Freedom or Totalitarianism

Freedom or Totalitarianism
Liberty or Death

Friday, December 28, 2012

The Atlantic: Daoud Kattab: 'Are the Palestinians Ready to Share a State With Jordan?'


Source:The Atlantic- Left to right: The King of Jordan and the President of Palestine.

"In the summer of 1993, I was granted a rare scoop as a Palestinian journalist: an exclusive interview with the prime minister of Israel at the time, Yitzhak Rabin, the first ever given to a reporter working for a leading Palestinian newspaper. Midway way through the one-hour meeting, I asked Rabin for his vision as to the ultimate political status of the West Bank and Gaza in 15 or 20 years. Rabin, who at the time, we later discovered, had approved the Oslo back-channel, took a puff at a cigarette given to him by one of his aides, and answered that he envisions It being part of an entity with Jordan.

I remember this response almost 20 years later, and at a time now when the Oslo Accords -- which Rabin signed on the White House lawn in September 1993 -- have all but been declared dead by all parties involved. Mahmoud Abbas, who signed the Memorandum of Understanding with Israel on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) that fall, is now on the verge of leaving political life with no clear successor for him or for the Palestinian Authority that has been established in parts of the West Bank since the agreement's implementation in 1995.

The failure of this approach has led some to suggest other avenues of breaking up the logjam  -- the result of U.S. President Barack Obama's lack of political will and the failure of the rest of the world to pick up the pieces without U.S. involvement. It is in this political limbo that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is finding itself toying with an old-new formula: A role for the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan." 


This would give the Palestinian people in both Palestine and Jordan a larger country and perhaps a better future. Especially if this new country were to be some type of democracy with economic and social freedom. That would have a large access to water as well.

Robert Wenzel: 'Business Insider: Taxes Need to Be Raised'

Source:Business Insider- is an economic and current affairs publication.

"Business Insider, co-founder, CEO and Editor-In Chief, Henry Blodget loves government so much that he wants to take more of your money and give it to the state. He writes:
We DO have a spending problem.

And if we are ever to get our budget deficit under control, we need to trim long-term spending growth.
But blaming the whole deficit problem on "spending" ignores the other half of the problem: Taxes.
Our federal tax revenue right now is historically low.
To begin to address our deficit problem, therefore, we need to trim spending growth and increase taxes.

Note: No discussion by Blodget of the coercive nature of taxes. No discussion of the bureaucratic machine that is fed by tax money. Just a call for increased taxes. Hey Henry, I have a great idea. In 2013, I am thinking of leeching off the government and grabbing every penny I can.. So let's eliminate the bureaucratic paperwork and middlemen and send a check directly to me in the amount of what you have determined you want to pay in higher taxes."  

Thursday, December 27, 2012

WBAL News: Jennifer Franciotti- ‘Maryland Casino Begins 24-Hour Operation’

Source:WBAL News- a man who was interviewed for this piece.

“Maryland’s largest casino will be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week.” 

From WBAL News 

Legalize gambling is here in the Free State of Maryland and will be a big economic benefit (if its regulated and taxed properly) because of the jobs it will create. And we are talking about good jobs that will allow for people to more than pay for their cost of living in Maryland which is a high cost of living state (for several reasons) but also because of the new tax revenue that it will generate and bring people into the State of Maryland.

All of this new economic and tax revenue is money that Maryland won’t have to try to generate in new taxes. Especially on middle class, hard-working Marylanders who don’t need to pay more in taxes. And Maryland won’t have to raise new taxes on Maryland business’s and those business’s will be able to stay in Maryland and keep those jobs in Maryland and Maryland won’t lose jobs as a result. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Robert Wenzel: 'How to Fight The Neocons'

Source:Economic Policy Journal- Robert Wenzel.
"I receive a surprising number of emails asking me about specific "libertarian" organizations and whether it makes sense to donate to them. I also receive requests from various organizations asking for an endorsement. I am in general reluctant to do endorse most of these organizations. The success of  Ron Paul spreading the freedom message has resulted in many groups attempting to ride on his coattails, some, over time, will prove to be important allies in the fight for freedom, others will prove otherwise. They can all talk a good game on launch, but only the test of time will prove how consistent they are and how capable they are. Thus, I have decided to limit my endorsements at this time to three organizations: The Mises Institute,  LewRockwell.com and AntiWar.com. I may add to this list in the future, I am monitoring a few. But for now, these are the only three that I am comfortable endorsing. All three have stood the test of time and maintained a hardcore libertarian stance across a spectrum of issues and are capably managed. Below Lew Rockwell reports on the recent attack against one of them, LRC,  by the statist, neocon Southern Poverty Law Center.-RW"

LibertyPen: Firing Line With William F. Buckley: 'F A Hayek - Arbitrary Wealth Redistribution (1977)'


Source:Liberty Pen- Austrian Professor Friedrich Hayek on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1977.

"From Firing Line, a discussion about how arbitrary wealth redistribution is an affront to justice. Jeff Greenfield, George Roche, William F. Buckley Jr. (1977) Liberty Pen

WBAL-TV: Maryland News: Maryland-Live Opens 24 Hours

http://www.wbaltv.com/news/entertainment/Maryland-Live-opens-24-hours/-/9379082/17912776/-/8u62b9/-/index.html?treets=bal&tid=26514163809813&tml=bal_12pm&tmi=bal_12pm_1_10550112272012&ts=H

More freedom of choice as far as what Marylanders can do with their own money in Maryland is coming to the Free State of Maryland.

Tuesday, December 25, 2012

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Robert Wenzel: The Conservative Case For The Welfare State?: How Conservatives Have Adapted to The Safety Net

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: The Conservative Case for the Welfare State?: It is really hard to believe that Bruce Bartlett once worked for Ron Paul. And friends tell me he was a pretty solid libertarian. Things hav...

Its hard to compare American Conservatives with Canadian Conservatives or European Conservatives because. American Conservatives are simply different, in Canada and Europe Social Democrats or even Socialists. Are seen as center-left and people who are called the Conservatives over there are Conservative. Compared with the Socialists but not Conservative in an American sense, Conservatives in Europe in Canada. Look more Liberal then they do Conservative in America and would be considered center-left in America. Where Social Democrats or Socialists are considered far-left in America and you would have a hard time fining. Any American Conservative who supports the idea of a public safety net especially in the 1930s, 40s and 60s. When social insurance spending by the Federal Government took off and you'll have a hard time today even. Of finding a real Conservative not a Neoconservative or a Theocrat but a real Big Government is the problem. And enemy Conservative whether it interfering with my money or personal life who believes in the safety net.

Had Conservative Republicans been in charge in the 1930s and 40s, the New Deal never gets created I think. Thats obvious and had Conservative Republicans been in charge in the 1960s, the Great Society never gets created. And I think thats obvious as well but even with this being the case Conservatives in this country have come to. The conclusion that the safety net is here to stay because there's at least one major political party that supports it. And the fact that Americans by in large believe in some form of a government safety net, Medicare and Social Security. Are by far the most popular things that government does in this country, so Republicans have made the political. Calculation that the safety net is here to stay and instead of trying to eliminate it or gut it to the point where. It would no longer be effective and popular, they've decided to make the best of it and perhaps. Decentralize it as much as possible.

To give you an example when Richard Nixon back when he became President in 1969 was seen as a mainstream. Conservative Republican and he's the President that brought the idea of Federalism back to the Federal Government. That government closest to home is the most effective and so fourth so instead of trying to eliminate the. New Deal and Great Society what he and his administration did was establish a Federalist policy in how these programs. Would be operated and give the states and localities more authority, responsibility and resources to run some of these programs.

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Reason Magazine: Zach Weissmueller: 'James Payne on Six Political Illusions'


Source:Reason Magazine- talking to Reason Magazine in San Diego, California.

"The first thing [children] think about of government is that it is like a super parent," says author and Reason Magazine contributor James Payne. Payne points out that seeing government as having the virtues of a parent - wisdom, responsibility, money, unlimited funds for whatever you need - has lead to illusions about what role the government should be playing in our lives. 

Payne sat down to talk with Reason TV at Libertopia 2012 in San Diego, Calif. to discuss his book, Six Political Illusions: A Primer on Government for Idealists Fed Up with History Repeating Itself." 

Saturday, December 22, 2012

Gary North: 'Why the Gun Control Movement Is Doomed'

Source:Wikipedia- current affairs writer Gary North.

"I have watched the gun control movement become a major voice against gun ownership over the last 40 years. What has most impressed me is this: this movement has been unsuccessful in disarming Americans. The demand for guns keeps rising.

I have known the leaders of the gun ownership movement. Larry Pratt is the head of the lobbying group, Gun Owners of America. He has held that position for as long as the organization has existed. It began in 1975. The founder of the organization, H. L. “Bill” Richardson, was a state senator in California. I do not recall when I first met him, but it was probably sometime around 1967. I met Pratt no later than 1969, and it may have been earlier. I have watched Gun Owners of America grow into a major sounding board for those who want to preserve Second Amendment freedoms. There are a number of lobbying organizations that promote gun ownership, but Gun Owners of America is generally regarded as hard-core. It does not recommend making political deals with those who would control legal access to firearms.

These mass murderers are almost always on prescription mood-altering drugs. The mainstream media rarely mention this. Every time that there is an incident where the latest drug-crazed shooter kills a number of people, there is a strong push by the gun control movement to get all guns banned. In contrast, every time some elderly lady shoots an intruder who had invaded her home, there is a brief story about this in the local newspaper. I have known for over 40 years that reporting in the major media is skewed in favor of the gun control movement.

In the years that I have known Richardson and Pratt, I have watched the gun control movement attempt to ban access to firearms, and in virtually all cases, it has failed. Guns are as plentiful today at gun shows as they were 40 years ago. We see billboards promoting gun shows in small towns across the South. I do not know if they have comparable sized shows outside of the South, but in the South, they are well attended.

There is more registration than was required 40 years ago, but there has been no concerted effort to move from gun registration to gun confiscation. With computerization, the possibility exists, but the manpower required to enforce such a ban of weapons would be astronomical.

ENFORCEMENT

Some laws are inherently unenforceable. We know that the laws are unenforceable among urban gang members. Gang members are among the best-armed civilians in the world. Gangs have more firepower than most local police departments. They do not use this firepower against what they would regard as the civilian population. They use the weapons against other gang members.

There is no way in the United States that the federal government could gain access to the weapons of the country without threatening extremely high fines or other penalties. It is unlikely that Congress will enact legislation that would authorize some system of draconian imposition of fines or jail sentences for violators.

The sheer volume of guns owned by Americans precludes the ability of the federal government to confiscate anything like 80% of the weapons. The kinds of people who own weapons are the kinds of people who resist bureaucratic intrusions into their lives. It is not like Americans in 1933, who surrendered gold coins in the darkest days of the Great Depression. They did not view gold coins as basic to their rights as citizens. They were incorrect in this regard, but there has never been the degree of commitment to the ownership of gold coins that there has been to the ownership of firearms.

Who would enforce the ban? I do not think that it will be local sheriffs. It may be local police departments, but local law enforcement agencies do not like to think of themselves as being unpaid enforcers of federal regulators. Cooperation will be limited, at best.

Any attempt by the federal government to enforce such a law will be met by foot-dragging. We will see lots of interest in ways of slowing down the bureaucratic machine. Paperwork, not armed resistance, is the weapon of choice in dealing with bureaucrats. The more paperwork that non-cooperative citizens can force the bureaucracy to go through, the less likely the bureaucracy is going to be able to implement its task of confiscating the guns of the United States. It is easy to jam the system, and with computers, it becomes even easier. I started writing about this over 25 years ago, when desktop computers were a novelty. I said that the microcomputer was the Saturday Night Special of resistance. Now the tablet has replaced it.

PARALYSIS AT THE TOP

I realize that a lot of Americans believe that the federal government is ready to take action against gun owners. Rhetoric aside, where is the evidence that the President is actively pursuing any such goal? I think the best indication of Obama’s commitment to this is that he has put Joe Biden in charge of the whole operation. The Vice President has no power, and of recent Vice Presidents, Joe Biden is something of a laughingstock. He is no Dick Cheney.

Every time there is some major shooting, the media insist that legislation will soon be passed to outlaw assault rifles. It is conceivable that Congress will pass a ban on certain kinds of assault rifles, but that will have essentially zero affect in keeping assault rifles out of the hands of drug-crazed psychotics. There will be more shootings, and there will be more calls to ban more assault rifles, but the failure of the legislation to stop the shootings will testify against the effectiveness of further legislation.

The fact that no legislation has been introduced as a result of the Newtown, Connecticut shootings tells me that this lame-duck Congress is not interested in pursuing the matter. It has other fish to fry.

If the new House of Representatives is ready to cooperate with the Senate in passing legislation against assault rifles, then we may see such legislation. But what would motivate Republicans to cooperate? What is in it for them? Why would they want to face the wrath of their constituents in order to pass a piece of legislation previous Congresses have resisted for 40 years?

I do not believe that voters in favor of gun ownership should back off and let politicians have a free ride their attempts to restrict legal access to guns in the United States. I do not think it is wise to give a free ride to any political group that wants to interfere with constitutional liberties. I think people should support lobbying agencies that are in favor of gun ownership. Nevertheless, I do not think they should do this on the assumption that the end of gun ownership is imminent, because it isn’t. I think they should do it on the assumption that the Constitution is on their side, and that the gun control movement is taking a stand against three centuries of American liberties.

The fact that the gun control movement has been politically impotent, or close to it, for a generation is not a good reason to sit back and let them browbeat squishy Congressman who were elected by voters who are in favor of gun ownership. If pro-Second Amendment voters remain silent, they will give an illusion to politicians that there will not be a backlash against anyone who breaks ranks and votes in favor gun control. We have to remind people in Congress that they can lose votes if they get wobbly on gun ownership. As Bill Richardson taught me over 40 years ago, politics is mostly about inflicting pain on politicians who deviate from a particular agenda. Politicians respond to pain, he taught me, and I watched him develop tactics that were specially designed to impose pain on those who favored gun control. He did this at the state level, and his organization has done it nationally

CONCLUSION

Within a decade, it will be possible for people to manufacture handguns inexpensively in their own homes. Even if it takes two decades, it is clear what is going to come. The ability of the government to confiscate handguns is surely limited when somebody can download a free piece of software that will enable him to manufacture a handgun, or the components of a handgun, in the privacy of his own home. The Left is now facing an ideological crisis. Either it bans 3D printers, raising civil rights issues, or else it must give up having any shot at banning guns.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=1feivPs1vmg%3Fversion%3D3%26hl%3Den_US

The ability of the gun control crowd to control the spread of weapons across the face of the earth is going to decline dramatically over the next 10 years or 20 years. This is the last gasp of the entire movement. The 20th century will go down in history as the era of gun control. The 21st century is going to be knon as a century in which the common man, around the world, becomes a gun owner.

I think it is a good idea for people to purchase those items that they want to own, and which are legal for them to own. They tend to do this in times of panic, when prices have been bid up. But, in my view, it is better to buy an artificially or temporarily high-priced item than it is to wait. It is best to take action when you are motivated to take action. Otherwise, procrastination wins out again." 

Friday, December 21, 2012

Gary North: 'Don't End The Charitable Deduction Tax Credit'


Source:Wikipedia- political author and columnist Gary North.

"In the past 15 years, I have made a lot of charitable contributions, with the total recently crossing the line to eight figures. When I retired six years ago, I decided I would give half of my future annual income to charity, and so far I have done that. So I can speak with authority about one man’s charitable motivation.

Let’s say that I still own some highly appreciated long-term-capital-gains stock, where my tax basis is close to zero. Under current tax law, if I sell that stock, I pay federal and state taxes totaling approximately 35% of the current value of the stock. So I get to keep 65% of the value of the stock.

If I donate the stock, I get federal and state income-tax deductions against my ordinary income (mostly interest and dividends) worth approximately 45% of the current value of the stock.

So, at the margin, it costs me only 20% of the stock’s value to put 100% of the stock’s value in the charity’s hands. Do I think that the charity can do more good with $100 than I could do with $20? Unless my charitable choices are really bone-headed, the answer is obviously “yes.” Can a charity do more good with $100 than government can do with $35? Here the answer is a resounding YES! Actually, the charity will do more good than government could do with ten times that amount, if you believe that government spending’s net effect on society is negative.

If I give cash, my marginal cost is currently 55% — much higher than 20%, but it’s still enough of a discount to motivate my giving. For various reasons, about half of my giving is in cash.

In the past few months, I’ve actually been thinking about how I would change my plans next year if the charitable deduction were to be limited. There’s no question that I would reduce my giving, stopping at the tax-deductible limit. That is in fact what I already do, since the 50% I now give is the maximum percentage of my gross income for which I can currently take a federal charitable deduction.

If the charitable deduction is capped or eliminated, will I scream bloody murder? No, the charities will do that for me. I can afford to wait for a new Congress and a new administration, and a better deal.

Dr. Mitchell is an imbecile, at least insofar as this topic is concerned. “The Rich” are not some amorphous class; they are individuals with real motivations and preferences." 

You can read the rest of Gary North's piece at Lew Rockwell

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Paul Green: 'Social Conservative Pharisees'

"During the recent US presidential election campaign, former House Representative Ron Paul made a controversial statement: That the social conservative message was a "loser".

The comment alienated some that other less principled campaigners courted for votes. They courted in vain as the message in practice ended up a vote loser. But the point of principle is that he said it as a family man married for over 55 years; as a committed Christian; as a medical doctor having delivered over 4000 babies into the world; and as an uncompromising pro-life defender of the unborn.

Yet the statement was absolutely right, for one primary reason:

Looking to the state to clean up society is like giving it a bath in a sewer. Superficially, it looks like cleaning up, but in the end, the filth and stench are far worse.

Hitler was a social conservative. J. Edgar Hoover was a social conservative. The worst enemies of Jesus – the Pharisees – were hard core social conservatives. Yet many Christians have thought that to be a Christian meant to be a social conservative.

In reality, the philosophy is a moral masquerade and inevitably hypocritical – or in even plainer words, devilish and anti-Christian. Look at this from the Bible:

Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, “All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for [this] has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours.” And Jesus answered and said to him, “Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.’ “

According to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, that was the last great temptation of three that Jesus had to resist, before finally ordering the devil to go. But today and throughout much of history, the craving for government power is a temptation many Christians have yielded to with little or no resistance. Very often, it has been in ignorance and delusion rather than a wilful commitment to evil. But ignorance is not bliss:

Hitler was aggressively socially conservative to the point of imprisoning homosexuals. Yet, recent history books confirm that he himself was a homosexual – frequently sodomising his assistant in the trenches of World War 1. In order to gain power and to consolidate support, Hitler needed a bone to throw to religious conservatives. As a personal bonus, he and his fellows in the echelons of the Third Reich, benefited from a captive selection of as much fresh meat as they desired.

J. Edgar Hoover was the same. Collecting porn with all the secret police power of the state behind him made him look like a paragon to gullible conservatives. But in fact, he used the material both to entertain himself and his fellow elites, and as a tool of blackmail for even more power. Recently the story emerged of a 17 year old boy who was offered release and a plane ticket home in return for having his orifice/s sexually traumatized by J. Edgar and a henchman.

Then there were those Pharisees: The ones who were so quick to launch a public prosecution against an adulterous woman, were just as quick to slink off in the face of whatever secrets Jesus exposed by writing in the dust.

In fact, there are several characteristics exhibited by the Pharisees, which are also common to all hard-core social conservatives, including a number of Christians today.

Socially Conservative Pharisees

One characteristic is hypocrisy or, "play acting": The desire to look good and appear to be upright leaders, above others and with a greater wisdom to justify their urge for control.

To achieve this, they may sweep their own shortcomings under the rug completely. Or else, minimize their significance by focusing on other vices more obvious in others.

Or, shift the moral goal posts entirely in order to overshadow their own serious flaws in the "light" of a new moral code. Usually the code is a fad, a product of either invention or distortion. Invariably, they then try to attribute their code to God, to justify authoritarian measures – more on this in a moment.

Another characteristic is "making up" for secret vices by forcibly cleaning up others. This seems to give them the confidence that although slightly imperfect, they are doing God's work by attacking those whose particular shortcomings are somehow less understandable.

CS Lewis put it well:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

There is nothing more evil than an authoritarian with a lust for power and prestige, convinced with religious zeal that they are "right". Technically, at a secondary level, sometimes they may be. But such people then leverage this to then violate more primary principles with a "clear" conscience.

In line with this, we read of the Pharisees claiming to be defenders of the family while, in the words of Jesus, "consuming widow's houses" to enrich themselves. Also, of taking money that should go to needy parents by claiming themselves to be God's representatives. Jesus warned them sternly that this came under the then capital offence of dishonouring parents.

How is this any different from either today's right-wing "faith-based" tax-and-spend social conservatives or of left-wing "social justice" welfare statists? In either case, state bureaucracies or approved insider beneficiary groups receive money stolen by government force from ordinary families to impose their own grand moral plans.

Pet Moral Codes

Today, we have various new moral codes – usually disputable or fads found nowhere in scripture, and yet which unify social and religious conservatives politically:

Recently, attacking gambling has come back into vogue, especially on the internet. Not a word about this ancient entertainment can be found in the Old or New Testaments. Nevertheless, a few gamblers do not control themselves, become addicted, and so serve as a convenient excuse for moral busybodies whose interests coincide with those who want economic central control. The end result: Internet surveillance, financial surveillance, more taxation.

Prohibition of alcohol was once a big favourite, but as a miserable failure it was then abandoned in favour of drugs – with similar results. Parental discipline or personal responsibility is undermined while the state takes control, whether or not anyone has actually been harmed. The Rush Limbaughs of this world would use violence against other drug users even while taking drugs themselves. End result: Violations of property; militarization of police; massive prison populations; a controlled market for CIA-run trafficking profits; and state monitoring of financial transactions.

Pornography may be evidence of actual adultery or abuse, but that is not the concern of pornography politics. The end is only to legitimise government control over what we watch and read. Even actual child abusers are treated gently by the "therapeutic" state which is often itself infested with them. A continuous threat to children is also needed to maximise fear in order to help justify the kind of internet surveillance, government monitoring, registration and identification, Hitler and J. Edgar Hoover could only dream of.

Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for claiming their ancestry from Abraham made them better men than others. True to form, racial "purity" doctrines were once quite widespread amongst social conservatives, but today the need for a purer and better "us" versus the despised "them" concept is fulfilled by "illegal" aliens:

Social conservatives would violently dispossess them all, holding them guilty by default, unless they too are numbered, registered, robbed of income, and fully submitted to "Caesar" like them. Rather than local resident property owners deciding who can come, go, and settle down, the state is considered the sole rightful arbiter. That is despite the fact that the same governments are responsible in the first place for disproportionately attracting undesirables through welfare handouts. In fact, "illegals" are far less likely to go on welfare than state approved "legals".

The most extreme example of the better "us" versus the despised "them" concept is in the complete dehumanising of the people of the Middle East. Their innocent men, women and children have been destroyed, maimed or tortured in untold numbers with a blind self-righteous and religious zeal, at the slightest real or imaginary risk to Western Christians or to Israel.

State Control

The one common factor among all these favoured moral causes is not any kind of judicial resolution or restitution of wrongs between parties. In that case, all that would be required is a simple hearing before a judge.

Instead, it is about the imposition of massive state control and the justification of internal or external violence and wars. Even where the superficial appeal is to some valid moral concern, such as marriage and the family, the implementation always focuses on this.

The Pharisees used the name of God and their rightful limited priestly and judicial function as a cover for state control. They had King Herod's backing and the backing of Caesar – and their real allegiance was to him not God. They were a murderous armed governmental force. No wonder they hated the Christ so much, who exposed their authoritarian hypocrisy with such devastating words.

Jesus was not an angry condemning enemy threatening to call Caesar down on the heads of ordinary sinners. Yet, his moral instruction was without compromise and has changed the world forever.

There are social "liberals" who want to call Caesar down on the heads of those who simply speak out in opposition to ungodly lifestyles. But in countering this, Christians have often reacted with the methods, or "leaven" as Jesus put it, of the Pharisees and the Herodians.

The fact is, in the civil, social and foreign policy realms, social conservatives consider the violence of the state as the supreme arm of God. This belief is an altogether unholy and illegitimate substitute for the transforming power of the gospel through the Christian church, which is the true arm and "body of Christ".

Listen to the words of the Pharisees and hear them echoing from the lips of today's hard line anti-immigrant, anti-drug, anti-gambling, anti-porn, pro-war, pro-police-state social conservatives:

"Crucify him! …We have no king but Caesar!"

Except today, instead of the call for crucifixion, the name of Christ is used in vain by the power hungry and his teaching distorted to glorify the modern Caesars.

Conclusion

The moral masquerade of the social conservatives has always been a bane to freedom. Its hypocrisy has provoked equally evil social countertrends and helped form the out of control social welfare state – to the point that family life is now under threat from social engineers.

At the same time, for churches and Christians, the message of the rightful authority of the family structure and of sexual self-control must not be compromised. Social contracts are real – not just quaint personal "religious sentiment" or the product of a self righteous busybody attitude:

The sexual act initiates new life, for which secure social and economic provision for years to come should already be in place. In addition, there can be enormous third party consequences. The result can be either highly beneficial, by multiplying the numbers of a free society, or highly destructive by violating multiple third party rights – and paving the way to an un-free society.

Human shortcomings in this area are inevitable, and should be discouraged primarily by moral re-education. But as long as the state retains a near monopoly on education of the young, the promotion of family life – a competing authority institution – is never going to happen.

In some cases and as a last resort, a judicial resolution for victims of broken social contracts is legitimate. But as long as the state retains control of the judicial system, it will never properly enforce social contracts. State power is maintained and resistance muted through mass dependency on the social welfare state – which exists and expands only through broken social contracts.

Government recognition of unnatural forms of marriage union is now a real concern. Legal endorsement will inevitably be used by the state to restrict free speech, to impose values upon the young in its clutches, and to actively sponsor alternative lifestyles.

But it is religious social conservatives who, with misplaced faith have glorified, empowered and bowed down to the state as a divine instrument for imposing morality.

In doing so, they have helped create a rod for their own backs. Now, the masquerade is being lifted to reveal the raw tyranny of the secular state. This was always the end result of the social conservative message and why it is and always has been a losing message.

It is high time for Christians to get back to their real task – offering the Good News, teaching and demonstrating the love of God, and offering the light of liberty to a world in tyranny." 

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

John Stossel: 'It's the Spending, Stupid!'

Source:John Stossel- from this program.

"Listening to progressive media pundits, I'd think the most evil man in the universe is Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform. His crime? He heads a movement that asks political candidates to pledge not to raise taxes.

I think Grover accomplished a lot. But I wish he'd convinced politicians to pledge not to increase spending.

President Obama says raising taxes to cut the deficit is a "balanced" approach.

Balanced …

But what's "balanced" about raising taxes after vast increases in spending? Trillions for war, Medicare, "stimulus" and solar panels. Tax receipts rose—after tax-rate cuts—from $1.9 billion in 2003 to $2.3 billion in 2008, the year the recession started. That increase couldn't keep up with the spending. The deficit doubled—actually, more than doubled—as politicians increased spending to nearly $4 trillion! Our debt, at more than $16 trillion, now exceeds our gross domestic product.

Ludicrous, irresponsible spending is why we're in trouble. As columnist Ron Hart points out, Bill Clinton's balanced budget spent $1.7 trillion. "Adjusted for inflation," he writes, "our federal government would (have) a $200 billion surplus. But instead of increasing government spending in line with normal inflation, under Bush and Obama we are spending $3.8 trillion today. Democrats, who believe we have a 'revenue' problem instead of a 'spending' problem, must also think they have a bartender problem, not a drinking problem."


"Matt Welch (Reason Magazine) questions whether many so-called "fiscal conservatives" have any real interest in cutting government spending. Liberty Pen
Source:Liberty Pen- talking about Federal Government spending.
From Liberty Pen

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

The Atlantic: Elspeth Reeve: 'Making Sense of Speaker Boehner's Plan B'


Source:The Atlantic Magazine- John Boehner (Republican, Ohio) Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

"House Speaker John Boehner announced in a press conference Tuesday morning that he's suddenly pushing for a backup plan, which he also hopes will prod President Obama into a better deal for conservatives.

Original post: House Speaker John Boehner announced in a press conference Tuesday morning that he's suddenly pushing a Plan B for the fiscal-cliff negotiations, in which the House will stop the Bush tax cuts from expiring January 1 on income below $1 million. He also hopes the backup plan's outline will prod President Obama into a better deal for conservatives. Boehner was briefing his fellow Republicans about the plan Tuesday morning, Politico's Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan reported before the speaker's vague and brief appearance alongside House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Plan B would detach the Bush tax cuts from the rest of the stuff being... 

Monday, December 17, 2012

Reason: Shikha Dalmia: 'Right-to-Work Laws Are, Indeed, Libertarian'


Source:Reason Magazine- columnist Shikha Dalmia.

"Every time Right to Work is in the news, a civil war breaks out among libertarians about whether it is consistent with libertarianism or not. On one side are folks like me who think that right-to-work laws are a modest advance for worker freedom because they exempt workers from having to pay mandatory union dues as a condition of employment in unionized companies. On the other is my best friend Sheldon Richman—who has long argued that such laws advance government, not liberty; Gary Chartier—who believes they violate the freedom of contract; Kevin Carson—who declaimed that I was only "half right" when I wrote that a union lawsuit alleging that Indiana's right-to-work law was tantamount to slavery was stupid; and my colleague J.D. Tuccille—who is disappointed that Michigan has "inserted itself into the marketplace to place its thumb on the scale in the never-ending game of playing business and labor off against one another." 

But before I go into the points of disagreement between the two camps, let me just briefly note the areas of agreement.

To the best of my knowledge, none of us (with the possible exception of Carson) buys the liberal argument against these laws most recently made by Michael Kinsley that abolishing dues encourages freeloading and prevents the provision of a "collective good." That assumes that there is only one optimal arrangement everywhere and always that maximizes total worker good: a monopoly union representing all workers.

Like Tuccille, I can certainly imagine joining a union under certain conditions (heck, there have been workplaces where I've been tempted to start my own unionization drive). There is absolutely nothing wrong with unions or collective bargaining. But there is also absolutely nothing wrong with the extreme opposite: Individual workers representing themselves and striking their own deals with employers. In fact, virtually all salaried workers do that—even in unionized companies—and, I don't think, it is possible to argue that the sum total of their welfare has been diminished because they don't have the equivalent of the UAW representing them.

One reason is that even in a quasi-free market such as ours there is enough competition for labor that employers do not maximize their profits by low-balling their employees or having them work insane hours in Steinbeckian conditions. In fact, individualized representation allows employers to customize remuneration packages based on individual merit—which redounds to everyone's benefit because it gives all workers an incentive to boost productivity and income. One-size-fits-all contracts with uniform raises and benefits for all conceivably depress the income of excellent workers as much as they raise it for mediocre workers. In any case, if freedom to negotiate individual contracts works for salaried workers, there is no reason to believe that, in principle, it wouldn't work for wage workers." 

Sunday, December 16, 2012

Commonsense Capitalism: 'Why Milton Friedman is Not a Hollywood Liberal'

Source:Commonsense Capitalism- Professor Milton Friedman in 1978 or 79.
"Why Milton Friedman is Not a Hollywood Liberal"

Source:Commonsense Capitalism

The reason why Milton Friedman was not a "Hollywood Liberal" (a term I don't agree with) is because as Professor Friedman said in this video, he doesn't believe in a high level of concentrated power, whether it is government power and corporate. 

Professor Friedman believed in what he would call a free market (not that there's such a thing as a free market) and a free society, where as many people as possible are competing with each other and living freely and making their own decisions, with their own lives, to have as much individual freedom as possible. That's a paraphrase, but it's pretty close. 

As far as the term "Hollywood Liberal": some of the most classically liberal (meaning real liberal) and center-right (not left-wing) people in America, live or work in Hollywood and are also some of the wealthiest people in America, if not the world. Some of the most pro-individualist, pro-capitalist, pro-private enterprise, pro-individual wealth, people live in and around Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, and Manhattan, New York. Even though all of these big cities get stereotyped as left-wing havens and homes to American leftists. 

In actuality, these so-called Hollywood Leftists, whether you're talking about Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon, Ben Affleck, or whoever else you want to mention, are actually some of the wealthiest and freest individuals in America, if not the world. But they're also entertainers who play leftists on TV and in film, and in public, but that not what they actually believe, because that's not how they live their own lives.

Saturday, December 15, 2012

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie- Interviewing Rob Kampla: 'A Great Year For Pot, Freedom, and Ending the Drug War'

Source:Reason Magazine- Talking to the Marijuana Policy Project.
"It was a wonderful feeling, being in that celebration with people in Colorado," says Rob Kampia, head of the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), of his Election Night 2012 experience.

Thanks in part to the efforts of MPP, Colorado and Washington became the first two states to fully legalize recreational marijuana use and possession."

From Reason Magazine

A great year as it relates to individual freedom at least as it relates to marijuana and the War on Drugs. Where I believe a majority of Americans are now finally coming around to the idea of how much the the War on Drugs has failed and how stupid it is and if you listen to the Marijuana Policy Project, you'll know why.

The referendum in Colorado worked especially, because medical marijuana is already legal there so Coloradans are already familiar with marijuana and also because of how the pro marijuana legalization supporters pushed this referendum that marijuana would be treated and subjected to the same taxes and regulations as alcohol. Not that marijuana would be legal but with no strings to go along with it, where it would be available to kids. Which was very smart on their part and gave the opponents less ammunition to use against them. Making supporters of marijuana legalization look exactly like the way they are , which is sane and sober. At least most of the time.

Friday, December 14, 2012

The Atlantic: Derek Thompson: 'A Giant Statistical Round-Up of Income Inequality'


Source:The Atlantic Magazine- writer Derek Thompson.

"Now we are engaged in a great tug-of-war over a few points in the top tax rate in Washington. But even if the White House pulls hardest, it won't amount to much of a victory for the long-suffering middle class. The sources of their income stagnation are too deep, too varied, and too long-term for Clinton-era tax rates to cure them.

"There is a huge amount of focus on progressive taxes in our policy world but progressive taxes are not much of a solution to this," said Lawrence Mishel, president of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. "We need to get unemployment down rapidly. We need to greatly change our labor standards. We need to raise the minimum wage."

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Reason: Jacob Sullum: 'What President Obama Can Do Right Now to End Outrageous Prison Sentences'

Source:Reason Magazine- a woman who was featured in Jacob Sullum's column.

"In a moving front-page story about sentencing reform, New York Times reporter John Tierney highlights the heartbreaking case of Stephanie George, a single mother of three who received a life sentence without parole in 1997 because her boyfriend stashed half a kilogram of cocaine in her Pensacola, Florida, home. That offense, together with earlier convictions for a couple of small-time crack sales, triggered a mandatory sentence that U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, in a sadly familiar ritual, declared unjust as he was imposing it. "Even though you have been involved in drugs and drug dealing," Vinson told George, "your role has basically been as a girlfriend and bag holder and money holder but not actively involved in the drug dealing, so certainly in my judgment it does not warrant a life sentence." Today Vinson tells Tierney:

She was not a major participant by any means, but the problem in these cases is that the people who can offer the most help to the government are the most culpable. So they get reduced sentences while the small fry, the little workers who don't have that information, get the mandatory sentences.

The punishment is supposed to fit the crime, but when a legislative body says this is going to be the sentence no matter what other factors there are, that's draconian in every sense of the word. Mandatory sentences breed injustice.

Families Against Mandatory Minimums, of course, has been making these arguments for more than two decades, but Tierney notes that they are finding an increasingly receptive audience among conservatives having second thoughts about the cost-effectiveness of mass incarceration and legislators facing tight budgets with less room for the wasteful spending reflected in numbers like these... 

Monday, December 10, 2012

Reason: Sheldon Richman: 'Romanticizing Taxation'


Source:The Future of Freedom Foundation- contributor Sheldon Richman.

"In the debate over avoiding the "fiscal cliff"—especially over whose taxes should and shouldn't be raised—I detect an annoying attempt to romanticize taxation. I read this as an act of desperation on the part of those who want higher taxes on the wealthy, for there is nothing romantic about taxation.  

The other day MSNBC's Chris Hayes invoked Franklin Roosevelt in support of higher taxes on the top 2 percent. Pulling out all the stops, Hayes quoted from one of FDR's October 1936 campaign speeches, in which Roosevelt said: 

In 1776 the fight was for democracy in taxation. In 1936 that is still the fight. Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said: "Taxes are the price we pay for civilized society." One sure way to determine the social conscience of a Government is to examine the way taxes are collected and how they are spent. And one sure way to determine the social conscience of an individual is to get his tax-reaction.

Taxes, after all, are the dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society.

As society becomes more civilized, Government—national, State and local government—is called on to assume more obligations to its citizens. The privileges of membership in a civilized society have vastly increased in modern times. But I am afraid we have many who still do not recognize their advantages and want to avoid paying their dues.

Hayes is impressed that Roosevelt was willing to say this just weeks before election day. When did taxation become a dirty word? Hayes wondered.

Let's not get carried away. To say that "in 1776 the fight was for democracy in taxation" is misleading. Yes, the revolutioners objected to taxation without representation. But it hardly follows from this objection that they looked on taxation with representation benignly. There is every reason to think they would be appalled by the national, state, and local tax regime we labor under today, particularly income taxation, complete with IRS inquisitors. One need only look at the causes of Shays's and the Whiskey rebellions to gauge early Americans' attitude toward the taxman." 

Friday, December 7, 2012

Reason: Brian Doherty: U.S. Representative Justin Amash: 'GOP Leaders Are Willing to Take Really Bad Deals to Avoid any Defense Cuts'


Source:Reason Magazine- U.S. Representative Justin Amash (Republican, Michigan) member of the House Budget Committee.

"More on the apparent purge of Republicans who show any signs of seriousness about budget cutting, noted here yesterday by Ed Krayewski. The Hill states what occurred to everyone: House leadership is "sending a clear message that they are demanding more unity from rank-and-file members."

One of the guys who lost his seat on the House Budget Committee, Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, who is going into his second term, has spoken out on his axing, reported by the Detroit Free Press:

Speaking at the conservative Heritage Foundation on Tuesday, Amash said he still hasn't received official word that he'd been removed from the House Budget Committee going forward.

"For a party that's trying to expand its base and make sure it reaches out to young people and new groups, I think it's pretty outrageous," Amash said. He called it "a slap in the face" to the growing libertarian wing of the Republican Party, noting that he voted along with leadership 95% of the time during his first term.

Amash defeated Democrat Steve Pestka in the Nov. 6 election and begins his second term in Washington in January. But he won't do so as a member of the Budget Committee, where he voted against budget proposals put forth by Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who was his party's vice presidential nominee this year. Amash said the budgets didn't go far enough.

"It's not acceptable to have budgets that are unbalanced to the year 2040," he said.

Amash also spells out one of the biggest problems the establishment GOP has with being a genuine party of fiscal responsibility and constitutional government:

Amash also disagreed with what he described as an entrenched view among Republican leaders that defense spending is off limits for cuts. He believes that while the nation's military must remain strong, that defense spending should be on the table for reductions and that it could serve as a way to find a bipartisan agreement with Democrats on spending cuts.

"I think they (Republican leaders) are willing to raise taxes to avoid any defense cuts," said Amash. "I think they're willing to take really bad deals to avoid any defense cuts."

And it's not just a matter of spending the money, as Amash's political inspiration Ron Paul almost uniquely understood: it's a matter of the tactics and priorities of our military-industrial complex, which need to be seriously rethought. The spending cuts will come naturally once imperial mission and the need to spend multiples of what the entire rest of the world spends on the military are abandoned."

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Reason Magazine: Mike Riggs: 'America's Prison Population Is Finally Shrinking & Here's Why'

Source:Reason Magazine- with a look at crime & punishment.

"The number of adults under some form of correctional supervision in the U.S. has fallen from a historic high of 7.3 million in 2007, to 6.98 million in 2011, according to a new report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Expressed as a ratio, 1 in 34 adults last year was a probate, a parolee, or a prisoner; down from 1 in 31 in 2007-2008. That's progress. Barely.  

What explains the decline? The short answer is money. When the housing market crashed, cash-strapped states and cities were forced to take a hard look at their budgets. A lot of them realized they were spending insane amounts of money keeping nonviolent offenders in cages, so many increased funding for diversion programs like drug court and veterans court. Some states have also begun reducing penalties for parole and probation violations, which make up 75 percent of prison admissions in Texas, and cost Florida $100 million a year." 

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

LearnLiberty: Matt Zwolinski: 'Social Justice and Its Critics'

Source:Learn Liberty- Professor Matt Zqolinski.

"For many, the concept of social justice means equalizing wealth or opportunities for people. Many classical liberals and libertarians reject the idea of government-directed social justice. Some reject it because they think it is impractical or even immoral. Others reject it because they believe the idea is conceptually confused. Prof. Matt Zwolinski explains that the primary problem in the social justice concept is that free societies lack a central distributor to ensure wealth, jobs, opportunities, resources, or other goods are distributed "equally" or "fairly." Libertarians and classical liberals find that the only meaningful concept of social justice is one focused on the legal and economic rules of societies. Many think this focus is incompatible with the political left's concept of social justice. Stay tuned to the next LearnLiberty video by Prof. Zwolinski to find out why he disagrees." 


"Social justice refers to a fair and equitable division of resources, opportunities, and privileges in society. Originally a religious concept, it has come to be conceptualized more loosely as the just organization of social institutions that deliver access to economic benefits. It is sometimes referred to as "distributive justice."
1
2
 
Social justice is a broad term, and there are many variations in how advocates apply the perspective. However, social determinants like the racial wealth gap or inequitable access to health care feature heavily in social justice analysis. Some applications related to social justice, such as critical race theory, have become a battleground for American politics." 

Monday, December 3, 2012

Reason Magazine: Sheldon Richman: 'Rachel Maddow's Blind Deference to Government Power'

Source:Reason Magazine- columnist Sheldon Richman.

"Is there a difference between government and society? Rachel Maddow seems to think not.

Pay close attention to these words from the MSNBC host's promo as she attempts to defend "America" against those who (in her view) believe its best days are in the past: 

"No, no, no. We're not going to build it. No, No, No. America doesn't have any greatness in its future. America has small things in its future. Other countries have great things in their future. China can afford it. We can't"—you're wrong! And it doesn't feel right and it doesn't sound right to us because that's not what America is." 

The first question that arises is: Who is it that says "America [unlike China] doesn't have any greatness in its future"? Who is Maddow arguing against? The last time I heard something like that, it came from the "limits to growth" crowd, which is probably part of Maddow's fan base." 

CNN: NewsRoom- ‘A Look at Rikers Island Jail’

Source:CNN- with a piece about New York City's Rikers Island Jail.

“A former corrections official explains what it’s like for Dominique Strauss-Kahn to live inside Rikers Island jail.”

From CNN

Rikers Island Jail is probably the size of a lot of prisons in big states. And part of that has to do with the fact that New York City is a city of 7.5-8M people, a size of a big state in America. Not a place any good and free person would want to go to, meaning Rikers Island, which is why we should never put ourself in a position that would land us in a jail/prison like that.

But what Rikers is in the business to do, is to house defendants who are awaiting trial, as well as inmates who are doing short sentences. Rikers does a very good job of this. The inmates who behave themselves and have good records, are able to work and go to school as well as work on their own cases. And they can go to religious services if they choose to, as well as other rehabilitation services.Self-improvement services including drug treatment, which is a big reason why we have so many people in prison in this country.

This is not just a jail where people are simply warehoused, but a place where they can make good use of the time that they do there, which should be purpose of jails and prisons.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Sunday, December 2, 2012

Liberty Pen: Professor Milton Friedman- Power of The Market: Welfare Insurance


Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman in 1979-80.
"Milton Friedman explains the dynamics of welfare (8 of 30) Liberty Pen"

Source:Liberty Pen 

The safety net at its best, is a system that helps people when they are in need. Like when they are out-of- work and haven't been able to find new work, don't have the savings to take care of them while they are unemployed. Or lack the skills to get them a good enough job that will allow them to pay their bills and allow them to live self-sufficiently. That's what the safety net is there for, to help people while they are in need, until they are able to take care of themselves. That's what the safety net is suppose to be. 

What the Roosevelt Administration in the 1930s and then the Johnson Administration should've tried to establish in the 1960s, was a public social insurance system for people who needed it. The main problems with the New Deal and Great Society, is they created a system that incentivizes welfare over work, where you can get more money not working and not being educated, over working and being independent. Which I believe is the main point that Professor Friedman is making here.