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.

The Genius Of The Crowd

by Charles Bukowski

there is enough treachery, hatred violence absurdity in the average
human being to supply any given army on any given day

and the best at murder are those who preach against it
and the best at hate are those who preach love
and the best at war finally are those who preach peace

those who preach god, need god
those who preach peace do not have peace
those who preach peace do not have love

beware the preachers
beware the knowers
beware those who are always reading books
beware those who either detest poverty
or are proud of it
beware those quick to praise
for they need praise in return
beware those who are quick to censor
they are afraid of what they do not know
beware those who seek constant crowds for
they are nothing alone
beware the average man the average woman
beware their love, their love is average
seeks average

but there is genius in their hatred
there is enough genius in their hatred to kill you
to kill anybody
not wanting solitude
not understanding solitude
they will attempt to destroy anything
that differs from their own
not being able to create art
they will not understand art
they will consider their failure as creators
only as a failure of the world
not being able to love fully
they will believe your love incomplete
and then they will hate you
and their hatred will be perfect

like a shining diamond
like a knife
like a mountain
like a tiger
like hemlock

their finest art

Stephen Hawking Talks of Aliens in his New Documentary

Perhaps a mainstream physicist talking, in such a public forum, about the existence of aliens will make it a more accepted topic of discussion. It is still considered unacceptable and even ridiculous to say that any aliens have been or are anywhere near earth at this time; though I have seen what I consider good evidence of this likelihood during my many years of being open to this possibility.

I think that Mr. Hawking is probably wrong about the motivations of alien beings. There are many resources scattered about the cosmos, many precious metals are for more accessible and more easily processed in asteroids; it seems unlikely to my little mind that they would need to land here for materials. This doesn’t eliminate the possibility, however, that they may land here for food and genetic material; as this planet is quite a buffet of plant/animal life.

In my heretical opinion, they have been here since the beginning and are helping to shape our evolution as a species. We are probably part of a larger confederation, which we may be made more aware of at some point in the future, when they decide we are ready.

What I find unbelievable is the idea that we are an isolated cosmic accident, formed by some highly unlikely accidental combination of amino acids which just so happened to survive and form the basis for life. There is more evidence for the existence of aliens than there is for our evolution occurring in this way.

Darwinian evolution is a very limited and material-centered way of viewing life forms. Just look out in nature at all of the scattering of seed, migration of species and the like. Why should the universe around us be any different than what we see on this Earth?

“As below, so above; and as above so below. With this knowledge alone you may work miracles.”

–Fulcanelli

Don’t talk to aliens, warns Stephen Hawking

TimesOnline.co.uk

THE aliens are out there and Earth had better watch out, at least according to Stephen Hawking. He has suggested that extraterrestrials are almost certain to exist — but that instead of seeking them out, humanity should be doing all it that can to avoid any contact.

The suggestions come in a new documentary series in which Hawking, one of the world’s leading scientists, will set out his latest thinking on some of the universe’s greatest mysteries.

Alien life, he will suggest, is almost certain to exist in many other parts of the universe: not just in planets, but perhaps in the centre of stars or even floating in interplanetary space. read full article »

Paul LaViolette on Galactic Superwaves and Sub-Quantum Kinetics

Paul LaViolette has some really interesting and plausible theories regarding: regular “super-wave” pulsations emanating from the center of the galaxy, red-shift due to “tired light” instead of expansion, sub-quantum kinetics. He is a rare individual in the scientific community; many in the church of science would consider him a heretic, for his willingness to posit truly unique and independent theories.

While most scientists are genuinely afraid to think outside the box, due to the manner by which the “scientific” community tends to isolate you and cut you off from your sources of funding; Paul did not allow them to coerce his views. Consequently, he has a wonderfully unfettered mind and is not afraid to think critically about, what has become, the “religion of science.”

When I say “religion of science,” I mean the so-called “scientists” and I use that term lightly, tend to ignore facts which do not fit neatly into their theories. So really, many of these individuals are not actually “scientists”; because they tend not to utilize actual observations. Instead, they are more interested in maintaining certain theories (or beliefs) and marginalizing theories which do not fit their model.

Hopefully, some of the individuals in the congregation of the “church of science” will realize that they are severely limiting their possibilities; by adhering to theories merely because of consensus.

History shows countless examples of the consensus being dead wrong; while a small number of “heretics” are the few who make real breakthroughs. What makes you think it will be any different today?

Superwave: Project Camelot interviews Dr Paul LaViolette

Dr Paul LaViolette is the measured counterpart to Patrick Geryl, whose interview we have released simultaneously. A brilliant and maverick astrophysicist, Paul is best known for his research into a new theory of matter he calls Subquantum Kinetics – based on systems theory, which he studied for his PhD thesis – and for his carefully argued hypothesis, first formulated in 1983, that our galactic center periodically emits devastating waves he termed superwaves.
read full article »

Podcast #3: Sustainability For Generations to Come

The primary focus of today’s podcast is: lasting sustainability, how we can achieve it and how we can avoid the many traps along the way.

• Taoism and the spontaneous nature of existence
• Problem with environmental activism “the world we don’t want versus the world we do want”
• Forcing behavior versus incentivizing behavior
• Permaculture
• Food forests
• Beneficial interaction between plants/animals/people
• How we can use permaculture to improve our land and reduce work
• Solar cooking
• Stepping back and realizing the simple solutions to problems

Video Podcast #1: Indoor Gardening

Here’s a 20 minute tour of what we are doing to be more self-sufficient and eat better as the spring approaches. In the video I explain why I feel it is important to start your own seeds, what we’ve done to get our seeds starting, what to do when the seedlings have sprouted their leaves; as well as how to grow some of your greens in sprouting jars.

Hyperinflation in USA by 2010

Judging by the way they are spending money in Washington DC, you’d think these politicians and central bankers are living in a fantasy world. When you give a government the ability to borrow endless sums of money, you tend to get this kind of disconnect from reality.

What the people don’t seem to realize is the fact that money creation is a hidden tax. When they do this reckless kind of spending; it isn’t magically creating new wealth to add to the system. Instead, it is actually stealing from the people who save their money and lowering the standard of living for the middle/lower class.

The Federal Government is overrun by thieving, self-serving scoundrels who pass ridiculously expensive, unrealistic and unconstitutional legislation. They stand up in front of the population, with a straight face, and tell them the new programs are actually going to save them money; however, history shows that these kinds of claims are rarely true. In fact, government programs usually cost many multiples of the amounts estimated by government bean counters.

The populace of this country is now dominated by left-wing socialists, who fail to understand the economic trouble we are in. All you need to do, in order to spend us further into the ground, is throw the plethos a few crumbs. In the case of “health care reform,” they gave pre-existing condition reform and a few other reforms which were sought by a fair chunk of the population. There is no doubt that reform was needed; but this reform further destabilizes both the health care system and even more pivotally, the economy.

There is a very strong chance that we will have hyperinflation in the United States of America sooner rather than later.

Healthcare Bill to Cause U.S. Hyperinflation By 2015

Source: PRNewswire

FORT LEE, N.J., March 20 /PRNewswire/ — The National Inflation Association – http://inflation.us – today issued a warning to all Americans of a potential outbreak of hyperinflation in the U.S. by year 2015 caused primarily by the healthcare bill and rising interest payments on our national debt.

Medicare was created in 1966 at a cost of $3 billion per year and the House Ways and Means Committee estimated in 1966 that in 1990 the cost of Medicare would reach $12 billion per year. Instead, the actual cost of Medicare in 1990 was $107 billion (792% more than what was projected) and today Medicare costs $408 billion annually. In 2003, the White House Office of Management and Budget estimated that the Iraq War would have a total cost of $50 to $60 billion. So far, we have already spent $713 billion on the Iraq War (over 1,000% more than what was projected).

The Congressional Budget Office is estimating that the healthcare bill will cost $940 billion over the next 10 years, but if history is any indication, the actual cost will likely be several trillion dollars. NIA believes the healthcare bill will be the final nail in the coffin of the U.S. economy and will just about guarantee that we will see hyperinflation by the year 2015.

The U.S. government last week reported a record monthly budget deficit for February 2010 of $220.9 billion. Total tax receipts for the month were only $107.5 billion compared to outlays of $328.4 billion. The total U.S. deficit for the first five months of fiscal year 2010 was $651.6 billion, with tax receipts of $800.5 billion and outlays of $1.45 trillion. The deficit was up 10.5% for the first five months of fiscal year 2010 over the same period in fiscal year 2009.

We are now at a point where if the U.S. government taxed Americans 100% of their income, the tax receipts generated would not be enough to balance the budget. Likewise, if the U.S. government cut 100% of its spending including defense, but kept paying Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, we would still have a budget deficit. NIA believes it will be impossible for the U.S. to have a balanced budget ever again.

The U.S. national debt is now $12.67 trillion of which $8.061 trillion is public debt. Due to the Federal Reserve’s artificially low interest rates of 0% to 0.25%, interest payments on our national debt last month were only $16.9 billion, an interest rate of only 2.548% on our public debt. The reason for the spread between our 2.548% interest rate on the public debt and the federal funds rate of 0 to 0.25% is that a portion of our national debt is made up of long-term bonds at higher interest rates.

Our debt ceiling was recently raised to $14.3 trillion, which we are on track to reach in less than a year, sending our public debt up to about $10 trillion. If the Federal Reserve raises the federal funds rate up to just 2% during the next year, NIA believes the interest rate on our public debt could rise to 5% and our annual interest payments will likely rise to $500 million or 23% of projected 2010 tax receipts of $2.165 trillion.

The White House is not projecting for interest payments on the national debt to break the $500 million mark until fiscal year 2014. By then, even if we go by White House projections that the deficit will be cut to $828 billion in 2012, $727 billion in 2013 and $706 billion in 2014, in 2014 we will still be looking at a national debt of over $18.5 trillion with a public portion of around $13.14 trillion. We find it shocking that the White House is projecting an interest rate on our public debt in 2014 of only around 4%.

All of this means that the While House expects the Federal Reserve to leave interest rates at artificially low levels almost indefinitely. However, we know it will be impossible for them to do so without creating a huge outbreak of inflation in the prices of food, energy, clothing, and just about everything else Americans need to live and survive. In order to prevent hyperinflation, we need interest rates to be higher than the rate of inflation.

NIA believes the real rate of U.S. inflation to already be approximately 5%. If the Federal Reserve doesn’t raise the federal funds rate to above 5% in the short-term, in our opinion, an outbreak of double-digit inflation is inevitable. By 2014, it is possible the Federal Reserve will be forced to raise the federal funds rate up to above 10% and the public portion of our national debt could exceed $15 trillion. Therefore, in 2014 we could see the interest payments on our national debt reach $1.5 trillion, about triple what is currently being projected and 43% of the government’s projected tax receipts that year of $3.455 trillion.

Besides the cost of the healthcare bill and rising interest payments on our national debt, another major catalyst for hyperinflation will be social security payments, which adjust to the CPI-index. As the government’s CPI-index rises, so will the social security payments that it owes. This could cause a death-spiral in the U.S. dollar. Inflation is still the last thing on the minds of most Americans, but soon it will be their primary concern.

To receive NIA’s latest updates about inflation and the economy, sign-up for the free NIA newsletter at: http://inflation.us

About us:

The National Inflation Association is an organization that is dedicated to preparing Americans for hyperinflation. The NIA offers free membership at http://www.inflation.us and provides its members with articles about the economy and inflation, news stories, important charts not shown by the mainstream media; YouTube videos featuring Jim Rogers, Marc Faber, Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, and others; and profiles of gold, silver, and agriculture companies that we believe could prosper in an inflationary environment.
Contact: Gerard Adams, 1-888-99-NIA US (1888-996-4287), editor@inflation.us
SOURCE National Inflation Association

We Cannot Have Rights Without the Corresponding Responsibilities

Do you consider yourself a sovereign human being with all of the rights and responsibilities that go along with this? Many of us are quite well versed in our rights, often from an early age; neglected are the responsibilities we must attend to, in order to preserve our rights.

If we fail to attend to our responsibilities, then our liberties are continually at risk and we are in jeopardy of becoming permanently dependent on the shaky infrastructure of state-funded safety nets.

This dependancy can be true whether we are rich, or poor; it is not just for those of us who are on welfare. There are plenty of systems in place in the developed world to allow rich people to be, pretty much, non productive consumers, if they so choose; the same can be said for many of the poorer people.

The many complex and interleaved layers of society, have left room for a good many non-productive activities; it has, in effect, made non-productivity sustainable. The sustainability of this non-productivity, only lasts as long as the layers of society remain in tact and in relative harmony. When this harmony becomes materially interrupted, chaos is likely to result, with a subsequent loss of liberty for the non-prepared among us.

Deep dependency comes at a great cost, for a variety of reasons. When the supply of goods and services, provided by the welfare/warfare state, becomes interrupted; individuals who have become deeply dependent on the layers of society will likely lose their rights very quickly.

Whereas those who are responsible, productive and well prepared, will better maintain those rights; because they will not need to rely so much on outside help from the state. The more layers of state-funded assistance we build; the more people will tend to become complacent and non-productive; further exacerbating the problems our society faces.

Anyone who has ever visited a Native American reservation can attest that the years of U.S. government payments to these individuals, has by and large, not made their lives any better. It has instead made an entire society of, mostly impoverished individuals, dependent on checks from the government; many of whom have barely adequate living conditions. While it was likely a well meaning act to provide these individuals with assistance, it has merely put off the inevitable day, when they will have to figure out their own way of providing a living for themselves.

I want to share with you a podcast by Jack Spirko of thesurvivalpodcast.com, in which he goes into this topic in great detail. He further explains what I have outlined above, as well as what we can do to ensure our rights are protected, whether or not the government is protecting them for us.

Episode-411- Rights – Responsibilities and Dependence

Listen to Survival Podcast Episode #411

Today we discuss the myth of the “safety net” that is touted by the media. In doing so we will come to understand how deep dependence is among both the extremely affluent and extremely poor segments of society. We will go deeper though and come to understand how the disconnect between rights and responsiblities are the root of the program.

Join me today as we discuss…

• Free medical care is not enough – wait till you hear this!
• Want a free cell phone get on Medicaid, Section 8, etc. yes it is true
• What the Medicaid program shows us about what will come from Government Health Care
• Why in the future the sheeple who resisted the “Public Option” will beg for it
• People in NYC who use ovens and refrigerators for closets – yes really!
• The full court media press against “states rights”
• The lies about states rights and when the Federal Government is required to intervene
• Why each “right” must come with responsibilities
• What responsibilities come with the “right to life”
• What responsibilities come with the “right to liberty”
• What responsibilities come with the “right to the pursuit of happiness”
• Why understanding responsibilities and rights leads automatically to preparedness

Why Healthcare is not a Right

Here is an interesting interview in which Congressman Ron Paul is asked about his notion that healthcare, as well as other goods and services are not rights. He explains this in detail and shows that making goods and services “rights” violates the rights of others; because the government has to take from somebody else in order to hand out goods and services to people who don’t have them. Taking of goods and services from one person to give to another is not the hallmark of a free society.

RT: “You’ve said before that you feel that healthcare is not a right. Can you justify that?”

Ron Paul: “I think very easily: you have a right to your life, you have a right to your liberty and you ought to have a right to keep what you earn in a free country; but you don’t have a right to ‘stuff’. You don’t have a right to services or things like a house or a job; because, in order to get that, the government would have to take it from somebody else.

If somebody claims you have the right to a car and they don’t have one and the government gives them a car; they have to take the money or the car from someone else, so it’s a contradiction in terms. If somebody claims that they have a right to something; they have to violate somebody else’s right.

So the most you can expect in a free society is for the government to make an attempt at protecting rights, not to try to redistribute wealth; if you do that, all people lose their rights.”

Ron Paul: “…What I’ve tried to do in the past is offer something that would replace government programs; because there’s lots of ways you can deliver services and good other than through government mandates and government spending; because inevitably that fails…”

Constitutional Amendment to Equalize Congress with the People in the Eyes of the Law

The message quoted below has been floating around via email for some time. I figure that I should post it here for the maximum effect.

What we have in this country is a political elite who are often exempt from the laws which govern the people. One example is the healthcare legislation which was recently passed by the Congress. If you look, I’m sure you will find countless other examples of preferential treatment towards the elected officials in Congress.

It is very difficult to amend the Constitution and we must do so carefully; because we are tinkering with the very underpinning of our liberties. Regardless of how unlikely this reform is to make it into the Constitution; nevertheless, it is worth a try.

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they didn’t pay into Social Security, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that is being considered…in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn’t seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don’t care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop. This is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come.

If each of you who agree will contact a minimum of twenty people on your e-mail address list, and in turn ask each of those to do likewise.. In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: “Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States “.