One Billion Red Chinese and a Dog Named Liberty

Psycho-Bitches.com

2006-03-12T00:19:00.000-06:00

Have you ever dated a psycho bitch? If so, you have to visit this site:

Psycho-Bitches.com

If you don't ever want to date a psycho bitch, then visit this site:

Psycho-Bitches.com

Change of Location

2006-02-09T11:29:00.000-06:00

OK, so I doubt if any of you still check out this blog, but just in case, I thought I should let you know that this blog is official defunct.

I have, however, been invited to join the team over at GM's Corner. Though they are conservatives, not libertarians, I think I will enjoy my stay there. Please be sure to stop by and check us out.

I will also resume my writing at Balance of Power. So stop by there as well.

Lastly, for fans of Girl Friday, I will be starting a new blog dedicated to just that at Friday Girls. In addition to my normal selection of beauties that I glean from around the web, I am going to try to find actual amateurs to post as well. If you know anyone interested, let me know.

Political State of the Country

2005-10-04T15:59:00.000-05:00

OK...so I have been absent for a couple of months, but I have no real complaints as my absence has been due to the success of my ongoing business endeavors and the greatly increased work load that success is bringing. Also other than being quite hot and humid, Hong Kong is a fascinating place and a good many of the people I deal with in mainland China are as adamantly anti-Communist as I am.

I am still just as busy, but I thought I should put my two cents worth in on this week's Balance of Power post concerning the current political state of our country. There is no doubt that our country is in a rather ugly place, politically speaking, these days.

Back in June, I presented my readers with a question: Do you think it is possible that one or both major political parties could fracture in the next 10 years with the result being a new political party or major movement into an existing third party? At that time, it seemed inevitable to me that the Democratic party would fracture. Since then, I have seen nothing to change my mind. The far left, even after much evidence to the contrary, seems determined that they need to move further to left in order to be successful. Over at Kos and other far left sites, full fledged war has been declared on the moderate DLC.

They are determined to keep the country in an extended state of strife, no matter what that takes. Apparently through their rose colored glasses, this is what the country needs and even wants.

Two months ago it looked as if the Republicans were in a better position, but even then, I warned that a fight was coming. After their long exile from legislative power, the GOP regained power by putting forth the Contract with America. Well I am here to tell you that they are in complete default with the terms of that contract and a large portion of the Republican party is now figuring that out.

With both parties undergoing major turmoil, it is not surprising that they would seek to obfuscate this inner fighting with increased partisan attacks on the other party. What is the citizenry of this country to do when the Democrats have become become so farcical and devoid of rational ideas that they appear almost as a parody of themselves and the Republicans have completely dropped any facade that their goal is to reduce the scope of government rather than to remain in power?

Most other democracies in the world don't just have two major parties, but several smaller parties each of which is unable to get a majority on its own. They form coalitions with other parties that share some basic principles in order to form a controlling government. In many ways, that is what we have as well, but the differing factions first align under the umbrellas of the two major parties. Internal bickering is then settled in house. However, as of late, it is becoming apparent that these factions often has as much in different as they have in common and internal dirty laundry is spilling out for the whole country to smell (and believe me, it is not a pleasant smell).

I don't see the internal problems of the parties going away any time soon, so I doubt that the country will find any type of political peace soon. The more the parties fracture internally, the more they will strike out externally and the more divided the country as a whole will become.

Touch of Liberty

2005-07-26T20:04:00.000-05:00

OK...the highly anticipated remake of the "Touch of Liberty" skin is complete. Just click the skin of your choice over on the left.

Just a reminder..."Touch of Liberty" is NOT work safe.

Also, scroll all the way to the bottom for a new addition. Hope you enjoy!

Federal Involvement in Public Education

2005-07-26T11:40:00.000-05:00

I have never been a fan of the federal government's involvement in public education. I believe that such things are best handled at the most local level possible. Actually, I believe that education should be handled privately, but since we live in a nanny state, that is not likely to happen. So given that, we should at least be nannied as locally as possible. The local community is certainly better in tune with its children's educational needs than a bunch of career bureaucrats in D.C.

Unfortunately, Uncle Sam didn't see it that way back in 1953. At that time, the country was still awash in putrid movement of the previous two decades to expand federal power beyond anything that even closely resembled constitutional restraint. Government was the answer to all that ailed you. So with such widespread sentiment, Eisenhower brought into existence the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Over the course of the next few decades, the guys and gals in D.C. became ever more involved in the social engineering of public schools. By 1979, that meddling became so pervasive that it was determined that it was time for the Department of Education to strike out on its own as an independent bureaucracy.

Both Democrats and Republicans alike, have continued to bloat the DoE's budget and meddling. I remember back in the 90s when many Republicans actually called for the elimination of the DoE. In fact, as this article points out, it was once even a part of the GOP platform:

The GOP platform was clear: "The Federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula or to control jobs in the market place. This is why we will abolish the Department of Education."

Alas, that was when they had no power. Now they are "compassionate" conservatives and free spenders.

Whenever he can, President Bush touts the huge spending increases necessary to promote his No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). But it's not just NCLB funding that has increased: the entire education budget has ballooned during the president's time in office. The Department of Education's budget has grown by 82.5 percent in real terms from $34.9 billion in FY2001 to $63.7 billion in FY2005. This is the largest increase of any president since Lyndon Johnson.

And President Bush's 2006 budget asks for more of the same. Every state sees an increase in grant money, nearly 5 percent on average. The average state receives a level of grant funding that is more than 50 percent higher than when President Bush took office; no state has an increase less than 35 percent.

But don't get confused into thinking that almost doubling federal spending on education is enough. Even with such huge increases in spending, there are constant calls for more:

In spite of the GOP's extravagance, Democrats constantly criticize the Administration for not spending enough. During the presidential campaign, Kerry told voters that the President was not serious about education and promised that, if elected, he would spend an additional $27 billion.

It is as if the politicians are all the title character in Brewster's Millions. They are in a race to see who can waste the most money and the prize is re-election. It doesn't help that they are being egged on by the NEA and AFT which scarily enough have even more influence on public education than Uncle Sam.

Meanwhile, such idiotic notions as social promotion and "whole language" persist. Public education has become nothing more than a wide scale social engineering experiment conducted by so-called education experts. It is no wonder that 25% of public school teachers either homeschool or send their kids to private school. If it is not good enough for those perpetrating it, it sure isn't good enough for my child.

Just Like When I was a Kid

2005-07-25T23:13:00.000-05:00

OK...not exactly. When I was a kid, I specifically remember my Dad pulling my some of my loose teeth using the ol' string trick. He wouldn't tie it to the doorknob, but would instead just jerk it hard and quick. It always went off without a hitch.

My daughter is at the point where she is about to lose her third and fourth teeth. I told her the story about my Dad and she wanted to give it a try. The tooth in question in at the point that she can literally push it to a perpendicular position in relation to the rest of her teeth, so I thought sure, we can do that.

I got a piece of dental floss and fashioned it into a tightening slip knot and looped it around her tooth. I then gave it a really hard jerk. Instead of a tooth dangling from a string and a happy child, I got a screaming little girl that wouldn't even talk to me for twenty minutes. Apparently that one little section still holding on is determined not to give up.

Needless to say, the rest of her teeth will be falling out of their own accord, just as her first two did.

Global Warming

2005-07-25T00:03:00.000-05:00

For those of you new to my site, I would like to let you know that in addition to this blog, I am also a member of a group blog called The Balance of Power. BoP is a bit different than most group blogs. Rather than a collection of like-minded bloggers forming their own echo chamber, we have a diverse group including liberals, conservatives and libertarians.

On Mondays and Thursdays, one member will pick a topic to post about and the rest of us then reply, in the same post, to what they have written. We also open up comments so that you can all give your thoughts on the topic at hand. Today's post at The Balance of Power is now up. This week's topic is that great canard, Global Warming. As always, you will find my response below as well as on BoP:

Great topic Zaph. There is much too much blind hysteria surrounding what I believe to be one of the great canards of our time. Indeed, those scientists in Europe are not alone in their skepticism:

At a news conference held in Ottawa, some of North America's foremost climate experts provided evidence demonstrating that the science underlying the Kyoto Protocol is seriously flawed; a problem that continues to be ignored by the Canadian government.

Some of us have been pointing this out for years. There are so many problems with the theories produced that it is almost incomprehensible that so many governments, pseudo-governments (UN) and environmental groups ran with this.

Carleton University Professor Tim Patterson (Paleoclimatologist) explains the crucial importance of properly evaluating the merit of Canada's climate change plans: "It is no exaggeration to say that in the eight years since the Kyoto Protocol was introduced there has been a revolution in climate science. If, back in the mid-nineties, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would not exist because we would have concluded it was not necessary."

Hopefully more scientists will see this as a call to come out of the closet, so to speak. The "global warming" hysteria has had far too many truly objective scientists afraid to speak out for fear of losing government grants and unwarranted hazing from scientists riding the GW gravy train.

Contrary to claims that the science of climate change has been settled, the causes of the past century's modest warming is highly contested in the climate science community. The climate experts presenting in the video demonstrate that science is quickly diverging away from the hypothesis that the human release of greenhouse gases, specifically carbon dioxide, is having a significant impact on global climate. "There is absolutely no convincing scientific evidence that human-produced greenhouse gases are driving global climate change", stated climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball.

In the halls of Turtle Bay and the streets of Paris and Berlin, people would have you believe that human caused global warming is as much a fact as gravity. Perhaps more bravery like that shown by these scientists will bring those people back to reality. Hell, who am I kidding, people treat environmentalism like religion.

Indeed, the effects of signing on to Kyoto are already taking their toll on countries such as New Zealand which is estimated to account for about .2% of global greenhouse emissions:

The cost of a Government Kyoto Protocol botch-up could soar as high as $1.2 billion Â more than double that estimated by the Treasury last month Â a new report claims.

The Government last month admitted that it had miscalculated New Zealand's greenhouse gas growth, for which it is liable under the Kyoto Protocol, resulting in an embarrassing $500 million bill rather than a $500m credit.

But the situation could be even worse, accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) says.

The PWC analysis shows the company believes the $500m bill estimate is also wrong. It believes the liability will be more like $1.2b to $1.7b above the original estimate.

That is just one country, and a small one at that. My guess is that we will soon start hearing about more and more of the negative impact ratifying Kyoto is having on world economies.

New Design

2005-07-24T00:44:00.000-05:00

UPDATE: OK...several of my readers were having problems caused by one of the special features that I had incorporated into the design. There for I have implemented a change that should resolve that issue for them. In addition, it should fix the 800x600 issue as well. Thanks for bearing with me as I relearn the lesson that just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should do it.

OK...as you are probably blatantly aware (if you are a regular reader) I have COMPLETELY overhauled the design of my site. It is based on a Japanese art style called Ukiyoe. I have tested it in Opera 7, Firefox 1+, and IE 6 at both 800x600 and 1024x768. I think it looks best in Opera, but very good in FF as well. IE (due to its refusal to become standards compliant) is set up slightly different.

If you view it in 800x600, I recommend toggling (F11 key) to fullscreen as it looks better then. Since I refuse be one of those assclowns that force those viewing at that resolution to fullscreen, I may institute a popup alert recommending it.

The content area on my old site was wider, so there may be some pictures that are wider than the new area in the archives. If you ever come across any, let me know and I will resize them. I may go looking for them myself, but I really doubt it.

The new site is a bit fat due to the PNG-24 pics I used. I have a Photoshop plugin to compress them, but I haven't tried it out yet. The IE site is a bit lighter because I used PNG-8 pics (again because of IE non-compliance) and they are smaller.

I hope you like the new design. Be sure to let me know what you think or if you find any bugs. I am also going to redo the white "Touch of Liberty" skin when I get a chance.

Libertarian Reform Caucus

2005-07-22T15:31:00.000-05:00

While I was on hiatus from blogging, a lot of exciting things have been happening. One of them is that the website for The Libertarian Reform Caucus has almost been completed.

In case you are not familiar with the LRC, it is a group of reform minded libertarians who understand that the Libertarian Party, as it is now organized, serves as more of an echo-chamber for those that score at the very tip of The World's Smallest Political Quiz (which I do), than as a political party striving to elect candidate in order to have a real impact on government and its abuses. Having a debate club is fine. I enjoy discussing libertarian philosophy more than most, but I want to actually see it put into effect one day. I will probably never know true freedom, but my daughter might.

Politics is an ugly business; that cannot be denied. However, no matter how unpleasant we as libertarians may find such things, it is a reality of the situation in which we currently find ourselves. Here in the US we were fortunate to have had founding fathers that knew first hand the crushing grip of tyranny. Thanks to their efforts, we have managed to stave off the specter of creeping Statism that has most of the rest of world completely engulfed. Make no mistake though, it IS engulfing us and unless we are willing to engage in the political battle, we leave the fate of freedoms to the likes of those currently deflowering our constitution at all levels of government.

If you are truly a freedom lover, then please take a look at the LRC. You do not have to be a member of the LP to join. You just have to be committed to political engagement of those who would strip you of the precious few rights you still have.

Girl Friday Extravaganza

2005-07-22T12:46:00.000-05:00

I am still working on getting the bugs out of the new design, but here is the highly anticipated Girl Friday Extravaganza. This should more than make up for any and all GF postings I have missed in the past. Enjoy:

Slight Delay

2005-07-22T04:13:00.000-05:00

Well, I intended to have the new site up by now, but I am having problems with the IE version (of course). The header does not want to load for some reason and the site loads REALLY slow in IE. The IE site is already limited due to it not properly handling .png file transparency. I have replaced the .pngs on that version with .jpgs and .gifs, but you will really miss out if you use IE because I plan to implement some cool features that just won't work in IE.

On the upside, at least you have the colored scrollbars in IE.

If anyone wants to take a look at the site and help me figure out what is wrong, you can find it here.

Oh, and the sooner it is done, the sooner I post my Girl Friday Extravaganza to make up for all those I missed.

UPDATE: OK, I just found a MAJOR flaw in the design that will require a fairly extensive rework (I think). It looks as if the debut of the new design will be pushed to Monday.

Interesting Question

2005-07-21T00:34:00.000-05:00

While I am working on the final touches of my redesign, I have decided to provide an open thread for the discussion of a question put forth in this article by Matt Welch.

You're on a lifeboat, but it can only hold 8 of the original 10 amendments without sinking, killing your whole family. Which ones go?

Please list the 2 you would sacrifice and why.

I'm back!

2005-07-21T00:26:00.000-05:00

OK, so I am now officially back. I was supposed to be in China right now, but something came up with a client that had me pinned here in the States, so my partner is handling things in China on his own.

The project I am working on here is in a temporary standstill until the completion of some required testing is completed. Unfortunately, that testing is behind schedule and I can't move forward until it is complete, so my time is relatively free for a while.

I am currently working on a complete site overhaul which I hope to have completed by tomorrow for a grand relaunch of my site.

Thanks for being patient with me. I hope I haven't lost too many readers (or links) while I was gone. If you took my advice and surfed my blogroll, you have been in good hands. There is lot's of exciting stuff happening now, so I hope to make it up to you.

LP Billboard

2005-07-06T10:27:00.000-05:00

OK, so I know I am supposed to be on hiatus, but I am a sucker for design contests like the one being held at Hammer of Truth. I am not particularly artistic, so they force me to work on a less developed skillset than I normally work with. Besides, I was able to use some of that wasted sleep time between 3 and 4 AM to do it.

Stephen is looking for designs for a billboard campaign in DC and once the design is chosen, he will be looking for monetary contributions as well. If you can contribute to either effort (or both) I am sure that it would be greatly appreciated.

Here is my first contribution:

Two Week Hiatus

2005-07-03T14:07:00.000-05:00

As you are all aware, my posting has been extremely light and sporadic lately. I am quite busy with work now, so I am making my blog hiatus official.

I will try to be blogging again in two weeks. In the meantime, check out all the great blogs on my blogroll. Also, don't do anything drastic like removing me from your blogrolls.

I will try to pop in and comment on your blogs when I can.

Final Nail in the Coffin

2005-06-24T09:03:00.000-05:00

I really don't have the time to be posting about this, but the Kelo vs. New London decision is too important. Before the end of the day I will have a post about this abomination.

Open Question

2005-06-22T22:19:00.000-05:00

I am still quite busy, but came across this statement by Michael J. Totten in the comment section of one of his posts:

If you haven't yet figured out that neocons are the left-wing of the Republican Party, not the right wing, well, I don't know what to tell ya.

So my open question to my readers is what do you think of the veracity of this statement and why?

Girl Friday

2005-06-17T01:15:00.000-05:00

Proving that not everything French sucks, Laetitia Casta:

Balance of Power

2005-06-13T11:51:00.000-05:00

This week's Balance of Power post is up. This week's topic is abortion. Be sure to stop by and check it out.

Meanwhile, posting here will likely be light while I am making final preps for my upcoming trip to Hong Kong/China. I will try to get at least a couple of quality posts up soon.

When I'm not posting, be sure to check out my blogroll. There is a lot of talent to be discovered.

Girl Friday

2005-06-10T00:53:00.000-05:00

Monica Bellucci...a classic beauty:

Palaces of Ineptitude and Deceit

2005-06-09T13:34:00.000-05:00

Those that have followed my blogs for some time will be aware of the fact that I homeschool my 5 year old daughter. Due to the demands of my profession and the fact I am a single father, in a few months, when the new school year starts, I will probably have to enroll her in a regular school, though it will be a private school rather than public (at least assuming I am able to get her in one without the usual 1 year lead time required).

I attended both public and private schools growing up and I tell you, the thought of having to send her to a public school scares the hell out of me. So much so, that I may be forced to hire her a full time Nanny/Governess instead so that she can travel with me instead of being "institutionalized" at her Grandparents.

The public school system in this country has become a national disaster and regardless of the ever-increasing billions being flushed away, it is getting worse. Government has proven itself to be completely inept in the field of educating our youth to become productive individuals with the necessary critical thinking skills necessary to succeed. Logic has been replaced by calls to emotion. Perhaps this is fine if a parent wishes to indoctrinate their children into the nebulous of groupthink that now casts its shadow over this country, but I want something a little better for my daughter.

Thanks to the bastardized mixture of wide scale leftism and the worst ideas of conservatism that has taken grasp in the schools (at all levels), kids are forced to wade through their school years with an almost complete lack of clear direction. In addition, rather than being examples to be emulated, educators are increasingly becoming example of what is wrong with our society.

If you have children, that link is a must read. Even if you don't have kids, you should be aware of the things discussed by Ms. Snell.

Breaking Up the Parties

2005-06-09T09:43:00.000-05:00

Last Thursday I created an open thread to discuss the greatest threat to America. I got a pretty good response to it, so I thought I would ask another question.

Do you think it is possible that one or both major political parties could fracture in the next 10 years with the result being a new political party or major movement into an existing third party? If so, please explain your reasoning.

Diagnosis Blunder

2005-06-08T10:50:00.000-05:00

Wow...all I can say is that I hope, for his patients' sake, that Dr. Dean was better at being a doctor than he is at being a politician. A diagnostician he is not, and his bedside manner is sorely lacking.

In what strange world could a person possibly look at the diseased state of the Democratic Party, survey the symptoms and come to the conclusion that they were suffering from a bile deficiency? Apparently Howard Dean was a graduate of the Bizzaro School of Medicine. Since his appointment as Democratic National Committee Chairman, he has been serving up unhealthy doses of hate, ignorance, and political ineptness.

His latest prescription was a tablespoon of ridiculousness. Meanwhile, the patients don't seem to be getting better. Judging by this, perhaps it was not the Bizzaro school but rather the Kevorkian school that Dean graduated from. He seems to be administering euthanasia to the party.

What should really bother the Dems is that it is happening at a time when there is internal strife within the Republican Party between its conservative and libertarian wings. They Republicans are weak, but the Dems are even weaker and in no position to do anything about it. Alienating large swathes of the population on an almost daily basis sure isn't going to help them.

United Nations Role in the 21st Century

2005-06-06T00:25:00.000-05:00

The new Balance of Power post for this week is up. It was my week to choose the topic, so we are discussing the United Nations. Be sure to stop by and check out the entire post. As I always do, here is my initial contribution:

Sixty years ago, the United Nations came into being. Created as a replacement for its failed ideological ancestor The League of Nations, the UN was intended to be a forum for the stabilization of international relations in an effort to promote peace.

Just as the League of Nations failed at this task, so too has the United Nations. Looking back over the last 60 years, the list of accomplishments by the UN pales in comparison to its list of failures. These failures certainly come as no shock. Throughout its history, the UN has refused to uphold its own charter. Chapter 1, Article 2 lists a set of principles:

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Violations of these principles are to be dealt with in accordance to Chapter 2, Articles 5 and 6 which state:

Article 5
A Member of the United Nations against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by the Security Council may be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The exercise of these rights and privileges may be restored by the Security Council.

Article 6
A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

insofar as I can tell, Article 5 has rarely been used and Article 6 has never been used (please correct me if I am wrong on this point), though Taiwan, a member in good standing, was essentially expelled to placate the PRC.

Such failure to enforce these principles comes as no shock when you see that for the UN's entire history, Communist Russia, and more than half its history, Communist China have sat on the Security Council. These two countries alone account for roughly 100,000,000 deaths and have the bleakest human rights histories on the planet. It therefore comes as no great surprise that other violators would not be removed.

In addition, Chapter 2, Article 4 was apparently written only to take up space:

1. Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.

2. The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

Virtually every country on the planet is a member of the UN and if they all actually met the standards of Article 4, the world would be a much different place. As it stands, a large portion of those countries should never have even been admitted in the first place.

Unfortunately, since long before the UN came into existence, the world has been under constant assault by believers in moral relativism. The world has moved ever further away for the ideals of right and wrong towards a "who are we to judge" attitude. It was precisely this attitude that allowed countless dictatorships to not only join the UN, but to supposedly occupy morally level ground with countries that actually believe in human rights.

Nearly 30% of the members of the UN Commission on Human Rights are listed by Freedom Houseas being "Not Free." In fact six members: China, Cuba, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe have the dubious honor of being on their "Worst of the Worst" list. Even if this were not the case, the UN has undertaken it as part of its mission to completely distort and muddle that concepts of rights. To this end, the UN, in 1948, issued a monstrosity entitled the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

If one were to judge this document solely on its name, they might think it strange that a labeled it a monstrosity. But as the saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding." Keeping in line with the wishes of its leftist members, Articles 22 through 29 were inserted. These false positive rights are not rights at all and can only be achieved by the violation of actual negative rights, but of course they "feel" good, so the must be good. Take for example Article 26, Section 1:

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

Sounds wonderful doesn't it? Free education! The problem is, no such beast exists in nature. True, it may not cost the student or the family of the student anything, but SOMEONE is most definitely bearing those costs, and quite likely against their will. It also states that Elementary education is COMPULSORY, i.e. you have no choice in the matter. Interestingly enough, those same people here in the US that would support not only the UN in general, but this declaration in specific would rather pretend that Section 3 of that same article did not exist:

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

In fact, the "bluer" a state is, the more likely it is to be opposed to ideas promoting school choice such as vouchers or low regulatory boundaries for homeschooling (with some exceptions).

The UN, like all bureaucracies, has grown to become a bloated nightmare inserting itself into virtually every facet of peoples lives that it can get a foothold on by such means as theConvention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage and this report from the High-Level Panel on Financing for Development which calls for, among other things, an International Tax Organization and the imposition of global taxes.

In addition, this bloat has apparently made it impossible for the UN to regulate itself. Whether it be the Oil for Food Scandal, the various sex scandals involving "peacekeepers," or who knows what the hell else, the UN has demonstrated quite clearly that it is rife with corruption.

Naturally lip service has been given to the problems. Kofi himself has called for reforms in 1997, 2002, and 2005. The problem is Kofi has clearly shown that he is not capable of providing the leadership necessary to implement the kind of root level reform necessary to make the UN the bastion of legitimacy that it so clearly sees itself as.

For the UN to continue into the 21^st Century in the role of an organization that has the moral authority to act as arbitror for the world, it will take more than lip service and failed leadership. It will take a complete ground-up re-organization based on actual rights and the stringent enforcement of the principles of freedom, democracy and rule of law. ALL dictators, thugs, and despots must be expelled so that it is made clear that they are not the moral equivalent of countries that believe in and follow the aforementioned principles.

Personally, I don't believe that such change is possible. The best that can be hoped for is that a few good countries, perhaps the US, the UK, and Australia, will leave the UN, taking their funding with them. This would undoubtedly cause the UN to implode. So be it. A turd is a turd no matter how you look at it. It is time for the UN to go the way of the dinosaurs and the League of Nations.

Lexicon Transmogrification

2005-06-06T00:15:00.000-05:00

One of the things that has, for some time now, bothered me about the Left (and to a lesser extent the Right) is their twisting of the language, especially as it relates to the concept of liberty. Fortunately, I am not alone in this concern:

With the rise of Marxist polylogism in the 19th century, the words of the philosophy of liberty were perverted into their antonyms, rendered not only meaningless, but tools of the advancement of pernicious beliefs. They were systematically expanded to include their antonyms, their connotations were manipulated to produce the persuasive fallacies of Lenin and others. The result was the purposive encroachments of the same fallacies which had plagued mankind for all human history, now newly disguised.

Tom goes on to discuss the perversion of several words including "equality" and "inflation." One word that he doesn't mention, but the transmogrification of which I find especially heinous, is "progressive." Progressive means moving forward or advancing and more specifically in a political context means promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions. Progressive has a positive connotation. The problem is that the political ideas espoused by those using this moniker are anything but positive, that is unless of course you consider movement towards Socialism to be positive. I do not and no rational being could.

The removal of personal and economic freedom is not progressive, it is a regression into a state of slavery that has far too long plagued mankind. Our forefathers recognized these ideals as such and they fought and died to put an end to them. They established a country unique in its thinking. A place where the individual was free to live his life with minimal interference from the government. A place where that same government was a servant to the people instead of the other way around. They rejected the idea that government knows best and left man to succeed or fail on their own merits. Unfortunately, those days are now gone and we live in a world where large swaths of the population believe that government intervention is the solution to all problems and the individual is always subservient to the "common good."

The Delicious Provocateur

2005-06-03T13:33:00.000-05:00

I was looking at my stats over at Blog Explosion and noticed that my site had been described as "Delicious" and "Provocative." I guess that makes me The Delicious Provocateur^TM.

Whither the 10th?

2005-06-03T11:24:00.000-05:00

I came across the following question the other day: Which of the first 10 Amendments is the Forgotten Amendment?

For me, the answer seems fairly obvious, it is the 10^th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This amendment, for me, encompasses the entire spirit of the Constitution. We have a constitutionally limited Federal government. Its powers are specifically enumerated in said Constitution and are expressly limited.

Unfortunately, our government has gone about its business, since its creation (but especially in the last century), as if the 10^th Amendment never existed. The government has morphed from its created purpose of acting as a tool to protect and serve the people into an entity that now believes it is the master, not the servant. Under the guidance of both Left and Right political parties, the government has been increasingly used to force the disturbing and misguided views of those groups onto the individuals that make up the citizenry of this country.

This has not happened all at once. It has taken time to completely bastardize the Constitution and turn it into some "living entity" open to whatever perverted "interpretation" suits the fancy of the day. "Interpretations" of the Commerce Clause of Article 1, Section 8 have made it possible for the Federal Government to do a complete end run around the 10^th and, therefore, the entire intent of the Constitution, i.e. LIMITED government.

In turn, the complete disregard of the principle of Limited Government has removed barriers to the Government's violation of other sections of the Constitution, including the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Girl Friday

2005-06-03T00:04:00.000-05:00

And now for another lovely lady (at least as far as is visible, she is lovely). Enjoy!

Church Signs

2005-06-02T09:35:00.000-05:00

I found this Church Sign Generator over at Zaph's so I thought I'd have a little fun with my Christian friends:

The New Libertarian

2005-06-02T02:19:00.000-05:00

This month's issue of The New Libertarian is up. The cover story is about reform of the UN. I haven't read it yet, but it is interesting because it was my turn to pick the topic over at The Balance of Power and I chose to discuss the UN. In fact, I just finished writing my rather lengthy (1500+ words) post on the topic a couple of hours ago.

Be sure to stop by on Monday to check it out.

Greatest Threat to America

2005-06-02T02:13:00.000-05:00

This is an open thread. Please feel free to let me know what you see as the greatest threat currently facing the United States. Is it terrorism, the UN, theocrats, leftist college professors? Whatever you think it is let me know.

My Readership

2005-06-02T01:33:00.000-05:00

Here are the results from my poll asking which political party most closely matches your ideals and morals:

Libertarian 45%
Republican 31%
Democrat 15%
Constitution 4%
Green 4%
Other 2%
Reform 0%

It is pretty close to what I expected and I think it is probably a fairly accurate gauge of my readership.

I have also instituted a new poll, so be sure to answer it as well please.

Morals Without Religion

2005-06-01T10:33:00.000-05:00

The other day, I found myself, as I often do, discussing the basis for morality with a religious chap. Like so many others, he incorrectly equates religion to morality. In fact, he went so far as to say, "You are atheist, how can you consider yourself to be moral? Where do you derive your morality if not from God?" My answer was simple: "I derive my morality from myself and my ability for logic and reason."

I don't think that he was able to see past the ideas that have been instilled in him since childhood, to be able to understand what I was saying. Then last night, I found an article by Peter Schwartz over at Capitalism Magazine discussing morality and religion. His reasoning for the widespread belief that morals are derived from a supernatural being:

And what draws people to this bizarre premise--the premise that there is no rational basis for refraining from murder, rape or anarchism? The left's persistent assault on moral values.

That is, liberals characteristically renounce moral absolutes in favor of moral grayness. They insist, for example, that criminals should not be reviled, but should be seen as tragic products of their "social environment"--that teenage mothers are just as entitled to welfare checks as wage-earners are to their paychecks, and that to deny welfare benefits for a child born into a family already receiving welfare is, as the ACLU declares, to "unconstitutionally coerce women's reproductive decisions"--that America is morally equivalent to its enemies, with our own policies having provoked the Sept. 11 attacks and our "unilateralist" actions in Iraq being no different from any forcible occupation of one nation by another.

Repulsed by such egalitarian, anti-"judgmental" absurdities, many people disavow what they regard as leftism's essence: secularism, and turn to religion for their values.

As he points out, many people find the postmodernistic moral relativity of the left to be untenable. And rightly so. As I pointed out in a comment I made a couple of days ago in reference to what I termed "The Peoples' Republik of Moral Relativity":

Then again, this is the same place where the moral outrage of an accidental death in the liberation of an oppressed people is shouted out from the rooftops by the same millions that sat silent as those same peoples were raped, tortured, and murdered.

The same place where there is no difference between the possible flushing of the Quran and the actual shoving of live people into wood chippers.

The same place where the sexual embarrassment of a terrorist is worse than the beheading of an aid worker.

The same place where the taking of innocent lives is always wrong, always that is unless it is 378,994 American lives. Because as the whole world knows, regardless of the 100,000,000 plus lives taken by Communism, the 6 million killed by the Nazis, and the continuing African genocides, there has never been a more repugnant rights violator in the world than the United States, well with the possible exception of Israel.

When faced with ideas such as this, it is no surprise that people would reject this in favor of the moral guidance of the church. However, as Mr. Schwartz states, this is a "false alternative":

The real alternative to the leftist claptrap is a morality of reason. Such a morality begins with the individual's life as the primary value and identifies the further values that are demonstrably required to sustain that life. It observes that man's nature demands that we live not by random urges or by animal instincts, but by the faculty that distinguishes us from animals and on which our existence fundamentally depends: rationality.

Be sure to read the entire thing.

Memorial Day

2005-05-30T11:03:00.000-05:00

Allow me to take a moment to say thank you to all of the men and women who, like me, took time from their lives to serve in the military to help keep our country free.

My heart goes out to all that have made the ultimate sacrifice and lost their lives so that my family and I could live in peace and freedom.

Individual Rights

2005-05-30T11:00:00.000-05:00

This week at Balance of Power, we are discussing Individual Rights vs. Common Good. There are some very misguided thoughts being presented, so please be sure to stop by and make the libertarian position known.

Here is my contribution:

Please allow me to apologize for the tardiness of my post. I was having major computer issue which prevented me from writing this on time.

First, I feel that I must correct a gross mischaracterization of libertarians made by Jay. He states: "I see too often, especially from the left and libertarians an absolutist positions towards rights with little or no regard to the necessity of responsibility that comes with them." I have been a libertarian for about five years and have NEVER once come across a libertarian that held such a position.

In fact, such a position is anathema to libertarian beliefs. Personal responsibility is as much a cornerstone of libertarian belief as our calls for freedom. It is no stretch to say that the latter is not possible without the former and every libertarian I have come in contact with understands this fact.

Now the question arises, how to tackle all of the other problems with Jay's post. Since his entire premise for the limiting of individual rights is based upon the "common good," I will start there. A few days ago in a chat session, I asked Jay who or what defines the "common good?" His answer was the Constitution and the People. At the time, I didn't have a chance to address the problems with his answer, so I will do so now.

First, let's deal with the Constitution. The Constitution DOES NOT define the "common good." This phrase is completely absent from the text of the Constitution. In fact the word "common" only appears 4 times. Twice in discussing the "common defence" and twice discussing "common law." The word "good" is even more scarce, appearing only once in Article III. Of course, Jay's mistake is not his alone. It is all too common an occurrence for people to attribute as justifications for their actions, some imaginary tenant of the Constitution.

Next, he said "the People" define the "common good." Since I didn't get to delve into this either, I can only assume that by "the People," he means the majority. (If this in not what he meant, I am sure he will correct me.) This creates some problems of its own. By leaving the definition of the "common good" to the whims of the majority, it becomes ethereal. It has no substance and opens itself up for abuse. If a person can never know for sure what the "common good" is, then authorities are free to charge him with violations of it as they see fit.

The left has long used the "common good" as a club to beat the public into submission. They use it as justification for the majority of their policies. As of late however, many on the right have, disturbingly so, taken up the mantra of the "common good." The "common good" is to me, a very dangerous step on the road to totalitarianism where the entire concept of individual rights is buried in favor of policies that promote the "common good." Jay says: "Not even the cause of civil liberties, as noble as it is, can be permitted to override the common good if freedom is to be maintained." I say it not civil liberties that threaten freedom, but the ethereal concept of the "common good."

To live in a world of utter freedom would be to live in a world where every debased appetite could find expression, all in the name of liberty.

Here I would have to ask Jay to go into more specifics. Please give some examples. How are you defining "expression?" Thought is not action, speech is not action. Are you suggesting that anyone who, in your estimation, has a debased appetite not be allowed to even think or discuss those appetites? You specifically mention barring Nazis from marching and justify it by saying that they seek to bar rights themselves. While it is true that they want to implement their ridiculous Fascist policies, talking about it does not implement it. Marching does not implement it. Running commercials on TV, on the radio, or in print does not implement their ideas. You cannot remain a free society by preventing others from expressing their beliefs in these manners.

Since I am late to the party, I have the advantage of addressing some things others have posted as well.

First Carl: "This is why I am FOR, mandatory military service."

While I myself think people who serve in the military have a better understanding of the sacrifices necessary to maintain freedom, I would NEVER make such a requirement mandatory. You do not teach people the value of freedom by making them indentured servants. People are NOT the property of the government.

Second Joseph: "I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of the nation as well as most of the Founding Fathers when I say that the Constitution was never meant to protect freedom of depriving rights to other citizens while realizing one's own."

While this is true, the examples you cited prior to this statement are not examples of a deprivation of rights. There is no right to not be offended. If you find your work environment to be offensive, find another work environment. Publicize the fact that your employer or teacher is racist. Do not try to create a "right" that by its very nature is a violation of true rights.

Girl Friday

2005-05-27T00:42:00.000-05:00

I don't know how many of you remember the old Nike commercials with Little Penny, but there was one with Penny Hardaway and Little Penny cruising in a car. Little Penny looks over, then yells, "Stop the car! That's Tyra Banks, fool!"

Well, this is what he was yelling about:

A Father's Proud Moment

2005-05-24T20:02:00.000-05:00

As any parent knows, having a child brings with it a string of proud moments: the birth of your child, their first steps, their first words, etc.

Tonight during dinner I experienced one such moment. As we sat eating, my 5 year old daughter looked across the table and asked, "Daddy, what's liberty?" At first I was taken aback. "What did you say, Baby?" "What's liberty?" she repeated. Wow, I had heard correctly.

Though we've discussed religion many times before, we had never really discussed any of my other philosophical/political beliefs. Trying to keep my answer as succinct and understandable as possible, I said "Liberty is freedom," to which she replied, "Oh, then that's good because freedom is the most important thing people can have." Having never told her that, I was amazed.

She has been asking me to teach her how to play Chess since she was four, but I always told her she was too young, perhaps it is time. She has already proven herself a fairly capable Backgammon player.

Apparent Deal Reached

2005-05-23T20:13:00.000-05:00

It appears that a deal has been reached regarding the changing of Senate Rule XXII:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Fourteen U.S. Senate moderates struck a deal across party lines on Monday to avert a historic showdown vote over President Bush's stalled judicial nominees.

The bipartisan compromise -- which includes a commitment to clear the way for confirmation votes on three of five disputed nominees -- was reached less than 24 hours before the Republican-led Senate was to decide whether to strip Democrats of their power to block Bush's candidates for federal courts.

Of course, this is interesting:

Under the signed agreement, the senators vowed that the filibuster on judicial nominees will only be used in the future "under extraordinary circumstances."

I thought Democrats were already making the case that the current situation was an "extraordinary circumstance," that these judges were so extreme that there was no other choice than to filibuster them. Though this resolves the issue for now, I guarantee this fight is not over.

Any thoughts on which two will get the boot?

UPDATE: Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and Bill Pryor will get votes. Henry Saad and William Myers will get the boot.

Employment-at-Will

2005-05-23T12:37:00.000-05:00

Today's Mises Daily Article is a great piece by Arthur Foulkes entitled In Defense of Employment-at-Will. It is a well written piece that goes straight to the heart of one of the major problems facing the economic stability of our country today.

One paragraph in particular really caught my eye:

Scarcity is the natural state of mankind. Abundance, on the other hand, only comes about after people have applied their labor to their natural surroundings. In other words, scarcity is held at bay only by productivity or "work." Therefore to assert that a man's sustenancehis freedom from scarcityis a basic right necessarily implies that another man must be forced to provide it whether he wishes to or not. If he does not wish to, then the "individual freedom" of the first man can only be bought at the cost of some degree of freedom from the second, who must be coerced, by threat of force, to provide for the first. Indeed, this is tantamount to slavery. (emphasis in original)

The reason this stands out is because it applies not only to employment, but it illustrates the very differences which separate those seeking true freedom and those looking to enslave us to the "needs" of our fellow men by using false rights (positive rights) and hollow calls for "individual freedom," an idea of which they have no true concept.

The conflation of "positive rights" with actual "negative rights" serves to obscure the whole concept of rights, the outcome of which is necessarily a reduction of, and cavalier attitude towards, individual liberty.

Politics and Religion

2005-05-23T00:25:00.000-05:00

This week's post at The Balance of Power is up. As usual, here is my contribution:

Before getting into the details of this post, allow me to establish the angle from which I approach this issue.

I am an unabashed Atheist. I do not believe in a deity in any form or fashion. At the same time, I seem to buck the trend against the views of the majority of my fellow Atheists. Why? Because I am not militantly anti-religious. I am not threatened by the fact that others believe in a god. I don't think being religious makes you stupid. Are there those who are religious simply because their parents and others told them to be, yes. If they have not come to their religious beliefs through a personal evaluation of the available information, I might think them to be sheep, but I certainly bear them no ill will.

I believe religion to be a personal thing. My 5 year old daughter (through the influence of her mother and grandparents) believes in God. Because of this, I allow her to attend church services on a regular basis. I am a single father and many would ask why I would allow this. The answer is simple, I believe that in order to make a proper decision concerning one's beliefs, it is necessary to understand as thoroughly as possible the issues involved. We openly discuss my beliefs and why I believe what I do. I feel confident that once she is older, she will come to the same conclusion that I did. If not, so be it. At least she will have been presented with all the information necessary for her to decide for herself.

I grew up in the Church (Lutheran/Methodist). When I got old enough to think for myself, I started studying the whole concept of religion and came to the religious conclusions that I felt were right. This is no different than my decision to consider myself libertarian. I was always a Republican, because my parents were Republicans. Once I examined the issues, I found that my beliefs fell more in line with those of libertarianism than with the Republican Party.

I would hope that this is how anyone would approach the issues of religion and politics.

OK so now that you understand where I am coming from, let's get to the issues presented by Joseph. My contributions for the first two topics were written without regard to what was written by the Topic Leader for the week. This week however, Joseph has asked some very specific questions, so I will attempt to address them on an individual basis.

How far should politicians involve God in politics? To what extent should politicians invoke God's name in their bids for power?

Politics and religion are both integral parts of who a person is, therefore, it is not surprising that there is a huge overlap of the two. Our founding fathers recognized this fact and sought to address it with the first sixteen words of the 1^st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

This is generally known as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. To me, this is a beautifully written concise limitation upon the powers of the government as concerns religion. The Establishment Clause was clearly meant to prevent the establishment of a State sponsored religion such as The Church of England (which to this day holds the British Monarch as its figurehead leader). It does not, however, establish the completely sterile secular government being pushed by my fellow Atheists under the guise of "separattion of Church and State."

The Free Exercise Clause is also clear, people are free to practice their religious beliefs as they see fit. In conjunction with the Establishment Clause, it seems clear that anyone, even politicians are free to exercise their beliefs. For this reason, I have no problem with politicians citing God or even bastardizing what others believe to be his teachings for their own advancement. As the saying goes Caveat Emptor. It is the responsibility of each individual voter to determine if a politician's beliefs are sincere or a load of crap spewed solely for political gain.

Should voters vote based on religion?

A voter holds absolute right to vote based on any reasons that he deems germane to the decision. He can vote based on the color of the candidate's hair, the way the candidate dresses, or any of a billion other reasons. Would such triviality be prudent, of course not. Perhaps voting based on religious beliefs is not either, but it is certainly a decision to made solely by the voter in question.

Does God select an American politician or do American politicians use God's name to win the votes of the faithful?

Well since I don't believe that God exists, I am forced to go with the latter. Whether this use is based on sincere belief or is just political posturing is, as I said, up to each individual voter to determine.

I believe the right of a politician to use religion to further his political aspirations is fairly wide open, so long as he does not cross the constitutional boundaries such as this.

However, another question can be asked. Should a politician place self-imposed limits on his use of religion? A parallel example would be those who choose to serve in the military. Upon enlisting or accepting their commission, they agree to be bound by the UCMJ which places restrictions on rights they would otherwise have under the Constitution. Politicians could easily submit to more stringent guidelines concerning religion, if they so chose.

Now concerning the implication that only Republicans are hypocrites when it comes to religion, I would say that the Dems are no better. Both parties have demonstrated time and again hypocrisy on multitudes of issues, including religion. To suggest otherwise would be intellectually dishonest.

$45,000 Turd

2005-05-21T10:38:00.000-05:00

Perhaps it's just that I am an uncouth Philistine that lacks the requisite sophistication necessary for the artistic appreciation of a turd on a box, but shit is not art. Amazingly enough, not even the "we'll buy anything that you say is art" crowd in New York was willing to drop the cash for such garbage. Don't fret though, I would bet money that he got a nice stipend from the NEA to "produce" it in the first place so he won't be starving.

Of course, that was not the first time someone tried to pass off feces as art and I am sure that it won't be the last.

If you want to see art that celebrates the highest aspirations of man instead of the lowest, visit Quent Cordair.

(hat tip Gay Orbit)

Blogs I Read

2005-05-21T01:02:00.000-05:00

I've been meaning to update my blogroll for a while now. Here are three new additions:

Ken at Oldsmoblogger is the newest member of 25 For Freedom.

Mustang at Social Sense is an ex-Marine and teacher.

Brian at psychopolitik is a long established libertarian blogger and a very good read.

Changing Skins

2005-05-20T23:17:00.000-05:00

Most of you have probably noticed that you can change skins on my site. I have been considering changing the white skin to the default for a while now, but have been hesitant to do so because of the nudity (even though it is only drawn).

With a bit of encouragement and in hopes of making the underlying philosophy of my site readily apparent to those mentally challenged individuals unable to look past the Chinese flag and who don't notice the 3 separate Statue of Liberty graphics that immediately jump out on the red skin, I am changing to the white "Touch of Liberty" skin.

If this causes a problem, just reskin to the red "One Billion Red Chinese" skin and accept the cookie so that it becomes the default skin for you.

If you have never seen the Touch of Liberty skin, please let me know what you think of it.

Girl Friday

2005-05-20T23:13:00.000-05:00

Oops...I almost forgot it was Friday. Since I missed the last couple of weeks, here is a special treat, four for the price of one:

Neolibertarian Network

2005-05-19T01:22:00.000-05:00

After much consideration, I have decided to join the Neolibertarian Network. I know that several of my readers are already members and I look forward to joining your ranks.

I just sent my request, but since I don't believe I will be turned down (at least I hope not), I have posted the NN graphic.

UPDATE: I have been accepted!

BRAC Attack

2005-05-18T23:08:00.000-05:00

OK, so The Gun-Toting Liberal, one of my Blog Partners in The Balance of Power, has a misguided post about the Pentagon recommendations (a condensed version can be found here) for the upcoming round of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) committee recommendations.

The first thing we need to do is to look at the history of base closures. BRAC, as we know it today, owes it birth to the Presidency of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Kennedy realized that the military needs of 1960s America were different than those of previous decades. Because of this, he directed then Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara to come up with a plan for a realignment of military resources more suited to the current needs of the country.

Back then the process, which was entirely internal to the Department of Defense, lead to the closure of approximately 60 bases. There were many politico feathers ruffled and in 1965 Congress tried, unsuccessfully, to involve itself in the process. DoD's control of the process continued until the passage of Public Law 95-82 as codified in 10 USC 2687, which inserted Congress into the picture. This procedure was later modified by P.L. 100-526 and P.L. 101-510.

Under these guidelines, there have been 4 rounds of closures (3 of which I was on active duty for) resulting in 97 major base closures and 55 major realignments. The results have been a net savings of over $16 billion.

Now that we have a little history under our belts and since I assume most of you didn't actually read the applicable portion of the US Code, I will give a brief overview of how the process works.

First, the Secretary of Defense issues a Data Call from all domestic base commanders. This information is used by the DoD to make recommendations to the BRAC Committee.

Second, the BRAC Committee (nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate) examines the DoD recommendations and then makes its own recommendations to the President.

Third, the President reviews the BRAC recommendations with the option of sending them back to committee if not satisfied, then forwards them to Congress.

Fourth, if Congress takes no action, the recommendations are put into effect. If Congress is unhappy with particular recommendations, they have the authority, via a joint resolution, to change them.

So what does all of this have to do with The Gun-Toting Liberal being misguided, nothing in particular, I just thought it a good idea to establish a baseline of knowledge before going further.

GTL makes 3 points in his rant against the proposed base closures. 1) It will decrease our border security thereby placing the US public at risk. 2) Communities that house the bases will be hurt by their closing. 3) It will hurt veterans.

First, there is a problem with saying that base closures will affect border security. It will not, at least not based on the current situation. The fact that GTL wants our troops to secure the border, does not make it so. With a few minor exceptions, our military does not currently patrol the borders of either Mexico or Canada. Therefore, it is impossible for a base closure to have an effect on this issue.

Even if the President were to decide tomorrow to militarize the borders, GTL has provided absolutely no evidence that the proposed closures would have an effect on the Armed Forces ability to do so. Perhaps it will, I don't know, so let's take a look.

The first thing we need to do is to take a look at which states (and territories) have bases on the block and whittle it down to only border states:

~~Alabama~~

Alaska

Arizona

~~Arkansas~~

California

~~Colorado~~

~~Connecticut~~

~~Delaware~~

~~District of Columbia~~

~~Florida~~

~~Georgia~~

~~Guam~~

~~Hawaii~~

Idaho

~~Illinois~~

~~Indiana~~

~~Iowa~~

~~Kansas~~

~~Kentucky~~

~~Louisiana~~

Maine

~~Maryland~~

~~Massachusetts~~

Michigan

Minnesota

~~Mississippi~~

~~Missouri~~

Montana

~~Nebraska~~

~~Nevada~~

New Hampshire

~~New Jersey~~

New Mexico

New York

~~North Carolina~~

North Dakota

Ohio

~~Oklahoma~~

~~Oregon~~

Pennsylvania

~~Puerto Rico~~

~~Rhode Island~~

~~South Carolina~~

~~South Dakota~~

~~Tennessee~~

Texas

~~Utah~~

Vermont

~~Virginia~~

Washington

~~West Virginia~~

Wisconsin

~~Wyoming~~

OK...now that that is done, let's look at each state and see what we have. But first, allow me to first make an assumption. Any troops involved in physically guarding the border will be Army or Marines. The Navy and Air Force will not deploy any ground troops, therefore, I will only discuss Army and Marine bases. (If there is a problem with this assumption, we can discuss it on a case by case basis.) I will also only deal with closures, not realignments.

State
Base Closed
Displaced Military
Affect on Border Security
Alaska None
0
None
Arizona Allen Hall Armed Forces Reserve Center
60
Minimal
California Armed Forces Reserve Center Bell
24
Minimal
Navy-Marine Corps Reserve Center, Encino
33
Minimal
Navy-Marine Corps Reserve Center, Los Angeles
48
Minimal
Idaho None
0
None
Maine None
0
None
Michigan Parisan U.S. Army Reserve Center, Lansing
25
Minimal
Selfridge Army Activity
126
Minimal
Minnesota None
0
None
Montana Galt Hall U.S. Army Reserve Center, Great Falls
14
Minimal
New Hampshire Doble U.S. Army Reserve Center Portsmouth
39
Minimal
New Mexico Jenkins Armed Forces Reserve Center Albuquerque
35
Minimal
New York Armed Forces Reserve Center Amityville
24
Minimal
Army National Guard Reserve Center Niagara Falls
1
Minimal
Carpenter U.S. Army Reserve Center,Poughkeepie
8
Minimal
North Dakota None
0
None
Ohio Army National Guard Reserve Center Mansfield
59
Minimal
Army National Guard Reserve Center Westerville
12
Minimal
Navy-Marine Corps Reserve Center Akron
26
Minimal
Navy-Marine Corps Reserve Center Cleveland
24
Minimal
Parrott U.S. Army Reserve Center Kenton
9
Minimal
U.S. Army Reserve Center Whitehall
25
Minimal
Pennsylvania Kelly Support Center
174
Minimal
Navy-Marine Corps Reserve Center Reading
18
Minimal
North Penn U.S. Army Reserve Center, Norristown
22
Minimal
Serrenti U.S. Army Reserve Center, Scranton
47
Minimal
U.S. Army Reserve Center Bloomsburg
20
Minimal
U.S. Army Reserve Center Lewisburg
9
Minimal
U.S. Army Reserve Center Williamsport
29
Minimal
W. Reese U.S. Army Reserve Center/OMS, Chester
9
Minimal
Texas Army National Guard Reserve Center #2 Dallas
90
Minimal
Army National Guard Reserve Center (Hondo Pass) El Paso
106
Minimal
Army National Guard Reserve Center California Crossing
47
Minimal
Army National Guard Reserve Center Ellington
14
Minimal
Army National Guard Reserve Center Lufkin
10
Minimal
Army National Guard Reserve Center Marshall
15
Minimal
Army National Guard Reserve Center New Braunfels
106
Minimal
Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant
2
Minimal
Red River Army Depot
9
Minimal
U.S. Army Reserve Center #2 Houston
2
Minimal
Vermont None
0
None
Washington 1LT Richard H. Walker U.S. Army Reserve Center
38
Minimal
Army National Guard Reserve Center Everett
57
Minimal
Navy-Marine Corps Reserve Center Tacoma
20
Minimal
U.S. Army Reserve Center Fort Lawton
53
Minimal
Vancouver Barracks
29
Minimal
Wisconson Navy-Marine Corps Reserve Center Madison
23
Minimal
Olson U.S. Army Reserve Center, Madison
103
Minimal
U.S. Army Reserve Center O'Connell
11
Minimal

So, as far as I can tell, the claim that base closures will somehow have an adverse affect on border security just does not hold water.

Second, we now need to address the claim that the government would somehow be perpetrating some heinous act of wrongdoing against the citizens of the communities where the bases that will be closed are located. Is it nice that the local communities have developed ties with the men and women stationed at these various bases? Yes. Will there be an adverse economic impact caused by the closure of some of these bases? Yes.

Here's the thing though, the military exists for the sole purpose of physically protecting us. It is not the job of the military to act as a local welfare system for a town. The only reason that many of these bases exist in the first place is because of the political clout held by the Representatives and Senators of the state at the time the base was opened. Rather than strategic necessity, many bases were opened as part of "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours," deals of days gone by.

The only obligation the military has is to be as well trained, professional and efficient at the job of protecting us as they can be. Bases should exist only as strategic necessity dictates, not to act as artificial economic crutches for local municipalities. In this day and age of out of control government spending, resources have to be used as efficiently as possible.

For some reason, my friend seems to equate number of bases with military strength and effectiveness, luckily such is not the case. Every dollar wasted keeping open an unnecessary base is a dollar not going for improved troop readiness. That is more of a threat to our security than a base closure will ever be.

Lastly, GTL views the base closures as an affront to Veterans. I am a proud Navy Vet and though I am sure it is not his contention that those of us who served our country in the Armed Forces did so because of a desire to ride the gravy train after we got out, that is certainly what he makes it sound like. I am a member of AMVETS and very active at the local VFW post. I have spent hours on end discussing the issues that affect Vets. Though I knew a couple of people while I was active duty that were there solely for the educational benefits, they were not the norm. Nor is it the case with the Vets I interact with during my involvement in the aforementioned organizations. We did not serve to get "perks" and "privileges," we served to help our country. We might be inconvenienced by a base closure, but most of us understand that it helps the military and we are again willing to do what we can to help our country.

Most Vets that I personally know ask only for two things, respect and recognition. I understand that many on the left view these thing solely through the lens of various government handouts, but that is not true respect. You do not measure respect by the amount of taxpayers money you are willing to give to someone else. I am not looking to fill my pockets at the expense of the American taxpayer. A simple thank you is good enough for me.

Real ID

2005-05-16T20:03:00.000-05:00

This week's Balance of Power post about National IDs is up.

It is likely that my posting will continue to be sporadic for a while. I have a couple of new clients and have been out of town most of the last 2 weeks. I am currently making preparations for an upcoming trip to China. I should be leaving in about a month (assuming things go as planned) and will be there for about a month.

In the mean time, I will post what I can. Here is my contribution for this week's BOP post:

The former Soviet Union, Red China, Vietnam. This is not exactly a group that the US should feel comfortable joining the ranks of, but that is exactly what it has done with the passage of the Real ID Act. For all intents and purposes, we will now have a national ID in 2008.

Of course, there will be and have been those who will extol all the great anti-terror aspects of this bill, but this is laughable at best. This will not prevent a single terrorist from carrying out his mission, what it will do is provide a means to track the movements of virtually every legal US citizen above the age of 16 in this country.

You will need this to fly, to take a train, to take a long distance bus, and for who knows what else.

It will create vast databases of information ripe for the picking by identity thieves, which in itself is ironic since its author, James "I think you have no rights" Sensenbrenner, touts this on his website.

It is also yet another assault on the principles of Federalism. Apparently years of the Courts perversion of the Commerce Clause has led Congress to believe the States hold no power of their own. The bill does allow States to opt out, but like the decision to make 21 the legal age to purchase alcohol, there are stiff penalties for non-compliance.

I just don't know what the hell our politicians are thinking. It passed 261-161 in the House and 100-0 in the Senate. Senate Democrats (and those Republicans opposed to it) will, of course, try to defend their actions by pointing out that it was piggybacked onto an appropriation bill for the troops and tsunami relief. That however, is no excuse. They knew it was part of the larger bill and rather than do the rights thing, they cowered like pathetic school girls for fear of being labeled anti-troops if they didn't vote for the larger bill.

I find their actions just as despicable, if not more so, than the clowns that introduced it in the first place. I find cowardice to be extremely unpalatable. Though they probably didn't have the numbers to stop it, they could have voted against it and then defended their actions in the press. Instead, they choose to do nothing, knowing that more than 600 organizations of every political persuasion opposed its passage.

The only bright side is that it does not take affect until 2008. There is still time to stop this before it is put into place. Please write your Congressman and Senators and let them know that this is wrong and will not help protect us.

Patriot Act

2005-05-10T00:05:00.000-05:00

Sorry...I've been experiencing technical difficulties with Blogger for the last few days that have made it impossible for me to post. I still don't think they are entirely resolved.

Anyway, the first topic post at The Balance of Power is up. This week's topic is the Patriot Act. Here is my contribution:

"The plea of good intentions is not one that can be allowed to have much weight in passing historical judgment upon a man whose wrong-headedness and distorted way of looking at things produced, or helped to produce, such incalculable evil" -- Theodore Roosevelt

Roosevelt wrote these words more than 100 years ago, but they could have very well been written about those who wrote, supported, voted and signed into law, the "USA Patriot Act." After all, it is said that hell is paved with good intentions. As an atheist I, of course, don't believe in the biblical hell. My version of hell is a country where the liberty of men is subject to the unrestricted whims of the government. The Constitution was meant to prevent just such a hell, but these days the legislature seems to view the Constitution more as a set of non-binding suggestions rather than the absolute law of the land.

Spawned after the tragedies of 9/11, the Patriot Act was clearly the result of fear and panic at time when strength and rationality was needed. Though partisans would have you believe differently, both major parties are to blame for this gross violation of civil liberties. As John Kerry was fond of pointing out during his failed presidential campaign he "authored most of the money laundering provisions" in the Patriot Act. Title III represents some of the most egregious violations of privacy in the law.

Of course, many of those responsible for this monstrosity read only the parts that they themselves wrote, which is why this is such a good idea. It is no surprise that there was a major backlash once the full details of the Patriot Act came to light. Indeed, the SAFE Act of 2003 came about as a result of the revelation of civil liberties violations made possible by the Patriot Act. Had they done their jobs in the first place, our legislators wouldn't have found it necessary to fix their previous mistakes.

It is time for the American public to wake up to the reality that exists on Capital Hill. Until they do, we are not likely to see the end of bad legislation such as the Patriot Act.

Skype

2005-05-07T00:47:00.000-05:00

I've been considering it for some time now and finally decided to get Skype. I haven't used it yet, but I plan on getting my brothers to install it as well.

If any of you use it, let me know what you think of it. I have previously used the voice chat feature in both MSN Messenger and Netmeeting, but it is my understanding that Skype has much better quality, plus if I like it, I will get the paid version that allows for calls to actual phones.

I have also added my Skype user name to my list of ways to contact me. Feel free to call me if you wish.

Conversations With Carl, Part II

2005-05-06T11:03:00.000-05:00

As regular visitors will recall, I recently started an ongoing feature called Conversations With Carl. I intended to post Part II of the series last Friday, but Dr. Milsted was busy with the North Carolina LP Convention.

Note: The portion in blue is from Part I's exchange. It is included here to simplify the reading. It is then followed by my follow-up question and Dr. Milsted's reply.

So without further adieu, here is Part II:

DM: This is tricky, since there is no market price for a private corporation. One approach is that given in Robert Heinlein's The Number of the Beast. In that novel [not one of Heinlein's best!] there is a parallel universe of Fundamentalist Christian Libertarian Nudists [typical Heinlein]. In that universe the only tax was a property tax [or was it a land tax? I forget]. But interestingly, the government did not assess land values. Instead, landowners assessed their own values. The values assessed were binding. If anyone found the assessed value to be low, they could legally buy the property at that value.

In other words, in Heinlein's story, property was assessed at the "ask" price vs. the "bid" price. You set you value at what you would happily sell the land at. You could do the same thing for private corporations: the owners could set the ask price for the entire corporation. If they undervalue the corporation, the risk getting bought out at less than would make them happy.

LD: This approach, however, I have serious issues with. I am a private
business owner and I view this proposal as a rock and a hard place.

Your proposal is that a private business owner set the price of his
business at the price at which he would "happily" sell his business.
There is a problem with this.

Normally, a business owner sells for one of two reasons, necessity or
desire. When an owner sells out of necessity, he rarely gets a price
that makes him happy. He may not be happy with the price he got, but
he is happy to have the burden of business removed. When he sells out
of desire, he is free to set the price at a level that will make him
happy. If someone purchases it at that price, he is happy. If not,
he is still running his business and he is happy.

Your proposal requires him to set an artificial price based on neither
of these situations. There are extreme pressures from both sides of
his pricing decision. If he prices too low, a third party could swoop
in and purchase his business without his consent. Actually, this
could happen at any price. Because he is selling against his will, he
certainly will not be "happy" with the price received, even if it is
above market value.

If he is able to price it so high that no third party will purchase
it, he is paying a significantly higher tax amount than he would
otherwise pay. The increased taxes could very well cause his business
to go under.

DM: For starters, this tax only applies to corporations. It would not apply to all businesses. You only pay the tax if you request the extra layer of contractual protection from the state (limited liability, etc.).

Also, I would definitely go with a significantly lower rate for non-public corporations since the ask price for an entire business is going to be higher than the marginal share price for a public corporation.

A startup exemption may be a good idea, but there is great potential for abuse. I could see money-men opening and closing the same business under different corporate charters in order to avoid the tax. A deductible might work.

LD: In addition, such a plan becomes very discriminatory towards small
business. Because they are forced to sell at whatever price they
set, larger businesses with more resources could swoop in and buy them
out in order to remove them from competition. If their price is so
high no one will buy them out, they have a significantly higher tax
burden for the "protection" of not being bought out. This is called
racketeering and for the government to be engaged in this would be
appalling.

DM: Once again, the ask price system would be at a lower rate. If big businesses tried the buyout strategy, there would be a lot of small corporations started up just for the purpose of getting bought out! (In fact, this happens already.) Further, the price of computing corporate income taxes is significant, and a bigger fractional overhead cost for small corporations than for big corporations. My plan favors small corporations more than the current system.

DM: This does pose a problem for startups, which may have a great deal of value in terms of intellectual property but no income with which to pay the tax. A reasonable solution would be allowing the corporation to pay its tax in kind; that is, in non-voting shares of the company. Then, when the company makes income, the government gets dividends in proportion to its non-voting shares. Should the company buy back stock from its shareholders, it should have to buy back an equal amount from the government until the government owns none. Conversely, if it wants to buy back shares, it needs to find private owners willing to sell back to the company at the same price that the company is buying from the government.

LD: Why create such a complicated and necessarily heavily bureaucratic
distinction for start-ups. If, as you say, the valuation tax will
flat, why not tax start-ups under this plan as well? If they have no
real value, they pay no taxes.

DM: It is nowhere near as complicated as the income tax, which I am doing away with. A bit of perspective: suppose a small business generates no profit for ten years and the tax rate is 1% for private corporations. Over ten years, less than 10% of the stock ends up in the account. This means the government gets < 10% of dividends due to the corporation not paying taxes for ten years. You would have to not pay taxes for 30 years before the government's share of the profits reaches the current system! That's a rather nice tax deferral for small businesses. And the only paperwork is adjustments for stock splits, dilutions and buybacks. Baby stuff!

DM: A corporation is a complicated contractual arrangement.

LD: Corporations are complicated legal entities because government
regulation makes them so. How convenient for the government to create
a complication and then charge you extra taxes because you are
complicated.

Rather than having government dictate how individuals can get together
to form a business, would it not be more desirable to allow businesses
to form as they see fit?

DM: Corporations are inherently complicated. Ownership is dispersed, control is concentrated, and there are many conflicts of interest. Corporate law will always be complicated for these reasons.

DM: Flat. But there would be double taxation of corporations that own corporations (subsidiaries), due to the extra layer of protection they get. The incentive would be to spawn off side businesses instead of conglomerating.

LD: Double taxation. Just the sound of it makes me cringe. Why not
treat the subsidiaries as a separate entity for taxation
purposes? Tax them on their value as you would the parent company.
Why should the government look to punish businesses for owning other
businesses? What is it about a "conglomeration" that you find
inherently bad?

DM: I am calling for treating subsidiaries as a separate entity for tax purposes! But if the owning corporation owns a large fraction of the stock of a subsidiary, then the subsidiary's value also shows up as part of the value of the parent company. If the parent company intends to spin off the subsidiary soon, or they really need the extra liability protection, they can eat the cost. Or, they could merge the subsidiary to make it a division of the parent corporation.

DM: Property taxes on publicly detectable property would be paid by individuals who owned property.

LD: Property taxes are in essence a preclusion to owning private property.
Please explain why this technique is more desirable than a
consumption tax.

DM: Property taxes require far less paperwork than consumption taxes. When I ran Tools for World Liberation, I put in hours of work to assess a couple of dollars worth of sales tax. A sales tax requires giving the government no-warrant search capability for auditing every sales transaction in the country other than used merchandise sales. A sales tax without an income tax would be very easy to evade since you don't have the cross-reporting. We would end up having undercover police monitoring Mom and Pop businesses in order to determine compliance (the same way drinking age carding is enforced).

There are also powerful natural rights arguments when you get into the subject of land property. See www.progress.org and www.tpaine.org for the forgotten part of classical liberalism.

DM: Flat rate property taxes are actually more progressive than our current income tax system. Property taxes hit old money as well as new money. It becomes easier to get rich, but you don't get paid some much for being rich.

LD: Why is it desirable for a tax to be progressive at all?

DM: I can justify the tax change based on the fee-for-service argument alone. Property taxes are closer to the payment system to private protection agencies if there was no government.

But there are good libertarian arguments for not letting the wealth gap get too large:

1. Money is freedom. If the libertarian movement is to be the freedom movement and not just the non-initiation of force movement, we need to offer this freedom to more people.

2. Landlords function much like mini-governments. This was obvious during feudal times.

3. Large gaps in wealth require more police power to enforce. There is a reason that those cuddly Scandinavian social democracies have the smallest jail populations in the world, and we have the biggest.

4. Large gaps in wealth fuel calls for welfare and socialism.

In other words, a large wealth gap pulls a country both in the direction of fascism and socialism! Henry George pointed out a century ago that our limited government democratic society was possible because everyone had a right to cheap land on the frontier. As he predicted, once the frontier closed, government grew. His land tax idea was a way to preserve the ownership society that this country once had.

DM: If a corporation doesn't pay value tax, its charter ceases to be a legal contract. Whatever it owned is now in the public domain.

LD: By public domain do you mean owned by the government or in a more
literal sense of whoever grabs it owns it?

If the later, would you have some plan for the distribution of
property or would it just be a free-for-all looting bonanza?

DM: For a corporation, an auction would work. But do note that I envision such a tax to be about 1% for private corporations and maybe 2% for public corporations. I calculated that a 1.5% value tax on public corporations would match what is currently raised by the corporate income tax. Bumping it up a bit is to make up for the elimination of capital gains taxes and taxes on dividends by individuals. If a public corporation doesn't pay using cash, it can put stock in escrow. Until this escrow is bought back, the government gets a share of dividend payments, etc. But that escrow would have to grow rather large for the payments to match the corporate income tax. Some capping of this practice may be in order in order to prevent too much deferring.

For a copyright, public domain means anyone can copy without license.

New Client

2005-05-06T00:28:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the dearth of substantive posts the last few days. I have a new client and have been fairly busy. I am also trying to get the project that will facilitate my move to China back on track. Considering the name of this blog, it would probably be a good thing for me to actually be there.

I generally prefer not to just shoot from the hip, so I tend to do fairly involved research on my more indepth posts and haven't had the time these last few days. I am currently working on a post about the Death Tax and my contribution to The Balance of Power.

Our first topic will be the Patriot Act and it will be posted on Monday.

In the mean time, I will try to post as much as possible.

Girl Friday

2005-05-06T00:23:00.000-05:00

Here is this week's Girl Friday. I hope you enjoy. I am a shower man myself, but she could probably convince me that the occasional bath is a good thing.

To view the photo, simply move your mouse to the blank space below. Enjoy!

Distasteful PETA Ads

2005-05-05T13:41:00.000-05:00

No one would ever claim that most of the ads PETA runs are in good taste, but this one is out there:

This may be one of the first times that I have agreed with them though.

UK Elections

2005-05-05T10:00:00.000-05:00

Elections are underway today in the UK. This represents the third and final piece of the Anglo-Triumvirate that originally supported the Iraq War.

As you know, Bush and Howard both won re-election rather handily. The latest polls seem to indicate that Blair will complete the triple play.

This has to come as a blow to those of the anti-war movement. They put on the full court press on all three men and after this election (barring an amazing move), they will have lost all three times.

Of course, if Blair does win, it is likely opponents will say it had more to do with domestic policy and the EU than with Iraq, but I think most people know that would not be the case. Iraq is still a major hot-button issue and regardless of how much people may say they disapprove of the war, they are re-electing the men that lead the way.

UPDATE: As predicted, Blair has won.

Publication

2005-05-04T12:42:00.000-05:00

A slightly modified version of my post Thoughts on Abortion has been published on the Libertarian Reform Caucus website.

If you haven't already visited the LRC website, be sure to take a look around and see what they are all about.

A modified version of Incremental Freedom will soon be published there as well.

Part II of my series Conversations with Carl should be posted sometime this week.

Microsoft Gets Creative

2005-05-04T09:45:00.000-05:00

It seems that Microsoft (or at least one of its employees) is looking to blogs as a way to connect with the end users of their products. In this case, the product is peer-to-peer connectivity software.

I have been contacted and asked to post a link to a survey concerning the functioning of peer-to-peer software. After checking out the legitimacy of the request, I took the survey and it is pretty quick.

So if you are interested in helping Microsoft improve their peer-to-peer software, take 5 minutes and complete this survey.

Carnival of the Vanities

2005-05-04T09:33:00.000-05:00

The 137^th Carnival of the Vanities is up over at Fresh Politics.

Be sure to swing by and check it out. While your there take a look around at the rest of the blog.

Is Rove That Deviously Genius?

2005-05-03T12:03:00.000-05:00

Julian Sanchez has a great piece up at Reason Online discussing the paradox that President Bush has created for the left side of the aisle.

While mystifying from a policy perspective, there is sound political logic behind the liberal horror at progressive indexing. In part, as John Tierney argued in his New York Times column this weekend, it robs those who oppose Bush's Social Security reform proposals of a potent rhetorical weapon: The image of sad-eyed septuagenarians scrounging Alpo for lunch because their benefits have been cut. It becomes harder, in other words, to cast the private accounts crowd as moustache-twirling villains indifferent to the plight of low-income retirees.

This is of course nothing new. The two major parties love stealing the wind from each others sails by co-opting the other's ideas. Bill Clinton was a master of this during his two terms. Bush has shown, to the dismay of many fiscal conservatives, that he is just as adept at this as Clinton was, perhaps even more so. Since so many (incorrectly, I believe) assume that GWB is a complete moron, they usually like to attribute such moves to that evil genius Karl Rove.

Which brings me to the second reason Sanchez gives for liberal opposition to Bush's new progressive indexing plan.

The deeper reason for the opposition, though, is that by laying bare the redistributive function of Social Security, it threatens a key to the program's popularity, what economist Charlotte Twight, in her book Dependent on D.C., has called the "strategic manipulation of political transaction costs." Again, from a pure policy perspective, Social Security makes little sense except as a modest welfare program. There is, after all, no earthly reason why most middle class or wealthy citizens need the government to garnish their wages for decades and then provide a retirement benefit later: People are generally perfectly capable of saving for their own retirements. Those who want to paint the program as indispensable are fond of pointing to the large numbers of retirees who rely almost wholly on Social Security for their incomes. But then, when you take a hefty 12.4 percent bite out of people's paychecks——leaving them with less to save——and tell them they can rely on a government benefit later, it's not exactly shocking that many people don't save and rely on a government benefit later.

Of course, this has been obvious to me (and probably most people with any economic sense whatsoever) for some time now. However, seeing it spelled out in such a way got me to thinking; could Karl Rove possibly be that deviously genius?

Is it possible that Rove is so clever that he was able to get Bush to sacrifice more of his already dwindling street cred with the fiscal conservatives in order to expose the truth behind Social Security? Though Bush has already taken much flack from those of us not happy about his free spending tendencies, such an exposure would be a major coup for fiscal conservatism. As Sanchez points out, support for Social Security is sure to wither in the light once the public sees it as a merely another welfare program. Could Rove have known this all along and be using Bush's plan as a means of dismantling Social Security altogether?

Do I need to send Rove a thank you letter or was this just dumb luck?

New Poll

2005-05-02T17:11:00.000-05:00

I have put a new poll in the left sidebar. Be sure to take a look.

Here are the results of the old poll:

Is it time to dissolve the UN?

Yes, as soon as possible (29) 57%
No, but the US should leave (3) 6%
No, it can be reformed (19) 37%

My question to all those that answered "No, it can be reformed" is what are your ideas for this reform and can it happen with Kofi in charge?

Please leave your answers in the comments or on your own blog with a trackback to this post or a link in the comments.

May the Best Header Win

2005-05-02T11:28:00.000-05:00

Voting is underway in the header contest that I entered a few days ago.

Be sure to stop by and have a look at the competition. There is some quality work on display.

New Blog Showcase

2005-05-02T09:17:00.000-05:00

The New Blog Showcase is up at Pratie Place.

My post Thoughts on Abortion is featured. Be sure to go check it out.

Day of Remembrance

2005-05-01T20:21:00.000-05:00

Today is a day of remembrance for the 100 million plus deaths caused by global communism.

Make sure if you have a blog, that you do a post about this today.

You can also support Capitalism and the fight against Communism with this bumper sticker:

(hat tip hamstermotor)

The Company We Keep

2005-05-01T15:44:00.000-05:00

A special thanks goes out to GM Roper who has seen fit to include me is his Top 20 Political Sites list.

Most of his list are considerably more well known than myself and I am honored to have made the list.

In Response to Henry

2005-05-01T14:17:00.000-05:00

In the comments of this post discussing the constitutionality of the filibuster, commenter "Henry" made this statement:

constitutionality in legislative matters is to be decided by the body itself. If Senators made a constitutional ruling that filibustering was unconstitutional, that would be it -- final say, end of story -- and it would be as "true" as, well, Korematsu.

I feel that it is important to further address this.

As I stated before, although Article 1, Section 5, clause 2 endows the legislature with the ability to set their own rules, those rules are still subject to the limits of the Constitution. Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 states "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution."

Judicial review of constitutionality is absolute and Congress holds no power to subvert the constitution whether it be in public law or internal procedure. If such was not the case, the Constitution would be just a useless scrap of paper.

Now, as for Korematsu. Is this a reference to TOYOSABURO KOREMATSU v. UNITED STATES? If so, I fail to see how this case bolsters your argument.

A Word to My Gay Friends and Readers

2005-04-30T22:45:00.000-05:00

I was digging through the Fuki Blog archives and came across this post from last July:

Let me ask you a question? Why is it that so many of you continue to support and kiss the ass of the Democrats? They couldn't give a rat's ass about you. Hell most of them (including Kerry) don't even support your right to get married. They are only interested in using you as political pawns in order to further their own careers.

When will you realize that it is not in your best interest to beg the government for the right to get married? Once upon a time, marriage had absolutely nothing at all to do with government. It is just one more example of government usurping a power that is not rightfully theirs.

Do you not see the how ridiculous it is to tell the government to stay out of your bedroom in one breath only to invite them in with the next?

If you truly want to be treated as equals as you deserve, it is time to move away from the democrats and step towards the ideas of libertarianism. Only there will you find people that look at you as an individual and not a member of some lesser group. Only there will you find people that are not interested in controlling your lives, sexual or otherwise. Only there will you find the acceptance that you both crave and deserve.

What any of us do with other consenting adults is our own business. Why fight to win the approval of government, when you should be fighting to take back a power that does not belong to government in the first place. Everything you want and desire for yourself and your loved ones can be handled via contracts in a free society.

It is time to stop allowing yourselves to be pawns in the battle between liberals and conservatives and to become individual members in a free society.

Since it is just as pertinent now, I thought I would repost it.

Senate Rule XXII

2005-04-30T12:50:00.000-05:00

Up to this point, I have not chimed in about the current fight over the filibuster. I wanted to do some more research into the history and the constitutional issues at hand. Having done so, here is my take on the situation:

The filibuster is constitutional, but it is well within the right of the majority party to do away with it as they see fit.

In order to understand this, it is necessary to first take a look at what all the fuss is about, i.e. Senate Rule XXII (instituted in 1917 at the behest of Pres. Wilson and modified in 1975), more specifically Part 2 of Rule XXII:

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question:

"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

This language instituted cloture and by default, continued the tradition of the filibuster established in the mid 1800s.

One of the main constitutional arguments against the filibuster is the statutory interpretation doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius or "to mention one thing may exclude others." That is, since the Constitution does not not mention a supermajority requirement to end a filibuster, such a requirement is therefore excluded. Indeed, as pointed out in this 1997 law review article, there are only 7 places where the Constitution requires a supermajority:

There are seven instances where the Constitution explicitly requires a two-thirds vote. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 3, cl. 6 (Senate's guilty verdict on impeachments); U.S. Const. art. I, § 5, cl. 2 (the expulsion of a member of either house); U.S. Const. art I, § 7, (both houses overriding a presidential veto); U.S. Const. art II, § 2, cl. 2 (Senate's ratification of a treaty); U.S. Const. art. V (both houses proposing a constitutional amendment); U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3 (to remove disability from congressional service of those who participated in insurrection); U.S. Const. amend. XXV, § 4 (determination of presidential disability).

In addition, the principle of lex majoris partis has been well established in our country. On their face, I would say that these arguments are very persuasive. However, Article I, Section 5, clause 2 gives each house the ability to impose its own rules of procedure. This ability has been upheld by the Supreme Court, so long as those rules are not inherently unconstitutional.

There is certainly nothing expressly unconstitutional about unlimited debate on matters before the Senate. In addition, as written, Rule XXII places a procedural requirement of a supermajority only on the ending of debate, rather than on the passage of a bill, which I believe would be unconstitutional. Eventhough the argument could be made that it "in effect" creates such a requirement, I believe the filibuster itself to be constitutional.

Now the question arises, if the filibuster is constitutional, can the majority party do away with it? The answer, I believe, is yes. The problem at hand does not arise from Rule XXII by itself , but rather from Rule XXII in conjunction with Rule V Part 2:

2. The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules.

Because the Senate only changes 1/3 of its membership every two years, they consider themselves a continuing body and therefore feel that they can keep a permanent set of rules in place, as opposed to the House which re-enacts new rules every two years.

The problem with this approach is that even though 2/3 of the Senators stay, the changing of 1/3 of the Senators can and in fact has, changed the majority makeup of the Senate. This new majority is, as it currently stands, bound by the rules put in place by some earlier session, in effect binding the current Senate to the will of a previous one. This binding or "entrenchment," as it is generally called, flies in the face of the constitutional principle of legislative equality, i.e. one legislative session is equal in power to all other legislative sessions. This means that one legislature cannot bind the hands of future legislatures.

This principle has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court in cases such as CONNECTICUT MUT. LIFE INS. CO. v. SPRATLEY in the opinion of which it stated "each subsequent legislature has equal power to legislate upon the same subject," and REICHELDERFER v. QUINN in which it states "the will of a particular Congress which does not impose itself upon those to follow in succeeding years."

Because of this evidence, I believe that while a filibuster in and of itself is constitutional, the conjunction of rules V and XXII is patently unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. The majority should be free to set the rules concerning filibuster as they see fit.

The Book Meme

2005-04-29T09:16:00.000-05:00

Well, Tom over at hamstermotor saw fit to inflict me with the book meme. So here it is:

You're stuck in Fahrenheit 451. Which book do you want to be?

Having never read Fahrenheit 451, I don't precisely know the guidelines for this, but judging from Tom's explanation, I now have the power to memorize entire texts, in essence becoming that text.

For me, the first choice is easy, Atlas Shrugged. I would dearly love to have John Galt's 90 page speech memorized.

In addition, I would memorize Human Action, Man, Economy, & State, The Communist Manifesto, and The Bible.

The last two might surprise you, but they are two of the most influential works in the history of man. Although I don't espouse the ideas in either, I think I would be well served by knowing them in their entirety.

Have you ever had a crush on a fictional character?

Like Tom, I was taken aback by Dagny Taggart.

I am sure there were others, but they escape me at the moment.

The last book you brought is:

The last book I actually paid for was The Complete Guide to Offshore Money Havens by Jerome Schneider. Though Schneider is a scam artist, his book and more directly my research of the things outlined in his book, lead me to more legit ways to deal with Offshore Investing.

What was the last book you read, and what are you currently reading?

I just last week completed a re-reading of Anthem.

I am not currently reading a book per se, but I am reading Rothbard's primer The Austrian Theory of Money which should normally be read prior to the reading of more advanced works on the subject, but since I jumped on the heavy stuff first I am just systematically making my way through the Rothbard section of The Austrian Study Guide.

What five books would you take with you on a desert island?

Hmm...assuming that I was going to that island by choice and was otherwise prepared for such an experience, I would bring...well, I don't know what I would bring. They would presumably be something I have yet to read. When I figure it out, I will update this post.

Who are you going to inflict with this meme? (3 people)

Sorry guys! As I am too lazy to go and tag them individually, these people should now consider themselves tagged:

Al at Old Whig's Brain Dump
Invadesoda at Propaganda Machine
Stan at The New American Revolutionist

Girl Friday

2005-04-29T00:11:00.000-05:00

Here is this week's Girl Friday. A Brazilian beauty by the name of Ana:

Throwing a Wrench in the Process

2005-04-28T12:18:00.000-05:00

I am constantly looking for ways to throw a wrench in the seemingly unstoppable juggernaut of government growth. Via Powers Not Delegated, I have found something that just might work.

DownsizeDC.org is proposing that all members of both houses actually be required to read a bill in its entirety before voting on it.

Such a requirement would definitely have a curbing effect on all the piggyback pork and other tripe that comes out of those bodies as proposed law. In fact, I would say the same policy should extend to the President before he signs the bills into law.

Previous Posts and Archives

2005-04-28T01:20:00.000-05:00

I just noticed that my Previous Posts and Archives links were not working. However, as I received no complaints, I guess I fixed it before you guys nailed me on it.

Asininity2

2005-04-27T23:03:00.000-05:00

I've heard some pretty asinine arguments in my time, but this post is up there.

For years now, there have been those who have justified reverse discriminatory programs such as Affirmative Action. Their argument has almost inevitably been that AA was not discriminatory against white males, but rather that it was just retribution for past wrongs.

Apparently some are now ready to take it to the next level and state openly that racism is OK so long as it is directed towards the majority. Hell, he even goes so far as to call it a "liberating force." I wonder if this sentiment will remain in the future when America is no longer majority white. Will Whites then be justified in their racism because it is directed at whatever race is the majority?

What about other countries where Whites are already a minority? Is racism by the whites OK then? Hell, forget the macro level of countries. What about the micro level of cities? There are many large cities in the US where Whites are already the minority. Are they justified in racism just because the positions of power are held by another race?

The answer to all these questions is, of course, a resounding NO! Racism is wrong 100% of the time, without exception. It is time to stop justifying bad behavior just because it furthers your desired social engineering goals. Such a justification creates a very slippery slope and if attitudes such as this persist, then surely one day the slope will be sliding in a direction they did not intend.

UPDATE:

Tom makes a good point in the comments:

The phrase "reverse discrimination" is nonsensical. It is a policy of coercion aimed at one group. In a free market, such discrimination is tampered by the fact that the discriminating party must bear the consequences of his actions. Discrimination in a free market is an expression of property rights, and with property rights comes the responsibility for one's idiotic actions.

In doing so, he brought to my attention a slip on my part that I often chide others for making, that is, the improper use of the language.

By simply using a derivation of the en vogue term "reverse discrimination" rather than the more precise and appropriate term "discriminatory," I think I conveyed something I did not intend. I am in full agreement with Tom's explanation of discrimination and the free market.

In addition, my use of the word "racism" was intended only to convey one interpretation of the word: "The belief that some races are inherently superior (physically, intellectually, or culturally) to others and therefore have a right to dominate them." As a firm believer in judging everyone as an individual and by their chosen actions rather than by an accident of birth, I find racism (by this definition) to be irrational.

I did not intend to make assertions concerning any discrimination that might arise from such beliefs, for as stated above, I firmly believe in the individual right to discriminatory action based on whatever criteria that individual chooses. Others are then free to interact with him as they see fit.

I hope this clears things up some.

Free Money To Pay Your Bills!

2005-04-27T09:40:00.000-05:00

You've seen the ads on TV. A hyper-animated guy in a suit covered with question marks frothing at the mouth about how you can free government money to pay your bills. From his website:

Everyone qualifies!

Government money programs aren't only for the very needy. Even those who make $35,000, $50,000, even $85,000 a year can qualify for many of these programs. And others programs have no income requirements at all. You can even be a millionaire and get free money from the government (like Donald Trump, Sam Donaldson and even George W. Bush and Dick Cheney did)!

It's Money You Never Have To Repay! Learn About:

Government Money That Goes Directly Into Your Pocket

Government Offices That Pay Your Bills Directly

Free Goods and Services From Professionals That will never send you a bill

Wow! Sounds great doesn't it? Just let the government take care of all your needs! Why not, it's FREE!

For some reason, my biological mother (who is also a member of AARP, bless her heart) decided to fork out the $60 plus to get the book. Well, she forked out half and her friend forked out half, so they could share the book. Since it was currently in rotation at my mom's, I decided to take a look at the 4000+ ways he lists to bilk the American taxpayer (to be fair, a good portion of the book covers non-profits as well).

Here are some of the tidbits I found:

Rid Your Neighborhood of Troublemakers

Some states allow local community groups to get tenants or property owners thrown out of the neighborhood -- under civil laws, not criminal laws -- if they are involved with drugs or are a nuisance to the community.

Outstanding! Don't like your neighbor, have the government throw him out on his ass!

Free Nutrition Counseling and Classes

Nutrition counseling, menu planning, cooking instruction and comparison shopping is available from your local County Cooperative Extension Service. Group instruction is free of charge, but persons requesting individual lessons are asked to pay for the lesson materials.

Don't know what to have for supper, let the government tell you. Be sure to bring along some friends so as to avoid the "individuality" surcharge.

For Those Who Lost Their Jobs Because Of Trade Act

Trade Readjustment Allowances (TRA) are income support to persons who have exhausted Unemployment compensation and whose jobs were affected by foreign imports.

Did you lose your job to the damn foreigners? Fear not, Uncle Sam will put you on the dole. Don't worry, if you just had your hours reduced, you can still get a piece of the action.

There are literally thousands of these in this book. It is good to know that someone is looking out for the little guy and helping them get all they can out of the government. After all, it's government money, so it's free!

The Lesbian Lifestyle

2005-04-27T00:15:00.000-05:00

As I was doing my daily blogsurfing yesterday, I came across this site. I don't know that I am their target audience, but having a half-sister and a cousin that are lesbians, I am sympathetic to their cause.

Since I have been working on my Photoshop and Illustrator skills, I decided to have a shot at the "Design a Header" contest they are having. The only stipulation was the size, 750x200. Here is my entry (only smaller):

At some point they will post all the entries and there will be a vote, hopefully they like my entry and I at least do well in the vote.

Useful Tool

2005-04-26T13:33:00.000-05:00

I found this "Readability Test" while I was surfing yesterday (sorry, I can't remember which blog). It checks your site and gives you the Gunning-Fog Index, Flesch Reading Ease, and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of your site. Here are my results:

I generally try to write my blog the way that I speak, as opposed to how I would write a graded essay or something of that sort, so as not to try to sound overly pedantic; a problem that a lot of libertarians have in both speech and writing.

UPDATE: I found it at psychopolitik, a good libertarian blog worth your time, and someone I need to add to my "Blogs I Read" List.

Thoughts on Abortion

2005-04-26T10:18:00.000-05:00

I was reading this article, which tangentially discusses abortion. It got me to thinking about my position on this topic.

Within the libertarian community, there is much disagreement on this issue. In my experience, most come down on the "pro-choice" side of the issue, with the main argument for such being that it is an issue of self-ownership. A woman owns her body and should be able to do with it as she pleases including, as many put it, protecting herself from a "parasitic entity" living in her body against her will.

At least I can say that coming from libertarians this idea and belief is actually honestly felt. I take no issue with them making this argument or working to promote it. However, when I hear Democrats and other leftists make the argument I find it laughable. These people hold no actual aversion to controlling the body or mind of another. They advocate such control on a daily basis as they push for increased government control on myriad issues.

Take for example the current situation in North Carolina. Those on the left are arguing against the move to protect pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control and the "morning-after" pill on a moral basis. The argument they use, however, is basically that a pharmacist is no better than a vending machine and must blindly follow what is written on the script pad. My position on such a proposal is simple. Pharmacists who own their own stores should be free to dispense or not dispense any medicine that they choose for any reason that they choose. If they work for someone else, they should follow the dispensing guideline of their employer who they work for of their own free will.

The above is just a single instance where those on the left show that they have no real concern for controlling someone else's body. As I said there are countless other positions that could be demonstrated to be in direct contradiction to the left's supposed belief in right to self. However, I digress. Back to the issue at hand, my position on abortion.

For me, it is an issue of self-responsibility. People must be held accountable for the actions they take against others (people should be free to do unto themselves as they see fit). Sex has one biological purpose, the creation of new members of the species. If you engage in heterosexual intercourse, it is always a possibility that the woman will become impregnated. As a responsible person, you must accept this a fact and either take what actions you see as necessary to prevent the impregnation or take responsibility when the impregnation occurs.

At this stage, I don't think you would find much difference in my opinion and most other libertarians. Where we part company is in what constitutes "responsibility" after the impregnation. The argument that the fetus is some parasite with no claim to the mother's body is, to me, specious. It is not as if this fetus was some bacteria or leech hanging out freely in nature waiting for you to wander by so that it could make use of the resources of your body against your will. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The fetus does not exist without the direct action of the mother and father.

I therefore argue, that the mother's right to self becomes subservient to the right to self of the fetus, who exists only due to the direct action of the mother. The mother may not want the child, but for me, she and the father made a de facto agreement that the fetus has the right to exist and therefore, right to self, when they willingly engaged in a biological act with no other function than the creation of life. This is not changed by the fact that they chose to use some type of contraception, none of which are 100% effective in the prevention of pregnancy.

Of course, the question arises of when is a fetus to be considered an independent life, separate from that of the mother. When does a fetus have right to self? For me personally, that right exists immediately upon conception. Reasonable people could certainly argue otherwise. After all, there is certainly a stage in the development during which the fetus has no independent consciousness and for all intents is not much different than any other tumor growing in someone's body. The difference for me is that no matter how much the tumor develops it will never become a sentient being, whereas the fetus will.

As you probably noticed, I used the term "direct action" as it relates to the parents, especially the mother. Another situation altogether arises when there was not direct action by both parents, such as rape or forceful incest (which is in itself rape). In these cases, the mother did not willfully enter into the "de facto" agreement of which I wrote earlier and the fetus therefore holds no claim to the mother.

The quandary for me arises when it is time to put abortion in terms of legality. Though I personally believe abortion of the fetus of two people who had consensual sex to be the equivalent of murder, I understand that others have different views of when right to self attaches to the fetus. Therefore, I do not personally take a position on the legality of early term abortion. Late term abortions are appalling and should not be legal.

The amazing thing (at least to those on the left, and even some libertarians) about my position is that it was derived with a complete absence of religious guidance or belief. Contrary to what they would have you believe, not everyone that opposes abortion is a religious fanatic out to institute some sort of Christian sharia.

Secret Identity

2005-04-25T14:14:00.000-05:00

I made a slight addition to my blog, but it is not readily apparent. Let's see who the first to figure it out will be.

Hint: It is not that little house icon.

UPDATE: Hmm...no one figured it out. That is a surprise. I thought that the title of this post was a good clue. I added a hidden skin to the site. Actually, kind of a 3/4 skin. Since I am here on Blogspot with no PHP, I couldn't do a full skin by changing out my sidebar .pngs and rearranging the way they are layed out (at least I don't know how).

If you are using either FireFox or Opera, you can go to the toolbar and change the stylesheet that way or you can locate the hidden links I have placed in the footer and change it any browser.

Let me know what you think of it.

UPDATE 2: I have added buttons to the top of the left sidebar for changing skins.

More New Blogs

2005-04-24T11:42:00.001-05:00

I have some more new blogs to add to my growing list:

hamstermotor is run by Tom the Pooklekufr who, like me, has a taste for the Austrians.

Ashish's Niti is run by California libertarian Ashish Hanwadikar. He is the latest member of 25 For Freedom.

The next group: Birth of a Neocon, The Gun-Toting Liberal, The New Oklahoma Democrat, and Stop the ACLU are the blogs of my fellow contributors at Balance of Power.

Be sure to go take a look around at these sites. You just might find something interesting.

Stupid White Bands

2005-04-23T15:42:00.000-05:00

I'm sure that you've seen them, those stupid white bands popping up on blogs of all persuasions. They link to causes like Blogs for Terri and Make Poverty History and who knows how many others.

For some reason, they just annoy me. Therefore, I decided to make this parody of them. I even made it better than the originals. Some of the originals are just a transparent .GIF sitting in the top corner and have a hyperlink on the entire image even the transparent part. Some, move a step up by using an image map so that only the band itself is clickable, but it is still fixed to the top corner of the page. If you scroll down you can no longer see either of those.

I have made mine static relative to the screen. If you scroll, it comes with you. The only problem is that Google bar that Blogspot throws in at the top of the blog. It makes a portion of it initially hidden, but when you scroll it looks right, the other option was too make it entirely visible from the start, but then when you scroll there would be a big gap.

At any rate, it was a fun little project for me this afternoon.

UPDATE: Hmm...it is working great in Opera, it shows up in IE but doesn't move, and in FF it is on the wrong side and doesn't move. I tested it on another website in all three and it worked fine. It also worked fine when I did a template preview in FF. I'll have to figure out what's wrong. Dammit, I am liking Blogger less and less these days.

UPDATE 2: Well, it looks like it may not be Blogger directly, but how the script interacts with the CSS template. Back to the drawing board. I am going to temporarily disable my band.

UPDATE 3: OK, I have come up with a workaround while the JS I originally used is being modified. The band should now work in everything but IE, in which it appears, but does not move.

Update 4: Success! I learned a new CSS property today that solved the problem of the band being stuck under the Google bar.

Conversations With Carl

2005-04-22T13:00:00.000-05:00

I will be starting a new feature here at this blog. As you can see from the title of this post, it will be called "Conversations With Carl." The "Carl" in question is Dr. Carl Milsted, Jr., the co-founder of Libertarian Reform Caucus (of which I am a member).

We are currently engaged in an ongoing email exchange concerning certain ideas that he has put forth. Those of you familiar with Dr. Milsted will know that he falls on the left side of the libertarian spectrum, whereas I fall considerably further to the right. I am not an activist like Dr. Milsted, but rather just an average guy looking for the best means with which to increase the liberty in the US. The purpose of this exchange was originally for my own personal edification, but I decided that it would be a good idea for others to see this exchange as well.

This series is neither an endorsement of the ideas of Dr. Milsted, nor a refutation. It is simply meant to be an exchange of ideas between two guys that think the LP as it now stands, is in need of reform. I do not know where this will lead, but my hope is that it will help serve as a bridge between factions within the "reform" wing of the LP (of which I am not currently a dues paying member).

The first post in this series stems from questions I had about a comment Dr. Milsted made on this post over at QandO, whose Neolibertarian Network I am considering joining.

Dr. Milsted (from QandO comment): At the federal level, I would tax things protected by the feds:

1. Corporations. A corporate VALUE tax (based on market cap) instead of a corporate income tax. No more withholding of dividends in order to avoid taxes! No more conglomerate mania. No more penalty for stock traders.

Liberty Dog (via email): How would you go about implementing such a plan? Valuations can fluctuate greatly over the course of the year. Would you use the average over the course of the year?

DM: I think averaging over the course of the year would work. Given that this would take a trivial amount of automated computer time processing public data, the effort of doing this daily is no biggie.

Note that this choice of taxing value is based on both lefty concerns and pure natural rights libertarian concerns. Suppose we did away with government and had private corporations providing arbitration and protection services. I strongly suspect that insurance would be based far more on the value of property protected than it would be on income generated by that property. A value tax as a replacement for an income tax is a step closer to anarchic conditions.

LD: What would you do about non-public businesses?

DM: This is tricky, since there is no market price for a private corporation. One approach is that given in Robert Heinlein's The Number of the Beast. In that novel [not one of Heinlein's best!] there is a parallel universe of Fundamentalist Christian Libertarian Nudists [typical Heinlein]. In that universe the only tax was a property tax [or was it a land tax? I forget]. But interestingly, the government did not assess land values. Instead, landowners assessed their own values. The values assessed were binding. If anyone found the assessed value to be low, they could legally buy the property at that value.

In other words, in Heinlein's story, property was assessed at the "ask" price vs. the "bid" price. You set you value at what you would happily sell the land at. You could do the same thing for private corporations: the owners could set the ask price for the entire corporation. If they undervalue the corporation, the risk getting bought out at less than would make them happy.

This does pose a problem for startups, which may have a great deal of value in terms of intellectual property but no income with which to pay the tax. A reasonable solution would be allowing the corporation to pay its tax in kind; that is, in non-voting shares of the company. Then, when the company makes income, the government gets dividends in proportion to its non-voting shares. Should the company buy back stock from its shareholders, it should have to buy back an equal amount from the government until the government owns none. Conversely, if it wants to buy back shares, it needs to find private owners willing to sell back to the company at the same price that the company is buying from the government.

LD: Do you believe corporations (as creations of the State) should continue to exist in their current forms, or would you support the ability for businesses to form by whatever guidelines they see fit?

DM: I do think corporations should be allowed to exist, but I also support the corporate value tax -- which could be on top of what every state property taxes the corporation may pay. There is a libertarian reason for this: a corporation is a more complicated legal entity. Thus, if we have fee-for-service government, then complicated legal arrangements should pay more than simple sole proprietorships for their protection. Dave Hollist runs for president every year pushing this principle, which he got from Ayn Rand. Government is in the business of enforcing contracts, so that is where it should get its revenues. A corporation is a complicated contractual arrangement.

LD: Would you make this tax flat for all businesses, or would it be progressive?

DM: Flat. But there would be double taxation of corporations that own corporations (subsidiaries), due to the extra layer of protection they get. The incentive would be to spawn off side businesses instead of conglomerating.

LD: What sort of tax do you envision for individuals?

DM: Property taxes on publicly detectable property would be paid by individuals who owned property.

LD: What is your view on progressive taxes in general?

DM: I think a homestead deductible for the amount needed to own a trailer on a subsidence farm is appropriate. Otherwise, flat rate. Flat rate property taxes are actually more progressive than our current income tax system. Property taxes hit old money as well as new money. It becomes easier to get rich, but you don't get paid some much for being rich.

DM (from QandO comment): The penalty for non-payment would be non-service. No pay tax; no get federal property protection. No jails needed.

LD: What services in particular?

DM: If you don't pay for a copyright (on an older work) it goes into the public domain. Ditto for a patent. Ditto for a deed of land (though in this case we might give the owner the amount from the auction minus taxes owed.)

If a corporation doesn't pay value tax, its charter ceases to be a legal contract. Whatever it owned is now in the public domain.

Note: My questions were based solely on his original comments. You will see my questions regarding Dr. Milsted's answers in the next post in this series.

The Balance of Power

2005-04-22T00:56:00.000-05:00

I have signed on to contribute to a new blog, The Balance of Power.

The format will be a weekly round robin in which one person starts a topic and then the others add their takes on the subject.

There will be team members covering (I believe) the full political spectrum from far left to far right. I of course, will represent the libertarian viewpoint.

It should be up and running in a week or so. I have no idea who the other team members are yet, but if the right people are chosen, it should be fun.

I will let you know when it is up and running.

Girl Friday

2005-04-22T00:24:00.000-05:00

OK...it is that time of the week again. It is Girl Friday. This week's photo is somewhat more risque than I have posted in the past. Therefore, like last week, I am implementing the "hidden picture" feature.

To view the photo, simply move your mouse to the blank space below. Enjoy!

Apparent ACLU Inconsistency

2005-04-21T22:52:00.000-05:00

Michael King over at Ramblings' Journal is posting on the ACLU's call for the arrest of Sean Hannity. Apparently, while in AZ doing a piece on the border situation, Hannity, in full view of Border Patrol Agents, stepped across the border into Mexico and then back into the US.

The ACLU and AZ State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema want him arrested.

Immediately upon reading this, I remembered (as I commented at RJ) that I had just seen the exact same thing last night. Bill Simon of CBS's 60 Minutes Wednesday stepped over the border and then back again as well as part of this story. The only difference, there were no Border Patrol Agents there as Simon stepped over and back again.

I am wondering where the calls from the ACLU and Rep. Sinema are for the arrest of Simon.

UPDATE:

Unfortunately, the 3 min clip of the piece available on the CBS website does not show the offense.

CafePress

2005-04-21T21:05:00.000-05:00

Well, I got both good news and bad news from CafePress today.

First, the good news. I sold my first item earlier this week. It was a T-shirt with this image:

The amazing (or perhaps not) thing was that it was purchased by someone living in a country considerably more socialist than the US.

Second, the bad news. They took down one of my pictures for trademark violation:

I suspected that they might. There are several varieties of this available around the net, but if I do say so, mine is the best design I've seen.

This follows the earlier removal of my Mickey Che image for copyright violation.

Oh well, perhaps if enough people will patronize my shop, I can move the operation to somewhere else, so be sure to click on that hand holding the globe at the top of the left sidebar to visit Liberty Dog's Swag Shack. There is lots of fun anti-Socialism/Marxism/Communism/UN stuff. I should be adding some more too, now that I have some items free.

Good or Bad?

2005-04-21T16:19:00.000-05:00

I was checking one of my many email accounts and came across this update from the LP:

Libertarian Party Membership Continues to Grow

Hard on the heels of the first full year of membership growth for the Libertarian Party in several years, the first quarter of 2005 saw continued growth -- and March provided the largest monthly increase in membership in nine months.

"Membership increased by 466 in March, and we have had 2.4 percent growth in membership between the end of 2004 (22,177) and the end of March, when it had grown to 22,706," said Jessica Neno Wilson, development coordinator for the national LP.

"We had 337 new members sign up in March and 1,528 Libertarian Party members renewed their memberships," she said.

I have mixed feelings about this.

First, I think it great that there are more people coming to libertarianism, though the announcement does not say if those 337 are completely new to libertarian thought and were convinced to join because of LP recruiting efforts, or if they have believed in libertarian philosophy for years and finally got around to joining the LP. I am sure it is probably a mix, with more coming in via the later rather than the former.

Of course, growth of 466 in a country of 290,000,000 plus doesn't exactly show a groundswell of sentiment in favor of libertarian ideas. However, after 4 straight years of declining membership, it is something.

This brings me to my second reaction. I hope that the LP doesn't interpret this as more than it actually is. As Wilson says:

It just so happened that several states sent in their 'join via state' memberships all at the same time, significantly boosting our figures for the month.

It is quite possible and very likely this is a statistical anomaly caused by the simultaneous submittal of several state's membership applications. We will have to see if this trend continues.

Hopefully, the LP does not see this increase as a justification for the status quo.

Things That Make You Go Hmm...

2005-04-21T14:05:00.000-05:00

As most of my regular readers know, I am an atheist. I am not, however, militantly anti-religion and don't consider those of faith to be idiots or morons, at least not based solely on their religious beliefs. Hell, I usually even go out of my way to correct those who cast blanket derogatories against religious people.

Sometimes though, it is hard work, especially when believers do crap like this. I understand that they are looking for affirmations of their faith, but my guess is that, if they exist, such signs probably won't manifest as urine/rust(??) stains. But that's just me.

(Hat tip Gay Orbit)

Social Promotion in Public Education

2005-04-21T12:00:00.000-05:00

As I was reading this post at shadesofgray (hat tip GM Roper), I was reminded of one of the many problems with the public education system in the US.

That problem is social promotion, the practice of advancing students to the next grade even though they are academically unprepared for such a move. One of the main arguments in favor of this plan is that a child could be "emotionally scarred" by being left behind as his friends move forward. Of course there in never any mention of the "emotional scaring" likely to be experienced by a student in high school who is still unable to read, let alone the more tangible effects of lacking the skills to be a productive member of society.

Back in the late 90's early 00's, there was a swing of the pendulum away from this practice towards retention, i.e. failing a student (or the more PC term, holding back). Naturally, there was a big uproar by the supporters of social promotion. There was a flurry of studies stating that retention didn't work and was "emotional scaring" for children.

Groups like the National Association of School Psychologists took positions against retention. The old stand-by was of course pulled out: "retention unfairly targets poor minorities.

Interestingly enough, most of these studies (at least the ones I have seen) also clearly stated (usually in passing) that social promotion does not work either. This didn't stop the screeds against retention though. I believe this is because the social promotion movement is merely part of the much larger movement in our country to completely remove all forms of personal responsibility from those currently burdening under its heavy yoke.

It has been a goal of those on the left to systematically remove the entire concept of personal responsibility from the sphere of existence and replace it instead with victimology. Nothing is your fault and any failures you have must be caused by some unjust system (usually Capitalism) or action working to hold you down. The benefits of accomplishing such a feat would, of course, be a public more malleable to ideas of increased government control.

Food Police

2005-04-20T10:12:00.000-05:00

The "Food Police" crowd, those who think they have a right to control what you eat (for your own good, of course), suffered a major setback with the of a newCDC estimate of the number of people who die from obesity.

Previously, the CDC had placed obesity in the No. 2 spot of "preventable deaths" behind another of the control crowd's big targets, tobacco. As it turns out, it is only No. 7 with an estimated 25,814 deaths. This represents only 1/14^th of the 365,000 touted in January.

Of course I doubt that in reality a thing as superfluous as facts will deter those out to protect you from yourself. Even the study's author, Katherine Flegal, is trying to mitigate the effects of this correction:

"This certainly shouldn't be interpreted to mean obesity isn't a problem anymore," said Katherine Flegal of the National Center for Health Statistics, who led the study in today's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. "Obesity certainly is still a problem."

Certainly, the fact that less than .009 percent of our population of 290,000,000+ dies annually because of obesity will not stand in the way of the efforts to lift the burden of personal responsibility that the proletariat now suffers under.

Hell, even if it was 365,000, this represents .12 percent of the population, hardly an endemic.

At least these researchers had the intellectual honesty to release the findings, even if they are clearly counter to their world view. To many times in this day and age, you see objective science being co-opted by those with a political agenda. The whole "Global Warming" issue is one such example.

Carnival of the Vanities

2005-04-20T09:41:00.000-05:00

The third part of my trifecta of link whorage is now up. Go over to Conservative Dialysis to check out Carnival of the Vanities, No 135.

Incremental Freedom was, of course, my entry there as well.

In the Mail

2005-04-19T14:02:00.000-05:00

I received my daily article from Mises.org. It is entitled "Is Austrian Economics Merely Religion?."

Here is the first couple of paragraphs:

In his latest column, Paul Krugman demonstrates more than anything that the emperor has no clothes. After correctly identifying the veracity of a recent study that said Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans on college and university faculties, Krugman then attempts to explain why that situation is the case. He starts off well, then veers into Neverland, and even lays his most dreaded attack on Austrian Economics, indirectly likening it to a religion.

His first reason, an appeal to self-selection, has merit. Krugman writes:
One answer is self-selection the same sort of self-selection that leads Republicans to outnumber Democrats four to one in the military. The sort of person who prefers an academic career to the private sector is likely to be somewhat more liberal than average, even in engineering.

I suspect he is right, or at least partly right. Many Republicans I know do not have the characteristics that would serve them well in academe which is no insult, believe me. It simply is a fact that people who might have the personal proclivities to be liberal Democrats also are people who might thrive in the ivory tower atmosphere that is as much about politics as it is academic inquiry. (I'll leave aside his strange assumption that the academia and the "private sector" are opposites by definition.)

Had Krugman stopped there, I would have applauded his answer and read another column. Unfortunately, he was just getting warmed up.

Be sure to check it out.

25 Reasons I Might Call You a Jackass

2005-04-19T13:51:00.000-05:00

As I was looking for the old Fuki post mentioned in the previous post, I came across this gem:

1. You ask me if I have seen that brilliant new film by Michael Moore.
2. You tell me that the government taxes me for my own good.
3. You look at me with that "you're eating a poor dead animal" look as I consume my medium-rare rib-eye.
4. You happen to mention that I share my name with that aforementioned ass-clown.
5. You fail to put on your turn signal before turning into the same place that I have been trying for 10 minutes to get out of.
6. You get in the left lane on the interstate and drive at or below the posted speed limit.
7. You leave your shopping cart to roam aimlessly about the parking lot where it inevitably finds my driver's side door.
8. You spout off some asinine comment about how I am doing my daughter a disservice by keeping her out of public schools.
9. You complain about what a mess our country has become, but you don't vote.
10. You tell me that the UN serves any purpose other than providing totalitarian scumbags with a pulpit from which to beat the US.
11. You burn down a car dealership in order to provide the East Podunk Spotted Walking Lizard with room to stretch its legs.
12. You fart and try to blame it on anyone other than yourself.
13. You support Affirmative Action when it comes to college admittance, but not when selling cookies.
14. You stand so close to me on the elevator that I can smell the pimento cheese sandwich you had for lunch when we are the only two people on board.
15. You snort when you laugh.
16. You claim that I am the one who is misinformed as I debunk your tales of man-made global warming.
17. You say you are moving out of the country if "Candidate X" wins, but fail to do so.
18. You blame the failure of public schools on lack of funding.
19. You walk around in public with your size 24 ass squeezed into a pair of size 14 spandex shorts.
20. You sit at the traffic light picking your nose for 10 seconds after it has turned green.
21. You sue someone else for something that is your own fault.
22. You try to pass off a list of "positive" rights as anything other than entitlements.
23. You think that your needs are somehow a claim to anything that belongs to me.
24. You claim to support the military as you call them thieves, murderers, and thugs.
25. You defy any other classification.

EU vs US

2005-04-19T13:45:00.000-05:00

I have been noticing a slight buzz around the Blogosphere about this piece in the NYT. In it, the author (an American living in Oslo) discusses the differences in living conditions between Europe and the US. In doing so, he cites the Timbro Study. That got me to digging through the Fuki Blog archives to find this post by me back in July of last year:

I have discussed the many differences between the EU and US in several different forums (both American and European) and thought I would talk a little bit about it here.

Here is a very interesting study by a couple of Swedish economists comparing the EU and the US in terms of economic prosperity. It is 49 pages, but a very interesting read and written for the most part in easy to understand lay terms for those of you without much knowledge of economics.

Many of you will probably find that you are familiar with portions of the study as it briefly made the news several months ago. It is not all encompassing, but a good starting point on understanding how our divergent views affect our quality of life.

I was previously aware of the disparity between the US and Europe having traveled extensively in Europe, but I don't think many in Europe understand it or the reasons behind it. If they did, they would understand the real way to help people is to bring everyone to a higher level, even if it means continued economic disparity, rather than "equalizing" everyone at a lower level.

I think it will also important that the study was conducted by Swedes rather than Americans. Of course, it probably received even less press in Europe than it did here.

It is good to see that this information is still floating around out there, even if most in both the EU and US are completely oblivious to it. One of the interesting diagrams was a 2005 forecast (the study was published in June 04):

It will be interesting to see where we actually end up. These projections will be affected by the change of the EUR/USD from roughly 1.21 at the time of the study to roughly 1.30 now. In addition, I believe (though I don't have the numbers) that most of these EU countries are falling below the Eurostat projections. Which of these two will have the greater impact, I do not yet know.

The NYT article also cites a KPMG report. I believe it is probably the annual Competitive Alternatives report, though I have not yet looked it over.

I didn't find the Danish Ministry of Finance report on their website.

If you know for sure, which reports he is citing and have links to them, I would appreciate it.

Check These Guys Out

2005-04-18T14:34:00.000-05:00

As I was perusing my Technorati links, I came across a couple of new blogs:

a will to exist is the blog of a fellow Free State Project member.

GM's Corner is written by a fellow Texan from the right side of the aisle.

They both had the good sense to link to me, so they obviously are worth checking out.

UPDATE:

I have also added Powers Not Delegated. It is a very good read.

One of the Important People

2005-04-18T10:03:00.000-05:00

I guess now that I am a big-time blogger of the highest levels, I have become one of the Important People. That is the only explanation I can come up with as to as to why Suha Arafat would turn to me for assistance:

Dear Friend,
I am Mrs. Suha Arafat, the wife of Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader who died recently in Paris. Since his death and even prior to the announcement, I have been thrown into a state of antagonism, confusion, humiliation, frustration and hopelessness by the present leadership of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the new Prime Minister. I have even been subjected to physical and psychological torture. As a widow that is so traumatized, I have lost confidence with everybody in the country at the moment.
You must have heard over the media reports and the Internet on the discovery of some fund in my husband secret bank account and companies and the allegations of some huge sums of money deposited by my husband in my name of which I have refuses to disclose or give up to the corrupt Palestine Government.
In fact the total sum allegedly discovered by the Government so far is in the tune of about $6.5 Billion Dollars. And they are not relenting on their effort to make me poor for life. As you know, the Moslem community has no regards for woman, more importantly when the woman is from a Christian background, hence my desire for a foreign assistance.

Naturally, I will receive a tidy sum for helping her with $21 million of that money which she has managed to squirrel away.

Unfortunately for Suha, she didn't read my last blog, so she wouldn't know that I considered Yasser to be a murderous thug and a thief. Therefore I could not in good conscious help her keep the money stolen from the Palestinian people.

Perhaps she would be better served by contacting the fine people at Daily Kos or Eschaton, who are probably more inclined to help.

New Blog Carnival Showcase

2005-04-18T09:41:00.000-05:00

The New Blog Carnival Showcase is up at Ogre's Politics & Views.

Incremental Freedom is featured there as well. Don't miss it, you just might find a blog or two that you like.

Carnival of the Capitalists

2005-04-18T00:03:00.000-05:00

This week's Carnival of the Capitalists is up over at Gongol.com.

Be sure to check it out. My post Incremental Freedom was chosen as an Editor's Pick.

Reconciliation, Part 2

2005-04-17T18:09:00.000-05:00

About a week ago, I posted about an article by Dr. Edward Younkins in which he reconciled the Ideas of Randian Objectivism with Misesian Economics.

Today, I came across this piece by Bettina B. Greaves over at Mises.org which discusses the same thing.

In fact, it cites the aforementioned piece by Younkins. Be sure to give it a read.

Tensions in China Remain High

2005-04-17T11:25:00.000-05:00

The situation in China continues to remain bad as calls for more protests go out.

Despite apparent moves by the Chinese Government to dissuade people from repeating last weekend's violence, phone and Internet messages have gone out calling for rallies in Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Guanzho, Shenyang and Chengdu.

In many cases, these "rallies" have turned into violent mobs going beyond civil protest and engaging in vandalism.

Hopefully things will be calmed down by the time I get to Shenzhen.

For the Children

2005-04-16T11:40:00.000-05:00

Almost without fail, anytime someone says they are doing something "for the children," they are about to embark on some endeavor that is a major rights violation. So is the case with H.R. 1528 authored by James Sensenbrenner (R-WI).

Apparently utilizing his super-human sense of observation, he realized the "War on Drugs" is a failure. Wow...master of the obvious. However, rather than rework the failing strategy like a good field commander, he instead has decided to turn this into a nuclear war that no one will win. H.R. 1528 seeks to implement new Draconian rules to fight this battle against drugs.

Here is one portion I find most disturbing:

(j) Maintaining Drug-Involved Premises Affecting Children- Section 416 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 856) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)(1) by inserting `storing,' before `or using';

(2) by inserting `(1)' after `(b)';

(3) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following:

`(2) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section, knowing that the manufacture, distribution, storage, or use of any controlled substance involves or is intended to involve a person under the age of 18 or an incompetent person, shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 (if the offender is an individual) and not more than $8,000,000 (if the offender is an organization) and imprisoned not less than 5 years or more than life, and if the defendant is the parent or guardian or otherwise responsible for the care or supervision of such person shall be fined as provided in this paragraph and imprisoned not less than ten years or more than life.'.

Mr. Sensenbrenner is trying to turn every person in this country into a cop. He is in essence saying do the Police's job for them or we'll throw you in jail for at least 5 years and perhaps for life. If you are a parent, it starts at 10 years minimum. And don't think you can make the report at your leisure:

`SEC. 425. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who witnesses or learns of a violation of sections 416(b)(2), 417, 418, 419, 420, 424, or 426 to fail to report the offense to law enforcement officials within 24 hours of witnessing or learning of the violation and thereafter provide full assistance in the investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of the person violating paragraph (a).

`(b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be sentenced to not less than two years or more than 10 years. If the person who witnesses or learns of the violation is the parent or guardian, or otherwise responsible for the care or supervision of the person under the age of 18 or the incompetent person, such person shall be sentenced to not less than three years or more than 20 years.'

Yep, even if you report it, but it is greater than 24 hours, you can still be thrown in jail. You also have to continue to do the work of the Police until they successfully convict someone.

Police get a salary, police are trained, police carry firearms. None of this applies to the laypersons the Congressman is trying to draft into involuntary police service.

This bill is overly far reaching and could affect entire neighborhoods where drugs exist. In addition, it creates rifts in families.

Say you were cleaning your teenage son's room. You accidentally knock a box off a shelf and find that it contains some pot and a pipe. A normal parent would probably react by sitting down with their child and discussing the effects of drugs and the rules of the house. For Mr. Sensenbrenner, that is not enough. He wants you to report your child to the police. That's one hell of a rock and a hard place. You report the child, he goes to jail. You fail to report your child, and someone else does, you go to jail.

The last thing a teenager that may be experimenting with drugs needs is the added pressure of being the reason one or both of his parents is spending 10 years in jail. That certainly isn't going to curtail his drug use.

I could go on, this is just one portion of a larger piece of nightmare legislation, but this post would be several pages long.

Please write your Representatives and Senators to let them know that enough is enough. Such measures are just not acceptable and will certainly do more harm than good.

You can find more on this issue at QandO and Talk Left.

25 For Freedom

2005-04-15T23:57:00.000-05:00

As I was reading the latest issue of Time, I had an idea. I want to do a similar project here in the Blogosphere, except that it will be dedicated to the 25 people most influential to libertarian thought throughout history.

What I propose is to have libertarian bloggers send me a list of those they consider to have had the most influence on libertarian thought. I will compile the list and then anyone who submitted a list will be able to vote online via a Condorcet voting script to determine the top 25. Then each blogger (assuming we have 25) will get to write a short 250-300 word writeup on one of the top twenty five. If we have more than 25 bloggers interested in doing a bio, then we will have writeups for honorable mentions as well.

After this is complete, I will do a post listing the top 25 (and honorable mentions if applicable) with a short excerpt of the writeup and a link to the author's blog post on that person.

This should be a fun project, but I need your help to make it happen. If you are a libertarian blogger and are interested in this project, please do a post on your blog letting others know about this project. Even if you are not interested in doing one of the writeups, send me your lists along with your blog URL. The more input, the better this project will be.

UPDATE: Here are the project members so far:

Liberty Dog at One Billion Red Chinese and a Dog Named Liberty
Invadesoda at Propaganda Machine
Stan at The New American Revolutionist
Al at Old Whig's Brain Dump
Ashish at Ashish's Niti
Tom at hamstermotor
Kenneth at Oldsmoblogger
Trevor at The Will to Exist
Todd at Mister Pterodactyl
Scott at Aggressive-Voice Daily

The Tax Man Cometh!

2005-04-15T11:31:00.000-05:00

Since today is the official deadline for filing your taxes, I figured that I (like half the Blogosphere) would do a post about taxes.

A little research brought me to this per curiam filing by the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (which covers, I believe, CT, NY and VT).

The case, brought by well known tax protester Robert Schulz, was dismissed, but there was important language in the decision:

In light of this, we view ourselves today as completing a task begun forty years ago and hold that, absent an effort to seek enforcement through a federal court, IRS summonses apply no force to taxpayers, and no consequence whatever can befall a taxpayer who refuses, ignores, or otherwise does not comply with an IRS summons until that summons is backed by a federal court order. In addition, we hold that if the IRS seeks enforcement of a summons through the courts, those subject to the proposed order must be given a reasonable opportunity to contest the government's request. If a court grants a government request for an order of enforcement then we hold, consistent with 26 16 U.S.C. §7604 and Reisman, that any individual subject to that order must be given a reasonable opportunity to comply and cannot be held in contempt, arrested, detained, or otherwise punished for refusing to comply with the original IRS summons, no matter the taxpayer's reasons or lack of reasons for so refusing.

This is important in that it reverses prior precedent in that court and states that the IRS must bring action in Federal Court before they can bring action against you.

This is of course good news and hopefully a precedent that will be upheld in other courts.

However, don't be lulled into a false sense of security as this court only covers three states. I do believe the US Supreme court stated in United States v. Bisceglia that IRS summons hold no power without the initiation of a §7604 proceeding, but the language of the 2nd District goes further in my opinion. Besides, the IRS is well known to rely on the ignorance of the taxpayer when it is using its strongarm tactics.

There is a way to end all of the IRS madness. Write your Congressmen and tell them to support the Fair Tax, which while not perfect is a considerable step in the right direction.

State	Base Closed	Displaced Military	Affect on Border Security
Alaska	None	0	None
Arizona	Allen Hall Armed Forces Reserve Center	60	Minimal
California	Armed Forces Reserve Center Bell	24	Minimal
	Navy-Marine Corps Reserve Center, Encino	33	Minimal
	Navy-Marine Corps Reserve Center, Los Angeles	48	Minimal
Idaho	None	0	None
Maine	None	0	None
Michigan	Parisan U.S. Army Reserve Center, Lansing	25	Minimal
	Selfridge Army Activity	126	Minimal
Minnesota	None	0	None
Montana	Galt Hall U.S. Army Reserve Center, Great Falls	14	Minimal
New Hampshire	Doble U.S. Army Reserve Center Portsmouth	39	Minimal
New Mexico	Jenkins Armed Forces Reserve Center Albuquerque	35	Minimal
New York	Armed Forces Reserve Center Amityville	24	Minimal
	Army National Guard Reserve Center Niagara Falls	1	Minimal
	Carpenter U.S. Army Reserve Center,Poughkeepie	8	Minimal
North Dakota	None	0	None
Ohio	Army National Guard Reserve Center Mansfield	59	Minimal
	Army National Guard Reserve Center Westerville	12	Minimal
	Navy-Marine Corps Reserve Center Akron	26	Minimal
	Navy-Marine Corps Reserve Center Cleveland	24	Minimal
	Parrott U.S. Army Reserve Center Kenton	9	Minimal
	U.S. Army Reserve Center Whitehall	25	Minimal
Pennsylvania	Kelly Support Center	174	Minimal
	Navy-Marine Corps Reserve Center Reading	18	Minimal
	North Penn U.S. Army Reserve Center, Norristown	22	Minimal
	Serrenti U.S. Army Reserve Center, Scranton	47	Minimal
	U.S. Army Reserve Center Bloomsburg	20	Minimal
	U.S. Army Reserve Center Lewisburg	9	Minimal
	U.S. Army Reserve Center Williamsport	29	Minimal
	W. Reese U.S. Army Reserve Center/OMS, Chester	9	Minimal
Texas	Army National Guard Reserve Center #2 Dallas	90	Minimal
	Army National Guard Reserve Center (Hondo Pass) El Paso	106	Minimal
	Army National Guard Reserve Center California Crossing	47	Minimal
	Army National Guard Reserve Center Ellington	14	Minimal
	Army National Guard Reserve Center Lufkin	10	Minimal
	Army National Guard Reserve Center Marshall	15	Minimal
	Army National Guard Reserve Center New Braunfels	106	Minimal
	Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant	2	Minimal
	Red River Army Depot	9	Minimal
	U.S. Army Reserve Center #2 Houston	2	Minimal
Vermont	None	0	None
Washington	1LT Richard H. Walker U.S. Army Reserve Center	38	Minimal
	Army National Guard Reserve Center Everett	57	Minimal
	Navy-Marine Corps Reserve Center Tacoma	20	Minimal
	U.S. Army Reserve Center Fort Lawton	53	Minimal
	Vancouver Barracks	29	Minimal
Wisconson	Navy-Marine Corps Reserve Center Madison	23	Minimal
	Olson U.S. Army Reserve Center, Madison	103	Minimal
	U.S. Army Reserve Center O'Connell	11	Minimal