Libertarian Salon

The Boston Tea Party: Revival of the Revolutionary Spirit

2007-12-16T02:18:00.000-08:00

234 years ago, a symbolic gesture by a handful of patriots lit the brushfires of liberty in the minds of the American colonists. These patriots dumped unjustly taxed British tea into Boston Harbor to send a message that the colonists would not implicitly accept the right of the British government to tax them without representation in parliament. The Boston Tea Party spread the message of freedom across the colonies, and in three short years, the Declaration of Independence gave birth to a new nation, conceived in liberty, and promising a new era to its inhabitants that the world had never witnessed before.

The American Revolution was the culmination of the intellectual discovery of liberty. How rare the occasion that the world finally got a chance to try it. The achievement of liberty, however, was in a constantly precarious state. The founders warned us to remain vigilant of our liberties, and jealously guard our rights; failure to do so was to invite tyranny to return and uproot the freedoms that could only be secured by the spirit of the Revolution.

234 years later, our complacency has allowed us to gradually fall into tyranny again. It does not take a keen eye to see our liberties eroded. The PATRIOT Act, income tax, regulations, subsidies, censorship, expansion of the money supply through fiat paper currency, eminent domain, interventionalist foreign policy, aggressive warfare, large standing armies, gun control, suspension of Habeas Corpus on demand, and all other forms of aggression and plunder the state takes part in; all of these have served in the undermining of our civil liberties, and more egregiously, they have served to encroach upon our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and private property.

Essentially, the spirit of the American Revolution has been sold out for the desire to be secure; secure from terrorism, secure from poverty, secure from competition, and secure from responsibility.

Thus, I propose a reminder of the revolutionary spirit through the Declaration of Independence… with some slight adjustments:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present [United States Government] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world

THEY have revoked our civil liberties through legislation riddled with vague Orwellian language, in the name of combating terrorism.

THEY have passed legislation to protect uncompetitive industry from competition, which directly hurts the consumers.

THEY willfully ignore the Constitution in order to achieve their desired goals, thus ignoring the only peaceful constraint on the government the people have.

THEY have levied unjust income taxes on the citizens, only to squander the plunder on expanding bureaucracy that further solidifies the state’s authority.

THEY have committed theft of the people in order to enforce egalitarianism.

THEY have devalued the currency of the United States through legal tender laws and the expansion of the fiat paper money supply.

THEY have used taxes and borrowed funds to expand their empire and secure their empire around the world.

THEY have unsuccessfully attempted to abolish personal responsibility through protectionism and the welfare state.

THEY have forced the people to conform to harsh regulatory practices in order to legally trade among each other.

THEY have placed sanctions, bans on trade, with nations that they see as a threat to their agenda.

THEY have encroached upon the right to bear arms through unjust gun control laws.

THEY have encroached upon the freedom of speech in a plethora of ways, among them regulation on campaign contributions, regulation on free association, censorship, etc.

THEY have seized rightfully earned property for the “common good” through the justification of eminent domain to be used for public and private agendas.

THEY have raided the national debt to astronomical levels.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our [American] brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature [president, or courts] to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

[As I am not advocating violent separation from the government, I will leave the last paragraph in tact with reference towards Britain]

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The moral of this reminder is that tyranny is alive and well in America. I fear that revolution is the only means by which we can restore our liberties, and reign in the government back to its defined duties. This revolution does not need to be a violent one. We have been given the peaceful opportunity to work within the system, and in lieu of the sword, my instrument of intellectual revolution is the pen.

Today, on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, spread the message of liberty. Make a donation to Ron Paul’s campaign, or take the time to remind someone of the forgotten spirit of the American Revolution. It is in your hands, the educated and enlightened individuals, to help the blind populace to find its way again, and reacquire the jealous defense of their liberties once again.

Where the Left Gets it Wrong

2006-07-31T06:25:00.000-07:00

The Washington Post this morning had a short article about a book by Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.). The book is apparently calling Democrats to return to anti-free trade and strict regulation of their former era.

What can I say, I'm still against both parties, even if one has the right stance on the war

The government is not God...

2006-07-25T08:32:00.000-07:00

Great article by Dmitry Chernikov over at lewrockwell.com

I love the last paragraph:

It should be clear then that the common admonition that we have nothing to fear from the state if we have done nothing wrong is false even on the face of it. The state is not God; when will we understand that? In the 20th century in many societies good men and women learned to fear the state, while the worst rose to the top. What we must do therefore is make it on earth as it is in heaven by restraining and scaling down the state and by breaking down its monopoly without any reverence for it, lest it turns evil, as it has so many times in human history, and as it has now in a variety of ways.

Bush's first Veto

2006-07-20T13:17:00.000-07:00

My friend Taylor and I recently had an email discussion over the vetoed stem cell bill...

I can't seem to make it format correctly for my blog, he has the transcript up on his... He keeps me on my toes

enjoy, comment, ignore, or remain ambivilant...

Logic

2006-07-20T13:10:00.000-07:00

Great article at lewrockwell.com on the irrational logic of state intervention...

I plan to say more on this later, but this will suffice for now

For Big Business? That I am not

2006-07-19T07:53:00.000-07:00

I am never sure what is meant by Big Business... but every time I hear about it, it seems to be in connection with a company or industry that has major ties to the government. So for the record, when I talk about big business, I am referring to a company which has used the government to actively reduce their competition and/or increase their profits.

With that said, check out the latest sickening use of government to advance an industry’s profits, in my own home state of Missouri.

Matt Blunt… so-called conservative governor of Missouri, mandated… Mandated… that gas stations must sell gasoline with an ethanol blend. It just happens that his brother and business partners of Blunt are involved the ethanol business. So what he’s essentially done is to force gas stations, under threat of a heavy government hand, to buy and sell a certain product. Supposedly it’s no more expensive than gasoline, but I would like to see whether that has anything to do with the subsidies it is already receiving.

The law was passed under the premise that it will contribute more to the Missouri economy.

“An economic impact study by the University of Missouri estimated that ethanol production at Missouri plants is projected to reach an annual capacity of 350 million gallons, creating $348 million dollars annually in value-added income to Missouri's economy and generating $726 million annually in economic activity.”

How they came up with these numbers is subject to scrutiny, I’m sure, but the law is obviously anti-free market, anti-liberty, and pro-state. It’s subsidizing an industry that is not profitable on its own yet, and in the process, unfairly coercing money from gas stations into the coffers of family and business partners of the Governor.

I don’t know, I haven’t studied enough on this issue yet… but from what I know so far, it makes me absolutely sick.

Its amazing to think the French once had Bastiat

2006-07-18T09:21:00.000-07:00

A post in WoPo the other day brought more attention to the fact that France is, in the most polite terms, economically ignorant. The country is so caught up in socialist predispositions that it refuses to admit a link in the concurrent trends. High unemployment, fleeing businesses/businesspeople, rising xenophobia, could this all be connected to very high taxes on the “wealthy,” strict and ridiculous regulations that impede growth, and even riots.

Despite the fact that any competent economist can explain the link in these correlations, the socialists won’t believe it… it’s still the same old class warfare rhetoric that the “political class” has spouted off successfully for years.

“Socialist leaders and some government officials argue that the rich are merely
trying to shirk their social responsibilities by fleeing the country with their
millions.”

I find myself always trying to think of new ways to get this point across to people:

Businesses are inherently fulfilling social responsibility by maximizing profits to their shareholders.

These words enrage leftists for many reasons

1) Leftists do not believe in liberty.

Leftists cannot logically accept the idea of liberty. If you are going to coerce a person or business (against their will, at the threat of force behind it) into paying a portion of their own property (whether it is from their own labor, or the labors of a person that has left the property to them), you are, in essence, putting a stipulation on liberty. In other words, they are saying, you can be free, but not if you are successful.
The funny thing is that many leftists (not the full blown Marxist ones) don’t realize their hypocrisy on liberty. I should note that this mostly comes from anecdotal evidence, so you may take it with a grain of salt. When you put it on an individual basis, they will take the issue as more personal, and thus, tend to unknowingly go along with you. Let me elucidate: let’s assume you’re talking with a leftist about, oh, minimum wage. Give them an example:

Person 1: “Old man Clemons wants to hire someone to mow his lawn. You
offer to mow his lawn for $8/hour. Little Jimmy, however, offers to mow
his lawn for $4/hour. Old Man Clemons doesn’t see too much difference in
quality or qualification, so he decides to hire Little Jimmy. Is Old Man
Clemons wrong for doing this?

Person 2: No, he is less expensive for the same work.

P1: So Old Man Clemons has done nothing wrong to Little Jimmy? He isn’t forcing him into anything?

P2: No, Jimmy said he would mow the lawn for $4/hr, Clemons didn’t force him
to.

P1: Now if I wanted to open a business, and I said I would pay any new worker $4/hr to work for me, would that be wrong?

P2: Yes, $4/hr is below living wages. If you pay them less than $[x]/hr, you are
exploiting them, stepping on people, and should have your business shut down.

-_- oh well, lost the point on another…

Anyways, this works for many issues… but I am deviating from the subject at hand.

There is a second reason leftists can’t stand the idea that the social responsibility of a business is to offer profits to their shareholders, and that is their mentality of class.

2) Leftists are convinced of Class Warfare

The Marxist ideology accepts one key fallacy: The world is zero-sum. Essentially, they believe there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world, and the rich hold most of it unfairly.
This view stemmed in the early stages of the industrial revolution. This ideology was becoming outdated. Consumer products were pouring onto the market for the first time in history. People could own more than one set of clothes. Soon after, prices began to fall, offering goods and services to the masses. Advancements in technology were driving quality of life through the roof relative to years before. Classical Liberals were astounded at the triumph of liberty over aristocracy. The aristocracy was crumbling, and a meritocracy was taking hold. The alliance of throne and alter was beginning to break.
Even though the rich were no longer rich from coercion by government (for all intents and purposes), the Marxists still looked upon them as exploiters of the masses, keeping most of the wealth for themselves, leaving the masses with virtually nothing. We that derived of the classical liberal tradition know this isn’t true, but that is a debate for another day.

3) Egalitarianism

Egalitarianism brings a fuzzy feeling to the stomach of a leftist. It is the ideal for a Utopia. But how do you make everyone equal? The only way to do it is through coercion. Anyone who is wealthy should have to pay more than those who are not because they are wealthy and can afford it. This is the attitude portrayed. It is veiled in the desire to make everyone equal.

I can’t go along with the idea of egalitarianism though, because I believe strongly in freedom. Coercion is wrong when someone has done no wrong to you. I don’t believe in punishing someone because they have something I don’t. The only way this is justified is if they have something that belongs to someone else. So what if Paris Hilton is rich with family money? That money was made through private enterprise. Who the elder Hilton decides to leave it to is his own business. Paris Hilton’s money does not come at the expense of my own, and to take it away is only an act of malice, despite the better ways it could be used. Will she have the money forever? Probably not… a fool and his money are soon parted is a wise phrase. But I don’t know.

So I know what you are thinking (besides the fact that this is a long post). You are thinking “Leon, you’ve done a lot of explaining on why the leftists don’t like the idea that businesses only social responsibility is delivering a profit to their shareholders, but you haven’t explained why that is their only social responsibility.

Well, it can all be deduced down to freedom.

A person has the right to property that comes into existence through the product of his labor. Furthermore, people can trade that property, so long as the exchange is mutual. So long as the person does not infringe upon the rights of another, nothing wrong has been done.

The overarching theme of this is the absence of coercion, and the astounding thing is that it all works!

Mass production has produced a large supply of goods, and absence of coercion allows for competition to meet and compete for the demand. As a consequence, competitors are always trying to find new advances to get ahead of the competition. Entrepreneurs see a need in the market, so they try to fill it. All is done to seek a profit… and this “greed” comes out in lower prices and a wider variety of goods and services. Wealth is created, and quality of life rises. They fill privately what the Welfare state tries to create out of coercion.

Volumes can be written on this subject… but this post is already to long

So please… French Government… read Fredrick Bastiat, and try to return to those roots.

Back once again

2006-07-17T10:00:00.000-07:00

It looks as if I’ve had a request for a return to blogging. I had no idea anyone actually read this thing. I thought it was just my personal journal, where I would write my rants about politics and economics, and wouldn’t care if anyone read it. I stopped blogging for a while, not because I gave up on it, I’ve just been doing other things. But if there someone that wants these posts, I’d be happy to continue. So without adieu, by request: My return to the blogosphere with how I form my opinions.

Philosophical Post:

Last year, I came to the conclusion that philosophy is an important subject. As per self-improvement, I believe that one should sit down at some point and think about why he or she believes the way he/she does. How does one form his or her beliefs?

For myself, I found that I had problems in my beliefs. They were inconsistent, and I could not explain why I believed them. I like to feel justified for believing things the way I do. I don’t like to have an opinion for the sake of having an opinion, and for the most part, I like to be consistent in my beliefs.

As Descartes pointed out in his meditations, though, it isn’t rational to break down each belief one by one to keep only what I know to be true. My most effective effort is to come up with a rational principle to live by, which would become my basis for evaluating arguments, and sifting through rhetoric to get to the heart of an issue. In other words, it is developing a moral to live by. Something that is, in a sense, an objective law for my beliefs. I believe that the overriding factor in making a decision is individual rights. It is at the heart of any issue that comes my way: Does this infringe upon an individual’s right to life, liberty, or property?

I am not always right, and I always remain open to others’ opinions. However, I do not sway easily. It takes compelling evidence in line with my base belief to convince me otherwise.

In essence, with these principles, I try to take on the issues effectively. I always try to argue from the grounds that freedom is good, and coercion is not, and any law or action that infringes upon freedom is unjust. I also mean to test blind faith in something, by pointing out fallacies, contradictions, and arguing against something I believe is just plain wrong.

So when one reads my opinions, and wonders how I came to the conclusion I did, I hope this can shed some light.

New Post!

2006-04-15T15:23:00.000-07:00

So yeah, I've been a little busy lately... School work has taken a little time, and the rest has been taken over by World of Warcraft.

I have a love/hate relationship with the aforementioned game title. For those unaware, World of Warcraft (WoW) is a Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG). Brace youself, because I'm about to hit you non-video game players with a huge dose of absurdity:

Basically, Blizzard (the company that made the game) has created a huge virtual world which allows players from all around the real world to log on and play Doing quests with others, or by yourself. However, this is a game that you can never win. Furthermore, this is a game that never really changes up its gameplay all that much ... and Blizzard charges $15 a month to play, in addition to the $50 to buy the game ...and tens of thousands of people play it... Alot...

On the one hand, this game is a marvelous creation of capitalism, both inside and out. On the outside, Blizzard has created a service that satisfies geeks like myself for hours and hours of life absorbing and repetitive fun. On the inside, there is a system called the "auction house." Basically, Blizzard has added rare and powerful items in the game that one can find in various places. If the person that finds one of the said items and does not want to use it, he or she can put it on the auction house to sell to other players. Thus the game has a virtual "market" for goods. People who find the same item can put theirs on the auction house, and undercut the competition. It is a truly free market society.

There is a bad side to this game as well though... I am convinced it is more addictive than heroin. A little more about the game: Your goal in the game is essentially to gain experience points from fighting monsters or doing quests or what have you, and level up. When you level up, your stats (or multipliers that determine your effectiveness in battle) go up, and you are able to fight harder monsters and do harder quests. The highest level you can reach at the moment is level 60. My game time played so far (in total played time) is apparently 4 days... that is 24 hour intervals added up... and I am only level 27. Not to mention, I got 12 of those levels my first night playing. Needless to say, it is a long process to get to level 60, and it is hard to pull yourself away from the game. You are always discovering something new, or working to get some sort of item, or doing some quest that you want to finish to level up. I still enjoy it, even though I've had to finally buckle down again and really hit the studies.

But I am going to try to pull myself back from the game, and get back to propagating ideas of radical individualism, anti-government, pro-free-market, laissez-faire dribble through a virtually unknown blog in the sea of libertarian writers.

I may update again tonight, but if not, happy Easter.

The Leviathan in Red

2006-03-16T12:12:00.000-08:00

Republicans... once thought the party of fiscal responsibility, now spending out the wazzoo with no money coming in.

Democrats... once thought of as tax and spenders, now claiming fiscal irresponsibility from Republicans.

So who's to blame? Politicians.

Senate voted to raise the Debt limit to $9 Trillion...

that is $9,000,000,000,000

That is 12 zeros after that 9.

It is ridiculous... I don't even have the words to describe how much I hate the United States Federal Government...

$9 Trillion will have to be paid some day. The worst part is that things like social security aren't going to end, we're not going to downsize our military to any great amount... we aren't going to abolish any government programs, because people are too ignorant and short sighted to accept it.

I truly have lost almost any hope in the government to control itself. Republicans aren't the party of small government, government has grown by leaps and bounds under Bush. The worst part though, is that democrats won't be any better, and perhaps, in fact, much worse.

I am not afraid of terrorism, I'm afraid of what will happen when our debt is called.

Book Review!!!

2006-03-07T14:33:00.000-08:00

I've been quite busy the last week or two, so in these few minutes of break, I thought I'd make a post on the ol' Blog on some of my recent reads...

From George Wallace to Newt Gingrich: Race in the Conservative Counterrevolution, 1963-1994
by Dan T. Carter is a decent read. The primary focus of the book is on the elections of 1968 and 1972, between Nixon and Wallace. It gives a great account of the backlash of American politics, as well as a good idea of what kind of man Nixon was. (8 out of 10)

The Origins of the Second World War in Europe
by PMH Bell. I'm a history major, so this kind of stuff does appear on my reading schedual. It gives a tremendous account of the arguments that historians have made for the causes of the War. It also discusses in detail the ideological roles in the key countries, the economic problems that were involved, the improvisational skills of Hitler, and also discusses the policy of apeasement very well. I highly reccomend this book if you feel like increasing your knowledge of WWII History. (9.5 out of 10)

Redeeming America: Piety and Politics in the New Christian Right
by Michael Lienesch. In this book, Lienesch provides a superb analysis of the Religious Right's mentality, ideology, and rise to power. He splits the book into 5 sections.

1. The Self
He points out the similarities between the leaders of the Religious Right in that they each tell a story about their own conversion. They have each had some epiphany that led them to Christ.

2. The Family
Obviously, the Religious Right is known for promoting "family values." Lienesch explains what Family Values really means. This chapter is, of course, the most apalling chapter for most people, I am sure, but I learned quite a lot I didn't know about their views.

3. The Economy
The Religious Right has almost got something right in regards to economics. They have obviously read into a number of economists' writings... and they are very Smithian in their attitude. They do have a Calvinist spin on it though. The other part of this chapter was their belief in charity over the welfare state. They dislike redistribution (and rightly so), and believe that many of the people in poverty are victims of their own sloth. I agree with this analysis, and as they say in the book, "We are offering a hand, not a handout."

4. Polity
And of course, the religious right in domestic affairs. It also does a great job in explaining how the Religious Right got into politics and gained power as the "silent majority" and the "embittered minority." Moreover, it discusses how they mobilized around the view that things had gone too far in the US... and it was time for status confessionis.

5. World Affairs
This was one of the most interesting chapters in the book. The Religious Right has an intriguing mentality, believing that the US has a covenant with God, and we are divinely ordained to be the world leader. It discusses the Religious Right's fueling from the Cold War, and how they believe that any concessions made by the US is somehow a sign of weakness. It is almost an aggressive masculine mentality.

Overall though, my synopsis of the chapters doesn't portray how good of a job Lienesch does in analyzing the religious right. He remains surprisingly objective throughout his discussion, looking at the big picture with as little bias as possible. I definitely reccomend this book (10 out of 10)

What's the Matter with Kansas? : How Conservatives Won the Heart of America
By Thomas Frank. This book made me realize a few things. 1) I can really become angry when I read, 2) I can pencil in alot of counter-evidence in the margins, and 3) This kind of book scares me. Plain and simple, Frank throws out a theme that Kansans are voting against their own economic interests (i.e. voting for conservatives) for cultural issues that will not be resolved (like abortion).

problems with this book you ask?:
1) "Intellectual" (socialist) arguments that have a very cocky tone; which isn't really that bad, everyone is entitled to their point of view. However, if you're going to write a book like this, I expect some proof, which brings me to my next point
2) Little or no evidence to support his claims. He gives a few anecdotes, spouts off a bunch of Marxist class warfare crap, makes outragous claims counter to factual evidence, and provides few sources for his information.

Yet the reviews were quite positive:

"The best political book of the year."
-Nicholas Kristof, The New York Times, November 3, 2004

"Frank is a formidable controversialist-imagine Michael Moore with a trained brain and an intellectual conscience."
-George F. Will, The Washington Post, July 8, 2004

"Brilliant."
-Barbara Ehrenreich, The New York Times, July 1, 2004

"Mr. Frank re-injects economic-class issues into the debate with sardonic vehemence."
-Jerome Weeks, The Dallas Morning News, June 27, 2004

"A searing piece of work . . . one of the most important political writings in years."
-The Boston Globe

"Dazzlingly insightful and wonderfully sardonic . . . Frank has made much sense of the world in this book."
-Chicago Tribune

"Impassioned, compelling . . . Frank's books mark him as one of the most insightful thinkers of the twenty-first century, four years into it."
-Houston Chronicle

"Very funny and very painful . . . Add another literary gold star after Thomas Frank's name."
-San Francisco Chronicle

I really shouldn't be surprised by these comments, I mean, Frank is exactly the kind of writer these journalists are... But the fact that this book got so much press had me flabbergasted. This book is being taken for a valuble argument, that I don't see as very sound... Perhaps you can read it as well, and notice the lack of footnotes... (1 out of 10)

Basically, I am lamenting about the lack of skepticism among people in general anymore... No one wants to fact check nor does anyone want to think as an individual anymore. They'll take what they're told by CNN/Post/Times/Fox/*insert BS news organization's opinion here* as word of god and go about respouting the arguments.

I might rant more on this later, but as of now, I have a test to prepare for.

Hooray for the Handicapable!!!

2006-03-01T09:43:00.000-08:00

I'm not calling those people in wheelchairs handicapable today to be politically correct... I call them handicapable because they are just as capable as you and I to be productive members of society. This article in the NY Times almost brought a tear to my eye... It just goes to show that the handicapped are not necessarily burdens on society; they are individuals just like you and I; where they lack physical ability, their mind can make up for it.

There are not many handicaps that keep people from being able to do anything... Helen Keller was deaf and blind, yet she was still able to author books (I won't hold the fact that she was a socialist against her). FDR had no use of his legs thanks to polio, and he was one of the greatest presidents the United States has ever had (if you ignore the whole New Deal thing).

I'm proud of these people for getting jobs. They want to be as independent as possible, and I applaud their strives to achieve that independence.

More Edjukashun

2006-02-28T23:30:00.000-08:00

This WoPo article discusses the "value" of AP courses in high school...

Honestly... I'm pleading with the left on this one, do we really want to have mediocre standards on the people in this country?

A middle ground is fine when you are talking diplomacy and politics... but when it comes to education, only the highest standards should be expected.

This makes me kind of sad:

Palma is taking AP psychology but decided on the regular history course, calling the AP class "beyond my capabilities."

I'm sorry Palma, but this means one of two things: (1) You are dumb, or (2) You're a liar and you just don't try hard enough.

I am becoming progressively pessimistic about the public education in this country... We aren't keeping up with the world competitors, and the low expectations we have on the students are telling them its ok not to exert effort in school.

We've got a quickly evolving world today... The manufacturing industry is not there as a backup plan anymore. If we want to remain competative in the world, we need a new attitude, or rather, the return of the American dream. Education is the key... I just think the left is keeping us from finding the lock.

VISA: It's everywhere you want to be, unless you're a foreign scientist

2006-02-24T10:42:00.000-08:00

I should note that the title of this post has nothing to do with the credit card company, rather, it is about the ridiculous rules in place after 9/11 on travel and immigration. This article from the times gives the basic gist of the situation. Basically, if you are a foreigner with a Ph.D. in science, you will find it very difficult to get a Visa to come to the states. Also, if you are a foreigner that gets your science Ph.D in the US, if you go home, you won't be able to come back.

My friend is a biochemistry undergrad. His superior at the internship he is doing is a Chinese man named Mao. Mao is working on his Ph. D in Bio-Chem. Mao cannot visit home, because if he does, he will not be allowed a visa to come back. Thus Mao is stuck in the US, away from his family for so many years until he can get his doctorate, at which time, he will go back to China and not be able to come back again.

Now, I know we live in a time where the government is trying to protect its population (even if I don't agree with the way they are doing it). But this is absolutely ridiculous... Not only will this alienate the foreign scientists that might wish to live and work in the US, but it puts severe strain on the ones that are learning, and when they do go home, there is little chance they would come back.

Maybe now that there is tension brewing, this law might be revised...

Trade Defication

2006-02-21T17:32:00.000-08:00

I hate when politicians spew ignorant crap out of their collective mouths...

I'm not talking about any Strom Thurmon's or Jesse Helms' today... I'm talking about everyone's favorite socialist Hillary

Clinton Calls for Common Sense Action on Mounting Trade Deficit

Clinton, Dorgan and Cardin to Unveil Legislation to Limit and Reduce Trade Deficit

Washington, DC -- U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today called for urgent action to address the nation's spiraling trade deficit, following an announcement by the Commerce Department that our nation's annual trade deficit in 2004 reached a record $617.7 billion. This afternoon, Senator Clinton, U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan (ND) and House Trade Subcommittee Ranking Member Ben Cardin (MD) will unveil legislation that would set a limit on the trade deficit and compel action to reduce it.

"Today's announcement of the largest trade deficit in history is an alarm bell that we can't afford to ignore. We need to take common sense steps now," said Senator Clinton. "Without action, our debt will continue to drag down our economy, cripple our ability to create jobs and hit New Yorkers and all Americans in the pocketbook as the dollar continues to lose purchasing power."
"This record trade deficit shows that our current trade policies are seriously misguided and must spur the president and congress to some action that begins to address the serious ness of our trade imbalance," added Senator Dorgan. "The President and some in Congress have been using the term crisis to describe a number of different issues. But these record trade deficit numbers are a real crisis that demands action and leadership from this President and this Congress."

I wish politicians would stop saying ignorant things like this... the Trade Deficit is not a debt... I don't owe any money, nor do you. We are taking in alot of imports, and we're sending out exports, but the thing that makes the trade deficit so high, is that foreign investors build factories and invest in the markets here in the States. Any investment by foriegn business/power counts on the trade deficit. The trade deficit is a good thing. It means that the United States is very fertle ground for investment. This is not money that has to be paid off with taxes at some point, unlike the budget deficit. That is the debt on the backs of future taxpayers. And it is all thanks to poor money management... Thanks Bush, Clinton, Bush, Regan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and FDR, and all of their respective Congresses.

Bin Laden the Blogger

2006-02-20T20:09:00.000-08:00

Interesting observation from Reason

Edjucashun

2006-02-20T09:37:00.000-08:00

I've read a few blogs that have already discussed thoroughly the LA Times article about the math requirements in the LA schools. And the metaphorical castration of Richard Cohen's column has been taken care of as well, so my commentary on the ignorance of Cohen's assumptions is unnecessary

However, I do believe the LA Times article brought up some good points of discussion.

Disclaimer: much of the rest of this post will be personal opinion from personal events. I have no proof to my claims; it is strictly my own reflections on my own experience.

"We have a problem with a high dropout rate. You don't address it by making it easier to get through and have the meaning of the diploma diluted," said state Sen. Chuck Poochigian (R-Fresno), who wrote the algebra graduation law. "It should be a call to action … not to lower standards but to find ways to inspire. Our future depends on it."

I agree whole-heartedly with Sen. Poochigian on this issue, lowering standards would be a step in the wrong direction. There is something to be said for sympathy towards struggling students, but to quote Dennis Miller, isn’t one of the worst things you can do for a person is to have absolutely no expectations of them whatsoever? We are at a point in society where the implicit ideas of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility are not expected anymore.

I hear people like Cohen complain about Algebra being a requirement, because it is too difficult, and discourages students… but then I read this:

“Teachers complain that they have no time for remediation, that the rapid pace mandated by the district leaves behind students like Tina Norwood, 15, who is failing beginning algebra for the third time.

Tina, who says math has mystified her since she first saw fractions in elementary school, spends class time writing in her journal, chatting with friends or snapping pictures of herself with her cellphone.

Her teacher wasn't surprised when Tina bombed a recent test that asked her, among other things, to graph the equations 4x + y = 9 and 2x -- 3y = -- 6. She left most of the answers blank, writing a desperate message at the top of the page: "Still don't get it, not gonna get it, guess i'm seeing this next year!"

Teachers wage a daily struggle in classes filled with students like Tina.

Her teacher, George Seidel, devoted a class this fall to reviewing equations with a single variable, such as x -- 1 = 36. It's the type of lesson students were supposed to have mastered in fourth grade.

Only seven of 39 students brought their textbooks. Several had no paper or pencils. One sat for the entire period with his backpack on his shoulders, tapping his desk with a finger.

Another doodled an eagle in red ink in his notebook. Others gossiped as Seidel, a second-year teacher, jotted problems on the front board.

"Settle down," Seidel told the fifth-period students a few minutes after the bell rang. "It doesn't work if you guys are trying to talk while I'm trying to talk."

Seidel once brokered multimillion-dollar business deals but left a 25-year law career, hoping to find a more fulfilling job and satisfy an old desire to teach. Nothing, however, prepared him for period five.

"I got through a year of Vietnam," he said, "so I tell myself every day I can get through 53 minutes of fifth period…. I don't know if I am making a difference with a single kid."

Seidel did not appear to make a difference with Gabriela Ocampo. She failed his class in the fall of 2004 — her sixth and final semester of Fs in algebra.

But Gabriela didn't give Seidel much of a chance; she skipped 62 of 93 days that semester.”

The students that complain the most and drop out are often the students that try the least.

What is the solution to this problem? Because failure discourages students, are we to pretend failure is inconsequential? I don’t think so. The world is rough, and if we want to compete, we’re going to have to shed some of this egalitarian idealism. Everyone is different, and some are blessed with the natural ability that others must strive for. And although we all have a different starting line in life, we all have the ability to run the marathon to the best of our abilities.

My solution for the problem: We need to stress the basics. I was bad at math for a long time (and I am still bad, but that is beside the point). One day, I realized my biggest trouble came from my ignorance of basic operations… such as the multiplication of fractions. Like I said before, I have no proof for this argument, but I would bet that many of the mathematics problems students have stems from not knowing some of the basic mathematical operations. It is difficult to do physics problems when you don’t know how to do something fractions. My physics grade improved dramatically after learning this concept, something I should have learned in the third grade or so…

Which brings up the next point, these basics need to be stressed harder in the earlier ages. When you reach teens or so, the mind is no longer the sponge it used to be, and the external influences become more time consuming. Therefore, it is more difficult for a student to learn the more difficult concepts of math, and they become more easily discouraged.

Who knows? Maybe the conceptual mathematics thing the LA Times article discusses is just that, maybe they are stressing the basics.

I'm sure I will rant more about education at a later date, but for now, I'm tired of talking about it.

Sensible Environmentalism

2006-02-14T11:31:00.000-08:00

This article in Reason caught my eye, and I am quite proud of these environmental groups...

They are taking a page from Patrick Moore and learning that maybe the government isn't the best route to their goals. Thank you Gwen Ruta... with this statement, you renewed some of my faith in the real purpose of the Environmental movement:

Gwen Ruta, director of corporate partnerships at Environmental Defense, claims private initiatives are “the wave of the future,” in part because “we’re in a rather uncertain regulatory period. How aggressive will the government be in the next few years in creating regulations?

I thought this one was a nice shot at the anti-capitalst sect of environmentalists:

McDonald’s executive Mats Lederhausen puts it more colorfully. Lederhausen was instrumental in instituting green-friendly policies when he ran McDonald’s Sweden. Swedish McDonald’s, not to be outdone by its Danish neighbors and their fancy HFC-free prototype, buys all of its energy from renewable sources and serves organic food. Lederhausen has long argued that “doing good is good business” and apparently can get quite upset at the environmental movement’s residual anti-corporatism. When he was asked, by author Marc Gunther, to respond to the criticism that McDonald’s could be truly socially responsible only by shutting down, he fired out this reply: “That really pisses me off, quite frankly. You don’t attract 46 million customers daily by happenstance. You do it because you fill a need that is pretty strong and because your products are pretty damn good. I’m not saying there aren’t a lot of things we can do better. But, I mean, give us a break. We deserve a break today!”

Yeah, I'm one of those crazy Libertarians that believe in global warming... However, I firmly believe that rash action by the government and/or band-aids like the Kyoto Pact are the worst ways to go about change. Apparently some environmental groups have come to realize the same.

The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits

2006-02-13T15:26:00.000-08:00

To continue my rant about people who lack basic understanding of economics (and their impulse to speak about it anyways), I am writing today about the concept of "fairness," in terms of redistribution.

Hypothetical Situation.

Farmer John and Farmer Jack both have farms that grow corn. They both have about the same size harvest in the first season, and sell the corn for roughly the same price. Farmer John puts his money in a box, and saves it. Farmer Jack on the other hand, invests in some better quality tools to till the land. The time for the second harvest comes around, John has a good harvest, but jack has a better harvest. They both sell their crops. John adds the money to his savings, and Jack spends his money on even better tools, and he decides to hire a few people to help him tend to the farm. The next harvest, John gets his normal harvest, but Jack gets significantly larger, better quality crop. John sells some of his crop, but Jack is able to sell his crop for less, and still make a good profit. John's business has wavered a little, but he has money in savings, so he isn't hurt too much. Jack, after making a good profit, decides to hire a few more people, buy a tractor, and invest in new land in which to grow some lettuce. By the next harvest, Jack has completely taken the corn market, and John's farm has been rendered obsolete.

This is a simplistic situation, but nonetheless... Jack has outcompeted John. Has John been wronged? John made a bad choice when he didn't invest in better tools. Should we now take some of Jack's tools and give them to John? Closing the "tool gap" might make it fair again.

Or should we take some of Jack's wealth to give to John... after all, the greedy Jack has a lot of money, and John does not.

That is the fundamental thinking of the socialist mind... it is unfair that Jack has more than John does, even though Jack has invested wisely and worked harder. At the essence of the idea of wealth redistribution is a feeling of sympathy and guilt. One party did not do as well as another party, so the first party should give some of its rewards to the less fortunate party.

What lies at the heart of this idea, is the myth that wealth is a zero sum game. If wealth were a zero sum game, this philosophy might hold... but wealth isn't zero sum. For those who don't understand, let me put it a different way, using the analogy of a pie:

Socialists believe that there is a pie. In the world of capitalism, some elites are able to take a majority of the pie, and the rest are left with only a little pie.... hence the idea pie redistribution comes into play. If you are at a birthday party that is serving pie, you wouldn't give one kid 75% of the pie, and only 25% among the rest (or at least I hope you wouldn't... you mean person). In a capitalistic society though, there isn't a fixed pie. That pie is constantly being made bigger by the contributions of people like Jack. He is creating wealth in many different ways:

Driven by self-interest alone (the obtaining of wealth), Jack sells his crop and uses the money to buy better tools. Buying better tools increases the wealth of the tool manufacturer, who in turn can use that profit to hire more people to make more tools to sell. Using these better tools, the farmer increases productivity and yeilds higher results from his crop. The crop is once again sold to meet the demand of the market. Jack buys even better tools, and hires people, investing some of his profit for better productivity. He pays wages to his workers, who in turn, use their money to increase their standards of living by, for example, buying a CD player from Best Buy... Best buy makes a profit from the purchace, and uses the profit to raise the wages of the productive employees...

The series of transactions goes on and on, and the key reason the system works is an increase in productivity. It is not a zero sum system, because through productivity there is an increase in output. Before the late 1700s, it took a blacksmith a full day to make a single nail. By finding more productive methods to make a nail, using machinery and such, companies are able to make thousands in the same amount of time. By increasing the supply of nails on the market, the price of nails goes down, thus making them more affordable to the common man. With nails being much cheaper, people could more cheaply build houses, fences, etc... I don't have a source for this statement, but it seems logical that at this period in time, carpentry would, or at least could have flourished, thus producing even more pie for the populace to devour.

I pose a different outcome for John then... In being driven out of the corn business by Jack, John decides to put his full efforts into the lettuce business. He still has money saved up, so he decides to put his efforts in the wheat market. He buys good quality tools, and continues to invest in a similar fashion to Jack. By building up his wheat company, John decides to invest in something other than farming. He has been able to acquire enough wealth to risk it in something new. John decides to invest in Real Estate. He buys a few lots in areas that are likely to rise in value, and he improves those lots. A few years later, when property value goes up, he sells them to a contractor who plans to build a subdivision for homes. John takes his profit and uses it to expand into lettuce to compete with Jack again. He hires experts on lettuce, and their expertise allows John to produce a larger, better quality crop than Jack's, thereby lowering the price below Jack's. Jack that he can't lower the price to John's level and still make a profit. So in this instance, Jack can either invest more to compete with John, or he can drop out of the lettuce market, and make an investment in something else. Either way, the pie is increased, and when the pie increases, everyone wins.

In spite of the way the world works, however, people will continue to be against the rich.

"That damned wealthy 1% getting a tax break. Rich friends of Bush that use that money to buy another yacht!"

Asside from the fact that the wealthiest 1% probably don't just take all the money they make, buy a yacht, and I don't know... bury the rest... do these people forget about the jobs that were sustained from the building of that yacht? How about the steel workers that forged the parts that would be put together? How about the truck drivers that drove the pieces across the country to where they were needed? Or the people that made the electronic equipment to be installed on the boat? How about the money that will be spent to entertain on that yacht? The people that grow the grapes and make red and white wine? Or caterers that serve the food? The list goes on and on... So many jobs are created and sustained by people with wealth, and in fact, create markets that might not otherwise be available without rich people, i.e. catering.

I'm not saying that the rich are the only ones who deserve the tax break, I think it should go across the board. Implicit in the idea of progressive taxing, is the idea that by taking more from the rich, the poorer (to whom those few extra dollars are much significant) don't have to pay as much. By taking more from the rich, the government can redistribute that money to those who need it the most (or at least to those whom the government thinks need it the most).

However, this idea is accepted, but few people ask... what would have been done with that money had it not been taken by the government? Would the rich have invested in something like Farmer John did? Would they have expanded their business, hiring more people, thereby reducing the need for the government to redistribute money? This is the unseen cost of progressive taxing. People that have money are the ones likely to take the risk of investing, thus creating, sustaining, and improving jobs.

So what is fairness? Is it fair to deprive someone of what they have earned? Is it fair to cause regression through redistribution of wealth? Or is it fair to take a potential job away from someone in hopes that the government will use the money to give that person a temporary boost? I am more disgusted by the harm a socialist can do than I am by the most greedy business man in the world.

"The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits."
Do Milton Friedman's words seem heartless now?

The Hayek Moment

2006-02-13T00:02:00.000-08:00

Spectacular article from the Mises Institute

Dey Took'r Jobs!!!!

2006-02-12T20:57:00.000-08:00

The recent Washington Post article reaffirmed my disdain for news reporters and politicians...

I hate when doomsayers convey their diatribes to me when they really don't have understanding of what they are saying. This tends to happen alot in economics. This is understandable, economics is a confusing and complex field (alot of graphs and oodles of x's).

This doesn't stop people like Sen. Byron Dorgan and Richard L. Trumka from talking like they do though...

The trade deficit is not what it seems... the simple idea that this deficit is exports - imports is misunderstanding what is really going on...

Don Bordeaux gives a good explanation in the TSC Daily. Or, if you want the long winded version (with a lot of evidence and graphs to back it up), check out this article by Dan T. Griswold.

Hatred embodied...

2006-02-11T14:51:00.000-08:00

Ann Coulter comes to speak at the University or Arkansas in a few days.

I couldn't care less about her, I don't think she's anything special... But I do find it amusing how much hate she seems to generate. Posters have been ripped down, nasty comments have swirled... There is a very strong anti-Coulter sentiment.

It is almost to the point that it is scary though, their resentment of Coulter is starting to give a sense of "I am all for free speech... As long as it isn't what she says." I've heard numerous times, "a majority of the students here are "liberal," she shouldn't be brought here."

On the one hand, they have a point, we do pay tuition, and part of that tuition goes to these speakers. On the other hand, it sounds more like they just don't want to hear a differing opinion from their own. It isn't fair for the "conservative" students to have to pay to bring somebody like Robert Redford here to speak about politics (who last year had a cost of $70,000, as opposed to the Coulter $10,000).

Either way... It is a ridiculous situation... I hate paying to bring in any of these overcharging jackasses.

Everyone has a right to speak what they will, and everyone else holds the right to ignore what's said. However, no one has the right to shut us up.

The Arts?

2006-02-11T09:33:00.000-08:00

I am a fan of the Arts. I've seen my share of plays, musicals, art museums, and even a ballet or two. The other day, however, my right wing spread a little farther when I was discussing the issue of public funding for the arts.

I disagree with public funding for the Arts (in the form of endowments) on two premises that I hold true... Both are very opinionated, but I feel at least the second point is very valid.

(1) The best art tends to come from pain, suffering, and/or hardship. The Blues came from the Mississippi Delta from slaves, singing about the hardships they were facing. Jazz evolved from this as well. (I'm not saying that slavery and racism were justified in any way by this, but I can't deny that great music came out of it). Mozart's Sonata in A minor, K.310 was written after the death of his mother.

Neither Mozart, Robert Johnson, nor Miles Davis were funded by tax dollars. Does that mean they wouldn't have created such beautiful music if they were getting funding from the Government? Perhaps they would, it is hard to say...

But as a hypothetical situation, let us say that Johnny Taxpayer dislikes Mozart's music. Johnny Taxpayer likes Bach much more than Mozart. We will also say that the government has a committee set up that gives awards to the arts. This committee prefers Mozart, and they absolutely hate Bach. Well, Johnny Taxpayer is coerced into paying part of his salary to Government, who in turn, gives a small portion to the National Endowment for the Arts committee. The committee decides that Mozart deserves a reward for his music, so they award him a $50,000 dollar grant, while Johnny Taxpayer has lost some of the money he might have spent buying a Bach CD. This brings me to my next, much more valid point:

(2) Art is subjective. This is absolutely crucial to understand. I am not some right wing nutcase that thinks art is dumb and has no place in society. I love the arts. I love listening to Mozart and observing a beautiful Botticelli painting. However, I hate listening to Wagner and gagging at most things Monet ever touched. I know I am in a minority when it comes to my enmity of Wagner, but does that mean that some of my taxes should go to reward Wagner? Just because some committee of artists appointed by the government thinks an artist deserves money, does that mean it should come out of my pocket? When you allow this, you get things like the Piss Christ. Perhaps some people really consider something like "Piss Christ" is art, I think its pretty stupid.

"Oh... I'm making a statement that says Christianity is horrible, and this is what I think of it. (plunk) in the piss!!!" Fine... That is your right, go ahead, offend anyone you want. I just hope it doesn't bother you that I don't want to subsidize you're crappy attempt at symbolism.

\rant

Joining the Blogging Community

2006-02-10T12:13:00.000-08:00

So yeah... I've decided to give the whole blogging community a try. It may not be very successful... but I suppose it doesn't have to be. At the worst, though, it will just become a repository for my rants and daily musings.