Libertarian – Page 4 – Zombies Uncensored

Maybe Life is Obscene, But Profit is Not

Stossel Show – Lies, Myths and Stupidity! (Part 2/6)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmc7MFcymXU

In this segment of the show, Michael Medved and John Stossell discuss the phrase “obscene profits.”

Michael Medved: “One of the things that I hate is this term ‘obscene profits.’ There are no obscene profits.”

The debate over the which transactions in our lives one can morally profit from has been going on for some time and is not likely to be settled any time soon. Just look at the history of morality in moneylending–it will still be debated thousands of years from now.

The term “obscene profits” is usually applied to oil and health insurance companies, or basically any business that supplies things necessary for survival. “Obscene” in these cases means they made a lot of money in an area some believe it immoral to seek profit.

Profit is one of those words that people have multiple definitions for and as a result, debates and discussions often become convoluted because people end up arguing about the morality of profit, without first clarifying what profit means to them.

Generally profit is viewed as experiencing a gain from a transaction. I know of no voluntary transaction between people that won’t result in at least some type of gain or profit for both sides. Even acts considered selfless result in a profit of well being, so simply profiting from an action isn’t inherently immoral.

I slightly disagree with Medved when he said there are no obscene profits. Theft is an obscene profit, when only one side gains from a violent transaction. Medved’s use of the word profit was meant in terms of a free and fair exchange for goods or services. There is no such thing as an obscene profit when it comes to non-coercive transactions between free people.

Non-coercive is the key word here. People that use that term “obscene profits” often believe profiting from selling goods or services necessary to survival is a form of coercion. Since life forces you to eat, you must buy food from those who sell food if you do not produce your own. The people offering their goods and services are then equated with being uncaring.

Business doesn’t determine the rules of life; nature does. Call life obscene if you want, but don’t blame the people that make life a lot more bearable.

Peter Schiff: Congress, Wall Street, Goldman, AIG, SEC

Peter Schiff April 21st 2010 on the Financial Regulation Bill

Peter Schiff quickly sums up the tangled web between congress and Wall Street.

Congress is trying to tell us, that one of the reasons that we need this financial regulation is to make sure that taxpayers are never again forced to bailout these too big to fail firms.

Well, who was it that forced us to bail them out in the first place? The same guys that say we need this bill, it was congress, congress bailed them out, and they did it despite the fact that they had no legal authority to do so, in fact bailing them out was unconstitutional.

We don’t need new laws, we just need to force congress to obey the laws that already exist. What congress is saying is that we need rules to prevent us from doing again, what we never should have done in the first place.

Schiff also explains the Goldman Sachs, AIG, SEC relationship.

These securities that Goldman Sachs is being accused of fraudulently marketing, these are the very securities that brought down AIG. AIG went bankrupt because they insured securities like this.

In fact they insured some of the very securities that the SEC in now charging Goldman Sachs with fraudulently creating and marketing. And as a matter of fact, when AIG went bankrupt, twenty billion dollars of the money passed through AIG hands right to Goldman Sachs hands.

So they can collect the money that they made wagering against their own securities, that the SEC is now accusing them of fraudulently creating. I mean come on, the right hand is bailing them out and left hand is slapping them on the wrist.

This whole thing is a complete fiasco. If congress had simply allowed AIG to fail, Goldman probably would’ve been bankrupt. That would have been a much bigger punishment if they’d been involved in fraud than simply making them pay a small fine…

I keep hearing the free market regulating itself is a fantasy. In this climate, it really is a fantasy because congress bails out companies that should have failed. Maybe someday we’ll live in the fantasy world where unwise and fraudulent companies just go out of business.

Peter Schiff: Congress, Wall Street, Goldman, AIG, SEC

Peter Schiff April 21st 2010 on the Financial Regulation Bill

Peter Schiff quickly sums up the tangled web between congress and Wall Street.

Congress is trying to tell us, that one of the reasons that we need this financial regulation is to make sure that taxpayers are never again forced to bailout these too big to fail firms.

Well, who was it that forced us to bail them out in the first place? The same guys that say we need this bill, it was congress, congress bailed them out, and they did it despite the fact that they had no legal authority to do so, in fact bailing them out was unconstitutional.

We don’t need new laws, we just need to force congress to obey the laws that already exist. What congress is saying is that we need rules to prevent us from doing again, what we never should have done in the first place.

Schiff also explains the Goldman Sachs, AIG, SEC relationship.

These securities that Goldman Sachs is being accused of fraudulently marketing, these are the very securities that brought down AIG. AIG went bankrupt because they insured securities like this.

In fact they insured some of the very securities that the SEC in now charging Goldman Sachs with fraudulently creating and marketing. And as a matter of fact, when AIG went bankrupt, twenty billion dollars of the money passed through AIG hands right to Goldman Sachs hands.

So they can collect the money that they made wagering against their own securities, that the SEC is now accusing them of fraudulently creating. I mean come on, the right hand is bailing them out and left hand is slapping them on the wrist.

This whole thing is a complete fiasco. If congress had simply allowed AIG to fail, Goldman probably would’ve been bankrupt. That would have been a much bigger punishment if they’d been involved in fraud than simply making them pay a small fine…

Volunteer Service: The Art of Taxing without Taxing

Involuntary Servitude (docv-downinthemouth.blogspot.com)

New Jersey Assembly Bill , A.B. 4175, introduced on 23 November 2009 will require physicians, dentists, and nurses to complete 30 hours of volunteer service in their respective fields as a condition for biennial registration.

New Jersey’s state/local tax burden rate is the highest in nation by the Tax Foundation. Rather than run the risk of raising taxes, or registration fees, they simply use a different type of taxation with a much friendly tone.

The wording in the bill for the new tax on physicians, dentists, and nurses is “volunteer medical services.” Volunteer medical services has a much nicer ring to it than increased registration fees, unpaid overtime, or involuntary servitude.

It’s just nice and thoughtful of medical practitioners to volunteer their time to help the needy. LPN Training states that nurses in New Jersey make $23.83, multiply that by 30 hours and its $714.90 worth of “volunteer” medical services and thoughtfulness.

With voters angry over the current tax levels, government representatives are becoming adroit in the art of taxing without taxing. Just as mandatory purchases are a new venue for taxing, expect to see more of the community service types of taxation, as a new lane in the Superhighway to Serfdom opens.

Legislators may realize they are playing with fire in taxing hours instead of dollars. Its safer to tax dollars than hours of lives, because many people have a disconnect between money and the hours spent earning money.

Politicians risk alienating willing victims of taxation, the “it’s only money” people–the people that see money only as pieces of paper. This group tends to view freedom as having as much leisure time as possible. Holding onto money is seen as being selfish; but free time to live your life as you choose is their definition of freedom.

Once the “it’s only money” people start having their leisure time taxed, they might start to see the connection between hours of their lives and money. Once governments start mandating how time is spent instead of taxing, the illusion that taxing income is not an intrusion on freedom starts to fade.

It’s Only Money – Groucho Marx and Frank Sinatra

Nominee for Worst Government PR Campaign: EPA

EPA Contest Seeks Videos Promoting Government Regulations (CNSNews.com)

President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency is encouraging the public to create video advertisements that explain why federal regulations are “important to everyone.”

The contest, which ends May 17, will award $2,500 to the makers of the video that best explains why federal regulations are good and how ordinary citizens can become more involved in making regulations. The videos must be posted on YouTube and can be no more than 60-90 seconds in length.

In the current contest, each video must include the slogan “Let your voice be heard,” and it must direct viewers to the government’s regulatory website www.Regulations.gov. The winning video will then be used by the entire federal government to promote the regulatory process and enhance the public’s participation in it.

The regulations.gov site not only highlights the video contest, but has lots of other useful information. You’ll find a searchable database of all documents on their site. It’s possible to find out how many regulations there are about any subject.

I’ve always thought there was a plethora of federal regulations, but I had no way to quantify these regulations, until now. Here are some random keyword searches from the regulations site, and the resulting number of rule matches.

Windows (1303)
Dirt (145)
Hair (132)
Schools (2437)

But wait, there’s more! The site claims on its front page, “On average, federal agencies and departments issue nearly 8,000 regulations per year.'” The site also has newly posted regulations, and the numbers in there don’t match up with the front page.

For today–April 19th, 2010, 74 regulations were posted, and in the last year there were 23,867 regulations posted. Can you now see why the federal government needs your help? With roughly twenty-four thousand regulations in the last year, they need all the help they can get to thoroughly promote them!

The site also allows you to comment on rules, but only rules that are open to comments. In the 145 rules on dirt, only two are open for comment. I’d post a comment, but I’m fairly sure a comment thanking them for exposing just how bloated and overbearing such regulations are would not be appreciated.

Soon there will be other contests concerning government regulations, but they won’t be coming from the EPA. This video promotion is an easy setup for limited government people to hold contests of their own. How about a find things the government does not regulate contest? I tried searching for something not regulated, but even flatulence was mentioned in a proposed rule.

How about an award for worst government PR campaign? The EPA should at least be a nominee for that award.

National Day of Shut the Hell Up

Federal judge rules National Day of Prayer unconstitutional

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0omBnUcdnm4

This video is about the controversy surrounding the National Day of Prayer. As pointed out in the video, a National Day of Prayer is nothing new, and has a long history in the US. The Continental Congress even issued a day of prayer in 1775 as “a time for prayer in forming a new nation.”

From judge Barbara Crabb’s ruling:

“It goes beyond mere ‘acknowledgment’ of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context,” she wrote. “In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience.”

Acknowledgment of religion by anyone in the government is fine; the first amendment to the US Constitution should not be turned into a denial of religion. Judge Crabb’s ruling is correct on the part about the government is taking sides in a matter of individual conscience.

The real problem is not over religion–it is any time the government takes sides in areas of individual conscience. The government should not be used to call for days of service, or prayer, or to honor Confederate soldiers. The role of government is not to direct the conscience of the country.

The Constitution should go further in limiting the role of government’s interference in areas individual conscience. It’s a shame the constitution doesn’t have an amendment telling the government to “shut the Hell up” in areas of individual conscience in general.

These non-binding proclamations waste and time and money. They often lead to lawsuits because for every pro position, there is an anti position. Someone will speak up and say, “This doesn’t represent my views and the government should not be taking sides.”

Stop wasting tax dollars and the resources of our courts on these non-binding proclamations over what the people should think about or honor. The time of our government officials could be put to much better use if they were instead focused on their job and not proselytizing to the people.

National Day of Shut the Hell Up

Federal judge rules National Day of Prayer unconstitutional

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0omBnUcdnm4

From judge Barbara Crabb’s ruling:

“It goes beyond mere ‘acknowledgment’ of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context,” she wrote. “In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience.”

Federally Funded PBS: Why are Voters Upset how Taxes are Spent?

PBS Town Hall: role of government and how tax dollars are being spent

JUDY WOODRUFF: We came to Tampa, Florida, to throw a spotlight on what Americans think the role of government should be and how their tax dollars are being spent. To that end, we asked our local PBS affiliate, WEDU, to help us round up the people you see behind me, all residents of this area.

There is just so much wrong here, I’m not sure where to start. The painful irony of seeing tax dollars spent to air why the public is frustrated with how tax dollars are spent.

It should come as no surprise that in discussing how tax dollars are spent, PBS fails to mention the 430 million PBS takes from tax payers each year. There was no mention of conflict of interest from the federally funded broadcast network. Any other media organization would be chastised for failing to mention their connection to the organization they are covering.

What you won’t hear in this video: No mention of the original role of the federal government. Nothing about the amount of money spent on two wars. Nothing about federal spending in regards to subsidies, corporatism, or the war on drugs. Watching this PBS spotlight on voter frustrations on how tax dollars are spent is like watching the drunk looking for keys under the streetlight–because the light is better.

Federally Funded PBS: Why are Voters Upset how Taxes are Spent?

PBS Town Hall: role of government and how tax dollars are being spent

JUDY WOODRUFF: We came to Tampa, Florida, to throw a spotlight on what Americans think the role of government should be and how their tax dollars are being spent. To that end, we asked our local PBS affiliate, WEDU, to help us round up the people you see behind me, all residents of this area.

There is just so much wrong here, I’m not sure where to start. The painful irony of seeing tax dollars spent to air why the public is frustrated with how tax dollars are spent.

Libertarian Values: Not Mainstream Just Yet

From Chris Stirewalt’s piece titled “Hating the government finally goes mainstream” at the Washington Examiner. Emphasis added to illustrate libertarian values aren’t described as mainstream in the mainstream media.

Three years ago, the Republican establishment piled scorn on the presidential candidacy of Ron Paul.

Today, he is in a statistical tie with President Obama in 2012 polling. His son, an ophthalmologist who has never run for elective office, is well ahead of not only the GOP’s handpicked candidate for Senate in Kentucky but also both Democratic contenders — all statewide officeholders.

What happened? Did America sudden develop an insatiable appetite for 74-year-old, cranky congressmen from Texas? Is the gold standard catching on?

Paul will not likely be the next president. And his son still faces the most arduous part of his journey as Democrats spend millions to paint him as soft on defense, lax on drug enforcement and too radical on welfare programs.

But there’s no doubt that hating the government and the powerful interests that pull Washington’s strings has gone from the radical precincts of the Right and Left to the mainstream.

…Libertarian sentiment has finally gone mainstream.

Libertarian values haven’t gone mainstream just yet. You’ll know when those values have hit mainstream when they aren’t described with negative connotations. Once a political perspective goes mainstream, it’s described with positive adjectives.

With abortion, the sides are generally described as pro-choice and pro-life. If the sides in abortion were described as baby-haters or choice-haters, it would sound as if they are against something rather than for something. Part of the reason for using the pro-adjectives is both positions are mainstream, in that both groups represent a large number of people.

It’s polite to refer to these groups in a positive sense of what they favor rather than pointing to what they oppose. Referring to others in the positive terms they prefer shows your respect, even when it’s a view you don’t share.

Libertarian values are often not shown the same respect as other views, because they are described as haters, radical or cranky. If others valued or respected those views, they would be framed in a more positive light.

For those who are not trying to alienate others, here are a few suggestions for how to refer to those with libertarian views in a more respectful and polite manner.

Liberty-minded
Pro-freedom
Libertarian
Limited government advocates
Individualist
Fiscally Conservative – Socially Liberal

To other liberty minded individuals out there, if there are other terms you prefer, just leave it in the comments and I’ll update the list; thanks.