicians so eager to use force against others?" John Stossel, from HERE.

That's my whole reason for libertarianism (and Christianity) in a nutshell. And why I'm certain I won't need any other philosophies for the rest of my life.

It really is just that simple. Now I just have to stop being a hypocritical parasite and quit my government job... philosophy's a little easier on the net.

EDIT: 'Maybe libertarians should try to describe their philosophy by saying “libertarians believe in the free speech that liberals used to believe in, and the economic freedom that conservatives used to believe in.”' -- from HERE. (Yes, grammar cops, I know I reversed my quote signs...it's called laziness.)

Freewill... Of Course... What Else?

I have been thinking on these things for some time now.

I was reading this www.LewRockwell.com tonight, and it describes:

"Also animating both groups of progressives was a postmillennial pietist Protestantism that had conquered "Yankee" areas of northern Protestantism by the 1830s and had impelled the pietists to use local, state, and finally federal governments to stamp out "sin," to make America and eventually the world holy, and thereby to bring about the Kingdom of God on earth."

I'm no Bible scholar, but a while ago Vox posted a quote from Andrew Sullivan who said something that resonated with what I already felt:

"But the second and deeper response is Christianity itself, at the core of which is a radical refusal to force anyone to do anything."

If God gives you the choice to accept Jesus or not, you have to have freewill. Nothing else even comes close to making sense. If God lets you reject him, which would be the biggest choice of your life, why would he micromanage anything else?

And if God allows man freewill, how can any Christian make a bigger claim on a man's life than God claims for himself via the law?

Loving persuasion towards loving Him makes sense. Using the law... not so much.

My Flag, It Is A Waving...

My Bedford flag is waving in the breeze. It looks pretty neat, in the twilight hours of Indiana, swaying to and fro.

I'm glad I finally hung it.

An insufficient thank you to my Dad for giving it to me as a Christmas gift.

I love you, Dad.

Very Good Point

Among many other reasons, Christianity is good for the world because it makes hypocrisy a coherent concept. The Christian faith certainly condemns hypocrisy as such, but because there is a fixed standard, this makes it possible for sinners to fail to meet it or for flaming hypocrites to pretend that they are meeting it when they have no intention of doing so. Now my question for you is this: Is there such a thing as atheist hypocrisy? When another atheist makes different ethical choices than you do (as Stalin and Mao certainly did), is there an overarching common standard for all atheists that you are obeying and which they are not obeying? If so, what is that standard and what book did it come from? Why is it binding on them if they differ with you? And if there is not a common objective standard which binds all atheists, then would it not appear that the supernatural is necessary in order to have a standard of morality that can be reasonably articulated and defended?

So I am not saying you have to believe in the supernatural in order to live as a responsible citizen. I am saying you have to believe in the supernatural in order to be able to give a rational and coherent account of why you believe yourself obligated to live this way. In order to prove me wrong here, you must do more than employ words like "casuistry" or "evasions"—you simply need to provide that rational account. Given atheism, objective morality follows … how?

The Christian faith is good for the world because it provides the fixed standard which atheism cannot provide and because it provides forgiveness for sins, which atheism cannot provide either. We need the direction of the standard because we are confused sinners. We need the forgiveness because we are guilty sinners. Atheism not only keeps the guilt, but it also keeps the confusion.

— Douglas Wilson, from HERE.


Me? I'm an agnostic. I have issues with Christianity. Some are philosophical, some are personal, some are just weird. I go over this stuff in my head a lot.

But over at Vox's folks often stop by and make asses of themselves. Vox's point is the same as Mr. Wilson's; atheists have no objective morality that they can expect to apply to anyone other than themselves.

I would have to agree. It's all well and good for an atheist to say "you have to abide by the golden rule". But at the end of the day, if someone else decides to anally-rape you, eat your liver in a dip and wear your skin as a hat... well, you just have no real basis to object other than your personal preference for continuing to breathe. And - logically and objectively - why should YOUR preference take precedence over his?

After all, it's really just differing opinions.

HEY! I Said It First...

From HERE: "But the second and deeper response is Christianity itself, at the core of which is a radical refusal to force anyone to do anything." (Tip o' the hat to Vox for leading me there.)

BUT!

I said this the other day. Well... sort of.

From the comments on this thread HERE:

"What kind of vacuous nonsense is this? "Freedom" is a will-o-wisp, chasing it leads to death - which is why the libertarian philosophy is just as insidious a poison as Marxism." ---- Bill

"No moreso than how God set up salvation according to the Bible.

After all, God gives us the freedom to choose self-destruction all we want." --- Michael Maier

Now...

Mind you, I'm an agnostic. But I still think about this stuffis.

I simply don't get why some Christians think it's their place to force anyone to do anything. If God is willing to let me live or die as I please, wouldn't a Christian trying to force me to do anything be claiming a power that their God doesn't even claim as his?

Just thinking out loud. Some more thoughts from that same link:

"Convinced that the choice is solely between fundamentalism and atheism, the vast majority of believers will then be trapped perforce in the fundamentalist camp. Given the ubiquity of faith, given the absence of any civilization in human history that has been free of it, given the evolutionary and biological inclination toward faith, given the respect that a man even as rational as Einstein paid to the "veneration" of the force beyond all of us, your project is absurdly utopian. And like many utopians, you may, I fear, be making hell on earth more likely.

I say this not as a form of prescience but as a matter of hindsight. Although no genuine human civilization has been built on non-faith, in the last couple of centuries, several experiments in atheist and rationalist government were indeed carried out. You may recall the guillotine - synonymous with the dawn of the rational Enlightenment. Religion was also extirpated by force in the Soviet Union and Communist China; it was coopted by the state in Nazi Germany; in Pol Pot's Cambodia, the record of atheism in contrast with religion is quite clear. Atheism will never occur spontaneously among humans in large numbers. But when it has been imposed by force, it has been one of the most violent, evil and destructive forces in human history. Religion has a bloody past that I do not begin to deny. Fundamentalist atheism's is bloodier."

I think that may be because atheists think humans (and their systems/societies) are perfectible. They ain't.

But because elitist atheists are CONVINCED that theirs is the only right way, they'll go to any extreme to try and force their worldview into existence. (Why else try to get religious instruction of children defined as "abuse"? They cry about intolerant Christians but look at the lawsuits filed by atheists. They're more intolerant than anyone. Except the damn Jews. Reminds me of the "New York, New York" parody I thought up once: "Start killing the Jews... I'm starting today...". Ha! Good times... good times... but I digress.)

You can see this elitist attitude throughout 20th century history. No Communist country could have allowed its population to voluntarily choose whether or not to participate. Too many would have chosen themselves over the group.

But in a free country, citizens are free to form co-ops for themselves. No force needed to make the system work.

Eh. Just some typing out loud here...

Liberty Stuffis...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/chodorov/chodorov9.html

"The story of the American state is instructive. Its birth was most auspicious, being midwifed by a coterie of men unusually wise in the history of political institutions and committed to the safeguarding of the infant from the mistakes of its predecessors. Apparently, none of the blemishes of tradition marked the new state. It was not burdened with the inheritance of a feudal or a caste system. It did not have to live down the doctrine of "divine right" nor was it marked with the scars of conquest that had made the childhood of other states difficult. It was fed on strong stuff: Rousseau's doctrine that government derived its powers from the consent of the governed, Voltaire's freedom of speech and thought, Locke's justification of revolution, and, above all, the doctrine of inherent rights. There was no regime of status to stunt its growth. In fact, everything was de novo.

Every precautionary measure known to political science was taken to prevent the new American state from acquiring the self-destructive habit of every state known to history, that of interfering with man's pursuit of happiness. The people were to be left alone, to work out their individual destinies with whatever capacities nature had endowed them. Toward that end, the state was surrounded with a number of ingenious prohibitions and limitations. Not only were its functions clearly defined, but any inclination to go beyond bounds was presumably restrained by a tripartite division of authority, while most of the interventionary powers which the state employs were reserved for the authorities closer to the governed and therefore more amenable to their will; by the divisive principle of imperium in imperio it was forever, presumably, deprived of the monopoly position necessary to a state on the rampage. Better yet, it was condemned to get along on a meager purse; its powers of taxation were neatly circumscribed. It did not seem possible, in 1789, for the American state to do much in the way of interfering with the economy of the nation; it was constitutionally weak and off balance.

The ink was hardly dry on the Constitution before its authors, now in position of authority, began to rewrite it by interpretation, to the end that its bonds would loosen."

When I blogged about how I wanted to cry when walking through Boston, this stuff is why.

(To Be Titled Later, When I Feel Wittier...)

Excellent destruction of the "Libertarian=libertine" silliness that fools like Cedarford (over at Vox's) love to blather on about.

I'll make Jorge's enemy list yet!

"What would happen if a president just refused to go? To remove him, someone would have to act. Who? Little would be necessary to stop a coup, granted. A couple of helicopters of Marines landing across the street from the White House would be enough. The various federal police bully civilians well (ask Steve Hatfill *see the end of this post), but would find fighting real men another thing. But who in the military would have the courage to do it?"

The rest of the piece.

Take the time to read all of Fred's columns on the left. Great stuff. I don't agree with it all, but the man has lived a Hemingway-esque life.

I just have to remember to buy one of his books and see if it's worth the cash.



* Steve Hatfill is the accussed anthrax killer... strange we haven't heard much about that lately... Wiki Entry I somehow doubt the feds wouldn't have gotten a death penalty conviction by now if they had a shred of evidence.

Independence Day, 2006, 0109 am.

I'm not supposed to be writing this right now. I'm supposed to be in my Grandmother's home in Bedford. The Bedford in Taxxachusetts, that is. Alas! God, Satan, bad luck or just plain old kidney stones (depending on how hateful or fateful I'm feeling at any given moment) decided to strike my body down last Friday, just hours before I was set to depart on my Ninja motorcycle adventure.

So while my brothers likely are falling asleep after having watched the fireworks in downtown Boston, I remain here in Indianapolis, listening to the idiot neighbours still shooting off their no-longer-illegal fireworks until well after midnight. Here I sit, wishing I were there, getting into a bed in my dad's old room, now my Grandfather's den.

In case you don't know, Bedford's flag was the first battle flag for the Colonists in the battle at Concord Bridge. The very first battle flag for our fledgling country.

Quoting from this link:

http://www.anyflag.com/history/bedford.htm

“This flag was present at the battle of Concord in April 19, 1775. It was carried by Nathaniel Page, a Bedford Minuteman. The Latin inscription "Vince Aut Morire" means "Conquer or Die". The arm emerging from the clouds represents the arm of God. The original can be seen at the Bedford Town Library. “

“Conquer of Die”. “Don't Tread on Me.” (From the Gadsden and Navy Jack flags.) Great mottoes for a greater time. When men saw freedom being taken away and did something about it. I love walking around the Boston, Lexington and Concord parks. Last time I walked those parks two years ago, I was overwhelmed and almost cried more than once.

It wasn't just the history, being at the spots where our country started on the road to win its freedom. It was mourning. I mourned the loss of a burning fire of liberty.

I sat here for a good while today, in front of my computer. Reading articles on Bush “needing” to raid SWIFT bank transfer records to find terrorists and the UN trying once again to steal our firearms.

Endless encroachments upon our liberties and rights. I don't really care to figure out which is which. I just know at every turn, some bureaucrats is deciding to restrict my life. In every way you can imagine.

Like in my post about my kidney stone episode at work. Like Joe Foss having a Medal of Honor pin seized. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/02/27/war.hero.cnna/index.html Like my lobster claw wine bottle corkscrew stolen from my checked-in luggage.

We're not free in this country. In any sense of the word. The biggest saving grace is our guns. But they'll come for those soon too, because they're a threat. Probably right after President Hillary declares our country is merging with Mexico and Canada to form the North American Union, finishing the job Jorge Bush is working on right now.

That bastard Bush is a traitor to our country. But I can't get too mad at that. After all, we've been asking for that betrayal since the South lost their War of Independence.

And almost no one sees it. It is a farcical tragic comedy and almost no one hears the joke, let alone gets it.

And we dare to celebrate “Independence Day” without a trace of shame on our faces.

I get the joke. I just wish I didn't.