Liberal Hypocrisy vs. Conservative Hypocrisy – the Damage is Done

The left and the right cherry pick principles to champion based upon marketing strategy, and not based upon any core principles. This cherry picking approach has been steadily destroying the principles each claim to defend. Here are some examples of liberal hypocrisy and conservative hypocrisy and the damage they have done:

Defending Liberty – banning unhealthy living (left) vs. banning euthanasia (right). Both the left and the right claim to defend your right to live your life however you like. The left wants to restrict you from shorting your life by unhealthy living and the right doesn’t want you to choose when you die. If there is one thing that shows you live in a free society, it’s the right to decide to end your life by either slow or quick means.

Defenders of Justice – hate crimes (left) vs. terrorism crimes (right). Hate crimes are committed to send political messages and terrorism is often about religious intolerance. How important is the motive for murdering strangers when deciding an appropriate punishment? When the left wants to treat terrorists according to established law, the right labels them “terrorist sympathizers.” When the right wants to treat hate crimes according to established law, the left labels them as “racists sympathizers.” There isn’t any difference between these types of crimes. The left and right each want to be the champions of protecting the people: they just pick different villains to terrify the public while ignoring the principles of justice.

Defending free speech – banning the N-word (left) vs. flag burning (right). Both the left and right claim to be defenders of free speech but it turns out each would restrict speech that offends. Generally speaking, the left would censor violence and the right would censor sex in movies, TV, music and video games.

Both the left and right follow the same underlying dynamic – if they don’t like something, you can make it go away by passing a law. They really believe the evils they see in society can be made to go away by passing a law or declaring war on it. They have declared war on terrorism, poverty, drugs, and racism. How are all these wars working out for you? When will people realize no government has the power to make things like terrorism and racism go away?

The results of liberal and conservative hypocritical governing speak for themselves. In championing their causes, they have blown up the economy, put more limits on freedom, put people out of work, made a mockery of the justice system, stuck us in endless wars and thrown the country into to debt for decades.

In theory, our elected officials are there to protect our freedom, but they forget to ask themselves a simple question, “Will this lead to more freedom or less freedom?” It doesn’t matter if the issue is fighting evil or doing good for others, the question of more or less freedom is always relevant. Maybe if the question is asked more often the damage they’ve done can be repaired.

Share Button

If They Just Kept it From the Public, There is no Crime

Judge Andrew Napolitano explains the legal ramifications behind the emails between the Federal Reserve and AIG.

Lawyers with the Fed told AIG to withhold details of the money being lent to AIG, becasue AIG was handing billions over to Goldman Sachs.

The upsetting part in this is, as the Judge puts it, “If they just kept if from the public, there is no crime and Geithner may actually be commended for his political wisdom. If it was required to be reported in a document and not accurately reported, that would be the criminal event.”

Sneaking billions to the worlds richest investment bank is only considered a crime if the paperwork wasn’t filled out properly.

Share Button

The Future of Civil Disobedience in America – I WANT YOU Ziggy Stardust

4chan users were upset with YouTube for deleting the account of Lukeywes1234. 4chan let YouTube know just how upset they were by launching a porn bomb protest at YouTube on January 6th, 2010. YouTube will be busy for days cleaning out all the hidden porn from the 4chan group.

What would happen if 4chan were angry with Washington D.C.?

The tried and true ways of protesting through signs, emails, calling and faxing don’t seem to be very effective. In the future, I hope people will start launching protests similar to the 4chan model.

A selective service protest could be launched by walking into the post office and getting a few cards to fill out with bogus information. If there were millions of fake registrations, the system would be useless.

Around 100 million tax returns are filled every year with the IRS.  How well would the IRS function if another 100 million returns were fake?

The 2010 census forms will be out soon–with enough effort, Alaska could become the most populous state.

Each government agency or program has a plethora of forms that can be filled out for free. All these agencies are susceptible to a denial of service attacks through an abundance of requests for service.

How about a cell phone app to alert others when your civil rights are being violated? A GPS-equipped phone with this app would quickly alert every liberty-minded person in the area to rush to the scene. Your civil rights will be better protected when several people are live streaming video of encounters with the police.

If you’d prefer your email not be read by the NSA, then spamming the world with emails incorporating terms the NSA screens for is an option. “Ziggy has the bomb in his underpants”

Start an internet rumor similar to the one that caused chaos when utility payment assistance was offered by the city of Detroit. “The President will be giving away federally owned homes to people at his next speech. Under each seat will be a certificate for one foreclosed home.”

These are just a few ideas for the future of civil disobedience; with the right amount of anger and creativity, it will be possible to catch the conscience of the king.

Share Button

Liberty Airway – The Safest Wings in the Air

Ron Paul and other Libertarian minded people have suggested airline security should be left to the airlines and not the TSA. What would the airline industry be like if security was left to the airlines? How would the free market natural evolution process change an airline industry responsible for their own security?

Insurance companies would set their rates based upon an airlines security procedures. Higher insurance rates would push airlines to improve security to bring their costs down.

Restaurants can refuse service on the basis of safety, welfare or well-being of other patrons; airlines could refuse service for the same reasons, if a passenger is deemed a security risk.

There would be a list of airlines with the fewest number of terrorists incidents. Consumers would weigh for themselves how much they are willing to pay for security. Some airlines would advertise themselves as being the most secure way to fly.

There would be a market for the security-conscious people who are willing to pay more for better security. Less secure airlines would run themselves out of business, because people would be unwilling to fly with them.

Possible security features airlines might offer if they were in charge:

Pre-screening of passengers with a security background check.

Passengers and carry-ons scanned more than once. I double check my work; why not double check screeners?

Security stations on-board planes with armed guards.

Security cameras to monitor all passengers. Security cameras monitor people in department stores now, so why not on airplanes?

For the less expensive airlines without on-board security officers, airlines might try the following:

Carry-ons locked in the overhead bins or no carry-ons allowed at all.

Seats going sideways with lap bars (like those found on roller coasters) to keep everyone seated.

Only allowed to get out of seats when escorted by a crew member.

Taking the TSA out of air travel would be safer, because it is in the airlines’ own interest to improve security. Consumers would be more informed about the risks involved in flying. Consumers could weigh for themselves the inconvenience and loss of privacy from security measures vs. safety. In the long run, costs associated with security would come down because airlines would have motivation to create cost-effective and efficient security procedures.

Weighing the TSA’s motivation of improving security when something goes wrong vs. the airline industries self-preservation motives to improve security, the scale of safety tilts towards the airline industry.

Share Button

I am an Amoral, Self-Serving Bastard

Frequently in the universal health care debate, those opposed are asserted to be selfish. I am one of those amoral, self-serving bastards that would rather see people die than part with any of my money– at least, this is how it’s presented.

How can anyone of good conscience not be concerned about helping those in need? Aren’t we our brother’s keeper? We all have a moral obligation to care for others.”

Liberty-minded people often respond,  “The route suggested to accomplish these good deeds requires coercion and force by government. Robbing to help someone else is still robbery.

This is a valid argument to me, but will only appeal to those with similar views. Others quickly dismiss the argument as a questionable analogy. Those advocating being our “brother’s keeper” will still be convinced they have the moral high ground, because they are talking about saving lives and we are defending abstract concepts.

For them, the debate between the realities of someone dying vs. an aloof concept of personal freedom is foolish. To them, freedom isn’t a real and tangible thing. I understand. You can’t say, “Here–have a big ol’ cup of freedom on me.” Freedom isn’t something you can roll around in and say,  “Damn, this freedom feels good today!” You can’t eat freedom, freedom won’t keep you warm, and it sure won’t heal the sick.

To the liberty-minded, however, freedom is every bit as real as slavery. Unfortunately, it isn’t obvious just how real and vital freedom is until that freedom has been lost. Freedom is a hard sell in a world that isn’t meeting the basic needs of all its inhabitants. When I say, “I  don’t believe my needs and wants supersede the rights of others, ” the response is often, “So others have to die so you can have your freedom? Sleep well, you cold-hearted bastard.”

Just because there isn’t a state-run program to solve a given problem doesn’t mean no one cares. We rely on the morality of others every day, simply not realizing how much we depend on this moral capital. We don’t need police everywhere people gather, because only a small percentage of the population steals or harms others. Police don’t create peace; they are there to preserve peace that the group as a whole created spontaneously.

It’s true that relying on the kindness of others doesn’t sound very reliable. A law stating your needs will be taken care of is much more concrete (and comforting) than arguing people might choose to help if they are in the mood. To many, laws and police just force us to be good people. Some seem to believe laws create civility, rather than civil people created laws to protect one another from harm.

Anti-big-government types will point out times the government hasn’t helped at all–when it was people on the spot that saw a need and solved problems. I wholeheartedly agree that immediate needs are best met by free people taking action in the moment– as in the Christmas terrorist plot thwarted by a passenger. It’s a matter of having faith in others. You either do or you don’t. I have faith in others because I experienced their  kindness many times in my life, but I know others are rightfully cynical, because they’ve experienced cruelty.

Several countries have a state religion. In some, people are put to death for joining a different faith–that state believes allowing the people to choose for themselves what is right and wrong is courting immorality. To the state, having a state religion that mandates morality makes for moral people.

In reality, you can’t have a moral society without free will. State religions are akin to having someone follow you around your whole life with a gun to your head, telling you to “be good.” Even if you would choose to act morally on your own, you can’t take credit for acts of kindness, because someone else made the decision for you. The people with the most freedom are the most moral people, because their kindness is a choice.

I do believe I have a moral obligation to care about others. I am my brother’s keeper. I draw distinctions between helping others,  forcing others to help, and forcing help upon others.

Forcing others to help is immoral, because I would be taking away their right to decide what is caring. I like to think of myself as a caring and giving person, but I know there are others more caring and giving. I strive to be more like them. Striving to become a better person is a basic human right, as important as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Forcing others to act in a caring manner dehumanizes them by robbing them of their own normal and natural development.

Forcing people to wear seat belts has saved lives. Forcing people to get regular checkups would save lives, and forcing people to treat illnesses will save lives. In matters of life and death, is it wrong to use force to save lives? If someone was terminally ill and there was a painful procedure that could prolong their life by a week, would you force the procedure? Where would you draw the line at when force is appropriate? What if the procedure would keep them alive for a month, six months, a year–where is the line between caring and cruelty? A moral obligation to help others doesn’t make it right to force that help upon others.

The moral high ground is in being our brother’s keeper, and with it comes with the moral obligation of defending our brother’s free will.

Share Button

Can’t we have Freedom of Politics?

I know science is a method of study, but to me the term “Political Science” is an oxymoron just as “Christian Science” is an oxymoron. Political views are based upon personal morality; there is no science in politics. Nothing makes the belief in a democratic republic an absolute fact; the only fact is a form of government can match personal beliefs. I believe in freedom and democracy because they are in line with my own ethics.

It is easy to find volumes of writing supporting my belief in democracy, but nothing turns the belief ino fact. There are strong arguments to be made for many political views, but at their core, all political systems are a solely a matter of belief. In America, it is not uncommon to hear someone refer to the founding fathers as types of apostles and the US Constitution as the Bible.

What if we were all forced to choose between only two religions? And yes, by “all” I mean even the atheists would have to pick a side. What if all the religious beliefs were forced into two camps, the same way political beliefs are? Undoubtedly we’d see people wandering back and forth between the groups, depending on the hot issue at the moment.

I don’t know enough about them all to figure out which groups would kinda get along, so I have randomly thrown some religious traditions together:

Option 1–Methodist, Presbyterian, Seventh-day Adventist, Baptist, Vaishnavist, Islamist, and Wiccans

Option 2–Catholic, Lutheran, Atheists, Pentecostal, Buddhist, Jewish, and Jehovah’s Witnesses

Each would try to convert you to join their faith with the same scare tactics politicians use. The Methodist, Presbyterian, Seventh-day Adventist, Baptist, Vaishnavist, Islamist, Wiccans would try to convince you to join them, because if the Catholic, Lutheran, Atheists, Pentecostal, Buddhist, Jewish, Jehovah’s Witnesses get their way, Satan (or similar demonic figure) will rule the earth.

The two groups would have leaders that artfully explain why theirs is the one true faith, while simultaneously pointing out the sheer evil and foolishness of the opposing faith.

I’m sure we’d also hear the worn out defense mechanisms kicking in when an obvious hole in philosophy is pointed out. When the Catholic, Lutheran, Atheists, Pentecostal, Buddhist, Jewish, and Jehovah’s Witnesses are cornered with “You can’t believe in God and no God at the same time,” I’m sure the response would be, “Well, at least we aren’t as crazy as the Methodist, Presbyterian, Seventh-day Adventist, Baptist, Vaishnavist, Islamist, and Wiccans–they worship God and Goddesses and Vishnu.”

Leaders would come in two varieties, similar to the leaders in the Democratic and Republican parties. You’d have the totally full-of-BS leaders that know the views held by their side are incongruent, but are adroit enough at spin to make it sound like one cohesive religion. The other variety of leader would be totally nuts, because they’ve somehow managed to hold all the conflicting views in their head without any cognitive dissonance.

There would be some members of these religions that stick to a set of congruent beliefs of their own, but they would be the outcasts for being heretics–AKA wing nuts, moon bats, tinfoil-hat-wearers.

I’ve heard Democrats poke fun at fundamentalist Christians, and then Republicans chuckle at new age religions. What strikes me funny is the religions they make fun of are more congruent in their own views and values than they themselves are with the views of their choosen political party.

There really is no political freedom in America when the final choice comes down to Democrat or Republican. There is a choice, but it is hardly a free choice when the choice is “Pick the one that sounds the least insane.” We have freedom of religion in America, so why can’t we have freedom of politics?

photo credit: Stuck in Customs

Share Button

The Plan is Here and it’s Called Freedom-Care

With skyrocketing costs caused by dollar devaluation, income taxes, and healthcare reform, these questions are on many Americans minds: “How much longer can I afford to live in a free country? Isn’t it time for a plan that makes freedom affordable to all?”

First off, Freedom-care won’t be mandatory; you’ll be able to opt in or out at your own choosing. Most of all, it prevents the federal government from denying your freedom when you need it the most.


Under the Freedom-care plan, each person will be able to choose the plan that suits their personal needs best. You won’t be forced to choose from a list of bureaucratically-approved activities. You can spend your freedom however you like! Finally, a real choice for your life is in your hands.

No one can be denied Freedom-care based upon preexisting conditions such as political affiliation, religion, lack of religion, race, gender, age or violating victimless crime laws. Basically the only way you can be turned down for Freedom-care is if you steal or harm another Freedom-care participant.

Provides stable and maintainable freedom insurance by providing for a well-armed defense. Members are allowed to participate in supplementary freedom insurance programs if they so desire.

Eliminates government preventative care – Under freedom care, the government can no longer tax you for bad behavior. You’ll be free to tan, smoke, drink alcohol, or have all the sugar you can afford because you are fully protected from government interference.

Caps out-of-pocket taxes so you won’t go broke while enjoying your freedom.

Creates an independent commission called “voters” to monitor the program and identify waste, abuse and fraud.


Wide and ever-growing religious freedom – If you like your current religion you can keep it! You can’t be forced to choose from a preferred religion list.

Quality and affordable choices – Freedom-care participants can use their wealth in a manner of their own choosing. Freedom-care has the world’s largest list of products from around the world which members can choose to buy, and the list is still growing! You’ll get to decide what you can afford all by yourself.

Words – Freedom-care users have free access to use any word available–even words from other languages. Use the words however you like and feel free to share them with others at no charge.

Ideas – The idea bank is so large, quite frankly I’m not sure what’s all in there; but they tell me the bank holds an infinite amount of ideas. Just as with words you can share these ideas as often as you’d like.

Tell Congress the time is now for Freedom-Care…

Share Button

Bernanke is World’s Greatest Counterfeiter

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said that Paul had admitted off camera that Bernanke deserved the award because of his economic power. Paul replied “He is. He is the most powerful man in the world. I believe a case can be made for that…He controls the supply of money, which is the reserve currency of the world.”

The Texas congressman added, “He could create a trillion dollars in secret without any monitoring of the Congress…I think he’s more powerful than the president.”

Share Button

Restoring American Federalism

I think Federalism is the best path because corruption follows power.  Concentrating power leads to concentrated corruption; in the long run we’re better off with states having power over the federal government.

Being honest with myself, I’ve flip-flopped on the subject.

When the state law provides more freedom then I’m all for Federalism.

When the states law has less freedom, I’ll reach for the Constitution to find something unconstitutional in the state law.

How about a constitutional amendment that when the state and federal governments laws disagree, the law that provides for the most freedom wins?

Share Button