Again, why must the voicemail prompts of major wireless carriers offer those time-wasting instructions for leaving a message?

Since heaven is supposed to be a realm void of pain, suffering or sadness, would its residents have awareness of loved ones who failed to make the cut?

Price gouging and windfall profits are phrases that can only be uttered by a mind under emotional assault.

At a wedding I attended this past weekend, the pastor, in one sentence, highlighted the significance of the bride and groom choosing each other from the billions of people on earth, then nullified that significance by claiming god was responsible for the choice.

Why would any rational people perpetuate something so tritely decorative at the cost of such discomfort and inconvenience?

How many people who routinely use the phrase “Bless you” in response to a sneeze have ever investigated its origins?

How should we regard the endorsement of Barack Obama by the prime minister of Hamas?

How long will it be until GovCo. sinks its taxing fangs into the internet?

Yaron Brook gives a brilliantly candid assessment of our government’s insatiable taxation frenzy, and the sickening scope of it’s detriment to our lives.

Tax policy works by attaching financial incentives to a long list of values deemed morally worthy. If you want to maximize your wealth come tax time–and who doesn’t?–you must look at the world through tax-colored glasses, “voluntarily” adjusting your behavior to suit social norms and thereby qualifying for tax breaks. In this way, the social engineers of tax policy preserve the impression that you’re exercising free choice, while they’re actually dispensing with your reason and your judgment.

Ironically, those who attempt to navigate the tax sea adeptly are demonized for “not paying their fair share” enabled by “loopholes for the rich”, which serves as an added bonus for the social engineers, who can use the wealth envy to fuel more class warfare, higher progressive taxes, and leverage to buy votes. It’s a cyclical game, and taxes are their unmatched wildcard.

Clearly, we have slid a long way downhill from this nation’s founding, when political leaders respected individuals’ ability to make rational decisions for themselves about how to pursue their own health, wealth and happiness. Today, it is commonly accepted that Uncle Sam has a right to reach not only into your wallet but into your soul, through tax policies that substitute some version of the “public interest” for your own rational desires.

Sam has degraded from a freedom-loving pioneer into a condescending tyrant.

If government were restricted to its proper functions–police, courts and a strong military to defend individual rights against physical force and fraud–our 66,000-page coercive tax code would be a thing of the past. What’s more, a great burden would be lifted, not just from the economy, but from our lives.

The whole article is an excellent read.

In a truly heart-warming ceremonial speech our president enlightens us to his definition of freedom.

Here in America you’ll find a nation of compassion. Americans believe that the measure of a free society is how we treat the weakest and most vulnerable among us. So each day citizens across America answer the universal call to feed the hungry and comfort the sick and care for the infirm.

I guess the phrase “answer the universal call” means “submit to mandatory income redistribution”. Compulsory compassion, how noble of us.

In a world where some see freedom as simply the right to do as they wish, we need your message that true liberty requires us to live our freedom not just for ourselves, but “in a spirit of mutual support.”

In other words, one can’t be truly free unless he’s bound by the shackles of, and to the extent he panders to, the collective. In a single paragraph, he reveals the glob of contradiction that suffocates this country.

Individualism, justice… bad. Collectivism, injustice… good.

Here in America, you’ll find a nation that is fully modern, yet guided by ancient and eternal truths. The United States is the most innovative, creative and dynamic country on earth — it is also among the most religious. In our nation, faith and reason coexist in harmony. This is one of our country’s greatest strengths, and one of the reasons that our land remains a beacon of hope and opportunity for millions across the world.

If pure dissonance can still be considered harmonic, then yes. Completing the metaphor, to the extent that we embrace reason we will resolve.

As John Galt put it:

The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. The good, say the mystics of muscle, is Society—a thing which they define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a super-being embodied in no one in particular and everyone in general except yourself. Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Man’s mind, say the mystics of muscle, must be subordinated to the will of Society. Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of muscle, is the pleasure of Society, whose standards are beyond man’s right of judgment and must be obeyed as a primary absolute. The purpose of man’s life, say both, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. His reward, say the mystics of spirit, will be given to him beyond the grave. His reward, say the mystics of muscle, will be given on earth—to his great-grandchildren.
“Selfishness—say both—is man’s evil. Man’s good—say both—is to give up his personal desires, to deny himself, renounce himself, surrender; man’s good is to negate the life he lives. Sacrifice—cry both—is the essence of morality, the highest virtue within man’s reach.

This speech is especially crafty in that it effectively breaches the collectivist fence that separates the the soul/body dichotomy by bragging of our mental sacrifice to the supernatural, and our physical sacrifice to the needy. Not many people can bridge the two camps as eloquently as it is done here.

Gus Van Horn recently listed ten beers worthy of his praise, and I’d only had a few on his list. It makes me realize that I’ve really strayed from my course as a discerning beer enthusiast. Although I’ve become rather fond of a few over the past 12 years, there’s one that’s clearly my undisputed favorite.

Who would’ve guessed that after only a year together we’d become so close. There are many things from 1996 that I reminisce, but this beer, the winner of Sam Adams yearly homebrew contest is at the top of this list.

A few other favorites are:

Leinenkugel Sunset Wheat

Dos Equis Amber

Saris Trnavy (Dark)

Heidi N. Moore questions Capitalism and Objectivism:

Should there be more Ayn Rand to instruct young, impressionable minds? Or is the problem with capitalism today too much Rand already? [emphasis added]

With this stupid question, she clearly signals that she doesn’t understand either.

I wish this were courtesy of The Onion.

A silly new bill strives to criminalize perception in the vein of thought crimes. Since we’ve pretty much abandoned a proper legal system (one prescribing law based on objective rules pertinent to the protection of an individuals right to life, liberty and property), prosecuting anyone for anything is now fair game.

This blob of insane, emotional drivel would make one who commits “visual sexual aggression” (looking at another individual while being conscious of a particular set of concepts) a felon. The chief do-gooder of this absurdity is Dawn Hill, a Democrat. Dawn enlightens us with her motive:

Her involvement started when Ogunquit Police Lt. David Alexander was called to a local beach to deal with a man who appeared to be observing children entering the community bathrooms. Because the state statute prevents arrests for visual sexual aggression of a child in a public place, Alexander said he and his fellow officer could only ask the man to move along.

“There was no violation of law that we could enforce. There was nothing we could charge him with,” Alexander said.

He attended a talk with Hill a week later and brought the case to her attention. Hill pledged to do what she could, Alexander said, and the result was a change through the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee in the House, which made the law applicable in both private and public places.

Alexander said he’s grateful Hill was willing to take up the cause, and is hopeful the measure will clear the Senate.

“I’ll be pleased that we were able to identify this flaw and take steps to rectify it,” he said.

Under the bill, if someone is arrested for viewing children in a public place, it would be a Class D felony if the child is between 12 to 14 years old and a Class C felony if the child is under 12, according to Alexander.

Hill said she believes the move was necessary to correct what she called a “loophole” in the state’s criminal law statutes. [emphasis added]

We can only presume the “loophole” Dawn refers to was the remnant of objectivity present in her state’s legal code.

I imagine it was terribly frustrating to know that such an atrocity (one individual looking at another one while he could possibly be thinking about something that, if enacted, could possibly be immoral or objectionable to some people) could occur to helpless children. In principle, we should consider expanding the protective scope of this measure to all people (with the exception of white, capitalist males or course). We must take the proper steps to protect individuals from the irreparable damage inflicted when others detect their existence while maintaining a forbidden state of consciousness. If we really wanted to be a catalyst for positive change, we could also ban indiscriminate auditory detection of humans under such mindsets.

With time, we can only hope this intuitive, and clairvoyant legal tactic will be the cornerstone for a litany of progressive laws that would enable government control of every thought, emotion, action and consequence of our lives. Society will then be well on its way to the utter domination of existence, identity and causality, abandoning its current status as a mere subordinate of reality.

In the interest of full disclosure, just yesterday, while in line at Dunkin Donuts, I actually pondered the taste of a sour cream doughnut without imagining paying for it. I admit it. It was wrong, and for the greater good, I’m willing to pay the consequences.

Very interesting…

Europe’s enormous $8-billion particle accelerator, to be activated as early as this summer, is generating both excitement and fear.

The Undercurrent’s latest article reviews the fuel of Capitalism - a force that is typically demonized, underrated, misunderstood and ignored by our culture - the profit motive.

Many people believe that without government regulation, pharmaceutical (insert any market) companies will dupe consumers and cut corners in order to make a quick dollar. They believe that the regulatory restrictions imposed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (insert any government agency) are necessary to reign in companies whose greed would otherwise lead them to engage in a range of unscrupulous practices.

This view fails to recognize that the free market already has a means of rewarding integrity—the profitability of a good reputation.

[parenthetical emphasis added to make statement universal to any market or bureaucracy]

Laws which are written by those ignorant of this fact, designed to enforce morality on individuals, result in tremendous economic destruction and waste. Government essentially taxes citizens in order to fund the multitude of regulatory agencies that sink their fangs into the necks of businessmen, in order to keep them from taking (what they consider) unethical or immoral action. This tremendous undertaking, one which aspires to micro-manage millions of people in their endeavors ignores the fact that the motive of profit will eliminate wretched or incompetent individuals, and in a manner which is morally, economically, and justly superior. Individuals who make poor, short-sided or unethical decisions detriment the value of their barter, and more importantly, their reputation. Detract value from your product, or tarnish your reputation; and you won’t last very long in a free market.

Not only does it cost tremendous amounts of money to fund the variety of big-brother task forces, the larger, and more inconspicuous costs are the wider affects on the markets and our economy as a whole.

Last week’s grounding of American Airlines flights are a perfect example. The FAA induced groundings were due to a breach of the regulations pertaining to wiring standards, which obviously are important with regards to safety. The fact that most fail to see is that American Airlines already has a tremendous incentive for their wiring to not only be adequate, but to be as close to perfect as they can afford. In an industry already plagued by the remnants of 9/11, fuel costs, and our lazy economy, a catastrophic event and it’s associated overhead could easily send an airline limping down the road to their demise.

Why would anyone think that a successful airline could afford to be ignorant of the need for safety or the potential repercussions of failing to achieve it?

Instead, our government thinks that airlines need “incentive” to maintain safety, and those incentives come in the form of regulations, fines and if needed, seizure of their ability to operate. In other words, you don’t have a right to run your business as you see fit, because we’ve abandoned property rights in this country. Besides, we know how to run your business better than you do, so you’ll do it our way or cease to exist.

Read the rest of this entry »

I recently received a response to my letter from Erik Eckberg of NRA-ILA, the lobbying function of the National Rifle Association.

Thank you for contacting the NRA-ILA. We appreciate your comments but must respectfully disagree. The ‘right to keep and bear arms’ is a fundamental right. In fact it is as important as any other right since it is a right that can defend all other rights.

This issue is partly about property rights. The gun owner who is only leaving his firearm in his vehicle is the property owner of that vehicle. The NRA does not believe that that a business’s property rights supersede the property rights of the vehicle owner.

The reality is that the business owners who want to take away your Second Amendment rights are doing it because they have bought into the anti-gun argument that the mere presence of firearms is a danger and that law-abiding individuals who have access to firearms are a threat. That ignorance has not only been disproven but it is what the NRA is fighting everyday.

We do agree with you that the notion that a law abiding concealed carry permit holder somehow becomes dangerous because they step foot in an establishment that serves alcohol is wrong. And we will continue to work to change those laws in states that do have them.

Here is a link that further explains our position. We appreciate your support.

Sincerely,

Erik Eckberg
NRA-ILA

To which I responded:

Hi Erik, thanks for the response. Keep in mind, if the goals are freedom and justice, you and I are on the same page. I know the association has firmly decided its stance on this, so this conversation may be of no other use than constructive thought.

The NRA does not believe that that a business’s property rights supersede the property rights of the vehicle owner.

They must to some degree, for example, when an employer needed (for whatever reason) to tow an employees car off of their premises. Should they not be legally enabled to do so because the car is someone else’s property? Additionally, most employment contracts would contain a clause relating to their weapons policy. In this regard, the measure in Florida would also invalidate contractual law. An employee chooses to become so by agreeing to the terms set by an employer. If such terms indicate a ban on weapons, the employee can either accept the terms and comply (or risk the consequences of violation), or not.

In principle, this is no different than a government mandated smoking ban on a private establishment, where the rights of the owner to determine their own policies are clobbered. The owner of the establishment has the right to set the terms of patrons or employees.

We do have a right to life, and property. When we enter anther’s property on contractual terms, the terms may include a limitation to those rights. We can accept them or walk away.

For what it’s worth, my former employer bans weapons on premises, and I chose to carry (and left in my car) most every day. I worked in a rough area, and to me the security was worth the risk of any consequences I would’ve reaped if my violation of their terms were revealed.

For the government to tell them their opinion on the matter is irrelevant is a gross injustice, and goes against a fundamental premise of this country. Rights are violated when an entity initiates force against another. The role of government is to protect the rights of its citizens, not to violate them, regardless of the cause. Since employment is a contractual relationship of volition, there is no force. This measure is initiating force against an individual (the business owner) who is violating no other’s right to life, liberty or property - he’s only setting contractual terms with another individual, who’s free to choose to accept them or not. The only force being initiated here is by government - a complete inversion of of its purpose.

The reality is that the business owners who want to take away your Second Amendment rights are doing it because they have bought into the anti-gun argument that the mere presence of firearms is a danger and that law-abiding individuals who have access to firearms are a threat.

I agree their premises, as well as most all anti-gun arguments are illogical, emotion-driven nonsense. Regardless, by simply setting contractual terms which can be accepted or not, they’re not taking away anything from anyone. As long as individuals are free to choose their place of employment, no rights are in jeopardy.

Again, I appreciate the response and all that your organization does. In any war, there are battles that must be “picked and chosen”. I wish the NRA would’ve seen the potential damage from signing up for this one.

As a citizen and member, I must advise the association to not support the Florida “take-your-guns-to-work” measure. Our right to keep and bear arms is only derivative to our rights to life, liberty and *property*. Overriding a business owners discretion to allow firearms or not on their legal property is a clear encroachment of property rights.

I’m all for removing barriers to carry, but not at the sacrifice of our fundamental rights.

A more appropriate cause to support would be the similar encroachment on property rights by government overriding an establishments discretion to allow concealed carry (or not) based on alcohol sales or any other silly metric. Here again, the property owners are the only ones who should rightfully determine their preference with regards to weapons on their premises, not government.

Supporting this cause would advance the more fundamental right to property as well as those mandated by our 2nd amendment. Support of this measure discredits the purpose of the NRA. Lets not cut off our foot in order to paint our toenails.

Member #153435425