NCBartender

The Altruism of Auguste Comte

2012-01-25T13:05:00.000-08:00

From: Duty and Faith: an Essay on the Relation of Moral Philosophy to Christian Doctrine by Julius Lloyd 1884
"...Comte's Altruism advances beyond the limits of Christian doctrine. He teaches that, instead of loving our neighbour as ourselves, we should endeavour not to love ourselves at all. And this, which is the most original feature in Comte's doctrine, is claimed by his followers as an improvement on Christianity.
A fair comparison of the two will show that this fancied superiority is a dream of the study, and betrays a want of acquaintance with human nature. To exclude self-love is to take away the natural provision for self
Preservation and self-culture, which are necessary conditions of the welfare of society. On the other hand, to make self-love a standard of brotherly love, as in the precept, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," is to supply the most effective means by which brotherly love can promote its own object. Altruism without Egoism would be a vague yearning for the happiness of others, without any clear idea of happiness, what it is, or how it is to be obtained. If we suppose a company of pedestrians, each troubled in mind to be sure that his companions' boots fit them comfortably, and indifferent to his own, we should have a picture of a state of society in which Egoism was extinguished and Altruism remained. It would be necessary to find some kind of substitute for Egoism, in order to keep alive the sensibility to pleasure and pain, which is as necessary for the happiness of others as for our own. A man who wishes to make others happy has more power to do so in proportion as he feels sympathy in their pleasure; and thus Egoism has a function preparatory to Altruism. On strictly Altruist principles arts and sciences would languish. That which impelled Columbus to the discovery of America, and led on the inventors of the printing press and the steam engine, was not a prevision of the social benefits to follow, but rather an unsatisfied desire of the mind to accomplish a noble object."

To buy a DVDrom with 300 Books for Libertarians, Objectivists and Anarcho-Capitalists for only $1.59 go to Ebay at http://tinyurl.com/liberty300 or Ioffer at Click Here

The Nature of the State by Clarence Darrow

2012-01-20T08:52:00.000-08:00

In this heroic age, given to war andconquest and violence, the precepts ofpeace and good will seem to have beenalmost submerged. The pulpit, the press,and the school unite in teaching patriotism and in proclaiming the glory andbeneficence of war; and one may searchliterature almost in vain for one note of that "Peace on earth, and good will toward men" in which the world still professes to believe; and yet these benign precepts are supposed to be the basis of all the civilization of the western world. The doctrine of non-resistance if ever referred to is treated with derision and scorn. At its best the doctrine can onlybe held by dreamers and theorists, and can have no place in daily life. Every government on earth furnishes proof that there is nothing practical or vital in its teachings. Every government on earth is the personification of violence and force, and yet the doctrine of non-resist-ance is as old as human thought — even more than this, the instinct is as old as life upon the earth. The doctrine of non-resistance to evil does not rest upon the words of Christ alone. Buddha, Confucius, Plato, Socrates, show the evil and destruction of war, of conquest, of violence, and of hatred, and have taught the beneficence of peace, of forgiveness, of non-resistance to evil. But modern thought is not content to rest the conduct of life upon thetheories of moralists. The rules of lifethat govern men and states must to-daybe in keeping with science and conform to the highest reason and judgment of man. It is here that non-resistance seems to have failed to make any practical progress in the world. That men should "turn the other cheek," should "love their ene-mies," should "resist not evil," has ever seemed fine to teach to children, to preach on Sundays, to round a period in a sense-less oratorical flight; but it has been taken for granted that these sentiments cannot furnish the real foundation for strong characters or great states. It is idle to discuss "non-resistance" in its effect upon life and the world without adopting some standard of excellence by which to judge results. Here, as elsewhere in human conduct, after all is said and done, men must come back to the fundamental principle that the conduct which makes for life is wise and right. Nature in her tireless labor has ever been developing a higher order and a completer life. Sometimes for long periods it seems as if the world were on the backward course, but even this would prove that lifereally is the highest end to be attained. Whatever tends to happiness tends tolife, — joy is life and misery is death.I n his long and toilsome pilgrimage,man has come to his present estate through endless struggle, through brutal violence administered and received. And the question of the correctness of non-resistance as a theory, like any other theory, does not depend upon whether it can be enforced and lived now or tomorrow, but whether it is the highest ideal of life that is given us to conceive. In one sense nothing is practical excepting what is; everything must have been developed out of all the conditions of life that now exist or have existed on the earth. But to state this means little in the settlement of ethical questions, for man's future condition depends quite as much upon his mental attitude as upon any other fact that shapes his course. Everywhere it seems to have been taken for granted that force and violence are necessary to man's welfare upon the earth. Endless volumes have been written, and countless lives been sacrificed in an effort to prove that one form of government is better than another; but few seem seriously to have considered the proposition that all government rests on violence and force, is sustained by soldiers, policemen and courts, and is contrary to the ideal peace and order which make for the happiness and progress ofthe human race. Now and then it is even admitted that in the far distant ages yet to come men may so far develop toward the angelic that political governments will have no need to be. This admission, like the common concept, presumes that governments are good; that their duties undertaken and performed consist in repressing the evil and the lawless, and protecting and caring for the helpless and the weak. If the history of the state proved that governing bodies were ever formed for this purpose or filled this function, there might be some basis for the assumption that government is necessary to preserve order and to defend the weak. But the origin and evolution of the political states how quite another thing — it shows that the state was born in aggression, and thatin all the various stages through which ithas passed its essential characteristics have been preserved. The beginnings of the state can be traced back to the early history of the human race when the strongest savage seized the largest club and with this weapon enforced his rule upon the other members of the tribe. By means of strength and cunning he became the chief and exercised this power, not to protect the weak but to take the good things of the earth for himself and his. One man by his unaided strength could not long keep the tribe in subjection to his will, so he chose lieutenants and aids, and these too were taken for their strength and prowess, and were given a goodly portion of the fruits of power for the loyalty and help they lent their chief. No plans for the general good ever formed a portion of the scheme of government evolved by these barbarous chiefs. The great mass were slaves, and their lives and liberty held at the absolute disposal of the strong. Ages of evolution have only modified the rigors of the first rude states. The divine right to rule, the absolute characterof official power, is practically the same to-day in most of the nations of the world as with the early chiefs who executed their mandates with a club. The ancient knight who, with battle-ax and coat of mail, enforced his rule upon the weak, was only the forerunner of the tax-gatherer and tax-devourer of to-day. Even in democratic countries, where the people are supposed to choose their rulers, the nature of government is the same. Growing from the old ideas of absolute power, these democracies have assumed that some sort of government was indispensable to the mass, and no sooner had they thrown off one form of bondage than another yoke was placed upon their necks, only to prove in time that this new burden was no less galling than the old. Neither do the people govern in democracies more than in any other lands. They do not even choose their rulers. These rulers choose themselves and by force and cunning and intrigue arrive at the same results that their primitive ancestor reached with the aid of a club. And who are these rulers without whose aid the evil and corrupt would destroy and subvert the defenceless and the weak? From the earliest time these self-appointed rulers have been conspicuous for all those vices that they so persistently charge to the common people whose rapacity, cruelty and lawlessness they so bravely curb. The history of the past and the present alike proves beyond adoubt that if there is, or ever was any large class, from whom society needed to be saved, it is those same rulers who have been placed in absolute charge of the lives and destinies of their fellow men. From the early kings who, with blood-redhands, forbade their subjects to kill their fellow men, to the modern legislator, who, with the bribe money in his pocket, still makes bribery a crime, these rulers have ever made laws not to govern themselves but to enforce obedience on their serfs. The purpose of this autocratic power has ever been the same. In the early tribe the chief took the land and the fruits of the earth, and parceled them amongst his retainers who helped preserve his strength. Every government since then has used its power to dividethe earth amongst the favored few and by force and violence to keep the toiling, patient, suffering millions from any portion of the common bounties of the world. In many of the nations of the earth the real governing power has stood behind the throne, has suffered their creatures and their puppets to be the nominal rulers of nations and states, but in every case the real rulers are the strong, and thestate is used by them to perpetuate theirpower and serve their avarice and greed. To buy a DVDrom with 300 Books for Libertarians, Objectivists and Anarcho-Capitalists for only $1.59 go to Ebay at http://tinyurl.com/liberty300 or Ioffer at Click Here

Solyndra

2011-12-29T12:11:00.001-08:00

Arianna Huffington's Ignorance of Capitalism

2011-11-22T08:32:00.000-08:00

"It's time to drive the final nail into the coffin of laissez-faire capitalism by treating it like the discredited ideology it inarguably is." ~ Arianna Huffington

My Reply: It is stupid articles like this that demonstrate a horrific ignorance of economics. You cannot call for the end of something (laissez-faire markets) that never existed in the first place. We have had government intrusion in the markets from day one in the form of tarriffs and subsidies, and State involvement in the marketplace is so rampant that what we have now can better be called a Fascist Economy.

The "Giving Back" Fallacy

2011-11-19T07:38:00.001-08:00

I don't like the term "Giving Back." It is based on the biggest economic fallacy there is: The Zero Sum Fallacy. This fallacy states that there is a fixed pie and one can only gain at the expense of another. If this was the case we would still have a 17th century size economy. Anyone who does business, sets up shop, sells online, actually INCREASES the size of the pie.

All Governments Are Socialistic

2011-11-09T08:58:00.000-08:00

“Believing that certain forms of the state or certain forms of governing are socialist and certain forms are ‘free’ is erroneous and a bit ridiculous. All governing states are socialist by nature. The state by definition derives its control and power to enforce its monopoly by confiscating and redistributing the resources of its populace. It cannot survive without acting in this manner. While it may not directly control the ‘means of production’, to ensure its survival and growth it will control the necessary proportion of the product of those same productive means.
Attempting to try to ‘unsocialize’ the state is futile. One political party referring to the other as ‘socialist’ is hysterical. All politics that exist within the state monopoly are only variations on the question of who the wealth will come from and where it will go. This has always been the nature of the state.” ~Gene DeNardo
http://www.nolanchart.com/article7833-the-socialist-nature-of-government.html

Penn Jillette on Government Charity

2011-10-28T06:51:00.000-07:00

Occupy Wall Street, Socialism, and Hitler

2011-10-15T15:31:00.001-07:00

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927)

Elizabeth Warren’s Social Contract

2011-09-24T05:27:00.000-07:00

At every stage of building your business you had to pay off the mafia (taxes, licenses) for monopolistic services you had no choice over, and if your business succeeds, it is not because of anything you did, no, it is because of the government (mafia), and you need to keep on paying or else.
The people that educate, pave roads, or put out fires are compensated for their work by their customers, they have no further claim on anyone’s wealth.
I even hate the use of the words "social contract." Rousseau invented the idea and it ties everyone to a burdensome contract devised before they're even born. It's like Original Sin. Anything that is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality.

New Business: Climate of Fear

2011-09-16T06:12:00.000-07:00

When I tell people how I make money online the first thing I hear from them is: "Are you allowed to do that?" I think that is really telling. There is a climate of fear out here, fear of government interference and punitive action by lawyers that truly hampers and discourages new business growth.

The Light Bulb Problem

2011-08-31T10:48:00.000-07:00

It must be the rebel in me but despite the government ban, when an idea pops in my head, it still shows up as an incandescent bulb.

Blaming the Tea Party

2011-08-10T06:58:00.000-07:00

I think it's idiotic to blame any of the country's financial woes on the Tea Party. Almost every Western country is in financial trouble, and most of those operate without benefit of a Tea Party. They all do have one thing in common though: they have Government controlling the economy.
Besides, any country that has a debt in the tens of trillions has no business holding a AAA rating, and should have been downgraded a long time ago.

Albert Camus and being UNDERMINED

2011-07-16T17:16:00.000-07:00

I was reading Camus and he told a story of a man who committed suicide after his daughter's death. His explanation was that the incident "undermined" him. I keep thinking about the choice of that word...undermined. I guess anything that disturbs our comfort zone, anything that disrupts our lives does belittle us. We are then faced with our limitations - we realize we are no longer invincible. Heady thoughts.

2011-07-15T08:31:00.001-07:00

The government wants to promote home ownership, but I can't afford a home because of property taxes. The government is worried about gas prices, but they won't remove the gas tax. The government wants to promote job creation, but they won't remove the onerous restrictions on employers and new business owners. The government is worried about pollution, but they are the biggest polluters on the planet. How stupid are we to rally around these guys?

The TSA is GOD

2011-06-26T11:41:00.001-07:00

Top 5 Resources for Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists

2011-06-26T11:37:00.000-07:00

Watch on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47twH9dvGuU

Libertarian Anarchist Minarchist Quotes

2011-06-20T11:58:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYns_14e4bw

Annie Lowrey Tax-cut Brain Fart

2011-06-10T09:16:00.001-07:00

Annie Lowrey from Slate Magazine writes:

"The massive Bush tax cuts mark their 10^th birthday this week. Sadly, despite my best efforts to find something redeeming about them—honest!—there is little to celebrate. By nearly all of the metrics set out by President Bush himself, the cuts were a colossal failure."

Reply: Firstly, economic growth rates more than doubled up till 2007. What happened after that. Government instrusion in the Markets caused the Great Recession.
Secondly, I can't understand the mindset that argues for more taxes. What happened to you in the State-run Education system that makes you feel like it is a good idea to hand over yet more money to that violent and coercive monopoly called Government?
Can't find any reason to celebrate a tax cut? How about I get to keep more of my own money instead of having it spent on bombs and many other things I find immoral but am forced to pay for!

Government Kills Jobs

2011-06-03T09:29:00.000-07:00

Government says it is interested in job creation, in fact Obama says he has a laser-focus on jobs, but the facts show otherwise. In the 1950's 5% of Americans needed a state license to work. Today it is 23%. That's right, one in four American NOW needs to beg permission from a Government official to start a business.
But let's say you're like me and you want to work for company X which is already established. Well, the Government has put stiff restrictions on your being employed there. For instance, you cannot offer to work for a lesser pay than the minimum wage. This is illegal, even though you would lose a tremendous opportunity to sell yourself as a valuable employee for a better wage in the future. But wait, hiring you has become even more expensive. The business usually has to hire someone to take care of it tax burden, for it now has to collect taxes from you. Once you are hired, the business also has to pay more taxes BECAUSE of you. The business has to match your Social Security tax. When that is done it has to match your Medicare tax. When that is done it has to pay an Unemployment tax for you, something you the employee do not pay. This is on top of all the other taxes that the business has to pay long before hiring you, like Federal Income Tax, State Income Tax, State Business & Occupation Tax for all states in which business is conducted, Use Tax, State Unemployment Insurance, State Worker's Compensation Insurance, Business Licenses for all states, cities and counties in which business is conducted, Transportation taxes, Personal property tax, Real property tax, Heavy Vehicle fuel tax and the United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. More could be added.

Is it any wonder then that you are unemployed? If a business is punished for hiring you, then why would they hire you? Ever wonder why companies are moving overseas in droves. Think about this: Hundreds of millions of Asians in recent years have increased their standard of living substantially due to freer markets and economic expansions in that part of the world. This is undoubtedly good for Asia, but you have to wonder how many many millions of lost jobs this has cost Americans.

None of this is news, your government knows all this. It simply doesn't care. Your government is the reason you are jobless. If it was really concerned about your economic well-being then it would remove its tethers from the market and leave people free to do business how they wish. But then, we would realize something the government doesn't want you to know. It doesn't want people finally realizing that they are far better off without them.

Police brutality at Jefferson Memorial

2011-05-28T18:24:00.000-07:00

My Libertarian Manifesto

2011-05-26T04:00:00.001-07:00

A Libertarian Manifesto by Heinz Schmitz

Listen on YouTube

Many ask what difference does it make whether man supports the State or not.

It makes a big difference.

It makes all the difference in the world.

It is the difference between being free or being slaves; it is the difference between self-ownership or belonging to a ruling class.

It is the difference between property ownership and eminent domain.

It is the difference between being an individual, or a tiny speck in a collective.

It is a question of Progress or 10,000 years of State-induced human misery.

The history of man proves that the Government perverts man's concept of life and his place among men, and has made him a cringing coward before politicians and the judicial system.

If you believe in the State then you believe that man is basically evil and that only a group of appointed men from this same evil class can dominate other men, often to their detriment, then you devote your time paying to appease a violent and coercive monopoly.

If, on the other hand, you believe in the Individual, then you view man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. You are responsible for yourself - you do not feel entitled and demand money be stolen from others to pay your way.

That is the difference.

The sadistic delusion of Statism causes one to insist that others -- under pain of punishment -- be as miserable as himself, for under big government the lowly, wretched and the poor are man's highest ideal.

The inevitable result is that Man devotes his life, not to productivity and the pursuit of happiness, but to the theft of the producers and the pursuers of their own happiness.

His time and energy are wasted to insure that all men are on an even plane, that we must bow to the mediocre.

State fanaticism takes on many forms.

Some pick up muskets and bayonets and point them at the pawns of competing states. Some build concentration camps, some quell free speech, some destroy economies, other destroy lives by denying man's civil liberties as in the case of onerous and immoral drug laws.

Some shave their heads and join military cults, others pile on legislation, laws and regulations with the result of less production and more fear.

There is hardly a form of insanity or delusion that cannot be found in the thousands of asinine laws these rulers have produced.

Sabbath laws, alcohol laws, drug laws etc., as Lao-Tse once said: "The more laws one makes, the more criminals one produces."

It is now said that without even knowing it, the average person breaks three laws per day.

The State produces new criminals from ordinary hard-working citizens on a daily basis.

WE on the other hand do not believe that Man is a depraved human being. We do not believe we need a tyrant State and all of its three letter acronym departments to provide safety. We would rather have dangerous freedom than peaceful slavery.

Libertarianism, Minarchism and Anarchism or if you will, Anarcho-Capitalism are philosophies that gradually realize that anything the State does, the Free Market can do better. These are philosophies that realize that the Government at its very core is VIOLENCE. It is THE GUN IN THE ROOM, it is a monopoly on the use of force. It is the Mafia group that won, and as such does not deserve our honor nor our respect. To salute them or their symbols is to stand in blood.

Libertarians champion the poor. We realize that the Great Society reforms have created a permanent underclass. We know that Affirmative Action is the government's way of saying that certain ethnic groups are too stupid to make it on their own. Libertarian non-interventionism does not see color or race. It sees the greatest minority on earth - THE INDIVIDUAL! INDIVIDUALS freed from the shackles of State control and micro-management can do wonderful, creative and productive things.

Libertarians champion the producer in Society and knows instinctively that the Government produces nothing, but punishes Producers and Employers with onerous restrictions, regulations, licenses and taxes. We know that these barriers to employment are largely responsible for the recent high jobless numbers.

Libertarians call on you to become a courageous human being and do the best you can under any and all circumstances in this imperfect and troublesome world.

We call on you to be brave enough to stand on your own, knowing that when your time comes you did the best you could and that the world is better for your having lived.

A government could do no more.

Break the chains of state slavery, a state that believes you are too stupid to make your own decisions.

Arise and become a free and independent human being.

Dignify yourself as a Man, and justify your living by standing on your own.

Response to "Capitalism is Slavery"

2011-04-29T17:16:00.001-07:00

A response to http://bootme21.blogspot.com/2008/11/capitalism-is-slavery.html

Bootme21 says: The only thing that has substantially changed throughout history in the social structure is that now the slaves think they are free. Most cannot see the chains holding them in bondage, or feel the whip cracking on their back, so they experience an illusory state of "freedom." So much do they hold this idea, that they will fight to maintain the system that enslaves them.

Reply: I agree, however, they are not enslaved by Capitalism, they are enslaved by the opposite of Unfettered Free Market Capitalism, they are enslaved by the State. We have never really had pure laissez-faire Capitalism. We have always had the State. If I am employed I can leave my employer, after all, employment within a Capitalist system is a voluntary arrangement, and the employer, not the employee, is the one who pays unemployment insurance. If I am not eligible for Unemployment Insurance I can collect Welfare which is forcible taken from my neighbours without their consent in the form of taxes. If they refuse to pay their taxes, they will be jailed. If they resist arrest, they will be shot. This folks, is the TRUE slavery of our times.

Bootme21 continues: In closing, capitalism is based on property and ownership, which invariably lead to slavery. Whether "voluntary" or involuntary, the capitalist system cannot exist without a class of rulers and a class of the ruled.

Reply: I am a Capitalist, and I rule no one, however, the State rules me. I own no one. Capitalism actually ended The Chattel Slavery of the 19th century. A slave would only do so much work as he needed to do to get by, and the slave was more likely to sabotage the equipment. Chattel Slavery lacked the incentive system of Capitalism. The Communism of the 20th century continued the old slavery system. Citizens inside Communist countries were denied property rights and ownership, the opposite of what Bootme21 thinks slavery is. The result of that was the mass-slaughter of millions of people.

Capitalism is the freest philosophy we have, a system of living that should be separated from the state and the economy, much like we have separation of state and church. The big business we have today is not Capitalism, it is an unholy marriage of Government and Economy, it is Mercantilism, Protectionism, it is Political Entrepeneurship.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChBE5EFKREE

WARNING, PLEASE READ - I don't usually re-post these but...

2011-04-20T07:59:00.000-07:00

WARNING, PLEASE READ - I don't usually re-post these but... If someone comes to your front door, and asks you to remove your clothes, and dance in your front yard with your arms in the air.. DO NOT do this, it is a scam!! They just want to see you naked. Please copy and post this to your status -- I wish I had received this yesterday.... I feel so stupid now..

Obama = Bush

2011-04-17T15:19:00.000-07:00

Why I am opposed to socialism

2011-04-16T04:52:00.001-07:00

Ayn Rand the Motivational Speaker

2011-04-16T04:49:00.000-07:00

In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours. ~ Ayn Rand

How Taxes Work

2011-04-13T06:06:00.001-07:00

Your neighbor comes into your house, takes all your money without asking, goes to the store and spends it on crap and then gives you half while he keeps half, all the while calling this a "service" and then he expects gratitude in return...isn't this how taxes work?

Mcdonald's Restaurant Promotes Peace

2011-04-06T07:29:00.000-07:00

In his book The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Thomas L. Friedman proposed The Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention, observing that no two countries with a McDonald's franchise had ever gone to war with one another, a version of the democratic peace theory. The argument goes that when a country has reached an economic development where it has a middle class strong enough to support a McDonalds network, it will not be interested in fighting wars anymore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Arches

Government Leads to Innovation

2011-03-23T04:01:00.000-07:00

Newser recently reported that Government actually helps innovation. To say Government helps innovation to me is the same as saying the presence of Bacteria and Viruses have led to great advances in medicine.

The word "Booty" in the Bible

2011-03-23T03:58:00.000-07:00

They're taking the word "booty" out of the Catholic New American Bible and replacing it because "booty" has a different meaning now. Maybe they should take the phrase "any that pisseth against the wall" (1 Samuel 25:22 King James Version) and just replace it with "Charlie Sheen."

We never had full Communism either

2011-03-23T03:56:00.000-07:00

When I say that Laissez-faire Capitalism has never been tried, I am often met with the response that full scale Communism has never been tried either. The closest we got to Communism was answered by the wholesale slaughter of millions. The closest we got to Laissez-Faire capitalism gave us the United States. I know where I'd rather be.

Big Government Bacteria

2011-03-13T09:22:00.001-07:00

To say Government helps innovation is the same as saying the presence of Bacteria and Viruses have led to great advances in medicine.

Save the Economy - Ride a Bike?

2011-03-02T12:16:00.001-08:00

Some people are so stupid. This is a global economy! If I had to rely on selling to only people within a bike ride from me I'd starve. Albania tried going to "no car" route and its economy tanked. A rich country is a mobile country.

Communism is...

2011-03-01T20:06:00.000-08:00

Communism is Socialism with a Hard-On! ~ Heinz Schmitz

Canadian Doctors bribed to keep quiet about Cancer Deaths

2011-03-01T07:39:00.000-08:00

March 1 - 2011: Canadian politician Dr. Raj Sherman has heard from doctors who were bribed to keep quiet about cancer patients who were dying because of long wait times. According to the Calgary Herald "250 Albertans died -many from lung cancer -while they waited for lung surgery in a queue of 1,200 people."

Is this what Americans have to look forward to?

Obama: American has "the freest markets" - IT DOESN'T

2011-02-24T06:19:00.000-08:00

Obama this month indicated that America has "the freest markets" in the world. It doesn't. It has the 9th freest market, down from 8 the year before and number 6 the year before that.

http://www.heritage.org/index/

Trashing Serpico - Walter Block

2010-12-27T11:58:00.000-08:00

For me the best chapter of Walter Block's "Defending the Undefendable" is the chapter on the Dishonest Cop. Listen to it at http://mises.org/media/3519

Office Space for Lease besides Duncan Parnell In Greensboro

2010-12-09T13:01:00.001-08:00

Anyone interested in office space for lease right besides Duncan Parnell in Greensboro where AGC used to be can call Heinz Schmitz at 336-855-1211 or on my cell at 336-847-4076 or email me at caniac@inbox.com

The Folly of Economic Stimulus and Minimum Wages

2010-11-28T11:35:00.000-08:00

If government economic stimulus really works and is good for job creation, then why don't we do it all the time? If a 10 dollars minimum wage is a good idea, then why shouldn't we raise the minimum wage to $50.00 an hour? If you can answer these questions rationally then you will understand why we should not have minimum wages and stimulus packages.

There can be no such thing as "limited government"

2010-11-27T17:36:00.001-08:00

"There can be no such thing as "limited government," because there is no way to control an entity that in principle enjoys a monopoly of power." ~ Joseph Sobran

I'd rather have dangerous freedom than peaceful slavery

2010-11-18T05:44:00.000-08:00

I'd rather have dangerous freedom....

2010-11-17T16:29:00.001-08:00

My Dog Teddy

2010-10-23T14:22:00.000-07:00

View My Dog at PuppyDogWeb.Com

Gallery of Dog Breeds

Nazis were Animal Rights Activists

2010-10-19T12:29:00.001-07:00

Interesting - the Nazis were Animal Rights Activists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany

Michael Gerson and Moralty

2010-10-15T08:57:00.001-07:00

Michael Gerson writes: "Christopher Hitchens is weaker on the personal and ethical challenge presented by atheism: Of course we can be good without God, but why the hell bother? If there are no moral lines except the ones we draw ourselves, why not draw and redraw them in places most favorable to our interests?"

My Reply: Conservatives like Michael Gerson are supposed to be defenders of Free Market principles, yet they do not apply these principles fully. What does the Free Market have to do with Morality you ask? Bear with me. An unregulated (or less regulated) Free Market works far better and efficiently than highly regulated ones. Compare Hong Kong to Soviet Russia for instance. Businesses know that there isn't any benefit to be derived from killing or stealing from your customers. It will actually work against them. The same is true in your personal life as it is in the Free Markets. What benefit do I derive from killing and stealing from my fellow man? If killing and stealing were permissible then my own life is at stake and the concept of property is worthless. I derive pleasure from others, others engage me, and I need others for trade so it is in my best interest if others live.

A Leftist thinks that Markets should be heavily regulated or else anarchy ensues, but we all know that Government intrusion into the Free Markets via heavy regulations has negative unintended consequences, and the same may be true of Religion intruding into our personal lives. Even with all the divine rules laid out for believers, they still kill, steal and lead sexually illicit lives, and according to polls, they do so more often. Why the hell bother being good when instant forgiveness is available from the Deity of your choice.

Christians believe the Same as Atheists Do

2010-10-14T12:06:00.000-07:00

A Christian sent me this message: "Since the universe is all matter, energy, space and linear time, the cause of the universe must be independent of all matter, energy, space and time."

Getting past his ridiculous position about creation (it's rather like saying only non-humans can create humans), I want you to think about this: He is stating that NOTHING created the universe.
Someone that is devoid of matter and energy and it outside of time and space is non-existent. God, has all the attributes of non-existence. If you say that the God who created the universe is outside time and space and lacks matter and energy, you are in effect saying that NOTHING created the universe...exactly what non-believers are saying.

The RSV Bible and Virgins

2010-09-30T13:40:00.000-07:00

On this day in 1952 the complete Revised Standard Version Bible was published which eventually led to this Bible being burned publically (see picture) in my state of North Carolina, all because the word "virgin" at Isaiah 7:14 was replaced by "young woman." Hmmm...even by 1950's standards young women were definitely not the same as virgins.

Rush Limbaugh on Charles Darwin

2010-09-29T11:07:00.000-07:00

I often like listening to Rush Limbaugh because I tend to agree with his economic philosophy. However, when he veers from that he's not always that accurate. Today he pondered how different (read: "better") things would be if Darwin hadn't written his work on Evolution. Actually, nothing would have changed. Others, like Alfred Russell Wallace were ready to publish similar ideas at the same time. The idea of evolution had previously existed in the writings of Lamarke and Mendel. Nothing would have changed. Evolution is a strong and vibrant theory that would have been fine-tuned by others had Darwin never existed. To say that without Darwin we would not have Evolution is rather like saying that without Copernicus we wouldn't have a heliocentic universe or that without Newton we wouldn't have gravity. Darwin discovered a fact, he did not invent it.

Geoffrey James' Delusion

2010-09-17T07:41:00.000-07:00

From Geoffrey James at
http://www.bnet.com/blog/salesmachine/top-10-reasons-ayn-rand-was-dead-wrong

Laissez-Faire capitalism doesn't work. Laissez-Faire capitalism is a utopian fantasy.

Reply: Laissez-Faire capitalism has never been tried? How then can anyone declare that it doesn't work?

Just like Marxism, in the real world, produced the Soviet system in Russia, the real world implementation of laissez-faire capitalism, led by Rand-disciple Greenspan, produced the great recession.

Reply: Judas Iscariot was a disciple of Christ, but that doesn't mean he was following the principles of Jesus. Greenspan abandoned laissez-faire capitalism when he became head of the Federal Reserve. At that point Greenspan sanctioned the idea that the government should interfere in the economy. That's not Laissez-Faire capitalism.

Lightbulb Socialism

2010-09-03T06:14:00.000-07:00

It is now a crime to manufacture or ship for sale a traditional 75-watt light bulb in the European Union. As a result, 75-watt bulbs have been flying off the shelves as customers fill their closets, garages and attics for the long term. Der Spiegel reported that German customers left hardware stores with carts jammed with enough incandescent bulbs to last 20 years.

Ron Paul on Freedom

2010-08-03T18:28:00.000-07:00

"Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives.." — Ron Paul

McCartney and Wings 1971

2010-08-03T18:27:00.000-07:00

On this day in 1971 Paul McCartney formed "Wings." The rest of us have to wait for millions of years of evolution to do the same :)

Why Are you Unemployed?

2010-08-01T05:36:00.000-07:00

Do you ever wonder why you are unemployed? After all people still need to eat, they need clothing, they need housing, they want entertainment...and work still needs to be done. So, why then are you unemployed? The answer lies in one word: Government! A business today has to pay: Federal Income Taxes, State Income Taxes, Payroll Taxes, Unemployment Taxes, Sales Taxes (If applicable), Personal Property Taxes and has to match your medicare. The government has decided to make it illegal for you to decide how little you can work for...your prospective employer has to pay you a minimum wage even if you are willing to work for less in tough times. Terms are even tougher if a business operates under the watchful eye of a government protected Union. With the government holding a boot to the neck of business and extracting money from them at every turn, few can possibly have enough left over to hire anyone. So the next time you don your Obama t-shirt or your Bush-Cheney bumper sticker, remember....these people are the reason you are unemployed.

Could drinking alcohol help ward off rheumatoid arthritis?

2010-08-01T05:20:00.000-07:00

Drinking alcohol may help keep rheumatoid arthritis at bay, possibly because it dampens the body's immune response, new research suggests.

Alcohol consumption may also protect people who already have the autoimmune disease from developing a more debilitating form.

For more click here

Debbie Jones' Cancer Battle 2010

2010-07-26T17:23:00.000-07:00

Debbie Jones is dying with Cancer. Her family has been told to make her comfortable. Send her some love athttp://tinyurl.com/debbiesfacebook

Take the Mystery Out of the Wine List

2010-06-27T05:43:00.000-07:00

(Newser) – Ordering wine in a restaurant can be intimidating, but it doesn't have to be.

So what should you order? R-O-C-K:

Riesling: "Whether you're having salad, grilled mahi, chicken or porchetta, a decent bottle of riesling will invariably get you through your meal."
Oregon: "No place in the world makes such a universally food-friendly smattering of reds and whites."
Costieres de Nimes: "Fancy and unabashedly delicious" wines.
Kermit Lynch: The secret handshake. "When it comes to importers, few have a palate as generous and welcoming."

For more click here

In Loving Memory of Esther Schmitz McGuire

2010-06-21T08:20:00.000-07:00

How much longer...

2010-06-07T08:15:00.001-07:00

I knew I'd make it out of the 20th century alive, but I'm not sure about the 21st century....and it's the Not Knowing part that's driving me crazy.

A Democracy is Always Temporary in nature

2010-06-07T08:12:00.000-07:00

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship." Lord Woodhouselee, Alexander Fraser Tytler? 1747-1813

You Don't Know Jack

2010-05-28T07:39:00.001-07:00

On a Yahoo Group:
> >
> > Just watched "You Don't Know Jack"
> > I highly recommend this movie.
> > Best, M.

My Response: I liked it as well. Government/religion should not bar anyone from wanting to take his or her own life. -Heinz

>
> I think that the persons having to clean-up the resulting mess would disagree
with you. - Lars
>

My Response: The Doctor Assisted Suicide in the movie was not messy at all. It is because the State does not allow for this that we have messes at all. Get the government and religion out of the way and we can die peacefully in bed on our terms.
-Heinz

Government Can't Fix It!

2010-05-28T07:30:00.000-07:00

I was proud of Obama yesterday. He admitted he could not fix the oil well leak. Now if we could get governments to admit this for other things as well. Economies all over the globe are tanking because government is in charge of currency. People are starving in Africa, not because of a lack of food, but because governments are in charge of food distribution. I could go on.

The Problem with Greece in a Nutshell

2010-05-10T09:47:00.001-07:00

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend." (Thatcher) - This explains Greece in a nutshell. A socialist country needs high taxation to run entitlement programs, but high taxation creates black markets and high tax avoidance and breeds laziness and a lack of incentives to produce.

From the "So bad it's good" category

2010-05-07T10:03:00.000-07:00

The Myth of Freedom

2010-04-28T05:41:00.000-07:00

They say we fight war to secure our freedoms, yet every war reduces our freedoms. Before WW2 we didn't need passports, now I need one just go to to Canada. Freedom of speech is gone - try broadcasting Islam in a negative light. Each war increases the size of government and increases our taxes. Government is violence - taxation is slavery. Are we mocking those who die in battle?

Testing the Limits of Free Speech

2010-04-09T07:21:00.001-07:00

I just finished reading an article on "Testing the Limits of Free Speech." If Free Speech is limited, then how is it "Free?"

Platinum Vodka

2010-04-03T05:58:00.001-07:00

Forget Absolut or Grey Goose, and save yourself some money with Platinum Vodka. Distilled SEVEN times this Vodka is amazingly smooth and my new favorite, and at less than $10 it is a real bargain.

The DRO alternative to Government

2010-03-25T09:34:00.000-07:00

Tired of big government? Perhaps anarchy is the answer, and, this is interesting and completely new to me: instituting a DRO instead. DRO is a private sector alternative to dispute resolution. For more go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization

Ann Coulter and Canada

2010-03-24T08:52:00.000-07:00

Students at the University of Ottawa have protested against having Ann Coulter speak there. I think that is disgusting, and no on here who is a supporter of freedom of speech should defend these students. As vile as you think some people are, I don't even care whether it is the KKK etc, if I do not let them talk, I am not at all interested in free speech. I am no better than a fascist at that point. I think it says a lot about us that we welcome a monster like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at a University, but we quickly stop at allowing Ann Coulter the same venue.

Taxation as Slavery

2010-03-12T07:06:00.000-08:00

George Mason University professor Thomas Rustici uses two hypothetical anecdotes to illustrate this point. In the first, Sam Slime mugs a person for £50. In the second, Sam Slime votes for a politician who taxes a person in order to redistribute £50 to the "disadvantaged" Slime. Both examples involve the use of force. However, the second scenario is arguably worse, since through the state, Slime is now empowered to repeatedly take others' money, thus putting them in a condition of slavery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_as_slavery

Taxation as Theft

2010-03-08T08:39:00.000-08:00

There is a great page on Taxation at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_as_theft

"Murray Rothbard argued in The Ethics of Liberty that since taxation is theft, tax resistance is therefore legitimate: "Just as no one is morally required to answer a robber truthfully when he asks if there are any valuables in one’s house, so no one can be morally required to answer truthfully similar questions asked by the State, e.g., when filling out income tax returns."

People as Livestock

2010-02-23T06:40:00.001-08:00

Are we truly free, or are we simply livestock? Placing cows in stalls resulted in injuries & infections. The farmers then gave them more room, not because they wanted to set their cows free, but because they want greater productivity & lower costs. Governments have increasingly given US greater "freedoms" which means we produce more...more for the government to take in the form of taxation. If we don't pay these taxes, the government, which has a monopoly on the use of violence, can place us in "stalls."

Objectivism teaches that Reality exists independent of consciousness.

2010-02-23T06:31:00.000-08:00

Objectivism teaches that Reality exists independent of consciousness. What does this mean? Reality is the real world. The physical world. Consciousness is the state of awareness. Think of them as 2 different entities. We can imagine and picture and think. This is within our consciousness, there are no limits. What we think, does not have to hold true to the rules and laws of this physical real world. For instance, I can picture myself lifting a truck. This obviously is not possible in the real world. Therefore, they are two different entities.

It is at a time like this...Ayn Rand

2010-02-16T03:56:00.000-08:00

It is at a time like this, in the face of an approaching economic collapse, that the intellectuals are preaching egalitarian notions. When the curtailment of government spending is imperative, they demand more welfare projects. When the need for men of productive ability is desperate, they demand more equality for the incompetents. When the country needs the accumulation of capital, they demand that we soak the rich. When the country needs more savings, they demand a “redistribution of income.” They demand more jobs and less profits—more jobs and fewer factories—more jobs and no fuel, no oil, no coal, no “pollution”—but, above all, more goods for free to more consumers, no matter what happens to jobs, to factories, or to producers.

Ayn Rand
"Egalitarianism and Inflation"

Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut

2010-02-14T17:49:00.000-08:00

Kurt Vonnegut's take on government-imposed equality. His short story "Harrison Bergeron" portrays a future in which no one is permitted to have any physical or intellectual advantage over anyone else. A government Handicapper General levels the playing field.
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

Long Island Ice Tea

2010-02-14T17:47:00.000-08:00

Scaremonger Paul Ehrlich

2010-02-12T11:12:00.000-08:00

Is Glenn Beck a Hypocrite?

2010-01-25T16:53:00.000-08:00

Just finished watching Beck's Documentary, "The Revolutionary Holocaust: Live Free ... or Die." I have one problem though with the show, or maybe not with the show but about the Che Guevara t-shirts. Conservatives are quick to point out that Che was a tyrant who had people killed, which he did and I would never wear anything with his image, but many conservatives will gladly honor John Calvin or Martin Luther, who were tyrants themselves. Glenn Beck is a Mormon, and as such would honor Brigham Young, but Brigham Young orchestrated the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Is Beck a hypocrite?

Long Beach Tea

2010-01-15T04:46:00.000-08:00

Build and Shake in a Tall Glass

1/2 oz Gin
1/2 oz Vodka
1/2 oz Rum
1/2 oz Tequila
1/2 oz Triple Sec

Fill with Sweet & Sour mix and Cranberry

Add a lime wedge for a garnish

On Crony Capitalism

2010-01-12T08:33:00.000-08:00

“Either a company is viable and then it needs no government support, or it is not viable and then it deserves no government support.”

From “Financial Fiasco” by Johan Norberg

The Moral and Constitutional Case for a Right to Gay Marriage

2010-01-10T06:58:00.000-08:00

"No compelling reason has been proffered for sanctioning heterosexual but not homosexual marriages. Nor is a ban on gay marriage a close fit for attaining the goals cited by proponents of such bans. If the goal, for example, is to strengthen the institution of marriage, a more effective step might be to bar no-fault divorce and premarital cohabitation. If the goal is to ensure procreation, then infertile and aged couples should be precluded from marriage.

Instead, most states have implemented an irrational and unjust system that provides significant benefits to just-married heterosexuals while denying benefits to a male or female couple who have enjoyed a loving, committed, faithful and mutually reinforcing relationship over several decades. That's not the way it has to be. Government benefits triggered by marriage could just as easily be triggered by other objective criteria, leaving the definition of marriage in the hands of private institutions." by Robert A. Levy

For more go to http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11112

Liquid Cocaine Shot

2010-01-10T06:01:00.000-08:00

In a shot glass

1/3 Rumpleminze
1/3 Jagermeister
1/3 151 Rum

Chill and Strain into a shot glass

2010-01-08T06:21:00.001-08:00

Heinz Schmitz is a fan of

Ayn Rand

Create your Fan Badge

Lemon Drop Shooter

2010-01-06T17:37:00.000-08:00

Add 1 1/2 oz Lemon Vodka (like Absolute Citron) chilled

Then Lick sugar, gulp the vodka, bite the lemon.

You can garnish with a lemon wedge and coat the rim with sugar

Objectivism and God

2010-01-05T12:50:00.000-08:00

My part in an Amazon discussion:

What's so irrational about believing that the universe around us is way to complex and organized to have come about by pure chance... especially sentient life. So how can you conclude that belief in God disqualifies you from being an objectivist? Maybe it actually means you're not being very objective.

Heinz: Objectivism deals with objective reality. Positing a supernatural sky fairy that no one can see to explain anything steps outside of this reality. Objectivism is opposed to mysticism.

I don't think anyone is positing a supernatural sky fairy. That's just a cheap shot response by someone who's obviously incapable of dealing objectively with reality. There are subatomic particles that no one can see or prove that they're there but based on other factors we can posit that they do exisit. It works for science. You're supernatural sky fairy may fit that category.

Heinz: There is nothing to posit that a supernatural being exists. You cannot answer what you don't understand by positing something even more improbable. Gods, fairies, goblins, devils etc., do not exist. They are the product of our ignorance, and their birth survives from the infancy of human existence.

Wow sensei... you are so smart. Knowing what you know with such conviction you must be omniscient. Are you sure you're not a supernatural sky fairy ;-) You're entitled to your opinion and believe it or not that's all it is. Look around you... there's way too much order for life to just have come up randomly and from nothing. How's that any less rational than believing that everything just appeared from nothing and just exists. So you believe everything just came from fairy dust then?

Heinz: I don't know how life came about - but positing an infinitely more implausible being is definitely NOT the answer. If I find gold, I cannot assume this proves the existence of Leprechauns, no matter how many stories we have of Leprechauns with gold. Your way of arguing is simply not a good one.

The Impossibility of the President's Role

2010-01-05T07:39:00.000-08:00

"The modern conception of the president as the 'man in charge' of finding solutions to all major problems in American life demands the impossible and, in the demanding, encourages concentration of power and erosion of civil liberties. The impossibility of the job, combined with America's enduring conviction that the 'great' presidents are those who meet emergencies - real or manufactured - by expanding their powers and revolutionizing the American constitution - calls forth men and women who believe themselves fit for the task. When the presidency demanded less, it attracted people with a different sort of temperament." - The Cult of the Presidency by Gene Healy

Naomi Klein's Call to Action

2009-12-29T05:58:00.001-08:00

Hypocrisy alert! Naomi Klein produced a popular book called Shock Doctrine wherein she slams capitalists for using crises to enforce change, but then writes herself: "we haven’t had the potent combination of a serious crisis and a clear progressive democratic mandate for change since the 1930s. We use this opportunity or we lose it."

Day of 9 Evils

2009-12-29T05:56:00.002-08:00

Just when u thought there weren't any holidays between Boxing Day and New Years, Bhutan is today celebrating the Day of 9 Evils, which involves a tale of incestuous gods. You know you're making your gods up when the best u can come up with resembles Alabama rednecks.

Watering Down Alcohol

2009-12-29T05:56:00.001-08:00

In ancient Mesopotamia it was a Capital Offense for bartenders to water down alcohol. As a bartender, I have actually done this, not out of deceit, but social responsibility for fear a drunk might drive home. To think, 4000 years ago this would have gotten me killed.

Avatar: The Atlas Shrugged of the Left

2009-12-29T05:50:00.000-08:00

Just finished reading a good article called by Nick Rizzuto called Avatar: The Atlas Shrugged of the Left. I enjoyed the visual aspect of the movie, but thought the message was a little misleading. Yes, there was a time in history when we were more of a collectivist agrarian society, but it was also a time when when we lived very short, miserable lives. When it became possible for individual interests to break thru, we all ...benefited as a result and life has never been better.

Abridged version of Will the Feds Bust Santa Claus? by George Getz

2009-12-25T06:46:00.000-08:00

Every December 25, an illegal immigrant known as Santa Claus crosses the border into the United States without a passport. He carries concealed contraband, which he sneaks into the country in order to avoid inspection by the U.S. Customs Service.
He flies in a custom-built sleigh that hasn't been approved by the FAA. He never files a flight plan. He has no pilot's license. This vehicle is pulled by 8 reindeer, a federally protected species being put to hard labor. Santa's Workshop is really Santa's Sweatshop, where his non-union employees don't make minimum wage and get no holiday pay. OSHA has never inspected the place. Anti-trust lawsuit alert: Santa gives away his products for free in a sinister attempt to crush competition. We need to take action!

Science is NEVER Settled

2009-12-22T11:21:00.000-08:00

Few things perturb me more than the words "settled science." There is no such thing. Science is never settled, and it is not supposed to be. Just like any new philosophy is a middle finger to all previous philosophies, the job of any new scientist is to question any previous science. Once any science has been proclaimed "settled," it has left the field of science and entered the realm of religion and mysticism.

Libertarianism a Threat to Socialism

2009-12-20T06:07:00.000-08:00

Socialism gets away with their big government intrusions into private lives by wisely combining Socialism with various "freedoms" about drugs and sex, which makes it appear that people are free. This makes liberals abhor libertarians, since they combine capitalism with those exact same freedoms.

Kool Aid Cocktail

2009-12-20T06:05:00.000-08:00

Build and Shake in a glass than can hold 5 ounces:

1 oz of Midori or Melone

1 oz Amaretto

3 oz Cranberry Juice

Add a Lime Wedge for a garnish.

Visuallizing a Square Root

2009-12-19T05:23:00.000-08:00

This is neat. You can actually visualize a square root. The Pythagoreans would represent numbers in squares using pebbles. The number 16 would look like this. The 4 pebbles at the ROOT of the SQUARE would be the SQUARE ROOT. Why didn't I realize this before?

The Absinthe Drinker (Painting) - 1890, Café Slavia in Prague by Viktor Oliva

2009-12-17T08:45:00.001-08:00

Key Lime Pie Drink (Cocktail)

2009-12-16T17:55:00.000-08:00

Take 1/2 oz Light Rum

1/2 oz Bailey's Irish Cream

1/2 oz Lime Juice

One large scoop of vanilla ice cream

Garnish with whip cream and add a graham cracker and a lime wheel.

Libertarians and War

2009-12-16T17:52:00.000-08:00

From another group:
>> Libertarianism cannot be extended to anyone who isn't either born or has
>> willingly become a part of the culture from which it derives. Everybody
>> else
>> will attempt to use personal freedom to enslave everyone else to their
>> culture. Libertarianism only works WITHIN a culture.
>>
>> Libertarians won't defend their way of life because they believe everyone
>> has a right to live as they please -- except, apparently, libertarians,
>> who
>> must knuckle under and not resist but acept everything else.
>> They won't fight at all unless directly attacked. Wisdom means at times
>> going to the source of a problem and fighting it there.

My Reply: I think that last honorable war the USA was involved in was World War II, where
they acted as Libertarians and "didn't fight at all unless directly attacked."

Since then they acted as you would like, preemptively, and the results were disastrous. We also now have much of the world hating the USA because of American intrusion in foreign lands. The Middle East especially hates us because of our perceived "Imperialist" ways, a problem that would not exist if we acted as Libertarians.

Demistifying Death

2009-12-12T16:58:00.000-08:00

Death isn't really a mystery - you were dead millions of years before you born. Your being alive is the exception. Death is much more common. you compete with millions of other sperm for the job, and they die off. A huge number of those are naturally aborted via miscarriages, and up until this past century, 50 percent died in child-birth for most of human history. So live your life to the fullest - if you made it this far you won the lottery.

Heinz Schmitz Debating and Defending Libertarianism

2009-12-10T08:25:00.000-08:00

This was a debate I had on a Yahoo Atheists group, and it was stimulating and lasted a lot longer than expected, but the exchanges certainly are interesting. My responses are in bold:

>Leaders of atheist and humanist organizations should step up to the plate and support a plan that promotes affordable health care for all based on the moral obligation to do the right thing for our less fortunate citizens. Atheists, Agnostics, Free Thinkers, Humanists have morals and we need to let the public know that we support health care for all based on our common belief that doing good for its own sake trumps doing good for rewards or punishments after death.

Well, for me, the thing that is worth uniting over is smaller government, more individual freedom and more private industry.

>What a shame. The world doesn't need more individualism and capitalism - we need less. Conservatism already is killing the planet and us. I disagree with you completely. Private industry is the cause of the global disaster we're in. The past 30 years has shown that Libertarian goals are cruel and trash almost everything.

Reply: I'm not a conservative. And No, it is Socialist intrusions into Capitalism that always causes situations like the one we are in now. We have never tried pure unfettered capitalism, so don't blame it for anything. It is Altruistic systems like Communism and the Christendom of the Dark and Middle Ages that have been the cruelest, and the past 30 years have given us tremendous growth and have pulled hundreds of millions in Asia out of poverty. You're welcome.

I disagree with you completely and always will.

That is the sign of a closed mind - something you atheists attack religionists for.

I do blame capitalism and, in particular, the Chicago Boys. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then you really haven't researched the situation. Also, the Dark and Middle Ages were feudal, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Reply: Christianity, like Socialism and Communism are altruistic movements, and such movements, when fully realized, are always intensely cruel.

For anyone who's still unsure that this depression was an intentional move of wealth from the People to the Elite - I recomment you read Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine".

Reply: Then please also read Johan Norberg who exploses Klein's distortions.

I still maintain that capitalism, and especially libertarianism, are very cruel and a damn shame they're a 'license' to kill and impoverish.

Reply: And yet, the greatest atrocities of the past century have come from Big Government systems, and the poorest countries on earth are ruled by far-left systems. I'm sorry, but history and the present day reality do not confirm your prejudices.

>
> ok, so we've determined that you are only out for yourself. No prob.
Unfortunately lots of people that way out there. Which is why the planet is in
the shape it's in.
>

Yet there is not one truly pure laissez-faire Capitalist country in the world, but it alone is to blame?! As Ayn Rand said a long time ago:

"one of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary."

Laissez-faire capitalism does not exist and is not to blame. The problem lies with Marxist interventionism in the money supply by means of a central bank. Central banks are a nationalization of the money supply and a key plank of the communist manifesto.

>
> In response to someone else: Well said, competition is good, but pure capitalism with winner-take-all
economics often collapses to a few monopolies and sometimes collapses to a few
companies setting the price for goods and services instead of the market.

Reply: Wrong. It is a common fallacy that the development of monopolies is the result of the operation of a free, unregulated economy. In fact, the exact opposite is true. It is a free market that makes monopolies impossible. In the entire history of capitalism, no one has been able to establish a coercive
monopoly by means of competition on a free market. There is only one way to forbid entry into any field of production: by law. Every single coercive monopoly that has ever existed was created and made possible only by an act of government like special franchises, licenses, subsidies, by legislative actions which granted special privileges to certain ones. A coercive monopoly is not the result of laissez-faire capitalism, it only happens when laissez-faire has been discarded and with the introduction of the opposite principle,the principle of statism.

>>This is what has occurred between insurance companies and medical providers in
the USA.

Reply: You DO realize that MONOpoly means "one" right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_insurance_companies

>>This is why we are now paying twice as much for medical care as France and
England.

Reply: There is another side to that:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-07-05-europe-health_N.htm

>>I would rather the government take my money...

Reply: I would rather have a choice. I still remember when the government had the monopoly on phone service. Government is always inept when it comes to running business.

> Heinz wrote:"In the entire history of capitalism, no one has been able to
establish a coercive monopoly by means of competition on a free market. ".......
>
> Well, the drug companies seem to have figured out a way to do just that! They
routinely 're-invent' and re-register their patents on a regular schedule to
disallow real competition in a so-called free market.
>

Again, MONOpoly means ONE. There are many drug companies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_companies

Drug patents last only 7 years, which is rather short considering it costs hundreds of millions to come out with one drug.

>
Be flexible and observed the systems around you that work. Look at the
Scandinavian countries and most of Europe. Hell seek to emulate the higher
standard of living in Canada. We are being schooled by people who have figured
out how to do it better. We need to get of our high horses and do it right.
>

Reply: My family left Europe, as did many others when I was a child. Why, if it was so much better? We left because there are more freedoms over here. Everything in Europe is regulated and taxed to the hilt. Man's noblest achievement is productive ability, but this is curtailed in Europe. There is no
"European Dream."

As for Canada, I went there a few months ago and needed to buy a Camera and some other electronics while I was there. This actually took up to an hour. You see, the computer there needed my address, and since I live in the USA the computer had a hard time selling to me. The reason is because Canadians buy their items in the USA, the computer was not used to it being the other way around. No one buys stuff like this in very expensive places. If you want the USA to become like Europe and Canada then you will see your freedoms hampered, you will see extreme taxation, and this will then affect how we spend abroad, which will then affect Canada and Europe, and they will struggle harder to survive once Americans spend less. Canada and Europe is as good as they are because America is as damn good as it is.

>
> Interesting view on taxation. What was your position on US taxes in the
Eisenhower regime, when the top US rate was 70%, not today's 35% or so.

Reply: Ike's top rate applied to incomes at 200,000 or more, which works out to 2.2 million at today's rate, and why would I defend any looting?

>And Ike is this conservative dream, beating out even Bonzo, your wet dream.
>

Reply: Reagan increased government spending faster than any of his predecessors...nothing I would defend.

> Taxes are not evil. They allow us to collectively do things that are undoable
from a libertarian standpoint.

Reply: I want to be an individual, not a part of a collective.

>>What private entity or consortium could have sent us to the moon, so
markedly increased attendance of the disadvataged at colleges and universities,
built the interstate highway systen (another of Ike's boondoggles?), defeated
Communism, built and maintained the Library of Congress...
>

Reply: Don't even start with NASA - what a failure that is, and there nothing mentioned above that could not be done by private enterprise. As for Communism, there are still many Communists in the world.

> Unbridled libertarianism is no more the answer than is unfettered socialism..
Extremes are to be avoided at all costs.

Reply: Any form of big government will always lean towards the extreme. It will always grow bigger, never smaller.

> I call myself a libertarian socialist precisely
because while I don't like little old ladies starving in the dark, I don't want
my last dime going to feed the whales in the forest either.

Reply: What's wrong with a society based on individual responsibility and private charity. Once people are free to keep all the money they earn, they will be able to offer direct individual aid that is genuinely compassionate. That's the way America used to be.

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." -Thomas Jefferson

>Extremes are to be avoided at all costs....Only boring and pedantic wild-eyed
revolutionaries are such monomaniacs. And we all know their comic effect in
plays and movies.

Reply: It is interesting to observe the twisted forms our thinking can take. I advocate for more individual freedoms and less government intrusion in my daily affairs and industry, and for this I am caricatured as some sort of mad man. There is something evil in this.

> Not a mad man, just one that's clearly not looking at the world situation and
how we got there - unfettered capitalism. That's the evil and you're promoting
it.
>

Reply: It's never been tried, so how can it be evil? By what standard are you judging it? The greatest evil over the past 100 years have been socialistic government who had the "greater good" and the collectivist ideal in mind. How many tens of millions have they killed?

>
> Here's the thing I don't get. Why do we insist on black and white
> thinking? Can't human nature be both heroic and villainous? Selfish and
> selfless? We're gamists at heart. Give us a system and we'll game it
> toward our own individual and group ends. That's not evil or good, it's
> what we are, because it's what works. It's what life does, it games the
> systems around it. Why should our nature be anything so intelligible and
> one-sided as either "heroic" or "evil"?
>

I do realize the evil, but it is my concept of man, the ideal man, that sees him as a heroic figure. I see man's highest potential and strive to actualize it. I am dedicated to the exaltation of man's self-esteem and the sacredness of his happiness on earth.

I but view the State the same as I view some Christian faiths, as two sides of the same coin. It is the reduction of man, it demands that man cower to the will of others, and it takes great men and limits him to the confines of the average - the collective.

>
> Actually, Heinz, if you don't mind, could you help me with something: What
> is the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist? (I know this
> sounds like the start to a bad joke, but I actually want your take on
> this.) And, for that matter, what do you see as being the similarities, if
> any?
>

The popular image of anarchy is unrestrained violence and looting. Libertarians take a stronger stand against this than any other political group. The early history of the USA with its severely limited government was strongly libertarian and completely at odds with this image of anarchy. It is strange to be asked this question, because as history shows, the bigger the government, the more evil it is.

>
>
> Objectivism collapses as soon as people work together, by definition
> forming a collective.
>
> No man is an island. Even in Rand's own work "Anthem", her
> character Prometheus had his female companion. If he was entirely
> independent, he would have no need of her, and his discovery would have
> died with him.
>

Reply: As usual, people are generally ignorant of objectivism, and this post demonstrates that. Objectivism is rational self-interest. I take personal self-interest in engaging with others.

>Heinz asserts that "unfettered capitalism" has never been tried.
>I assert that it is contrary to human nature, social animals that we
>are, and it simply can't flourish among people whom occasionally
>work together and help each other.

Reply: Yes, we tend to the more socialistic forms of community, but does this need to be a good thing? Socialism/Altruism, Christian and secular, has dominated our thinking for thousands of years. Jesus, after all, was an altruist. It has led to the exploitation of billions of people, who not knowing of rational alternatives, subordinated their hopes, dreams, happiness, and very lives to the symbol of the cross or the flag or the "public". I say, sacrifice yourself to no one, and sacrifice no one to yourself. Rational selfishness is the creed for those who love life, know what they value, and want to spread their wings. We lived in squalor for millennia, but it was the self-centered Industrial Age that pulled people out of poverty.

>
> Heinz the problem is that in the world you appear to espouse poor children
don't get educated and the rich and mighty possess the freedom.
>

In my world you would have far less poor people. Give people more economic freedoms and they will become more productive. Compared to the centuries of precapitalist starvation, the living conditions of
the poor in the early years of the industrial age were the first chance the poor had ever had to survive. Observe the tremendous growth of the European population during the 19th century, a growth of over 300 per cent, as compared to the previous growth of something like 3 per cent per century.

On the flip side, Socialism breeds laziness.

>
> NASA inspired the electronics revilution with its miniatureization needs. The
idea of a manned exploration was not a good idea, but the blossoming of space
science - Gallileo, the Hubble, visits to the planets, their moons and the
asteroids, my PhD - - to name just a few, were excellebt ones. To which
Libertarian space trriumphs can you point? I could go on and on about the
benefits of NASA - communications satellites, geopositioning toys, weather
satellites... How would Libertarianism do all this in so few years?

Reply: The early days of Apollo was its heyday. Why? Because it had a definite time limit, it need to produce results within that time limit, and it was in competition with another super power. In other words, it resemble the workings of the private sector. What has it done for us lately? Some, to be sure, but mostly it has been extremely wasteful and even deadly.

> Reply: Any form of big government will always lean towards the extreme. It
will always grow bigger, never smaller.
>
> ***********************************************
> Mankind lives in a much more complex world. What would 18th C Libertarians
think of, how would they deal with the energy crisis, global warming, AIDS,
monitarists power- and money-grabbing tactics, urban crime...
> **********************************************
>

Reply: Much of what you pose above, the energy crisis, monetarist power, money-grabbing tactics, urban crime are the results of government intrusion into private lives and the money system. As for AIDS, according to the government's own GAO reports between 60% and 80% of every dollar given to any department or agency of the federal government goes to pay for its overhead, salaries, and all the other expenses of its existence. Government is universally inefficient. All the billions government plans to throw to combat global warming will have a minute impact, and it will be worthless and wasteful as all government programs.

>
> Reply: What's wrong with a society based on individual responsibility and
private charity. Once people are free to keep all the money they earn, they will
be able to offer direct individual aid that is genuinely compassionate.. That's
the way America used to be.
>
> ******************************************
> In your dreams, not in any form of reality I know about.
> *****************************************

Reply: That's because your view is hateful and anti-human.

> Heinz
>
> "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their
own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of
labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."
> -Thomas Jefferson
>
> **********************************************
> A slave owning, miscegenistic polymath, but second only to Ben Franklin in my
estimation,

Reply: And Abraham Lincoln also held racist views. Does this take away from his ideas and accomplishments?

>Sorry, I don't do quotes; I'd rather think for myself.
>

Reply: That explains a lot.

"The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man's rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man's right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control."
-Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

> [Socializing] is not a good or bad thing; it is part of what makes us human. We
> could just as soon abandon our status as social animals as grow scales.
> Some things are simply a part of our makeup that evolution has hard
> wired into our brains. Sure, there are examples that are contrary to
> this, and there will always be people who choose to excuse themselves
> from others. However, exceptions do not disprove a trend, and I stand
> by that as a rule of logical thinking.
>

There is a difference between being a social animal, and requiring me to sacrifice for the greater good. I want interaction with others - but I don't want it to be a duty give up something for that.

> "Reply: As usual, people are generally ignorant of objectivism, and
> this post
> demonstrates that. Objectivism is rational self-interest. I take
> personal
> self-interest in engaging with others."
>
> Since you take personal interest in engaging with others, I am curious
> what you might do if others took no personal interest in engaging with
> you.

Then interaction would not be possible. I would move on to someone wants to interact with me. In my life I have never lacked for others, I am personable, I am charitable and give when I can. I think it immoral though that my money is forcibly taken from me to pay for others, and doubly so to pay for things I am morally against.

Secondly, I like to surround myself with people that do not agree with me. This is more stimulating mentally. As Patton once said: if everyone is thinking the same thing, then no one is thinking.

>
> So the rest of our group can read and make up their own minds.
>
> "We lived in squalor for millennia, but it was the self-centered
> Industrial Age
> that pulled people out of poverty."
>
> That's quite an assertion, because prior to antitrust laws, pro
> worker laws, and pro union legislation, the industrial age was
> profitable for a very small group of fabulously wealthy folks.

Reply: Sure, you had some that were richer than others, but the residual effects benefited many more. Even the children who worked in factories at the turn of the century were far better off than those that didn't. Concerned unions and big government stopped that and the result was that those children then had to turn to the theft or prostitution. This is what government intrusion does. Antitrust is another evil. Under the Antitrust laws, a man becomes a criminal from the moment he goes into business, no matter what he does. It penalizes ability, and it sacrifices productive genius to the demands of the average and the mediocre.

>
> When my neighbor and his business have total freedom, I have to put up with
less freedom. I want to tell him that he is polluting our rivers and that he
should stop shooting the birds because I enjoy them around. I don't think he
should fire a gun within city limits and he needs to stop smoking at the diner
on Sunday mornings when we are having breakfast.
>
> My neighbor can't be free without impinging on my freedom and I can't get this
point across to him. I am glad that federal, state, county and municipal laws
can touch him otherwise he and I would be at odds.
>
> There is something evil in giving my neighbor all the freedom that he wants. I
want my neighbor to more accountable than free and curiously enough, he wants
the same thing of me.
>
>

The only role of government is to protect your freedom to pursue your own goals and happiness, but that goes for YOU also. If someone creates a physical danger or harm to others which extends beyond the line of his own property, such as unsanitary conditions or even loud noise, the law can and does hold him responsible. But there is something wrong with laws banning all smoking in all restaurants. This is not freedom. I want some restaurants to be free to accept only non-smokers, and some to be free to accept smokers. There are unintended idiotic consequences to too many laws. I was in northern
Alberta in the winter time and went to a tavern. I couldn't understand why there were large crowds of people outside. It appears a new law was put into place where all bars were to be smoke-free. The result? Less smokers? No! More smokers outside where it was 30 below freezing. Was this healthier?

If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at
all. Jacob Hornberger

>
> To me, love is placing trust an another person to offer your heart
> and say "do what you will"
>
> It's also a responsibility to another human being, to accept their
> heart and promise to do no harm.
>
> Pardon me, if I am mistaken, but based upon what I've read thus
> far, the objectivism view point is that love is not unlike some kind
> symbiotic relationship, i.e. "I don't love you because I want to
> make you happy, I love you because I can take from you what I want to be
> happy." Maybe some see this as ideal, but it leaves me very cold.
>

I'll let Rand answer this one:

Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another, the spiritual payment given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of another man's character. Only a brute or an altruist would claim that the appreciation
of another person's virtues is an act of selflessness, that as far as one's own selfish interest and pleasure are concerned, it makes no difference whether one deals with a genius or a fool, whether one meets a hero or a thug, whether one marries an ideal woman or a slut.

>
> I like and identify with Rand's definition of love.
> The ideal woman or the slut is a bit funny . . . the ideal woman might be the
slut. :-)
>

That is funny. I like it:)
My only problem with Rand is that she was too rigid and uncompromising - and those were the very qualities in some religions I found distasteful. I realize that my view of philosophy and politics will not win the day, but I do feel we need to talk about differing viewpoints.

>>You certainly have given me a full plate of food for thought. And I do
like your imput, and I don't like hearing an echo when I talk. Thanks
for the simtulating conservation. I don't get to think in abstracts
nearly so often as I'd like.

On Cash for Clunkers: Isn't the left rewarding the bad behavior of people who bought and clung on to gas guzzlers, while people deemed more responsible, the ones who bought fuel-efficient vehicles do not get to benefit, all to help the same automakers who have ignored, for the most part, the market for better gas mileage vehicles in favor of the Hummers, Escalades, etc.

> I certainly do not see it as rewarded the less responsible. There are many
sides to this issues, but I for one have seen the positive changes in my own
community.
> A good friend of my sister's is a single mother, abandoned by her husband and
left to fend for her self and her 2 children. She traded in her very old clunker
for a newer fuel efficent car. It's reliable and saving her money...which in the
end helps HER.
>
> I see no problem with that, but that's just me. :)
>

But I don't want money forcibly taken from me to help HER. That means less money for me to help my own family. Ultimately though this is designed to prop up the big 3 inept automakers. Toyota, BMW, Honda etc., have built factories on American soil and are employing American workers, and they are successful. We didn't bail out the horse carriage companies and steam engines of the past and we survived. People moved on to something else. If the big 3 can't make money because people prefer Camry's then they should be allowed to fail, and the successful companies and the next generation will pick up the slack.

>
> Selfishness is rude, inhumane and not economically feasible. We're living in
that now.
>

Reply: Selfishness is rude, rational self-interest is what makes the world go round.

> And, btw, Socialism is NOT the Communism this planet experienced. That's
totalitarianism and you're again disingenuous by saying otherwise.
>

Reply: Hitler's movement was National SOCIALISM. Need I say more?

If the Twentieth Century proved anything, it is that the single greatest danger to human life are the thugs of the centralized political State, who destroyed more than 170 million lives.

"A central lesson of history is that States are parasites which always expand until they destroy their host population. Because the State uses violence to achieve its ends and there is no rational end to the expansion of violence. States grow until they destroy civilized interaction through the corruption of
money, contracts, honesty, family, and self-reliance. As such, the cancerous metaphor is not misplaced. People who believe that the State can somehow be contained have not accepted the fact that no State in history has ever been contained."
-Stefan Molyneux

>
> You're going by the name of his [Hitler’s] party????
>
> Nope, say no more. This clearly represents how ridiculous and unsophiticated
your opinions are.
>

Do you simply emote. Think for once. It was Socialism because:

implemented profit-sharing in industry

nationalized trusts

and provided an extensive welfare state.

This is socialism.

>
> ...right and Canada has Democratic Socialism...yet I don't see them using
violence to control the populace. Switzerland is another example of a Social
Democratic Party working in a non-violent fashion.
>
> Nazism the the extreme. There are many degrees of ALL political parties.
>

Any Degree of violence is ONLY possible with big government, ie, socialism.

You know, when I talk to my Christian friends they tell me that THEIR Christian nation will not be like the fully realized deadly Christian theocracy in the middle and dark ages. Theirs will be nicer. When I talk to my Socialist friends, they tell me that their Socialism will not be like the deadly Socialist
dictatorships of the past century. Theirs will be nicer.
I hope they're right, but the examples of history has served neither side well.

> Nazism isn't socialism at all. It's fascism, which is why Hitler and
Mouselini (sp?) were buddies.
>

There is a very thin line between Socialism and Fascism,

> Fascism is government run by corporations with totalitarian tendancies.

Reply: Geez, no wonder you are mixed up. Fascism is primarily centralized government and government control of business and corporations and institutions.

>
> ...there has never been pure,
> unfettered Communism, either. I'm unaware of any economic model that has
> ever existed in a pure unfettered state.
>

Communism, at any degree, fettered or unfettered, is evil. It is anti-freedom and a higher degree of centralized power which gets away with murder by chanting "the common good."

After they were purged
> during the "Night of the Long Knives," National Socialism meant whatever
> Hitler needed it to mean to solidify his hold on power.

Any form of socialism devolves into a power grab and evil government. This horror could never have happened if German was full of individualists instead of a collective.

"The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word 'Nazi' is a German abbreviation for 'National Socialist' (Nationalsozialist) and the full name of Hitler's political party
(translated) was 'The National Socialist German Workers' Party' (In German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)." -- Dr. John Joseph Ray

"Basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same." -- Adolph Hitler, speech, 1941

"The Nazis are well remembered for murdering well over 11 million people in the implementation of their slogan, 'The public good before the private good,' the Chinese Communists for murdering 62 million people in the implementation of theirs, 'Serve the people,' and the Soviet Communists for murdering more than 60 million people in the implementation of Karl Marx's slogan, 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.' Anyone who defends any of these, or any variation of them, on the grounds of their 'good intentions' is an immoral (NOT 'amoral') enabler of the ACTUAL (not just the proverbial) road to hell." -- Rick Gaber

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." -- Soviet Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev, addressing the 20th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party, 2-25-56

"We need to stop worrying about the rights of the individual and start worrying about what is best for society!" -- Hillary Clinton, 1993

>
> Heinz: You are drifting. You sound similar to the people that blame the Stalin
years on atheism. "Any form of socialism devolves into a power grab and evil
government." Come on . . . We have an an evil system now.
>

When Christians want a Christian Nation I always remind them of the Theocracies
of the past, and Theocracies always devolve into evil. The Christians always
reply that it will be different with them. After all, they're not evil - they're
nice people. They're altruistic, they're charitable, they mean well.

When socialists want a socialist nation I always remind them of the socialist
countries of the past, and socialist countries always devolve into evil. The
socialists always reply that it will be different with them. After all, they're
not evil - they're nice people. They're altruistic, they're charitable, they
mean well.

I see the Church and the State as prior thinkers have viewed them (Bertrand
Russell, Ayn Rand, Orwell), as both sides of the same coin.

At the present time, Capitalism has gotten
> out of hand, and now we need to swing more toward socialism.
>

Unbelievable! With the heavy government intrusion into the system such as Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac, plus, plus:

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
the Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB),
the Federal Housing Administration (FHA),
the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB),
the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO)
the Fair Housing Act (1968),
the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (1974),
the Community Reinvestment Act (1977),
the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (1975),
the National Affordable Housing Act (1990),
the Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act (1994),
the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (1994),
and the American Dream Down Payment Act (2003)

it is ludicrous to claim that the few free elements in the economy still
remaining, but not the interventions, caused the crisis.

The government's overt sponsorship of debased lending standards in home loans
was the primary economic cause of the mortgage-housing crisis. The State
provided massive political-financial incentives to make bad loans. Such loans
were made, and next thing you know we have sky-high default rates. High default
rates caused bank losses, so bankers restricted their lending, resulting in a
peak (and decline) in house prices that wiped out home equity and caused further
defaults.

But, it is CAPITALISM that has run amuck - IT has gotten out of hand.
Unbelievable!

>
> I pledge to resist responding to any more of Heinz's rants,
> thus letting him talk to himself.
>

You can't respond when the facts are not on your side. Spouting bromides doesn't
work with thinking people.

>
> Sounds great Heinz, but it is just not true. As with your stance on
Objectivism you are sitting an impotent extreme. Your sweeping generalizations
regarding socialism for example and your insistence that systems decay to
extremes are falsified by (for example) the interesting mix of constitutional
monarchy, parliamentary democracy, and socialism present in Finland, Denmark,
Sweden and Norway.
>
> Cash for clunkers does not mean we are all going to screaming heil Hitler in
20 years.

But you are only focusing on the successes elsewhere in the world while the
failures in those locales are ignored. Poverty exists, sir, even in Europe.

Heinz

"No political system is immune from corruption, and an all-powerful state is a
particularly dangerous seat for corruption to reside. Democratic ideals
inexorably creep toward this state as the size, scope, and power of government
increases."
Ward. S Denker

>
> No one accepts that the monolithic deregulation that you seem to espouse would
be an increase in freedom. This is the point of the argument that you are not
getting Heinz. If companies are totally free to do what they want the rest of us
are not free. We would be swimming in pollution.

Reply: Increased individual freedom would also include you Arthur - that is what
YOU don't get. If a company produces something that may be harmful to you, then
you can appeal to the law. This is the only job of government, to insure our
personal freedoms.

A logging industry cannot survive if it kills all the trees, and we now have
more forest cover than we had in the 1920's. Companies cannot survive if it
kills off its customers. Government intrustion often makes things worse in this
area as well.

The only way for a company to become coercive and thuggish beyond the law is if
it has political pull. This is also the result of a mixed economy, of politics
mixing with business.

>
> Politics and business ALWAYS mix in all forms of politics.
>

Yes, and a business having political clout is not laissez-faire free-market
capitalism. In a truly capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use
of physical force against others. Force happens when politics intrude.

>
> "If a company produces something that may be harmful to you, then you
> can appeal to the law. This is the only job of government, to insure
> our personal freedoms."
>
> In one corner I have company A with its ten-lawyer team. In the other corner,
I have plaintiff B who does not have enough money for a lawyer and who will be
dead in 3 years from black lung. Heinz, your world favors the rich and powerful
and would help them get more rich and more powerful.
>
>

That is why you should have properly formulated laws. These laws protect the
individual rights of everyone.
Governments are notoriusly bad at business. They do not know how to build cars
or trade securities or make food or clothing or anything else better than the
private sector, and thus regulations do not make businesses more efficient or
their products safer or of better quality. All regulations do is cause
businesses to adopt inferior procedures, destroying their profitability and
success at producing quality values thereby.
If a company makes a widget that kills someone, then the designer of the widget
needs to be held accountable for his poor design. It is not for a government to
micro-manage every widget maker in the country.

>
> ah . . . so . . . limit the freedom of business . . . don't make is possible
for the logging industry to decide exactly what logging is going to look like
because we play where they work and other species eek out a living where they
work.
>

Reply: From my experience, logging is mainly done in places AWAY from the
general public, therefore your esthetic sensibilities will not be attacked.
It also appears to me that having a bigger size government doesn't mean the
logging industry is going away either.

> so . . . limiting freedom is the thing government should do if I am following
you at this point.
>

My freedom does not trump your freedom. The government should protect my rights, as well as yours.

>
> Thanks for posting this article [The Debilitating Myth of the 'Free Market' Alternative]. I put it on my facebook.
>
> Ketarah

From the article: "Large corporations are able to exercise extraordinary
political influence through campaign contributions, lobbying, and control of the
media. By these means, they are able to have legislation enacted that favors
themselves over the public."

Reply: Yes, that's what happens in a mixed economy. This is not true freemarket
capitalism.

"If parasitism, favoritism, corruption, and greed for the unearned did not
exist, a mixed economy would bring them into existence."
-"The Pull Peddlers," Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

> yes, Heinz under your brand of government companies would not have to ask or
influence government for anything. If they had the money they would just do it.
>

Reply: And melding of the two (government and business) is no longer
laissez-faire capitalism. Many businessmen are not interested in free market
competition and will want the use of government to squeeze out competitors -
that's the result of a mixed economy. Businesses that are truly devotees of
laissez-faire capitalism, like Objectivist John Allison of BB&T, don't need or
want government help or intrusion.

> what you said about logging . . . that is takes place in remote areas. You
need to get out more. I go there. Also endangered species live there. Under you
brand of government we would not be doing anything to protect them. The
endangered species would also be competing in the free market.
>

Reply: Any new person born, and any new animal born is a danger to other
species, endangered or not. Humans are a part of nature as well, and to me they
are more important. 98 percent of all species that have ever lived have gone
extinct - that is the way nature works.

> I gave you an example of how my neighbor's freedom impinges on mine (gun's in
city limits). I guess I got you to partially agree that someone would have to
try to control my neighbor.
>

Reply: Yes, I never said NO government at all, that is anarchistic. I simply
want less government.
I want more individual freedoms. When I say this you fear for more freedoms in
business, yet it is the evil industrialist that has done more to bring people
out of poverty. You say we need more government interventions - yet it is
governments that have killed more people than anyone else. Come on, the words
"corrupt politician" go together naturally for a reason.

>
> Hitler's movement was Socialist in name only. Socialism was the popular cry
that brought the madman to power.
>
>

Reply: Socialism is the popular cry that brings and madman to power. That is the
result of it. A madman cannot acquire unlimited power in a society of
individuals.

> In a similar vein I hope a purely Libertarian/Capitalist society will have
nicer corporate policies that include health care for their child laborers and
no need for labor unions to demand an end to lock-ins or company stores.
>
> Sure, they may bring about change, but the horror stories survive the media.
>

Reply: The biggest horror stories of the past century came from big governments
that despised capitalists. Individual freedoms and libertarian attitudes have
done more to emancipate mankind. Mike - wake up.

> Industry without strong government regulations regarding working conditions
(for example) was hell. Others have said this. How can you not acknowledge that
fact?
>

Reply: For instance??? What era of history is this that you are talking about?
What country are you referring to?

> The Healthcare industry in the USA has failed when compared to foreign
systems.

Reply: That's not really true. As you can guess by my name I was born in Europe,
and I also spent most of my years in Canada. There is a reason that those places
are very expensive, and expect ALOT more of your money being taxed. There is
also a reason Canadians go to the USA for treatments.

>>The Healthcare oligopoly is not serving the people. Socializing Healthcare
does not mean trouble as you have indicated. Medicare and the Veteran's
Administration have operated in the USA for many years and their over all
performances exceed USA private healthcare.
>
>

Ahhh yes, the Veteran's Administration. The same VA with botched radiation
treatments and 10,000 patients exposed to HIV and hepatitis viruses. Their
facilities are 4 times older than the private sector, and the wait time is twice
as long. You want government to oversee private industry, but who oversees this
compassionate government of yours? Government is accountable to no one.
The USA is a leader in medical innovation, and the reason for that is freedom
and profit.

> USA 1880-1930 or so.
>
>
http://www.google.com/search?q=labor+laws+turn+of+the+century&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&\
aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
> There is a lot to read Heinz.

I have already commented on this over a week ago. For instance, child labor laws
were lax around the turn of the century, but the children who worked in
factories, which is a horrible image, were far better off than those that
didn't. When government interfered, the children were dismissed and left to a
world of crime and prostitution. Business benefits - government destroys.

>
> BTW: do you expect anyone here to believe that the European people are being
taxed into poverty?
>
>

This is the problem with discussing with emotional Liberals - you
are made to respond to statements never made to start off with. I never said
Europe was wallowing in poverty, but even with all the government intrusion and
much heavier taxation, there are still poor people in Europe and Canada.

>
> This is NOT true.
>

You have more to offer? A simple statement like your below is not proof that you
are right. The same goes for sweat shops in poorer countries. We despise sweat
shops, but people in those other countries wait in line to get into one. Those
working in sweat shops are far better off than those that aren't. Under pressure
from the left, many had to close, and then those workers were pushed into
poverty. As one economist in India said, he wishes the protesters would "think
with their brains rather than with their hearts."

>
> Heinz:
> US lefty backlash against foreign sweat shops was not as much against poor
working conditions as they were for a living wage. It is also about American
pride. If our industries are going to export labor to other countries at least
give the workers a living wage. Changes in salary have been for the better.
>
> Likewise changes in salary and working conditions here have been for the
betterment of workers. I reject as false the dichotomy that you present, namely:
it is either hell or poverty. You are wrong.

Reply: Again, Arthur, simply stating I am wrong does not constitute proof I am
wrong.

For instance: One German garment maker under pressure from groups laid off
50,000 child workers in Bangladesh. The British charity organization Oxfam later
conducted a study that found that thousands of those laid-off children later
became prostitutes, turned to crime, or starved to death.

Also. UNICEF reported that an international boycott of the Nepalese carpet
industry in the mid-1990s caused several plants to shut down; thousands of
Nepalese girls later entered the sex trade.

When Nike, Reebok & others shut down their plants in Pakistan, The result was
tens of thousands of unemployed Pakistanis and the mean income in Pakistan fell
by 20%.

>
> Yes, I am aware of stories like this:
http://www.banglarights.net/HTML/garmentsworkers.htm
> But these stories do not mean that Heinz' hell or death scenario is correct.

Reply: simply pronouncing that my proven points are incorrect does not mean they
are.

> Multinational corporations need to pay workers a living wage and NOT employ
underage children.

Reply: But your position means they earn NO pay at all. Many take their earnings
and go on to start their own businesses, hundreds of millions have been pulled
out of poverty in Asia due to the evil corporations you hate so much.

> >
> > I wish atheists, agnostics, Brights, FreeThinkers, Humanists, Secular
> > Humanists, etc.
> > would show support for health care reform because it is a moral
> > responsibility.

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from
wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
Thomas Jefferson

”The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither
restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits." Thomas Jefferson

The Commemoration of Saint Bibiana

2009-12-02T09:20:00.000-08:00

Today is the Commemoration of St. Bibiana, virgin. Why do they add the "virgin" part? Were the other Saints sexually active? Anyways, what I thought was interesting is that she is the Patron Saint for people with hangovers. Really! I can see her wearing a T-shirt that said: Don't get horny...get hammered.