Our “Police vs. Citizens” Society

Here is Will Grigg on the police brotherhood mourning the deaths of police officers. Unfortunately, we have an authoritarian society that mourns the deaths of police officers killed while on duty, but that does not mourn the deaths of innocent, unarmed citizens killed by over-zealous cops, by tasers as well as bullets.

Some people support the death penalty or other more severe punishments for murderers of police but not necessarily non-police (based on the belief that police officers have greater value than other non-police human beings). Given what they went through in their Revolution against the British ruling state, George Washington and his fellow Founding Fathers would probably toss their cookies at the thought of that.

Those who support greater protections for police officers than for civilians will rethink their position when the Obommunists begin to use the police (and military) to carry out their tyrannical agenda. And likewise  when the Obommunists use the Patriot Act (which violates out Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights, among other unenumerated Rights) to spy on citizens, political opponents and otherwise dissenters, the Act’s supporters will rethink their support of that, too.

I’m probably not way off in asserting that George Washington et al. would favor a well armed citizenry and a totally unarmed state. The situation we have now is a well armed state (and well armed criminals protected by gun control laws and counter-productive drug laws, and leniency of violent criminals) and a defenseless, disarmed citizenry. Such are the moral consequences of democracy.

The Conservative Nut That’s Hard To Crack

December 24, 2009

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com (Link to article)

During this holiday season and with all the performances of The Nutcracker now, I must express my frustration with hard nuts to crack: influential conservatives who simultaneously criticize domestic Big Government yet support Big Government foreign policies.

Since President Obama’s election, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin have been consistently lecturing from the rooftops in favor of free market capitalism and getting the government out of our lives. These conservatives advocate the Founders’ views of “limited government” and private property rights when it comes to government’s invasions of our personal and economic lives. Then, they contradict themselves by enthusiastically supporting the US government’s expansion and invasions into the lives and property of people on foreign lands.

As Lew Rockwell noted, “conservatives have two brains. One sees the government as a menace, something stupid, inefficient, brutal, isolated from real life, and the enemy of liberty. The other sees government as smart, wise, and all-knowing, a friend to all, in touch with life around the planet, and the friend to liberty everywhere.”

In his article, The Intellectual Incoherence of Conservatism, economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe analyzes post-World War II anti-communism, particularly of National Review founder William F. Buckley, Jr. Hoppe notes Buckley’s “new conservative credo,” and Buckley having written that “we have to accept Big Government for the duration—for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged…except through the instrument of totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores.”

By the time the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s, the US Military Industrial Complex had become a firmly accepted fact of life, along with its funding through taxes and debts, and had conservatives supporting it. In 1990, the elder President Bush decided that Saddam Hussein was the new enemy, and took the US military into Iraq. That was followed by more Islamic-based terrorism in the 1990s and the September 11^th, 2001 attacks. The Islamic terrorists had replaced the communists as the bad guys.

Ten years after the elder President Bush invaded Iraq, the younger President Bush’s Doctrine of “end justifies the means” moral relativism was in place. Because the terrorists use unconventional means of attack and are not of any organized nation or state, say the conservatives, therefore it is necessary to compromise our principle of non-aggression by initiating foreign invasions to prevent future attacks.

Those kinds of destructive expansionist policies, from the anti-communist Big Government military socialism to the US government’s last 20 years of invasions and occupations in the Middle-East, could not have been possible without Americans’ dependence on the US government’s compulsory national defense monopoly. Prof. Hoppe has discussed how such a state-run defense monopoly, naively approved by the Founders in their Constitution, is inherently invasive of the very people the state is in charge of protecting, because it compels citizens to participate in such a contract, and it is funded through coerced taxation. As Hoppe notes,

…no one in his right mind would agree to a contract that allowed one’s alleged protector to determine unilaterally, without one’s consent, and irrevocably, without the possibility of exit, how much to charge for protection; and no one in his right mind would agree to an irrevocable contract which granted one’s alleged protector the right to ultimate decision making regarding one’s own person and property…

Hoppe contends that, when the state has a compulsory monopoly in protection, “…instead of preventing and resolving conflict, a monopolist of ultimate decision-making will cause and provoke conflict in order to settle it to his own advantage.” Is it too cynical to suggest that the elder President Bush’s Iraq War of 1990-91 coinciding with the Soviets’ end was more than just coincidental?

The conservative Bush War supporters’ being manipulated by emotional fear mongering can compare to the left’s being manipulated by the current “global warming” panic. As Prof. Hoppe has observed, it is democracy itself that makes way for deceitful politicians to rise to the top and manipulate external events to achieve the goal of expanding government’s territorial power even further.

While citizens have an inalienable right of presumption of innocence, it would be self-protective of society to presume politicians liars, especially when such politicians are placed at the helm of a compulsory territorial monopoly. If we did that in 1990, for example, we would probably have rejected the elder President Bush’s appeals to invade Iraq. (Of course we can take the word of a former CIA man!)

Reflecting on these last 20 years, one might realize that the terrorism during the 1990s and the September 11^th attacks may have resulted from a people of a region reacting to invasions of their territories. People inherently react against aggression into their territories, as demonstrated by the unborn infant’s attempts to ward off an abortionist’s invasive medical instruments.

Some may ask, “Well, if it really is the case that Middle-Eastern, Islamic-based terrorism has been a reaction to the US government’s last 20 years of invasions and occupations of the Middle-east, then how can we protect our country from terrorism?” Here are just a few suggestions:

• Remove US governmental forces from Middle-eastern countries and stop invading and occupying their territories.
• End our dependence on Middle-eastern oil. Encourage the American states to ignore all federal laws and regulations and build nuclear power plants and drill for oil and gas.
• Encourage states to ignore all federal laws and regulations pertaining to armaments and arsenals and whatever weaponry is necessary for them to protect themselves against any foreign attacks or invasions.

As Prof. Hoppe has stated,

In order to combat terrorism it is necessary to engage in a non-interventionist foreign policy, to have a heavily armed civilian population – more guns, less crime – and to treat terrorism for what it is: not as a conventional attack by the armed forces of another state but as essentially private conspiracies and crimes which must be combated accordingly by police action, hired mercenaries, privateers, assassination commandoes, and headhunters.

A few months ago, National Review‘s Andy McCarthy questioned the US’s presence in Afghanistan, and NR’s Mark Levin responded with Not So Fast. Perhaps that should be “Nutso Fast,” because clinging to Big Government whether it’s in the name of preventing the spread of Islamism or the spread of communism, or for “spreading democracy” through military force, is irrational and counter-productive. For many years, such debt-increasing policies of military socialism have required huge sacrifices, and, while the costs of “protection services” have risen, the quality has declined to such a degree that such policies are making us more vulnerable.

Do conservatives have some extra genetic component that makes them naively trustful of manipulative Republican politicians but not manipulative Democrat politicians?

Do conservatives really want 300 million Americans to be dependent on a centralized, bureaucratized, politicized national defense monopoly? Wouldn’t a decentralized defense be more efficient? Common sense says, “Yes.”

Most conservatives agree that, domestically, the biggest enemy of freedom and prosperity is government. If only they could see that government is also the enemy of our security and safety, and that our government is destroying our country more than terrorism ever could.

Exile Dangerous People, End the Drug War

During the 1980s, talk show host Gene Burns was on WRKO in Boston. Now he is on KGO in San Francisco, and I’m glad the station provides podcasts of his show. When he was in Boston, Gene gave a possible solution to overcrowded prisons, and for people who had a problem with the death penalty. He suggested that perhaps convicted murderers and other people proven to be dangerous to society should be “exiled” out of the country, and shipped to an island way out to sea. “The Gene Burns Island,” as some callers would name it.

We can transport people convicted of murder, as well as those convicted of other heinous crimes that don’t even cause someone’s death but in which the individual has shown oneself to be a danger to others, to an island way out of contact with any mainlands. They can make do with whatever natural resources the island offers, they can do whatever they want there, whatever they want with each other, or to each other. They can make a new society and be civilized or be barbarians and hurt or kill one another. They can eat each other, I don’t care. And if people don’t like the idea of being shipped off to that island, then it really is their decision whether or not to commit crimes against others’ persons or property. This will also include people who choose to drink or take other drugs and drive or do other things that require full attention, and be responsible for all consequences for their decisions. If you don’t want to take the risk of drunk driving causing someone else’s death or injury, in which case you’ll be sent to the Gene Burns Island, then don’t take that risk, don’t drink and drive. This might be a good compromise for people who oppose a state-imposed, state-perpetrated death penalty, and people who are fed up with such high taxation to cover the costs of prisons. It would definitely apply to those kids in New Hampshire who allegedly slashed a lady to death in her home this year.

The island would require no guards, no administrators, etc. We could use Google satellite photo technology to make sure the “inmates” don’t make a homemade bomb or ICBMs, or make a boat of some kind to escape. A plane would be dispatched to thwart any attempts of those actions.

Another positive step towards reducing prison populations and reducing the rate of violent crime is ending the “War on Drugs,” and requiring people to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Ending the drug war would end the “black market” in drugs, dramatically reduce the prices of drugs, take away incentives for pushers to push the drugs to get people hooked that results in many people robbing others to get high amounts of cash to pay for the espensive drugs that are expensive because of the “War on Drugs.” It is exactly the same situation as “Prohibition” in the 1920s. Ending the “War on Drugs” will also end a lot of the corruption in politics, local police and federal agencies. It will greatly reduce the incentives that Mexican and South American “drug lords” and drug producers have to be in the business they’re in, which will reduce the constant threats against Americans especially in the border states, and may even affect the drug trade in Afghanistan that the US government propped up with its intrusions there.

I do have a comment on efforts to legalize marijuana specifically. It seems to me that pro-legalizers’ use of the “medical marijuana” issue to legalize that cancerous and immunosuppressant substance is for disingenuous reasons. Many advocates just want it legal so they can use that stuff without fear of being arrested. I suspect that some people want it legal for medical reasons because “marijuana usage is cool.” No drugs should be made illegal by the state. If you want to inhale burning, cancerous garbage into your lungs and destroy important brain functioning and your immune system and cause other physical problems, that’s your choice. Any doctor who prescribes something that dangerous to someone who is already ill  is a bad doctor. (I won’t say that he or she should have the medical license withdrawn because I oppose state-issued licensure. My doctor is just as incompetent with or without a medical license.)

Dr. Yes On Competing Currencies

US Rep. Ron Paul has introduced legislation to “repeal the legal tender laws, prohibit taxation on certain coins and bullion, and repeal superfluous sections related to coinage.” Dr. Paul has been trying to effect reform of our monetary system for many years. His bill to audit the Federal Reserve has 317 co-sponsors in the House and 30 co-sponsors in the Senate. Eventually, Paul wishes to End the Fed.

I do not understand why the supposedly conservative National Review opposes auditing the Fed. The Fed controls one of our most important commodities: money! I wonder if NR would also oppose the People’s (through their representatives in Washington) ability to audit possible future government-run medical panels and agencies if the huge health care reform bill passes.

And is it true that the supposedly “capitalist” Wall Street Journal opposes auditing the Fed? Here is the WSJ‘s paragraph, “about us” on their Opinion page:

We speak for free markets and free people, the principles, if you will, marked in the watershed year of 1776 by Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence and Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations.” So over the past century and into the next, the Journal stands for free trade and sound money; against confiscatory taxation and the ukases of kings and other collectivists; and for individual autonomy against dictators, bullies and even the tempers of momentary majorities.

“Sound money?” Hmmm. When you have  government monopoly of money, it is not “sound.” Look at the situation we are in now. When governments have a monopoly over anything, it isn’t sound, because such authoritarian, top-down control distorts the natural direction of markets, and relationships among consumers and producers, which then causes dysfunction. All goods and services need competition. There needs to be a competitive market in the business of money, and government shouldn’t be in the money making business.

One ought to read Murray Rothbard’s What Has Government Done to Our Money? and The Case For a 100% Gold Dollar, and Ron Paul’s End the Fed, and really get an understanding of how the Fed’s control and monopoly over our money is nothing more than a counterfeiting racket.

In Massachusetts, It’s Coakley vs. Brown vs….Kennedy?

Yesterday was the party primary to select nominees for the Massachusetts Special Election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. Voter turnout was about 15%. The final election is January 19th. I can’t wait.

It appears that the swallows did NOT return to Capuano, and US Rep. Mike Capuano lost to AG Martha Coakley in the Democrat primary, and Scott Brown beat Jack E. Robinson 89%-11% in the Republican primary. It will be the most boring campaign in Massachusetts history, with those two candidates, Martha Coakley and Scott Brown, who, as Steve Sweeney would say, when they open their mouths, dust comes out.

Speaking of dust, the dust had settled on the Big Dig settlements between AG Martha Coakley and Big Dig contractors, with the last settlement being last May. The biggest settlement was with Big Dig joint management firm of Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff in January 2008. To avoid a lengthy, costly trial, in which Bechtel’s dirty laundry in business dealings might’ve been aired, the company settled with a $407 million payment. Given that Bechtel’s failures far outnumbered accomplishments in Iraq, will a Senator Martha Coakley investigate corruption and major systemic complications in the business of war contracting?

For an idea on who Republican Scott Brown is, think Bob Dole. Except that Brown is pro-abortion and supports Roe v. Wade.

What really bothers me about Martha Coakley is that she sounds so mechanical when she talks, like a robot. Like that little robot creature on Lost In Space. That’s because she’s…”lost in space.”

However, there is an Independent  candidate on the ballot named “Joe Kennedy,” no, not the former Congressman and nephew of the late Senator Ted, a different one not related to the Kennedys. But after seeing some of his own videos on his website, one might think that he, too, is, well, kind of boring (He’s a high tech guy.). Supposedly, he is supported by the national Libertarian Party, even though he’s on the ballot as an Independent.

ObamaCare And The Value of Human Life

December 2, 2009

© American Thinker 2009 (Link to this article at American Thinker)

President Obama’s push for government-controlled medicine has passed the House, passed an initial hurdle in the Senate, and will now be considered by the latter. Some people are worried that such a government takeover of the medical and insurance industries could include “death panels” and possibly force taxpayers to fund abortion coverage, as well as violate the sanctity of doctor-patient confidentiality, but there are more philosophical questions here.

Just how much concern for the health care of all human beings does the Obama administration actually have? How much do they really value human life?

One of the unfortunate consequences of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized the killing of the unborn prior to a particular stage of development, was the ideology of placing a greater value on some human beings than on others. Administration officials’ views on medical treatment and on the abortion issue are revealing.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the White House’s Health Policy Adviser, has repeatedly stated that certain people shouldn’t be treated equally by a government health care system. He advocates “allocating and rationing” of services, particularly by age and disability. This kind of policy conflicts with government’s constitutionally mandated obligation to enforce “equal treatment under the law.”

One of Dr. Emanuel’s more disturbing views is that it’s more important for a doctor to consider what’s good for the community than for an individual when treating an individual patient. This implies that if an individual is not useful to the community, he has less value as an individual and may not be as worthy as others for medical treatment.

Regarding the abortion issue, as part of an argument for legalized abortion (just prior to the Roe decision), White House Science Czar John Holdren wrote in 1973 that certain factors such as “early socializing experiences” are required to consider a born infant a “human being.” Just being born does not suffice.

President Obama has exhibited a devaluing of not only the unborn, but also of accidentally born and living infants, as seen from his opposition to the “Born Alive Bill” while in the Illinois State Senate.

Very Orwellian duckspeak is Obama’s rationalizing his opposition to that Born Alive Bill:

… this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a-a child, a nine-month-old child that was delivered to term. That determination, then, essentially, if a court accepted it, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. …

These are the government officials who desire control over the health care of 300 million Americans.

When we have public officials such as Obama who devalue human life based on being at a less advanced stage of growth and development, and officials such as Emanuel, who devalue an individual who doesn’t qualify for a government agency’s requirement for rationing, we have a problem.

A few months ago, Rush Limbaugh was unreasonably criticized for his objectively noting the similarities between ObamaCare’s “socialized medicine” and the socialized medicine of Nazi Germany. A good way to actually expand on that comparison is to recall how past governments valued human life in the context of medical care.

In Russia, for example, according to Anna Ebeling of the Foundation for Economic Education, there was a distinct contrast between how the state respected the dignity and value of people in the old Russia as compared to the “factory-like” hospitals and medical clinics of the Bolsheviks’ communist, utopian “health care for all” scheme.

And in the Nazi socialized medical system to which Limbaugh referred, the regime categorized people, and it was in “Germany’s best interest” to rid the country of “undesirables.”

No, I’m not comparing the Obama administration to Nazis, but this is a time of great moral ambiguity in our country. World War II and Nazi Germany represented a turning point in history, as did the Supreme Court’s ruling permitting the destruction of unborn human beings until they reach a particular stage in their lifespan.

Since the Roe decision, our culture has further degenerated to the point where immediate gratification is given greater value than life itself. The id controls individual decision-making, and personal responsibility is all but absent.

These past few months, we have seen the most powerful public officials’ contempt for our rights as human beings in broad daylight. It is degrading when citizens are treated like livestock herded into a barn, without any respect for the inherent value of human life. This is a recurring theme in the history of governments.

Those who crave a government-compelled monopoly over our health care cannot logically value human life, as such a power-grab results in the invasion of every individual’s natural, inalienable rights to life and liberty. A human being has a right to live, a right to choose his doctor, a right to doctor-patient confidentiality without government officials’ access, and a right to have or not to have insurance.

In other words, we have a right to medical freedom.

It is a matter of basic human rights.