MyLibertopia

It is immoral to perform stem cell research.  Starbuck recently commented on Bush "imposing his moral view."  She might be right, the morals he holds are not in alignment with everyone and he is forcing his moral values on us.  However, stem cell research is immoral; the forced funding through taxation of stem cell research is wrong.  I don't want to have to pay for it.

Property rights exist.  If you don't think so, give me your wallet the next time we are together.  Why not?  You have no right to your property.  I think they do exist, so I will not give you my wallet.  The question becomes does a person own his own body.  We would all think it wrong to force anyone to do something against their will with their body.  In fact, bodily crimes are the most heinous: murder and rape.  Forcing someone to do anything with their voluntary agreement is wrong.  So it seems to reason we own our own bodies, they are not in possession of some authority.

If we own our own bodies, then by what right do our creators have to dispose of us in anyway they want?  If an adult dies and gives his body to science, he has entered into a voluntary agreement to have his property experimented with.  It doesn’t matter that he is dead.  I’m intentionally staying away from the morality of how he died because I’m avoiding the abortion debate.

None one would expect our property rights to cease to exist after we die.  Imagine dying and people reading about your death and coming and looting everything you had.  Some say, it doesn’t matter you are already dead.  I have nothing against that if you made a voluntary decision to do that.  Some say, they aren’t developed enough to make that choice.  That is horrible.  I couldn’t imagine taking invalids and harvesting organs because they didn’t say “no”.  They aren't developed enough to make that decision.

They are using bodies without consent of the owners of that body and that is immoral.  I don’t have a single problem with adult stem cell research; the donors freely made that choice.  Nevertheless, I don’t think anyone should be forced to pay for anything against their will.  It doesn’t matter what their drives their will.

I went and bought fireworks this year.  I had to search quite a while to find a spot to shoot them off.  Last year some guy charged people to come onto his land and shoot them off.  He had a gravel parking lot we circled around and there were "monitors" that walked amongst the crowd.  Unfortunately his property was annexed by a larger city this year and he couldn't offer the service.

While driving around, I realized fireworks are a perfect example, and ironic considering "Independence Day", of the shift of freedoms.  This country was founded on the idea that rights were in possession of the individual because it is human nature, hence "endowed by our Creator". 

Slowly, the rights inherit is us as human beings began to be granted to us by the government.  For example the right to keep your earnings derives directly from "right to life".  If you can not keep the rewards from your labor, then part of your life is spent in servitude.  Since taxes are so oppressive to many, it really has become, "How much is Uncle Sam going to let me keep this year?"

Setting off fireworks, especially on 4th of July, used to be a freedom previous generations freely expressed.  However, like most freedoms, the government seems to have taken complete control, and measuredly hands out freedoms to us, through regulation, licensing, and straight illegality.  In Texas, it was illegal to possess any firework on a stick.  That is new, and we will probable never see them again.  Once a government takes away a right, it never grants it back.

I’m working to the conclusion that most of what the “loony left” says is true.  Many of their claims towards Bush, the War, and Business Deals are valid.  I did not accept that for a long time and have been trying to figure out what was wrong with their presentation that kept me from accepting it. 

It is because their message is hypocritical in nature.  You can’t hold two simultaneously contradictory positions.  The left correctly identifies a problem, but is blindly ignorant of the causes of the problem.  In many cases, their solutions would only exacerbate the causes and permeate the problem further.  I will start with Business deals.

Business Deals.  Bush’s administration and Congress are deeply involved with lobbyist.  Bush has lucrative deals with companies and the left cries foul.  However, their solution was additional regulation and oversight.  The government is only able rob the citizens to give to companies because there is regulation and oversight in the first place. 

Since they are in a position of arbitrary authority over businesses, the businesses will naturally try to corrupt the government to their advantage.  It is completely about protecting themselves from competition.  They buy Laws protecting “Union Shops” and expensive regulation that keep fresh competitors out of the market, hurting the consumer and innovation.

The entire government is engaged in mercantilism.  Because the government is following a non-capitalistic economic model, they have placed themselves in a position of control over business.  With the threat of control comes the protection of bribes.  Why does a business need to get involved with a non-Union politician?  So he can keep his costs down and continue giving people jobs.  He must give money to politicians to buy their influence.  After the influence is bought, the politician is going give money back to ensure future bribes.  It is truly pathetic they are giving $10 million for a steak dinner on a yacht.

It then becomes highly profitable for a well-connected business to lobby politicians.  In some cases taxes are being taken from the citizens and given directly to the corporations.  The government gave Enron $800 million in grants, loans, and tax breaks.  Tax breaks are not giving, but when tax laws are passed saying, “Enron [only] gets an $800 million tax credit.”, that is a gift.  This $800 million was used to prop up a failing business.  By remaining in business longer, more individual’s retirement savings and careers were damaged then could otherwise have happened.

The left hasn’t identified government control as the problem.  They have identified the problem as an Individual, Bush.  It isn’t.  The government is full of individuals that routinely perform the same actions.  The Left’s complete position is: it is wrong of this guy to benefit the wrong people, but don’t worry, our guys will benefit the right people. 

It has been a long while since I read Atlas Shrugged, but Galt was a liberator that freed a segment of the population.  I took “Who is John Galt” to mean “Where is my freedom”.  I might be completely hosing the Rand’s meaning, but Galt was no destroyer.

Starbuck is correct, a force of nature, our own nature, unleashed back on us and destroyed ourselves.  This force was the false moral code of altruism.  Legislating under the banner of altruism, productive companies were forced to subsidize inferior businesses.  Subsidizing could mean higher taxes which paid subsidies provided to other businesses, extra regulation, labor laws, reducing quality/quantity of goods.  The most insidious being higher costs to consumers and reduced innovation, thus by regulation, the government will decrease the standard of living.  (Think about how many movie rentals you do NOT get to make when gas goes to $3.00 a gallon)

There are three types of people in the world: those who work for food, those who ask for food, and those that force others to provide for them.  Altruism as a moral code provides the justification for the third and most vile class.  In any free society, it would be very difficult and dangerous for a competitor to force another competitor into concessions.  These morally corrupt businesses found they could use the State as their enforcer.

I’ve often quibbled if the Horse and Buggy United Workers and the Horse Shit Shovelers Union were around at the time the car, do you think we would all be driving cars now?  Think of all the workers that would lose their job!  It takes 1,000’s of hours of training for a man to steer a carriage, we can’t trust people to transport themselves.  Think of the danger to the streets; it would be bedlam and people would drive on the sidewalks and crush…etc. Think it’s not possible? Today, in New Jersey it is against the law to pump your own gas!

It is the thinkers and the producers that enable our world to have a constantly increasing standard of living.  Galt sought those people and encouraged them to claim their freedom from altruistic slavery.  If you define a system to me that one man would have up to 50% of his rewards from his effort were taken and given to a minority of people, I might not agree that it is slavery.  Then you tell me if he resists the thievery, he will be shot.  That is a form of slavery.

When doing research on Social Security, I stumbled on an Amish website.  I found that the self employed Amish are exempt from paying social security tax.  I am self employed.  I did some checking and if you are a member of a religion that is conscientiously objected to accepting social security benefits you can be exempted.  Wow!  I wish we all could give ourselves a 15.4% raise.  The requirements are:

1. You must file Form 4029, discussed later under Requesting exemption—Form 4029.

2. As a follower of the established teachings of the sect or division, you must be conscientiously opposed to accepting benefits of any private or public insurance that makes payments for death, disability, old age, retirement, or medical care, or provides services for medical care. You must waive all rights to receive any social security payment or benefit and agree that no benefits or payments will be made to anyone else based on your wages and self-employment income.

3. The Commissioner of Social Security must determine that: 

• a. Your sect or division has the established teachings as in (2) above,
• b. It is the practice, and has been for a substantial period of time, for members of the sect or division to provide for their dependent members in a manner that is reasonable in view of the members’ general level of living.

I object to the idea of social security at a deep fundamental level so I looked into creating my own religion.  I want the one that says: “You’re an adult; live like one.”  I found several religious texts that I could believe in principally enough to become; it would be easier than creating my own divinely inspired texts.  I met or could meet all of the requirements.  I downloaded the pdf for the tax forms to fill out requesting exemption.  I was all pumped up to actually talk to a lawyer, but then:

c. The sect or division has existed at all times since December 31, 1950.

The struggle for liberty continues...

Bush spoke tonight about his ideas on immigration reform.  He was wearing a deep blue suit and a shiny blue tie.  Don't know what that means about anything, but someone might. His left shoulder was held slightly higher during part of his address, but again, he might have been adjusting the bomb-proof vest he wears.

The speech was about 16 minutes or so.  He did get right to the point.  He defined the current problems with illegal immigration: cost increases in hospitals, education and other social services, the grey market, shadow economy, increased crime, and surprisingly, national security.

He called for a comprehensive (read: expensive) immigration reform package with 5 points.

1. Must secure the border.
2. Temporary worker program.
3. Hold employers accountable.
4. Citizenship process.
5. Some gobbly-gook about assimilation.

It impressed me Bush mentioned securing the border first.  It has to be done that way, otherwise what else matters?  To use a medical metaphor: we need to stop the bleeding before treating anything long term.  He took credit for increasing border security funding by 66%, increasing agents from 9,000 to 12,000 during 5 years of his administration.  He called for increasing funding to 18,000 border agents in the coming years.  He also wants to spend more on technological solutions. 

His pride showed when he mentioned the border patrol has captured and returned 6,000,000 immigrants.  It really makes you wonder how many get through.  Taking into consideration it is a government operation I'll give them a 40% change of catching someone "sneaking" into the country; it is probably much lower than 40.  Although Bush has "caught" 6,000,000 coming in, 9,000,000 made it through, but he didn't mention that.

During the 2 years interim he wants to use at least 6,000 National Guardsmen to "assist" the border patrol; he made it clear they are not to be involved with law enforcement.  Of course not!  No one else is involved with Law Enforcement, so why would they be any different?

He also wants to increase funding to state and local agencies to help with the detention of the illegals detained.  Bush admitted 85% of illegal immigrants caught are send back to Mexico within 24 hours; concluding that nearly 1 million immigrants from a country other than Mexico have been "caught and released".  That puts Bush's own numbers at 11 million immigrants in 5 years. 

Bush wants a temporary work program.  The workers granted permits will have a set amount of time before they must leave this country.  Isn't that like the current system?  Didn't all the 9/11 hijackers overstay their visas?  It was against the law for them to be here.  How well did that work out for us? 

I don't like the idea of a date to leave.  First, they aren't going to.  Instead of creating false security, we should be encouraging immigrants to buy a house, buy a car, invest in the market, and truly live here.  If they know in 3 years, Unkie Sam is going to come throw them out of the country; they aren't going to care about their house, their neighborhood, and [their] country.

Anyone that can buy land and afford to feed themselves should be welcome in this country.  Put another way, I should be permitted to sell my land to whom I want, otherwise, it really isn’t my property.  My concern is the temporary worker program will just unionize the Mexican labor workforce, inflating their wages.  The Union workers loosing their jobs all over the marketplace will then have someplace to go.  All of the economic benefit to immigration will be lost to the newly inflated wages on union negotiation (violent intimidation).  That is what makes the unions support guest workers so interesting, usually through US history immigration restrictions have been put in place by big labor.

Bush wants new biometric ID cards for foreign workers.  I liked the idea of a biometric ID card.  It will enable tracking of immigrants.  When an immigrant commits a crime, he is banned from the country and never allowed to return, or after a set time.  Make the punishment known and enforce it, and crime should diminish...or at least the repeat offenders.

He admitted employers verifying legal employment is difficult.  He never mentioned how he was going to hold employers accountable.  If the employers don't care about illegal documents already, why are they going to care about hiring someone without an ID card?  With all the trouble around employment and such, why does it matter at all?  I should be able to negotiate my own employment contract with a company.  Somewhere during our transition from constitutional democracy to mercantile socialism we forgot about our right to contract, but that is a talk for another time.

He repeated several times "No amnesty."  It is unrealistic to deport 10+ million illegals; it can't be done without draconian measures.  He said no "automatic" citizenship, but they will have to wait in line behind the others that followed the rules.  No one is going to be removed during the wait for citizenship, so again I must ask how is that different from now?

His fifth point had me sitting up in my seat.  He spoke of assimilation and how it is the "miracle" that is America.  He stressed English's importance to success in America.  I thought he was going all the way, but when he moved on, I realized he said nothing about.  He foreshadowed 5 points, but only covered 4.

Bush's call for Congress to give him more legal authority in enforcing immigration is concerning; what powers does Bush not have? 

Bush's general theme throughout the speech was spending, spending, spending, and the occasional request for more power.  I thought he accurately identified the problems of immigration, social costs.  In typical political fashion, they define a problem, and then propose a solution that won't fix the problem. 

Most of his ideas will have some effect on crime and some on national security.  The biggest problem of immigration is the cost of social programs.  The large, rapid influx of population just accelerated the collapse of the social system.  We all can look at the growth projections of government expenditures, especially the social services.  Where is the money going to come from, if not from a higher population, which immigrants provide?

While Bush seems to have some of the issues around immigration addressed during his address, he failed to mention the elephant of the room: the growth of government programs.  In fact, he is justifying the greater growth of government, again adding to the momentum of fiscal irresponsibility.

I'm not too much of a believer in Utopian societies.  It seemed that most Utopian societies presented in literature were based on the idea of everyone having everything they needed without any protection or encouragement for private property and rights.  Clearly this is not the case.

Take the case of the Pilgrims in America.  They were communal the first couple years they were here.  The farming done on individual lands went into a big pile in the center of town.  Great! Everyone was permitted to take what they needed to survive.  Then the secret got out there was no point in getting up early to tend to crops...the food was produced by the "center of town."  Predictably the food stores dried up and famine loomed.

When the "government" of the Pilgrims changed their policy to "You Farm it, You eat it." It was a glorious example of property rights and how capitalism propels one's standard of living.  The people that were good at farming (farmed a surplus) could now sell their excess to others.  The others that needed food, because they couldn't or wouldn't farm, now needed to learn a trade, a craft, or provide some other service for food.

This created a division of labor, where a farmer would trade food for wood.  He didn't have the time to cut down a tree, or might not be physically strong enough to do so...and besides he had to farm, so why not trade services and both benefit.

The motive behind this site is to divide up the discussions of liberty and enable us to trade stories and observations.  I might not know what caused the depression of 1830, or why the Cod stocks were depleted up in Canada, but I guarantee someone might.  I'm willing to bet it isn't the story I've heard in school about the greedy capitalists against a weak government.  So come find other opinions...and yes, we occasionally will put facts and actual logic behind presentation.