Category Archives: Politics

How to Help the Poor in a Free Society

One of the biggest criticisms of Libertarian viewpoints, is this notion that there is supposedly no way to help the poor in a free society; so it is often thought that we must forcibly take money via taxation, to give to the poor. If you use a bit of logical deduction, however, you will see that a society who values helping the less fortunate will help the less fortunate; there need not be a wasteful/coercive government intermediary who squanders most of the money before it reaches its target and creates a dependent class.

How to help the poor without pointing the gun at everyone else… by Stefan Molyneux, Host of Freedomain Radio, the most popular philosophy podcast on the web – www.freedomainradio.com

George Washington, Political Parties and Lack of Principle

Today’s parties, the Republicans and Democrats, or as I like to call them Republicrats and Demipublicans, are not here to fix our problems. As George Washington recognized over 200 years ago, political parties are tools “by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people.”

Whenever I hear partisan talk, I am reminded of how easily people become tangled in the dialectic and effectively neutralized. Neither party is going to save us, no matter how it plays out, the only saving grace will come when people again become principled.

These people that put all of their energy into making sure their “party” gets in are incredibly naive and unwilling to face the fact that either party will do anything to get in power and stay there; neither has much in the way of principle. You can’t have good public policy without sound principles, there simply is no way to compromise; either you have sound principles, or you don’t.

“All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

“However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

–George Washtington

Open Letter to CONgressman Mo Brooks: His Vote to Re-Authorize the “Patriot” Act

Congressman Brooks,

When you were sworn into office, you took an oath to the Constitution of the United States of America. Your vote to reauthorize the so-called “Patriot Act” shows that you don’t take that oath seriously.

You and the others who voted to reauthorize this Constitution defying bill are a disgrace. Please consider your oath of office before you vote on a bill. It is your duty to follow the Constitution and just because others are not doing so does not give you the excuse to follow suit.

American Politicians Are Already Screwing People Who Rely on Socialized Benefits

Today I see news releases in which B. H. Obama is bragging about “fixing” medicare. Looks like little more than window dressing to me. Many doctors are dropping medicare patients because they don’t make any money and it’s just not worth the paperwork and effort to comply with the regulations. So much for “affordable health care for all.”

When the government socializes services and then makes big promises, there is a good chance they won’t deliver on those promises when hard times are here. These cuts and the subsequent bragging about “eliminating waste” are just another example of this.

Obama, like most politicians, is a highly paid professional shill. He lied his way into office and he used his lies to crack open the treasury and rob the future generations of their freedom and prosperity. How about we get these leftist hacks out of office and put people in who give a damn about our inalienable Constitutional rights.

You can’t create new “rights” like the “right to health care” which violate existing basic human rights like property rights; because in order for the government to hand out services for free, they must take something from someone else.

What you end up with, after all of this welfare, is crappy health care for everyone, more poverty and a much more difficult life for future generations.

Doctors’ Medicare payouts to be cut 21% June 1

CNN Money | May 17, 2010

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — For the fourth time this year, doctors face a potential huge cut in the fees that the government pays them to treat Medicare patients.

Physicians will be hit with a 21% cut in Medicare reimbursements as of June 1, unless lawmakers decide to patch over the issue — as they’ve done for years. Congress is now debating the matter, and to stop the cut lawmakers would have to vote to pass a new patch sometime in the next two weeks.

If the proposed cuts go through, physicians are worried their practices will be so strapped that they’ll have to drop some of the 43 million Americans who are covered under Medicare.

But, of course, on the other side of the issue is cost to the government at a time when the federal budget is tight.

Federal law currently requires that the payment rates for doctors who accept Medicare be adjusted annually based on a formula that’s tied to the health of the economy.

“The current formula is absolutely broken,” said James Rohack, president of the American Medical Association. “Congress is in a hole, and instead of climbing out they keep digging deeper.”

That formula was established in 1997, and the law says rates should be cut every year to keep Medicare in the black.

But Congress has blocked those cuts in seven of the last eight years, setting up nine temporary patches often referred to as the “doc fix” — three of which were in 2010 alone.

“It’s hard to imagine this 21% cut actually being allowed to go through,” said Patricia Neuman, a vice president at the nonpartisan analysis group Kaiser Family Foundation. “A cut of this magnitude would have a chilling effect on physicians.”

‘Annual agony’

Of course, delaying cuts merely kicks an existing problem down the road.

“This annual agony must end,” said Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement. “Postponing a permanent solution is false economy.”

One possible outcome of the congressional wrangling is a five-year delay in the 21% cut in Medicare fees. That option, the most-discussed so far, would cost about $80 billion.

That spending would be exempt from a “pay as you go” law enacted in February that requires lawmakers to find ways to offset certain spending increases or tax cuts.

Other options include delaying cuts by a fewer number of years, but at higher reimbursement rates, provided that the cost is capped at $80 billion.

But the AMA’s Rohack says he wants “a new formula that actually reflects the true cost of care.” Lawmakers counter that repealing the current setup would cost $210 billion over 10 years.

The massive cost of retooling Medicare is the reason such a measure wasn’t included in the new health care reform law.

“Like so many things, this is a fiscal issue — it all gets down to money,” Neuman said. “There’s a lot of interest in changing the formula, but it’s not so straightforward, especially from a budgetary point of view.”

The AMA is pushing for a total Medicare overhaul because the years of temporary patches have created uncertainty for physicians and consumers alike, Rohack said.

“There will be letters saying, ‘Dear Mrs. Jones, I’m closing my practice because I can’t afford it anymore,’ ” Rohack said. “I’m worried they won’t even be able to recommend other physicians because no one else in the community is accepting Medicare either.”

A permanent fix would remove physician uncertainty, restore consumer faith and ultimately save money, Rohack said, adding that a permanent fix in 2007 would have cost just $49 billion.

“If they’d fixed this permanently years ago, it would have been a tadpole-sized problem,” Rohack said. “Now, it’s become a bullfrog — and eventually it’ll be Jabba the Hutt.”

Obama + BP = Cap and Trade = Green Fascism

Its interesting how BP created a high profile crisis, then a man whom they gave significant sums of campaign contributions to, B.H. Obama, tries to sell the solution as Cap & Trade, which BP has lobbied for; itself standing to benefit from Cap & Trade quite handsomely through various schemes it has devised to take advantage of government subsidies and incentives.

If you step back and look at who benefits here, you can see that Obama is and has always been a BP stooge; taking their campaign “contributions,” backing their legislation, brokering “deals” like the 20B dollar escrow fund (a move which has no precedent in our society — what ever happened to the rule of law?).

Sure it all looks good as a PR stunt for Obama and BP. Play BP as the bad cop, punish them with the escrow fund, making them seem as if they’ve somehow “paid their debt to society.” Continue reading Obama + BP = Cap and Trade = Green Fascism

A Critical Look at Global Warming

There is a widely held belief in the mainstream that “the debate has been settled” regarding Global Warming. If, however, you look at the financiers, beneficiaries and the tactics used to push forth with the Global Warming research and the associated policy, it gives one reason to be suspicious of what is really going on here.

More attention needs to be paid to non-conventional views on Global Warming. While the government has shelled out nearly $80 billion U.S. dollars to scientists, in order to generate research indicating man-made global warming is real; only $23 million U.S. dollars have been given to scientists with a skeptical angle.

Give a large swath of scientists a momentous sum of money and they will publish papers showing just about anything is true, whether or not that is actually the case. When you have a massively dis-proportionate sum going to one side of the argument; you will likely have the illusion of consensus and most people will believe that your research proves something concrete.

I’d like to present a few alternative views for your consideration. Now I’m sure these aren’t the be all end all proof of anything in particular; but at least they show an alternative viewpoint and provide a window into the kinds of individuals and organizations involved, as well as the motives, behind the push for Climate Change taxation and regulation.


The Skeptics Handbook II: Global Bullies Want Your Money

Global Warming Skeptics Handbook

It’s unthinkable. Big Government has spent $79 billion on the climate industry,
3000 times more than Big-oil. Leading climate scientists won’t debate in public
and won’t provide their data. What do they hide? When faced with legal requests
they say they’ve “lost” the original global temperature records. Thousands of
scientists are rising in protest against the scare campaign. Meanwhile $126 billion
turned over in carbon markets in 2008 and bankers get set to make billions.

Great Global Warming Swindle

Everything youve ever been told about Global Warming is probably untrue. From Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth to news reports from the popular media outlets and even public classrooms which, in chicken little fashion, seem to be screaming – the sky is falling. But is it really? This film blows the whistle on what may be the biggest swindle in modern history. We are told that Man Made Global Warming is the biggest threat ever to mankind and that it may even threaten our very survival; and, if we do not change our ways and reduce CO2 emissions – polar ice caps will melt, coastal areas will flood and hurricanes like Katrina will become common. With nearly Gestapo like tactics we are told not to question! There is absolutely no room for doubt because there is a “scientific consensus.” Anyone who questions the data or conclusion is an enemy of the state and humanity. Well, bring it on because this is exactly what this well documented film does. The Great Global Warming Swindle uses a plethora of leading scientists who will not bend to political or philosophical or ideaological pressure. So watch this film and make up your own mind.

CBC Documentary: Global Warming Doomsday Called Off

In this eye-opening documentary viewers will discover how the most respected researchers from all over the world explode the doom and gloom of global warming.

Humans stand accused of having set off a global climate catastrophe by increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The prophecy of doom is clear and media pass on the message uncritically.

Now serious criticism has arisen from a number of heavyweight independent scientists. They argue that most of the climatic change we have seen is due to natural variations.

The Ever-Present Friction Between Liberals and Libertarians

There are many common threads between Liberals and Libertarians, such as the desire for personal liberties; but the areas where they differ are somewhat significant. In a nutshell, Liberals are passionate about personal liberties such as freedom of speech; but they tend to have little concern for our economic liberties. Generally they will turn a blind eye to the loss of property rights, if their ends are achieved in the process.

Liberals stood by while the health care bill was rammed through Congress, taking away our ability to choose how and where we spend our own money and forcing us to purchase health insurance from the very insurance cartels they claimed to be opposed to. All of this, despite the fact that, when implemented on a state level in Massachusetts, their program failed miserably; raising premiums and claim denial rates far above what they were prior to the reforms.

Liberals supported Cap and Trade legislation, which taxes and regulates virtually every single aspect of our lives, by attaching a tax to the generation of Carbon Dioxide. This also invites government inspectors into our homes, to make sure that we’re using “government approved” designs for everything from our appliances, to light bulbs, windows and insulation.

When faced with conflicting opinions on humanity’s contribution to climate change they parrot the Al Gore stance that the debate on climate change is finished; pretending that everyone who matters has voiced their opinion and they have all unanimously favored their position that humanity is the primary cause of changes in our climate.

They are even going so far as describing dissenters as “climate denialists,” using the same kinds of ad-hominem attacks used against individuals who have a critical view of the historical accuracy of the generally accepted view of the Holocaust.

One of the fundamental differences I find between Libertarians and Liberals, is the Liberals’ faith and trust in the national government to tax, redistribute wealth and regulate enterprise. All of which are based on enormously flawed social and economic theories, which history has shown, with countless examples, to create widespread poverty and destroy capital formation.

  • Excessive taxation/regulation helps to create the very poverty they seek to eliminate, by making small businesses less competitive and more encumbered. These are the very businesses individuals would have jobs with, thus keeping them off the dole.
  • Redistribution of wealth inherently has a trickle up effect, with the successful middle class entrepreneur being robbed by the redistribution and advantages given to large organizations in the process. The redistribution rarely even touches the very wealthy, because they tend to have their wealth structured in trusts and other vehicles which shield them via loopholes in the code. In fact it benefits the wealthy because the government spends what they have taken on their crony corporatist friends.
  • The government has a terrible record for regulating just about anything. Typically when the government sets out to “regulate” something, it only means that the legislators are going to write regulations which are detrimental to small enterprises; while the lobbyists busy themselves crafting loopholes for anyone in larger enterprises who can afford them. These regulations inherently damage the fairness of the business environment in favor of large businesses who can afford to either purchase a loophole or absorb the increased cost of adopting the changes.

The financial reform bill is a wonderful example of Liberal “regulation” of problem corporations.

source: seeking alpha

I posted an 11-page summary of Senator Dodd’s financial reform bill yesterday.

After receiving input from one of the top experts on credit rating agencies and various other smart people, I have now formed an opinion about Dodd’s bill.

Specifically, Dodd’s bill – while sounding good – is really an all-out attempt to save the current, broken system.

Dodd’s bill contains a number of concepts and catch-phrases that sound like reform. But the bill would actually:

  • Keep the current Federal Reserve system, even though it is a wholly-failed system (see this, this and this). True, the bill would take away some of the Fed’s regulatory oversight powers, but the Fed has never used them anyway, so it is really maintaining the status quo
  • Keep the current NRSRO credit rating system – maintaining Moody’s, S&P and Fitch as a government-endorsed rating monopoly – even though that is a wholly-failed system
  • While saying it “ends too big to fail”, the bill would actually make sure that attempts to immediately break up the giant insolvent black holes dragging our economy down – such as Senator Sanders’ bill – will be killed
  • We can go on and on, as the bill – while using a lot of nice language – attempts to prop up just about every aspect of the current system, while appointing (“trust us, we’re different”) regulators to oversee things. It does nothing to try to prevent future forms of looting (which Congressmen Grayson, Clay and Miller attempted to do in their bill).

    But we cannot be sure that such regulators won’t be subject to the same regulatory capture as all of the current regulators have suffered. Or that Senator Dodd has suffered, for that matter.

    Only by taking away monopoly power from the too big to fails, and the NRSROs, and the Fed can we ever have a stable economy.

    In addition, the economy cannot recovery until trust is restored in the financial system, and trust will not be restored unless the fraud behind the financial crash is prosecuted. Dodd’s bill ignores past fraud.

I also find it interesting and even comical to see that Bill Maher fancies himself a libertarian.

source: lewrockwell.com
“…Ironically, Bill Maher claims himself to be a Libertarian. Smoking pot and bashing President Bush alone do not make you a Libertarian. It takes strong convictions and faith in the concept of Liberty to stick to Libertarian principles in a town like Ancient Rome (that I sometimes refer to as modern day Washington D.C). Dr. Paul has proven the mettle by proving his loyalty for Libertarian principles while surviving the cut-throat D.C atmosphere for over three decades…”

Here’s an interesting excerpt from a Bill Maher show, where he voiced his stance on others who do not share his views on Cap & Trade.

“Shut the fuck up while I slap your face for making noise! Now pass the cap-and-trade law, you stupid bitch, and repeat after me, ‘global warming is real.’” [applause]

Maher’s quote speaks volumes of the Liberal hubris associated with global warming. I have seen this sentiment echoed by a variety of liberal voices; few of which seem to be interested in having a genuinely scientific debate on this phenomena.

It’s very difficult to have a discussion with someone who is so violently opposed to even the notion of questioning their views. I’ve often found it quite difficult to discuss politics and often science with die-hard Liberals. They tend to fancy themselves the hero of the common man; but most of their solutions are superficial and actually hurt the common man whom they are so concerned with helping.

If more Liberals would just look into things, deeper than the phony partisan rhetoric, I think their movement would be much more effective at achieving their ends. They need to understand that there are more than two views to every issue; it isn’t just Democrat or Republican. There are often hundreds of possible solutions; while only two are seen as viable by the controlled left-right dialectic.

Getting caught up in the left-right dialectic is the road to folly; because it keeps you from realizing the wide range of alternative possibilities which are available to solve problems. Solutions which don’t necessarily require more government programs, rules and regulations. Perhaps, god forbid, solutions which are actually constitutional and preserve, not only personal liberties; but also economic liberties.

Barack Obama: Pied Piper of the Plethos

Source: Allegiance and Duty Betrayed

Ignorance, illiteracy, stupidity always have been relevant social factors. This has been the case in any historical human social organization one cares to name — from clan to nation-state.

In every civilization, there is a very thin upper stratum of the people who are concerned with questions of truth, justice, the good — in other words, with the life of reason, or of the human spirit if you prefer. Historically, such people have tended to believe these ultimate values have a claim on every man in terms of the constitution of the good order of his soul, and on the direction of his actions as they translate into the social sphere.

Such people are surrounded by a vastly larger mass of “stupid people” who simply do not see the world that way, generally because they are ignorant, thus personally disordered/disorderly, thus irresponsible — and (thus) ever needy. This mass of “stupid people” has been called: “slaves by nature.”

In Aristotle, we find the distinction between the mass of the people, the plethos — who basically function on the “stupid level” — and the spoudaioi — the prudent, virtuous, public-minded “mature men.” It is the latter class that actually maintains the civilization.

Nowadays, however, progressive educrats like Barack Obama’s old friend, Bill Ayers, teaches teachers to teach their pupils that these spoudaios characters are really nothing but a reactionary, usually male, usually white gang of fascist thugs who are selfishly trying to preserve their own interests against the just claims of disadvantaged people, who are usually either women or “people of color.” The spoudaioi are oppressors you see. Continue reading Barack Obama: Pied Piper of the Plethos

On the Narcissism of Obama’s Most Fanatical Supporters

One of the attributes shared by many of Barrack Obama’s more fanatical supporters, is an acute form of Narcissism. It seems as if they enjoy Obama’s presidency so much, because he reflects the same kinds of personality disorders that are endemic in the supporters’ own minds.

The problem these individuals face, is the fact that neither Obama, nor his supporters, seem to realize what the administration’s policies may do to the country, if fully implemented. For the most part, they are not genuinely interested in hearing what anyone else has to say either, if it isn’t directly supporting the administration’s stance.

In fact, many of these supporters are unaware of the details of Obama’s policies; often they may not know more than the title of the bill, the abstract or some sound bytes they heard via the media. As anyone who has actually read bills knows, these tidbits rarely convey the true nature of the meaning and scope of a proposed bill.

It seems as if one of the main attractions to Obama is his rhetoric and his personality. Certain types of people are attracted to him like a magnet, regardless of the implications of his policy agenda. Some of them even admit that his policies don’t matter, and all that really matters is his “leadership.” This is one of the most fatally flawed viewpoints I can imagine driving an executive’s support base. Continue reading On the Narcissism of Obama’s Most Fanatical Supporters