WLO banner ad

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

BlueCarp's webcam video November 30, 2010.

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Tancredo fails to understand voluntary transactions.

I'm reading some of the "debate" between Tom Tancredo & Gustavo Arellano in Westword.

Tom says he is against illegal immigration, in part, because illegal immigrants are "exploited" by American business.

(1) That's disingenuous. Does anyone really think Tom is concerned about the poor, "exploited" Mexican labor?

(2) No one is exploited in a voluntary transaction. It's called "capitalism," Tom. Despite failing miserably to implement it, it's something we used to pretend to like in the U.S.

Love it or leave it, Tom.

(In anticipation of angry responses: Neither of these criticisms means I'm in favor of open borders. I am not. I just do not believe anyone that voluntary takes a wage is "exploited.")

BlueCarp's webcam video November 28, 2010.

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Three symptoms of American decline.

1. Most children are no longer taught to say "sir" and "ma'am."
2. People that think the world is their ashtray and flick their cigarette butts out the car window.
3. People that fail to walk 20 yards to the cart corral and leave the grocery cart sitting in the parking lot.

BlueCarp's webcam video November 27, 2010.

Friday, November 26, 2010

Libertarians, conservatives, progressives, free markets and the "greater good."

A. Libertarians believe in free markets.

B. Conservatives believe in free markets.
  • Except in labor. Foreigners shouldn't be allowed to take jobs away from Americans. If an American company wants to hire a foreigner, who is willing and able to do a job just as well and for less money than an American, the government should use its force to prohibit that. It is for the greater good.

  • And except for marijuana. People shouldn't be allowed to smoke marijuana. It is bad for them. If they would rather not get drunk but would rather voluntarily chose to smoke some reefer, the government should use its force to prohibit that. It is for the greater good.

  • And except for prostitution. If people want to mutually and voluntarily agree to exchange that particular service for money, the government should use its force to prohibit that. It is for the greater good.

At what point do the exceptions overwhelm the rule?

C. Progressives don't believe in the free market. It is cold and heartless. The government should use its force to keep free markets in check. Free markets are not for the greater good.

Conclusion:

Conservatives and progressives both pretend to know what is for "the greater good." They know, deep down in their well-meaning hearts, that the government use of force is necessary to advance "the greater good." They both know people are too stupid to make their own decisions and need a benevolent protector to set them straight. They, of course, are willing to be that benevolent protector.

Libertarians know that all of us make bad decisions, but using government force to correct them is arrogant, immoral and unworkable. When we abdicate our personal decisions to some arbiter of the "greater good," we are knocking on the gates of serfdom. We've already traveled the road.

BlueCarp's webcam video November 26, 2010.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

"You must unlearn what you have learned."

-Yoda

Those of us that believe in a federal government limited by the U.S. Constitution are in a small minority. Most Americans want to keep sucking on the government teat until it's dry. They want to keep running up the credit card debt until they hit the limit. They want to party all night and not worry about tomorrow.

Those of us in the minority do what we can, to quote Susan Powter, to "stop the insanity!" Many of us believe that the only way to rein in the federal government is via the ballot box - to vote in "the right people." Many rational people believe this, despite it having never worked. Ever. Nevertheless, those in the pro-liberty movement have been taught - most via government schools - that if they work within the system, they can achieve change. Too many of us believe it.

This is what we must unlearn.

The system, however, is not broken. It is a mistake to think otherwise. The system is doing exactly what the statists want it to do: grow. It grows no matter which wing of the two party duopoly is in charge of Congress. It grows no matter which wing of the two party duopoly sits in the White House. It grows no matter which wing of the two party duopoly controls the federal courts. It always grows.

Always.

To think that the federal government can be reigned in by "voting for the right people" is belied by history. It is belied by the facts. It is wishful thinking at its worst. A problem can not be solved until it is properly diagnosed. The diagnosis we must accept is that the current political system feeds a cancer. We can not cure the cancer by feeding it.

Let's look at an example. Those of us in the liberty movement understand that social security should be privatized. What happens to any candidate that speaks the truth on this topic? They are soundly defeated and a candidate that is willing to continue the Ponzi scheme is elected. The cancer continues to grow.

The two party duopoly is part of the problem. Plurality voting is part of the problem. Our two party, plurality voting system requires that anyone that wants to win an election pander to the masses. Telling people that they can not have any more free stuff is not pandering - it is the truth. Our current system results in an untenable and unworkable reality: Telling the truth means defeat.

Of course, statists will point out what they perceive to be a fatal flaw in my argument: They will say social security is just fine and will continue indefinitely just as it is. This is not the place for that discussion, but the continued redistribution of wealth from a dwindling group of those that are working to a growing group of those that are retired can not continue. (And I'm sorry, Virginia, but there is no social security "trust fund" to which you have contributed. You, like Bernie Madoff's victims, were lied to.)

I do not pretend to have a solution to our demonstrably failed process - but I know we have a demonstrably failed process. Most of use refuse to even see that.

The first step to recovery is to admit the problem.

Once we recognize our problem, I suggest we trash our voting method where candidates with less than 50% of the vote can win. Seriously, what kind of system declares someone victorious when most of those that voted wanted him to lose?

This is not question posed by the Mad Hatter at tea. It is our reality.

Plurality voting is nonsense. Approval voting is one, far better, alternative. There are others, as well.

No matter the ultimate solution, we need to "unlearn" the notion that we can reign in the federal government by our current political process. It has failed for 150 years. The country will not be around another 150 at this rate. It might not be around another 15.

Abandon the myth that that one party is more likely to shrink the federal government than the other. At best, one party will allow it to grow slower than the other.

Unlearn. It is the only chance we have to learn.




Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Law enforcement assists rival drug cartel.

In a massive waste of taxpayer money, Colorado law enforcement busted a cocaine ring. They have therefore raised the profits of rival drug dealers. (See U.S attorney: Indictments, arrests put big dent in flow of cocaine into Denver.)

According to the Denver Post, the U.S. Attorney for Colorado, John Walsh, said "taking 20 kilograms of cocaine on a weekly basis off the street puts a substantial crimp in the flow of cocaine into Colorado."

Walsh's statement is just as true as an assertion that building a sand berm puts a substantial crimp in ocean tides. It does not. However, taking supply of any product off the market makes the remaining product more expensive. When the price rises, the profit goes up. A rival drug organization would have been happy to pay for the police to take a competitor's product off the shelves.

Thanks, cops! And thanks taxpayers!

We don't need money for schools, we need to drive up the profits of drug dealers!



DeMint vs. Goldwater

"You cant' be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative."


"I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?"

Sunday, November 07, 2010

Can CU and Bill McCartney rekindle that old magic?

Are the good times really over for good?

-Merle Haggard

These days, no one is more Haggard than followers of CU football. Like Merle, the Buff fans look back to the good ol’ days. Merle longed to return to a time when a buck was still silver and a Ford lasted ten years, like it should.

The Buffs reminisce of Coach Mac on the sidelines, players like Darian Hagan, Kordell Stewart, and Alfred Williams. They want to recreate ’88. And ’89 and especially that champtionship season, 1990. They dream of the good times, of national relevance.

It is natural to wish to return to a better time. It’s like calling up that old girlfriend ‘cause things were so awesome back then. You were both so in love. Problem is, you can’t go back. She’s different now. So are you. Wishing don’t make it so.

Some Buff fans are wishin'. They want to call up that old girlfriend. Their old girlfriend is a 70 year old man, Bill McCartney, the coach that had the Buffs at the top of the college football world.

Unfortunately, no matter how great the memories, no matter how sweet the kisses, he ain’t the same guy.

Those good times ARE over. But that doesn’t stop you from going and trying to make new ones.

As Tom Scholz of Boston said, “Don’t Look Back.”

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

San Francisco's leaders think you suck as a parent.

Today's dose of statism:

San Francisco's Board of Supervisors, which I believe loosely translates to "City Council," has banned McDonald's from giving away toys with Happy Meals within the city.

They are not happy that parents are able to make decisions regarding their children's diet and whether or not promotional items can be part of that decision. Therefore, they have mandated that parents can no longer make such a decision.

And who knows better than what your kid should eat than city leadership?


Tuesday, November 02, 2010

An Anticipatory Post (Just in case we "spoil" an election)

If, tonight, a Libertarian candidate gets more votes than the margin of difference in a Republican loss, I know what I'll hear:

"YOU COST US THE ELECTION!!!!!"

Allow me to reply now, just in case, so I can refer all complaints here:

1) Republicans and Democrats make the election rules. Do not complain when we play by them. Plurality voting is stupid. Change it. Approval voting solves the problem. The two party duopoly has the power to change the system. They do not do so. Ergo, they must not want to solve it. That's not our fault. It's yours.

2) Assuming all Libertarian votes would have gone to the Republican is arrogant nonsense. Most Libertarians would not vote if given the choice between more of the same... and more of the same. We provide those that would otherwise sit out an election an opportunity to be heard.

3) We didn't "steal"any election. Again, more arrogant nonsense. The metaphor "to steal" means that the votes belong to the Republicans and we wrongfully took them. Nope. Our votes belong to us, and we can use them as we see fit. Try harder to get them next time.

4) We didn't "cost" the Republicans any election. If the Republicans had not acted irresponsibly while they had control, perhaps they would have gotten a few more votes. Look inward before casting blame on others.

Thank you for your consideration of these points.

And let freedom ring.