Libertarian – Page 12 – Zombies Uncensored

Drinking Pepsi Made Me Fat, so I’m Switching to Coke

If you heard someone say, “Drinking Pepsi made me fat, so I’m switching to Coke,” you’d think they were joking, or ignorant of the fact there isn’t much difference between the two. Maybe this person just hasn’t heard about drinking water, tea or cappuccino? Perhaps they have a short memory, and forgot they put on weight when they used to drink Coke?

Much of the debate on political blogs runs along these same lines. The Republicans sure made a mess of things, so vote for the Democrats; the Democrats are screwing up worse than the Republicans, so vote Republican. The blogs sometimes say its the voters’ fault for not voting for the good candidates, but that’s like saying you got fat by picking the wrong can of Pepsi.

Democrats and Republicans keep telling us they have changed the formula in their products. They tell us this election is different. “We are now New Coke, and New Coke tastes much better than Pepsi or old Coke.” Then it turns out the formula hasn’t changed, and they’ve only put a new label or logo on the bottle.

As screwed up as things are right now, why do people insist on choosing between two obviously faulty products? I’m disappointed in America because there hasn’t been a third and fourth party emerge. How screwed up do things have to get before other political parties gain popularity when there is clearly a market for other brands of politics?

I like the Libertarian party, but things are so far removed from the ideas of limited governing that having Libertarians in office sounds dangerous to most. I’m not opposed to a radical change from the present situation, but to the general public, Libertarian views seem more radical than changes proposed by the far left.

I’d settle for something simpler at this point–something along the lines of a growing freedom party. Not a party to revolutionize or change everything at once, just a very simple philosophy of looking for ways to grow freedom. Any new or proposed change to legislation would be held up to the simple question: Will this lead to more or less freedom?

No hidden agenda with being pro-liberty; it would be a clear goal to restore freedom one baby step at a time. No overzealous unrealistic promises of changing the political landscape required; instead, just a very simple promise of increasing liberty when the opportunity presents itself.

It’s sad to be hoping for a party that in essence would be defending and upholding the Constitution, but that sums up just how far away from liberty we are.

The Threat Children Pose to Liberty

An Illinois National Guard soldier has been charged with possession of child pornography over snapshots of a 4-year-old niece in a swimsuit. The story is important to mention because when the subject of children is thrown into political debate, liberty is thrown out the window.

The emotional strings pulled by playing the “children card” trump all reasoning. In the overzealousness to protect children, free speech and civil rights have been unintended victims. The story of this National Guard soldier illustrates the potential harm of protecting children at all costs.

What happened to this soldier could happen to anyone. The family photo albums of the when the kids were toddlers has to go in the trash. Do not dare take pictures of your own kids at a park. The 1978 version of Superman should be destroyed because it shows baby Clark Kent’s weenie. Anyone could potentially be charged as a child predator.

This isn’t about hatred for kids, but about not being blinded by the natural instinct to protect children. Playing the children card has been used in the war on drugs, war on poverty, censorship, smoking and gun control. Here are some examples when children are brought in the rules completely change.

Protecting children seems to supersede the US Constitution. Sex offenders can be held indefinitely in jail.

We have a National Sex Offender Registry but not a a murderer registry–at least not yet, although some have proposed a murderer listing.

Some states have proposed defining “smoking around children” as child abuse. So would it be an assault to smoke near an adult?

Many countries have internet censorship to protect children from harmful material. Free speech doesn’t apply if little ears are present.

SCHIP’s (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) get passed into law without the same amount of controversy health care reform has generated.

More often than not, the “protect the children” argument is thrown in simply to win the debate. Using children in politics is just a way of saying, “If you don’t agree with me, you hate children.” The people that support censorship would still support censorship, even if it were impossible for children to ever see a pornographic image.

When the children card is played, ask yourself, “Is the intent to protect kids, or is it really about controlling other people?” After asking this question, you’ll often see people who are promoting their own version of morality and aren’t interested in protecting children or liberty.

War on Drugs – the GOOD kind of Socialism?

Fark.com – Seattle’s new city attorney dismissing all cases of pot possession. Conservatives outraged, saying that expensive, bureaucratic, pointless lawyers and jail cells are the GOOD kind of socialism (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

The headline is funny because its true; liberals and conservatives both suffer from “its not socialism when we do it” blindness.

It is socialism, because the mindset behind the war on drugs and health care reform are one and the same: creating a better society through force of government. It’s saying individuals don’t own the right to choose their actions if their actions don’t benefit society as a whole.

The definition of socialism is ownership and control of the means of production and distribution. When you can force your neighbor to follow your ideas of what is good for them, you are in essence claiming ownership of your neighbor’s morality and following the philosophy of socialism. You don’t own your neighbor. You are not your neighbor’s authority. You don’t own their thoughts, or the right to determine which actions are to their benefit.

Its a good thing to want to be part of a beneficial change. America is a society rich in morality. It comes as no surprise there are large numbers of people speaking out on issues that need improvement. Improving America’s society through force damages that source of morality, free people choosing to do the right thing without the intervention of others.

The way to achieve a better society is through persuasion and reason, not force. To those who embrace these socialist principles: the next time you see an evil in society and want to take a some action to improve the situation, speak up about it. Let others know how you think, explain your reasons for supporting or opposing an action. When reason fails to persuade and doesn’t change views , you should MAKE A BETTER ARGUMENT! Listen to the objections to your view, and use the feedback to craft a more persuasive argument.

Using force solve the problems in society is cowardly, because if you really believe in the logic and morality of your view, you’ll let the view stand on its own. If the change you seek really is beneficial, then it’s inevitable and predictable the change will come about, even if you take no action at all. Promoting a principle through force bastardizes the principle; a good principle doesn’t require force for others to adopt.

Using force to solve the problems in society is shortsighted. Force is only effective while force is present. When an authority isn’t present, people will do what they want to do. Forcing anything, even a good thing can cause people to reject it, because it’s natural to object to someone else running your life. The best society possible is one where people of good conscience act to the benefit of themselves and others by their own choice.

There is no good kind of socialism. Individuals with free will, reflecting principles of morality, own the means and production to a better society.

Gasoline Meet Fire, Fire Meet Gasoline – Government Conspiracy to Fight Conspiracy Theories

“Conspiracy Theories” by Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule is making the blog controversy rounds.

Background – Cass R. Sunstein is Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration. The paper was written two years ago, before Sunstein became the Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator. It’s unknown if Sunstein still holds the views in this paper, but it’s fair to ask if Sunstein still holds these views.

The two lines in the paper that have set people off: (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. The paper discusses these options, but does not conclude to follow either of these options.

The paper does, however, conclude the way to combat groups formed from conspiracy theories is by the government infiltrating the groups to break them up–In other words, a government conspiracy to fight conspiracy theories.

Half the paper dives into the psychology behind conspiracy theories, or as Ric Romero would say “people hold beliefs that are not based in fact.”

The other half of the paper weighs how governments should deal with conspiracy theories, and some of those suggestions are just like pouring gasoline on conspiracy theory fires.

Excerpts from the paper –

Our ultimate goal is to explore how public officials might undermine such theories, and as a general rule, true accounts should not be undermined.

When civil rights and civil liberties are absent, people lack multiple information sources, and they are more likely to accept conspiracy theories.

Our principal claim here involves the potential value of cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, designed to introduce informational diversity into such groups and to expose indefensible conspiracy theories as such.

What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses.

(1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing.

(2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.

(3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories.

(4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech.

(5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help.

Conclusion – Our goal here has been to understand the sources of conspiracy theories and to examine potential government responses.

Some conspiracy theories create serious risks. They do not merely undermine democratic debate; in extreme cases, they create or fuel violence. If government can dispel such theories, it should do so. One problem is that its efforts might be counterproductive, because efforts to rebut conspiracy theories also legitimate them.

We have suggested, however, that government can minimize this effect by rebutting more rather than fewer theories, by enlisting independent groups to supply rebuttals, and by cognitive infiltration designed to break up the crippled epistemology of conspiracy-minded groups and informationally isolated social networks.

The underlying argument in the conclusion is akin to declaring war on war, but not calling it a war. To support fighting the cognitive dissonance of conspiracy theories with cognitive infiltration requires a great deal of cognitive dissonance.

My favorite part of the paper – What causes such theories to arise and spread?

Trickle Down and Around Taxation

Trickle down taxation is when business push higher operation costs onto their customers. John Stossel’s article, “Obama: I Will Tax You to Punish Banks,” expresses the idea that taxes aren’t really paid by business–all taxation eventually trickles down to customers:

“In other words, the Obama Administration is going to punish those greedy banks by making it more expensive for you to borrow money. This is wrong on so many levels, it’s hard to know where to begin. Let’s start with a point made by Jamie Dimon, CEO at JP Morgan Chase: ‘Using tax policy to punish people is a bad idea…All businesses tend to pass their costs on to customers.'”

And from TheOneLaw on Trickle Down Taxation:

“Taxes on corporations are just passed on to the customer that purchases the products of that company. If that customer is another business it adds on its taxes and passes it along until it gets to the final consumer of the product.”

I agree with both of these articles, but want to point out not all the additional taxes are paid by customers. With high unemployment, businesses have the option of passing some of the tax burden onto their employees. Several companies have stopped matching 401(k) contributions and unpaid overtime is on the rise. Keep in mind the banking industry is regulated by Washington DC as to what they are allowed to charge customers. The taxation can be passed along with new hidden fees, but don’t be surprised to hear bank employees complaining about benefit and wage cuts.

With each new tax, sooner or later the tax shifts its way to the bottom, to the person that has no power to pass the tax farther along.

Big Pharma Pushing Hard For Health Care Bill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5809Xe9-pg

Big pharmaceutical companies are donating heavily to Martha Coakley. If Coakley wins the special election to replace U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy on Tuesday, Coakley will vote for the passage of the health care reform bill. Pharmaceutical companies wouldn’t be backing Coakley if they didn’t stand to gain from passage of health care reform.

Words and Phrases in Political Commentary and What They Really Mean

Don’t take political commentary at face value. This list explains the code for commonly used words and phrases in political commentary and what they really mean or are trying to say.

Biased – Holds views I would never entertain for a second.

Bipartisanship – My ideas are good ones and the opposition is partisan, because they don’t agree with me.

Brainwashed – Fundamentalist views different from my own fundamentalist views.

Change – From a politician, it means, “I’m not an incumbent.”

Code for – I take nothing they say at face value.

Conservative – Somewhere to the right of my views.

Cover-up – Not emphasizing what I think is important.

Democracy – My opinion is in the majority; in this case its OK for 51% of the people to tell the other 49% what to do.

Disinformation – You should listen to my bias, not the other side’s bias.

Extremist – The views farthest away from my own, and I consider them dangerous.

Face value – I’m about to take what they said and change it into something completely different.

Fascist – Picks on different groups than I pick on.

French – Effeminate.

Fundamentalist – They have strongly held, opposing views I consider dangerous.

Hates America – Political opponent pointed out something negative about America.

Ignorant – Prefers a different flavor of propaganda.

Indoctrination – They teach kids things I would not.

Informal – Secret.

Liberal – Somewhere to the left of my views.

Parrot – This isn’t the first time I’ve heard this and disagreed with it.

Profit – From liberals it means bad vs. from conservatives it means good.

Racist – An opponent who made any reference to race.

Radical – The views farthest away from my own.

Regular American – People that think the same way as I do.

Seems to suggest – Like the definitions on this list. I heard what they said but I know its code for.

Selfish – Not giving me what I want.

Serve the people – Should be doing only what I want.

Socialist – Somewhere to the left of me.

Spam – I didn’t agree with that the first time I heard it.

Stratigist – Bullshit artist, spin doctor.

Wingnut – Views so far from my own, I can’t discuss them and will instead call them names.

Poll – Which Science Fiction Evil Computer Best Represents Washington DC?

What would things be like if congress were replaced with liberty-minded people? Would it do any good? It seems the bureaucracy has achieved a consciousness of its own, like a computer run amok in a Science Fiction story. Is anyone in Washington still in control? Can anyone pull the plug?

[poll id=”2″]

The list isn’t complete because computers controlling humanity is a common theme in Science Fiction. Please add any evil computers or thoughts on which computer best represents Washington DC in the comments section below.

Health Care Reform Bill – A Modern Advanced Civil Right?

Health care reform was sold with the argument that all Americans had the right to health care. How can something you are forced to do be considered a right? Call me mad, call me crazy, but I thought a right was something you could choose to do, or not do.

Imagine –

You were required to speak out.

You were forced to prove you are a member of a religious organization.

You were mandated to publish something.

You must own a weapon to defend yourself.

You had to peaceably assemble a certain amount of times each year.

Imagine if you didn’t do any of the above, you had to pay a 750 dollar fine for not exercising each of these rights.

This is the logic behind the health care reform bill: you have the right to health care insurance, and if you choose not to exercise this new right, you’ll pay a heavy penalty.

To sum it up, we are are being sold a lie that individual rights are an old-fashioned notion. A negative campaign is being waged that says America needs to change and be more like modern advanced countries that believe society as a whole has rights that supersede individual rights. Putting individual liberties first is only old-fashioned to Americans, because the rest of the world is still catching up with the concept. Ignoring individual rights is an age-old concept and that can hardly be described as modern or advanced.

Let me point out some less advertised features of these advanced countries American has been compared to. These are examples of what happens in countries where individual rights are placed behind society rights:

Canada – The Customs and Revenue Agency is responsible for determining which books, videos, comics, and other material should be allowed into the country.

Germany – Declared the Church of Scientology unconstitutional.

France – Wants fines for wearing burqas in public.

United Kingdom – Censors political speech and attitudes.

These countries should be examples of what not to do; they are example of the dangers of putting individual rights at the back of bus. Don’t look to them for examples on how to run America, because changing the definition of rights is not progress, it’s not advanced, and it is not a bright future.

The Department of Carrots and Sticks Mission Statement – Liberty through Behavior Modification

The phrase “carrots and sticks” appears in political discussion so often, the first results on Google for “carrots and sticks” are about politics and not about animal husbandry. The Beast of Burden is officially human.

Example: President Obama speaking about dealing with Iran

“If we show ourselves willing to talk and to offer carrots and sticks in order to deal with these pressing problems — and if Iran then rejects any overtures of that sort — it puts us in a stronger position to mobilize the international community to ratchet up pressure on Iran.”

A good way NOT to make progress with Iranians is by analogizing them to donkeys and the USA as their master.

This phrase is dehumanizing , in that carrots and sticks are used on beasts of burden by their masters. It is one of the few honest appraisals you’ll hear a politician utter on how they view the world. From their perspective, you and I and other nations are the dumb animals to be steered in the direction of their desires.

You don’t use carrots and sticks on someone you consider to be your equal. You wouldn’t threaten a neighbor with a club or bribe them with money to resolve a dispute. When you consider someone your equal, you let them decide how to act for themselves without coercion.

You don’t use carrots and sticks on your friends. If you were to say to a friend, “Come over to my home for a superbowl party; there’ll be lots of snacks for you if you come–and if you don’t show up, I’ll flatten your tires,” they won’t be your friend long.

You wouldn’t say to your spouse, “If you’ll lose some weight I’ll help clean up around the house, and if you don’t, I’ll have sex with someone else,” unless the goal was to divorce so you could have sex with someone else.

Politicians are loaded with these carrots and sticks; they’ve got them for health care, cap and trade, banks, buying cars, and the economy in general. Politicians see so much more work to be done, and have an arsenal of creative ideas to corral the masses. That’s what politicians do; they pat themselves on the back for thinking up new forms of behavior modification.

Why is it acceptable to use laws to modify other peoples’ behavior? We wouldn’t treat people we know and care about with a carrot and stick approach, so why is it considered acceptable to treat strangers this way?