All of my arguments for freedom apply to the war on drugs,
prostitution, gay marriage, etc. And this is what separates you
conservatives from us libertarians. If someone is doing something or
there is some kind of association or exchange going on that has nothing
to do with me/isn’t hurting me or violating my rights, it’s not my
business.
Like you, I have personal, socially conservative feelings about a lot of
activities in which many people choose to engage. However, those feelings don’t give me the right to force
anyone to do, or not do, anything. Don’t you see how the sword of
force/coercion cuts both ways? If you argue for freedom in one case and
against it in another, you can’t preserve freedom.
Think about it. If a friend were on drugs (or was engaging in prostitution or gay marriage) and you got everyone
together for an ‘intervention.’ Afterward, your friend on drugs says
he’s going to continue taking drugs. What? You’re going to chain him
to the radiator in your basement? No. You wouldn’t/couldn’t. Yet the
govt can and does. Hmm….the govt gets its rights and power delegated to
it from me. And yet it can do things I can’t do. How did it get those
rights/that power? Answer that question and you‘ll begin to see how
we’re all accessories to the murder of freedom and the constitution.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Closed Open Borders
I may as well weigh in on immigration while I’m at it. I’m for
closed, open borders. Let them all in, after we‘ve verified they’re not
a criminal in our country or theirs and that they’re not a carrier of
some communicable disease and, oh yeah, no free (‘govt provided’) food,
school or healthcare…..for them or anyone, American or not. The
Declaration says, “all men are created equal,” referring to equal
unalienable rights for all. It doesn’t say all AMERICAN men are created
equal. Under my scenario, they’ll come and contribute to the economy.
Competition is good; good for the producer, but especially for the
consumer, which we all are.
Freedom=good, force=bad.
Freedom=good, force=bad.
Pleading for Sane, Constitutional Foreign Policy
Help me understand how it’s a bad idea to close all
our foreign bases and bring our brave fighting men and women home; to
reserve the use of force for defense only.; and to end all foreign aid.
If you personally see injustices, etc taking place overseas and you want to go and help or fight, great! More power to you. But what I’m against is taking money, by force, from those Americans who earned it and spending it to help, protect and defend people outside our country. In addition, I’m against forcing our military to risk and sometimes lose their lives over there. They took an oath to support and defend the constitution. Help me understand how they do that in Iraq, Afgan., and elsewhere. The doctrine of preemptive strikes is wrong. Force is for defense, only.
If you personally see injustices, etc taking place overseas and you want to go and help or fight, great! More power to you. But what I’m against is taking money, by force, from those Americans who earned it and spending it to help, protect and defend people outside our country. In addition, I’m against forcing our military to risk and sometimes lose their lives over there. They took an oath to support and defend the constitution. Help me understand how they do that in Iraq, Afgan., and elsewhere. The doctrine of preemptive strikes is wrong. Force is for defense, only.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Freedom, Power and Joy
For pro-govt types, it's all about forcibly equalizing outcomes.
Some would use the phrase, "coerced by necessity," as if that type of "coercion" weren't present in the majority of our voluntary exchanges.
Again, my own highest and best selfish good IS what is best for the common good.
Some complain that ball parks, for instance, "separate wealthy persons from the rest of us." This completely ignores the fact that that separation is what is most keenly desired by most of our politicians; and the politicians accomplish it by the only means available to them, by force. Everyone wants more money, power and freedom. The market allows everyone the opportunity to earn those things. Politics, Ayn Rand's arena of "pull" instead of production and ability, sets up a situation where politicians legally mug and force their way to perceived money, power and freedom.
Indeed, altruism is in short supply. It's so simple. Just let freedom reign. And, if you want, try to be altruistic. But do it under the law of freedom and live and let live/do unto others...
Some would use the phrase, "coerced by necessity," as if that type of "coercion" weren't present in the majority of our voluntary exchanges.
Again, my own highest and best selfish good IS what is best for the common good.
Some complain that ball parks, for instance, "separate wealthy persons from the rest of us." This completely ignores the fact that that separation is what is most keenly desired by most of our politicians; and the politicians accomplish it by the only means available to them, by force. Everyone wants more money, power and freedom. The market allows everyone the opportunity to earn those things. Politics, Ayn Rand's arena of "pull" instead of production and ability, sets up a situation where politicians legally mug and force their way to perceived money, power and freedom.
Indeed, altruism is in short supply. It's so simple. Just let freedom reign. And, if you want, try to be altruistic. But do it under the law of freedom and live and let live/do unto others...
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Great, Unused Potential
Don't speak to me of capacity while remaining empty, unused.
Don't talk a good story before the fact. Just go, my friend, and do.
Talent, left buried, more harmful than good, takes its toll on him who hides it.
He envies those who go and do. Whate'er they're about he derides it.
Show me a warrior who'll wield a twig in defense of hearth and home,
with sword sheathed, spear untouched, leaving cimeter and shield alone.
Neither would bird choose to walk and refuse to spread wings and fly.
Would a fish spurn water and flop on land, choose not to live but to die?
No one can force you to be what you're not; to growl when you're meant to sing.
And no one can do what you came here to do. No one brought what you bring.
For you were meant for higher heights, for realms of beauty and love.
You came here, not from un-plummed depths. You came from the stars above.
You're made for the company of angels and gods. Your Heavenly Parents look on
as you make your way, as you choose your path as a king or merely a pawn.
So choose thou well. Grow and become the one you were born to become.
Put off idleness, lay darkness aside. Touch the light and you'll find you've won!
Don't talk a good story before the fact. Just go, my friend, and do.
Talent, left buried, more harmful than good, takes its toll on him who hides it.
He envies those who go and do. Whate'er they're about he derides it.
Show me a warrior who'll wield a twig in defense of hearth and home,
with sword sheathed, spear untouched, leaving cimeter and shield alone.
Neither would bird choose to walk and refuse to spread wings and fly.
Would a fish spurn water and flop on land, choose not to live but to die?
No one can force you to be what you're not; to growl when you're meant to sing.
And no one can do what you came here to do. No one brought what you bring.
For you were meant for higher heights, for realms of beauty and love.
You came here, not from un-plummed depths. You came from the stars above.
You're made for the company of angels and gods. Your Heavenly Parents look on
as you make your way, as you choose your path as a king or merely a pawn.
So choose thou well. Grow and become the one you were born to become.
Put off idleness, lay darkness aside. Touch the light and you'll find you've won!
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Using (the) force against others
My response to some guy who disagreed with the notion, "Market good, govt bad:"
Do you really need a definition of property rights? Well, okay. The right to own and control property is essential and central to the following end: maximum prosperity for all involved. Witness the unprecedented prosperity enjoyed by Americans. I have to be able to acquire, own and dispose of property, completely freely, in order to be able to make decisions and predicts outcomes. If I chose a green shirt today but you have the right to either rip it from my body or force me to wear something else, why would I ever have provided the "public service" I engaged in that won me my shirt? What's mine must absolutely remain mine. And I can do or not do whatever I want with it. I can burn my shirt. I can wear it as a hat. I can give it away or sell it. It's called freedom, man. And, again, you can know it's good by its observable fruits: American prosperity.
Coercion IS an ultimate evil. What? You should be able to force me to do whatever you want me to do or ANYTHING you want me to do? Turn that around. I should be able to force YOU to do or not do anything?
You said, "in the system he advocates, business and industry, once stripped of the restrictions placed on them by government, would have even more coercive power." Business and industry have NO coercive power. A businessman or industrialist can't force you to buy his products or services. You choose to buy or not buy. Only the govt uses coercion. There is such a thing as business collusion with govt to inhibit newer, smaller firms to enter a market. etc., but that perniciousness occurs outside anything recommended in the book.
Hey! Here's an idea. Let's hear your brilliant alternatives to the book's ideas. Anyone can carp about someone else's ideas. Let's hear your specific counterpoints.
Do you really need a definition of property rights? Well, okay. The right to own and control property is essential and central to the following end: maximum prosperity for all involved. Witness the unprecedented prosperity enjoyed by Americans. I have to be able to acquire, own and dispose of property, completely freely, in order to be able to make decisions and predicts outcomes. If I chose a green shirt today but you have the right to either rip it from my body or force me to wear something else, why would I ever have provided the "public service" I engaged in that won me my shirt? What's mine must absolutely remain mine. And I can do or not do whatever I want with it. I can burn my shirt. I can wear it as a hat. I can give it away or sell it. It's called freedom, man. And, again, you can know it's good by its observable fruits: American prosperity.
Coercion IS an ultimate evil. What? You should be able to force me to do whatever you want me to do or ANYTHING you want me to do? Turn that around. I should be able to force YOU to do or not do anything?
You said, "in the system he advocates, business and industry, once stripped of the restrictions placed on them by government, would have even more coercive power." Business and industry have NO coercive power. A businessman or industrialist can't force you to buy his products or services. You choose to buy or not buy. Only the govt uses coercion. There is such a thing as business collusion with govt to inhibit newer, smaller firms to enter a market. etc., but that perniciousness occurs outside anything recommended in the book.
Hey! Here's an idea. Let's hear your brilliant alternatives to the book's ideas. Anyone can carp about someone else's ideas. Let's hear your specific counterpoints.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Freedom and the Rule of Law
John Locke, in his Second Treatise on Govt, wrote that the end of the law is to "preserve and enlarge freedom."
Psalm 1 references love of law and how it leads to prosperity.
These statements are true when it comes to eternal or natural law. But they're hard to reconcile with virtually every law written in our country since our founding. In fact, our post-constitutional laws squander and diminish freedom; they at least slow progress toward greater prosperity if not stifle it.
This is the epitome of trading freedom for perceived security. This is what happens when we engage in the game of comparisons between people of differing levels or degrees of prosperity and then vote for representatives who pass laws to punish those whose lives we covet; or when an established business lobbies for the passage of laws that will inhibit smaller companies entrance into its market.
The existence of anti-freedom laws speaks to the perceived failures of capitalism: free markets, free trade and association and the sanctity of the ownership and control of private property. I've said it several times. Other systems, from socialism to communism and fascism to progressivism, mercantilism or any kind of mixed economy where people aren't free to trade whatever they want and can for whatever they want and can, promise equality of outcomes. They've never achieved it. But that fact is forgotten amid the faked reality, the dream of such equality. I can give you analogies illustrating where you'll agree such doesn't work. But if you want to believe there are circumstances where it will work, I can't help you. I can't change your delusions.
Capitalism promises equal rights and opportunities for success. But the rest is up to you. Your results are up to you and your ability and individual drive and effort. For most people, that's not enough. They're childish in their desire for the impossible. They're childish in their jealousy of others. "That's not fair!" they say. And so they vote for someone to initiate force against 'life's winners.' They believe the fallacy that they are lifted when someone else is lowered. It makes them feel better. "If I can't do it, no one should be able to do it." They remind me of the proverbial bucket of crabs. When one gets close to crawling out of the bucket, they pull him back down.
This is what's wrong in America today. Our laws and our lawmakers reflect the above childish outlook. Most of us share it. So we'll continue as we have for over 150 years. And we'll continue to wonder why the economy doesn't improve as we further and further enslave those whose efforts, ability drive would save the economy and improve all of our lives if only we'd free them by repealing laws that have nothing to do with preserving and enlarging freedom. I hate it when someone gets more pizza than I do. So let's outlaw pizza.
Psalm 1 references love of law and how it leads to prosperity.
These statements are true when it comes to eternal or natural law. But they're hard to reconcile with virtually every law written in our country since our founding. In fact, our post-constitutional laws squander and diminish freedom; they at least slow progress toward greater prosperity if not stifle it.
This is the epitome of trading freedom for perceived security. This is what happens when we engage in the game of comparisons between people of differing levels or degrees of prosperity and then vote for representatives who pass laws to punish those whose lives we covet; or when an established business lobbies for the passage of laws that will inhibit smaller companies entrance into its market.
The existence of anti-freedom laws speaks to the perceived failures of capitalism: free markets, free trade and association and the sanctity of the ownership and control of private property. I've said it several times. Other systems, from socialism to communism and fascism to progressivism, mercantilism or any kind of mixed economy where people aren't free to trade whatever they want and can for whatever they want and can, promise equality of outcomes. They've never achieved it. But that fact is forgotten amid the faked reality, the dream of such equality. I can give you analogies illustrating where you'll agree such doesn't work. But if you want to believe there are circumstances where it will work, I can't help you. I can't change your delusions.
Capitalism promises equal rights and opportunities for success. But the rest is up to you. Your results are up to you and your ability and individual drive and effort. For most people, that's not enough. They're childish in their desire for the impossible. They're childish in their jealousy of others. "That's not fair!" they say. And so they vote for someone to initiate force against 'life's winners.' They believe the fallacy that they are lifted when someone else is lowered. It makes them feel better. "If I can't do it, no one should be able to do it." They remind me of the proverbial bucket of crabs. When one gets close to crawling out of the bucket, they pull him back down.
This is what's wrong in America today. Our laws and our lawmakers reflect the above childish outlook. Most of us share it. So we'll continue as we have for over 150 years. And we'll continue to wonder why the economy doesn't improve as we further and further enslave those whose efforts, ability drive would save the economy and improve all of our lives if only we'd free them by repealing laws that have nothing to do with preserving and enlarging freedom. I hate it when someone gets more pizza than I do. So let's outlaw pizza.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)