The Slings and Arrows of Outrageous Fortune: Among all of our other newly born "rights," what happened to our right to life that implies a right to voluntary death?
read more | digg story
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
Patrick J. Buchanan: Another Neocon in Political Office
Buchanan, a name I use to fear but am now beginning to like.
Pat Buchanan is able to thicken the division line between conservatives and neocons (like Randy Scheunemann).
read more | digg story
Pat Buchanan is able to thicken the division line between conservatives and neocons (like Randy Scheunemann).
read more | digg story
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Why (do) we hate us(?)
In response to the author, Dick Meyer, of Why We Hate Us: American Discontent in the New Millennium:
The root cause of mass discontentment in modern society is the Centralization (or de-localization) of political power. As the Federal Government grows, the political leverage of the individual decreases. This is obvious proportionally (individual:state vs. individual:nation). The individual has less political power in a larger population. The ideal, then, is complete localization (however impossible this may be).
As Aristotle recognized in the fourth century BC, Athens was too large to be a socially stable polis.
The root cause of mass discontentment in modern society is the Centralization (or de-localization) of political power. As the Federal Government grows, the political leverage of the individual decreases. This is obvious proportionally (individual:state vs. individual:nation). The individual has less political power in a larger population. The ideal, then, is complete localization (however impossible this may be).
As Aristotle recognized in the fourth century BC, Athens was too large to be a socially stable polis.
What is Property?
Property is simply a socially-assured directive that designates the ownership of something by an individual (i.e. a contract or patent).
For example, nothing physical happens to a car when you stop calling it yours, and I start calling it mine; only on the social level does the ownership of the car change from you to me.
For example, nothing physical happens to a car when you stop calling it yours, and I start calling it mine; only on the social level does the ownership of the car change from you to me.
Reason Magazine on Bob Barr's Historic Nomination
With Bob Barr's nomination, the Libertarian Party is threatening to achieve historical relevance. A third party president would further threaten the Republican-Democrat duopoly on government and would render the duopoly's barriers to entry nigh useless.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Mark Twain Speaks for the Future
Mark Twain on Imperialism:
I left these shores, at Vancouver, a red-hot imperialist. I wanted the American eagle to go screaming into the Pacific ...Why not spread its wings over the Philippines, I asked myself? ... I said to myself, Here are a people who have suffered for three centuries. We can make them as free as ourselves, give them a government and country of their own, put a miniature of the American Constitution afloat in the Pacific, start a brand new republic to take its place among the free nations of the world. It seemed to me a great task to which we had addressed ourselves. But I have thought some more, since then, and I have read carefully the treaty of Paris, and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem. It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make those people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way. And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land.
— Mark Twain, New York Herald [1900]
I left these shores, at Vancouver, a red-hot imperialist. I wanted the American eagle to go screaming into the Pacific ...Why not spread its wings over the Philippines, I asked myself? ... I said to myself, Here are a people who have suffered for three centuries. We can make them as free as ourselves, give them a government and country of their own, put a miniature of the American Constitution afloat in the Pacific, start a brand new republic to take its place among the free nations of the world. It seemed to me a great task to which we had addressed ourselves. But I have thought some more, since then, and I have read carefully the treaty of Paris, and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem. It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make those people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way. And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land.
— Mark Twain, New York Herald [1900]
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Sheldon Richman: Condemn All Governments
Just to make it clear, civilized people should condemn all governments involved in the Georgia-Russia-South Ossetia conflict, and that includes the U.S. government. Innocent people have been victimized by barbarism on all sides. Without these governments, the people themselves are likely to work things out peacefully to mutual advantage. The state apparatus permits decision-makers to socialize the costs of violence through taxation and conscription. So we get more of it.
~
War in Georgia Shows U.S. Foreign Policy Is a Bust
by Sheldon Richman, August 15, 2006
The tragic events in the nation of Georgia show that U.S. foreign policy is a bust. In particular, NATO must go. This may seem counterintuitive, but this relic of the Cold War has nothing to contribute to peace. On the contrary, it is a destabilizing tool of America’s provocative imperial foreign policy.
Let us stipulate that the Russian government would undoubtedly be interested in having Georgia in its camp even if NATO did not exist. The Russian elite has always seen itself destined for a major role in world events, and that dream of course included a large sphere of influence where friendly regimes saw things the Russian way.
Nevertheless, NATO — and the U.S. empire for which it stands — is a major aggravating factor in the tensions between Russia and its neighbors. Not long after the Soviet Union imploded and the Cold War ended, the U.S. foreign-policy elite began talking about expanding NATO to include former Soviet Satellites and republics. Considering that NATO was ostensibly created to counter the Soviet Union in Europe, how could expanding the organization up to the Russian border not be provocative? What was the point, except to show the Russians who’s boss?
Georgia has been angling for membership in NATO for years. President Mikheil Saakashvili’s Russian policy was nothing short of a pro-American in-your-face policy strategy. The Bush administration encouraged it by training and equipping the Georgian military. All of this stirred Russian suspicions about U.S. objectives in its “backyard.” In return, Georgia sent troops to assist in America’s misguided mission in Iraq.
The U.S. policy toward Georgia is part of a pattern that, naturally, is justified in the name of the “war on terror” and the spreading of democracy, although some of the Central Asia republics have odious authoritarian governments. But the Russians, hearing talk of anti-missile systems in the new NATO countries, don’t see the strategy as benign. They see encirclement. Who can blame them?
The immediate cause of the recent clash was Georgia’s violent move to put down separatist activity in South Ossetia, one of two break-away areas with sympathies toward Russia. Russia undoubtedly has helped advance secessionist sentiments there and in Abkhazia. Its brutal bombing inside Georgia is to be condemned, but that does not mean that Saakashvili’s government is blameless.
Did the Georgian president get a green light from the Bush administration? We may never know. But the question is not essential. What we do know is that U.S. policy created a moral-hazard problem. In other words, the Bush administration’s words and deeds almost certainly emboldened the Georgian government with respect to South Ossetia and Russia, encouraging it to take measures it probably would not have taken otherwise.
As we saw, it was a major miscalculation. Saakashvili may have been counting on U.S. support, but what could he possibly have hoped for? The U.S. military, spread thin already in Iraq and Afghanistan, has no forces to spare. But even if that were not the case, did Saakashvili really think the United States and Europe would go to war against Russia? Memories of the bloody 20th century are too fresh in Europe to make that a realistic expectation. It is one thing to invade and occupy Iraq, quite another to take on Russia. It was out of the question.
The Bush administration, then, made implicit — and perhaps explicit — guarantees to the Georgian government it was in no position to back up. Thus the American imperium is revealed as a costly, provocative, but in essential ways impotent force in the world. For this the taxpayers are coughing up hundreds of billion dollars a year. And people are dying.
The message of Georgia is clear. We need a top-to-bottom rethinking of American foreign policy. The American people’s interest lies in peace and free trade. Let others work out their own problems. Most of all, let’s keep the U.S. government from making the world’s problems worse than they already are.
(Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation, author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of The Freeman magazine. Visit his blog “Free Association” at www.sheldonrichman.com.)
~
War in Georgia Shows U.S. Foreign Policy Is a Bust
by Sheldon Richman, August 15, 2006
The tragic events in the nation of Georgia show that U.S. foreign policy is a bust. In particular, NATO must go. This may seem counterintuitive, but this relic of the Cold War has nothing to contribute to peace. On the contrary, it is a destabilizing tool of America’s provocative imperial foreign policy.
Let us stipulate that the Russian government would undoubtedly be interested in having Georgia in its camp even if NATO did not exist. The Russian elite has always seen itself destined for a major role in world events, and that dream of course included a large sphere of influence where friendly regimes saw things the Russian way.
Nevertheless, NATO — and the U.S. empire for which it stands — is a major aggravating factor in the tensions between Russia and its neighbors. Not long after the Soviet Union imploded and the Cold War ended, the U.S. foreign-policy elite began talking about expanding NATO to include former Soviet Satellites and republics. Considering that NATO was ostensibly created to counter the Soviet Union in Europe, how could expanding the organization up to the Russian border not be provocative? What was the point, except to show the Russians who’s boss?
Georgia has been angling for membership in NATO for years. President Mikheil Saakashvili’s Russian policy was nothing short of a pro-American in-your-face policy strategy. The Bush administration encouraged it by training and equipping the Georgian military. All of this stirred Russian suspicions about U.S. objectives in its “backyard.” In return, Georgia sent troops to assist in America’s misguided mission in Iraq.
The U.S. policy toward Georgia is part of a pattern that, naturally, is justified in the name of the “war on terror” and the spreading of democracy, although some of the Central Asia republics have odious authoritarian governments. But the Russians, hearing talk of anti-missile systems in the new NATO countries, don’t see the strategy as benign. They see encirclement. Who can blame them?
The immediate cause of the recent clash was Georgia’s violent move to put down separatist activity in South Ossetia, one of two break-away areas with sympathies toward Russia. Russia undoubtedly has helped advance secessionist sentiments there and in Abkhazia. Its brutal bombing inside Georgia is to be condemned, but that does not mean that Saakashvili’s government is blameless.
Did the Georgian president get a green light from the Bush administration? We may never know. But the question is not essential. What we do know is that U.S. policy created a moral-hazard problem. In other words, the Bush administration’s words and deeds almost certainly emboldened the Georgian government with respect to South Ossetia and Russia, encouraging it to take measures it probably would not have taken otherwise.
As we saw, it was a major miscalculation. Saakashvili may have been counting on U.S. support, but what could he possibly have hoped for? The U.S. military, spread thin already in Iraq and Afghanistan, has no forces to spare. But even if that were not the case, did Saakashvili really think the United States and Europe would go to war against Russia? Memories of the bloody 20th century are too fresh in Europe to make that a realistic expectation. It is one thing to invade and occupy Iraq, quite another to take on Russia. It was out of the question.
The Bush administration, then, made implicit — and perhaps explicit — guarantees to the Georgian government it was in no position to back up. Thus the American imperium is revealed as a costly, provocative, but in essential ways impotent force in the world. For this the taxpayers are coughing up hundreds of billion dollars a year. And people are dying.
The message of Georgia is clear. We need a top-to-bottom rethinking of American foreign policy. The American people’s interest lies in peace and free trade. Let others work out their own problems. Most of all, let’s keep the U.S. government from making the world’s problems worse than they already are.
(Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation, author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of The Freeman magazine. Visit his blog “Free Association” at www.sheldonrichman.com.)
DON'T TALK TO COPS
~An article by Robert W. Zeuner, Member of the New York State Bar~
The following article is from a leaflet that has been distributed by the Libertarian Party in New Jersey. Written by an attorney, it deals with the subject of talking to police or other government agents.
"GOOD MORNING! My name is investigator Holmes. Do you mind answering a few simple questions?" If you open your door one day and are greeted with those words, stop and think! Whether it is the local police or the FBI at your door, you have certain legal rights of which you ought to be aware before you proceed any further.
In the first place, when the law enforcement authorities come to see you, there are no "simple questions." Unless they are investigating a traffic accident, you can be sure that they want information about somebody. And that somebody may be you!
Rule Number one to remember when confronted by the authorities is that there is no law require you to talk with the police, the FBI, or the representative of any other investigative agency. Even the simplest questions may be loaded and the seemingly harmless bits of information which you volunteer may later become vital links in a chain of circumstantial evidence against you or a friend.
Do not invite the investigator into your home! Such an invitation not only gives him the opportunity to look around for clues to your lifestyle, friends, reading material, etc., but also tends to prolong the conversation. And the longer the conversation, the more chance there is for a skilled investigator to find out what he wants to know.
Many times a police officer will ask you to accompany him to the police station to answer a few questions. In that case, simply thank him for the invitation and indicate that you are not disposed to accept it at that time. Often the authorities simply want to photograph a person for identification purposes, a procedure which is easily accomplished by placing him in a private room with a two-way mirror at the station, asking him a few innocent questions, and then releasing him.
If the investigator becomes angry at your failure to cooperate and threatens you with arrest, stand firm. He cannot legally place you under arrest or enter your home without a warrant signed by a judge. If he indicates that he has such a warrant, ask to see it. A person under arrest or located on premises to be searched, generally must be shown a warrant if he requests it and must be given a chance to read it.
Without a warrant, an officer depends solely upon your helpfulness to obtain the information he wants. So, unless you are quite sure of yourself, don't be helpful.
Probably the wisest approach to take to a persistent investigator is simply to say: "I'm quite busy now. If you have any questions that you feel I can answer, I'd be happy to listen to them in my lawyer's office. Goodbye!" Talk is cheap. But when that talk involves the law enforcement authorities, it may cost you, or someone close to you, dearly.
P.S. "This leaflet has been printed as a public service by individuals concerned with the growing role of authoritarianism and police power in our society. Please feel free to copy or republish."
(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the Patriot FTP site by S.P.I.R.A.L., the Society for the Protection of Individual Rights and Liberties. E-mail: alex@spiral.org)
The following article is from a leaflet that has been distributed by the Libertarian Party in New Jersey. Written by an attorney, it deals with the subject of talking to police or other government agents.
"GOOD MORNING! My name is investigator Holmes. Do you mind answering a few simple questions?" If you open your door one day and are greeted with those words, stop and think! Whether it is the local police or the FBI at your door, you have certain legal rights of which you ought to be aware before you proceed any further.
In the first place, when the law enforcement authorities come to see you, there are no "simple questions." Unless they are investigating a traffic accident, you can be sure that they want information about somebody. And that somebody may be you!
Rule Number one to remember when confronted by the authorities is that there is no law require you to talk with the police, the FBI, or the representative of any other investigative agency. Even the simplest questions may be loaded and the seemingly harmless bits of information which you volunteer may later become vital links in a chain of circumstantial evidence against you or a friend.
Do not invite the investigator into your home! Such an invitation not only gives him the opportunity to look around for clues to your lifestyle, friends, reading material, etc., but also tends to prolong the conversation. And the longer the conversation, the more chance there is for a skilled investigator to find out what he wants to know.
Many times a police officer will ask you to accompany him to the police station to answer a few questions. In that case, simply thank him for the invitation and indicate that you are not disposed to accept it at that time. Often the authorities simply want to photograph a person for identification purposes, a procedure which is easily accomplished by placing him in a private room with a two-way mirror at the station, asking him a few innocent questions, and then releasing him.
If the investigator becomes angry at your failure to cooperate and threatens you with arrest, stand firm. He cannot legally place you under arrest or enter your home without a warrant signed by a judge. If he indicates that he has such a warrant, ask to see it. A person under arrest or located on premises to be searched, generally must be shown a warrant if he requests it and must be given a chance to read it.
Without a warrant, an officer depends solely upon your helpfulness to obtain the information he wants. So, unless you are quite sure of yourself, don't be helpful.
Probably the wisest approach to take to a persistent investigator is simply to say: "I'm quite busy now. If you have any questions that you feel I can answer, I'd be happy to listen to them in my lawyer's office. Goodbye!" Talk is cheap. But when that talk involves the law enforcement authorities, it may cost you, or someone close to you, dearly.
P.S. "This leaflet has been printed as a public service by individuals concerned with the growing role of authoritarianism and police power in our society. Please feel free to copy or republish."
(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the Patriot FTP site by S.P.I.R.A.L., the Society for the Protection of Individual Rights and Liberties. E-mail: alex@spiral.org)
Thursday, August 14, 2008
(Somali) Anarchy Is More Orderly than (Somali) Government
Dr. Benjamin Powell: "Say “Somalia” to most Americans and they will likely have visions of civil war and chaos. While accurate in the early 1990s, these visions have not been the actual situation in Somalia for most of the last decade."
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Important Persons in the Continuing Libertarian Movement
~In 1971, John Hospers published Libertarianism: A Political Philosophy for Tomorrow, a book-length study of the modern philosophy of liberty. Along with Murray Rothbard's For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto and Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia, it is widely considered to be one of the defining books of the modern libertarian movement.~
Philosophers
* John Hospers
* Tibor Machan
* Jan Narveson
* Robert Nozick
Psychology
* Nathaniel Branden
* Peter Breggin
* Michael R. Edelstein
* John Rosemond
* Thomas Szasz
Heads of Think Tanks,
Political Organizations,
Educational Organizations
* John Baden, Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE)
* Joseph Bast, Heartland Institute
* Steve Buckstein, Cascade Policy Institute
* Alejandro Chafuen, Atlas Institute
* Ed Crane, Cato Institute
* Richard M. Ebeling, Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)
* Marshall Fritz, Alliance for the Separation of School & State
* Sharon Harris, Advocates for Self-Government
* Jacob G. Hornberger, Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF)
* Roy Innis, Congress of Racial Equality (CORE)
* Doug Lorenz, Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC)
* William Mellor, Institute for Justice
* Terry Michael, Washington Center for Politics & Journalism
* Vince Miller, International Society of Individual Liberty (ISIL)
* William Redpath, Libertarian Party USA
* Robert Poole, Reason Foundation
* Lew Rockwell, Ludwig Von Mises Institute
* Father Robert Sirico, Acton Institute
* Fred Smith, Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)
* David J. Theroux, The Independent Institute
Founders of the Modern Libertarian Movement
* Don Ernsberger
* Karl Hess
* Manny Klausner
* David Nolan
* Robert Poole
* Dana Rorabacher
* Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995)
* David Walter
* Jarret Wollstein
Historical Champions of Liberty
* Lord Acton (1834-1902)
* Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)
* John Bright (1811-1889)
* Frank Chodorov (1887–1966)
* Richard Cobden (1804-1865)
* John T. Flynn (1882-1964)
* Garet Garrett (1878–1954)
* F.A. Harper (1905-1973)
* Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992)
* Henry Hazlitt (1894-1993)
* Patrick Henry (1736-1799)
* Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
* Rose Wilder Lane (1886-1968)
* Lao Tzu (600 BC?)
* Robert LeFevre (1911–1986)
* John Locke (1632-1704)
* George Mason (1725-1792)
* H.L. Mencken (1880–1956)
* John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
* Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973)
* Albert Jay Nock (1870-1945)
* Franz Oppenheimer (1864-1943)
* James Otis (1725-1783)
* Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
* Lane Isabel Paterson (1886-1960)
* Ayn Rand (1905-1982)
* Leonard Read (1898-1983)
* Algernon Sidney (1622–1683)
* Adam Smith (1723-1790)
* Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)
* Lysander Spooner (1808-1887)
* Willis Stone (1899-1989)
* Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939)
"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." -- C. S. Lewis
Philosophers
* John Hospers
* Tibor Machan
* Jan Narveson
* Robert Nozick
Psychology
* Nathaniel Branden
* Peter Breggin
* Michael R. Edelstein
* John Rosemond
* Thomas Szasz
Heads of Think Tanks,
Political Organizations,
Educational Organizations
* John Baden, Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE)
* Joseph Bast, Heartland Institute
* Steve Buckstein, Cascade Policy Institute
* Alejandro Chafuen, Atlas Institute
* Ed Crane, Cato Institute
* Richard M. Ebeling, Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)
* Marshall Fritz, Alliance for the Separation of School & State
* Sharon Harris, Advocates for Self-Government
* Jacob G. Hornberger, Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF)
* Roy Innis, Congress of Racial Equality (CORE)
* Doug Lorenz, Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC)
* William Mellor, Institute for Justice
* Terry Michael, Washington Center for Politics & Journalism
* Vince Miller, International Society of Individual Liberty (ISIL)
* William Redpath, Libertarian Party USA
* Robert Poole, Reason Foundation
* Lew Rockwell, Ludwig Von Mises Institute
* Father Robert Sirico, Acton Institute
* Fred Smith, Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)
* David J. Theroux, The Independent Institute
Founders of the Modern Libertarian Movement
* Don Ernsberger
* Karl Hess
* Manny Klausner
* David Nolan
* Robert Poole
* Dana Rorabacher
* Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995)
* David Walter
* Jarret Wollstein
Historical Champions of Liberty
* Lord Acton (1834-1902)
* Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)
* John Bright (1811-1889)
* Frank Chodorov (1887–1966)
* Richard Cobden (1804-1865)
* John T. Flynn (1882-1964)
* Garet Garrett (1878–1954)
* F.A. Harper (1905-1973)
* Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992)
* Henry Hazlitt (1894-1993)
* Patrick Henry (1736-1799)
* Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
* Rose Wilder Lane (1886-1968)
* Lao Tzu (600 BC?)
* Robert LeFevre (1911–1986)
* John Locke (1632-1704)
* George Mason (1725-1792)
* H.L. Mencken (1880–1956)
* John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
* Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973)
* Albert Jay Nock (1870-1945)
* Franz Oppenheimer (1864-1943)
* James Otis (1725-1783)
* Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
* Lane Isabel Paterson (1886-1960)
* Ayn Rand (1905-1982)
* Leonard Read (1898-1983)
* Algernon Sidney (1622–1683)
* Adam Smith (1723-1790)
* Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)
* Lysander Spooner (1808-1887)
* Willis Stone (1899-1989)
* Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939)
"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." -- C. S. Lewis
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
That's Not Blight. It's New Jersey.
Wall Street Journal on a New Jersey state court's decision to stop eminent domain abuse. Thank-you, Institute for Justice. Ms. Vendetti's shirt reads Stop eminent domain abuse; isn't any form of eminent domain, even for "public use," an abuse of an individual's private property rights? Uhh, yes!
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Monday, August 11, 2008
Lew Rockwell on the Fed
The heart of the modern state is the central bank. What it does do effectively is prop up the leviathan state and all its pomp. However, historians treat the establishment of the Fed as an event far less important than the creation of the Department of Labor.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Sunday, August 10, 2008
What happened to State's (and individual's) Rights?
Should medical marijuana be kept from minors at all costs? Why is it that pharmacists can dispense amphetamines without getting busted, but legal operators who dispense medical marijuana face federal prison time? Why do armed federal agents persist in raiding California? Charlie Lynch is facing 100 years in federal prison -- but he followed state law.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Don’t Call the Cops. Ever.
There is no such person as a "good cop" in America. I cannot question the intentions of cops, but their profession is immoral: nothing legitimate can override an individual's rights to life, liberty, and property.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Friday, August 8, 2008
Laissez-fair, or Consumer-oriented, Health Care
Since many Americans, especially those on the left, seem to imply a general misunderstanding of "Laissez-faire" by applying it to the United States' Mixed Economy and current Health Care System, I shall outline what is meant by a Laissez-faire health care:
1) Repeal of FDA drug-approval requirements, prescription laws, drug-development regulations, and restrictions on the dissemination of information.
2) Repeal of State and Local regulations for medical schools and hospitals, occupational licensing, diagnosis and referral, the employment of doctors by for-profit firms, non-physician ownership of medical firms, the use of brand names, the operation of multiple branch offices, the location of health-care facilities, and marketing practices.
3) For prepaid health plans and hospitals, it would mean the repeal of regulations on benefit packages, enrollment requirements, rate setting, and facility expansion.
4) Laissez-faire policy implies a consumer-oriented market for Health Care; this would mean "tax exclusions" for employees rather than employers, which would result in more portability between jobs, and individuals owning and control their own policies, forcing insures to compete for their business.
1) Repeal of FDA drug-approval requirements, prescription laws, drug-development regulations, and restrictions on the dissemination of information.
2) Repeal of State and Local regulations for medical schools and hospitals, occupational licensing, diagnosis and referral, the employment of doctors by for-profit firms, non-physician ownership of medical firms, the use of brand names, the operation of multiple branch offices, the location of health-care facilities, and marketing practices.
3) For prepaid health plans and hospitals, it would mean the repeal of regulations on benefit packages, enrollment requirements, rate setting, and facility expansion.
4) Laissez-faire policy implies a consumer-oriented market for Health Care; this would mean "tax exclusions" for employees rather than employers, which would result in more portability between jobs, and individuals owning and control their own policies, forcing insures to compete for their business.
The Freeman: The Subsidy of History
Many libertarian commentators have remarked on the sheer scale of subsidies and protections to big business and on the emerging consolidation of corporate and state interests in the present mixed economy. The extent to which present-day concentrations of wealth and corporate power are the legacy of past injustice, I call the subsidy of history.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Young Galaxies Have Surprisingly Strong Magnetic Fields: Contradicts Popular Theories
ScienceDaily (2008-07-26) -- The origin of magnetic fields in galaxies is still a mystery to astronomers. Popular theories suggest continual strengthening over billions of years. New research, however, contradicts this assumption and reveals that young galaxies also have strong magnetic fields. ... > read full article
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Time for a Real Change--Time for Liberty
A video containing great persons: Martin Luther King Jr., Ayn Rand, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Ron Paul, and current Libertarian presidential nominee: Bob Barr 2008 speaking about individual freedom and responsibility.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Sunday, July 20, 2008
War On Drugs: Harsh Jail Terms Make No Dent on Drug Trade
Absurd drug charges propelled by the "war on drugs" threatens many individuals and their personal liberties.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Concerning the Council on Foreign Relations
I am disheartened to discover that the President of St. John's College for Santa Fe, NM campus was previously the Executive Vice President of the Council on Foreign Relations. Furthermore, President Michael Peters invited the current Executive President of the Council on Foreign Relations to the Commencement for the Class of 2007. This is especially disheartening because the idealism of young college graduates is easily misguided (I know this since I have experienced radical idealism).
A few things to consider about the Council on Foreign Relations:
The Council of Foreign Relations begin under the academic President of the USA, Woodrow Wilson, by a group of 150 scholars, then called the Inquiry. The Inquiry was the advisory committee to Wilson that developed the '14 point plan,' which was suppose to end future wars by creating an international government, the League of Nations.
Since the Council on Foreign Relations' creation, it has grown more powerful, politically, and its believe in the construction of a global government has dominated its philosophy:
"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents, such as my encounter with Castro, to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
~David Rockefeller, Memoirs
Let's suppose that as allowed competition for product X decreases, the remaining monopoly acquires the complete share of the total market of product X. Then let's assume that governments grow competes in the same way, but as businesses compete for market share, governments compete for power. Therefore, a global government would mean a monopoly of power, or force.
Governments for the majority of history have been justified by the clergy, especially obvious in Despotism, but now governments must rely on the new religious order of the secular west--the infallible intellectuals.
A few things to consider about the Council on Foreign Relations:
The Council of Foreign Relations begin under the academic President of the USA, Woodrow Wilson, by a group of 150 scholars, then called the Inquiry. The Inquiry was the advisory committee to Wilson that developed the '14 point plan,' which was suppose to end future wars by creating an international government, the League of Nations.
Since the Council on Foreign Relations' creation, it has grown more powerful, politically, and its believe in the construction of a global government has dominated its philosophy:
"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents, such as my encounter with Castro, to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
~David Rockefeller, Memoirs
Let's suppose that as allowed competition for product X decreases, the remaining monopoly acquires the complete share of the total market of product X. Then let's assume that governments grow competes in the same way, but as businesses compete for market share, governments compete for power. Therefore, a global government would mean a monopoly of power, or force.
Governments for the majority of history have been justified by the clergy, especially obvious in Despotism, but now governments must rely on the new religious order of the secular west--the infallible intellectuals.
1,000,000th Terrorist added to the Terrorist Watch List!
Jon Stewart covers this exciting new milestone of the War on Terror. We may have reached one million potential terrorists as deemed by the Bush administration, but unfortunately Nelson Mandela has been removed from the list in order to make room for the "real terrorists."
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Great American Streetcar Scandal
There exists a pervasive rumor that General Motors and 'The Big Oil Corporations' are solely responsible for the collapse of the heavily-subsidized Streetcar businesses across the nation. This, however, is not true. The article here provides an unbiased account of the truth of the matter but forgets to mention FDR's Public Utility Act of 1935.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
My Purpose for Blogging.
My mind has been muddled by the erroneous ideologies of time. Western Thought, as I know it, has never been classical, only and always new. Individuals have expressed themselves, classically, but society has failed to do this. Only individuals have embraced other individuals. There is no love between "societies," only quantifiable differences. That which is quantified are the individuals of a "society." Cosmopolitanism: Strangers are all the same, but known persons are unique relative to me.
Why Ego, then Logos?
Without Ego, I have no Logos. I strive to rationalize what is, as I experience it. The Logos of being allows you and I to communicate: that is my end (and hopefully it is yours, too).
Why Ego, then Logos?
Without Ego, I have no Logos. I strive to rationalize what is, as I experience it. The Logos of being allows you and I to communicate: that is my end (and hopefully it is yours, too).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)