Skip to content

Holidays: By Choice or Decree?

Would these men approve of our government-mandated holidays?

Monday was Presidents’ Day.  Did you celebrate it?  Did you take the day off and find a meaningful way to honor, not just George Washington and Abraham Lincoln but, all our presidents?  If you were required to work, did you find a quiet moment amidst your busy day to reflect on the efforts, visions, and legacies these leaders left behind?

Neither did I.

The problem is that we Americans love to serve ourselves a bit of extra time off, and we place a lofty, high-minded label on it so that we can feel justified.  Rather inauthentic, don’t you think?

This is not to say that many of our presidents weren’t/aren’t admirable people who deserve recognition.  The fact is that our presidents, by the time they leave office, are perhaps the most distinguished group of Americans; they have already been lavished recognition, honors, and privileges – some of them to the extreme degree.

What can you give a president that he doesn’t already have or didn’t already get?  His likeness on a new coin?  A monument?  A library?

What about other holidays?

Before we go there, let’s realize that “holiday” is a modernized contraction of “holy day,” which is obviously a religious reference.  That’s okay.  A great number of our words and idioms are derived from religious, spiritual, or cultural ideas.  Holy days were celebrated in various ways down through the ages, and a central theme was to take time off of mundane matters and focus on the sacred.  It was often several days of ceremonies and celebrations devoted to the practice of gratitude and honoring.

Basically then, holidays are about honoring and celebrating our highest ideals.  Frankly, Presidents’ Day doesn’t quite fulfill the main criterion.  If we had come up with Honesty Day, or Justice Day, or even Courage Day, then we might have something on which we can all rally.  Presidents’ Day, though, seems to focus on “the office of the President” – the person who heads up one of the three equal branches of government.  It seems to be an attempt to institutionalize hero worship.

This implies that Senators and Representatives in Congress are second class officials, not to mention the Supreme Court Justices.  Is this worth quibbling over?  Perhaps I should just leave matters well enough alone, and be grateful that some of us get another day off each year.

What peeves me, as usual, is that Government has gone and inserted itself into matters outside its proper domain.  It might have been the case that a tribal chief could “properly” order his entire village to stop all normal activities for a day or two or three, to dance in circles, and feast, and hold various martial competitions.  That is certainly not possible in a modern nation of 300,000,000.  Nor is it proper or desirable.

If individuals and groups of individuals – clubs, associations, businesses – spontaneously decide to stop their normal activities and invest their time and energy in celebration and/or reflection around a particular concept, virtue, or personality, that is their business and their right.  This is an issue utterly beyond the domain of proper government.

I believe there is a connection between the official decreeing of holidays, by government, and the rise in the inauthentic celebration and (over-)commercialization of these “special” days.  It all comes down to choice and ownership.  When people do something they genuinely want to do, like celebrate a holy day (e.g. Christmas, Easter, Yom Kippur) or a special cultural day (e.g. 4th of July, Thanksgiving, Armistice Day), they do it more organically and wholeheartedly than if by official sanction or decree.

When government gets involved in matters of the heart and spirit, things go south.  People stop going to parades and partaking in marches.  They fight over whether towns have the right to put up nativity scenes.  They prohibit teachers (in government-run schools) from allowing students to celebrate Halloween or Christmas.  Everything must fit inside the sanitized box of a state-sanctioned event, within the convenient parameters and time-frame of a congressional mandate.  Holy days must, of course, always fall on a Friday or a Monday.

Solution: Get government out of the mix.  Resist the institutionalization of your sacred ideals and hopes.  Celebrate what you want, when you want, how you want!

 

Posted in Constitutional, Philosophical, Political, Psychological, Spiritual.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Comments Off

By Ben Easton – February 24, 2011

Insurance and Banking: A Look at Legitimacy

Must our economy be constructed in this fashion?!

Given that both these industries are in turmoil, and that at least a substantial portion of each has undergone serious scrutiny in recent years, I want to ask some fundamental questions about these two pillars of our economy.

Can you imagine a free market in insurance?  Can you imagine a free market in banking?  Ought these industries be regulated?  By the Government?  By some quasi-governmental agency?

My sophomore year in college, I learned something deeply disturbing about the banking system in the United States (and most other industrialized countries).  That is, modern banks operate on a fractional-reserve basis.  If a bank has reserves, say, of $1,000,000, it may use that to create money, out of thin air, by virtue of granting loans to individuals and businesses.  Then, according to its balance sheet, the bank appears to have assets of many times that amount … perhaps $5,000,000!

The fact is that capitalistic forces create wealth by combining resources and producing goods and services in new ways.  The creation of wealth is not done via accounting tricks.  There must be a better way to reflect this in the financial world.

Meanwhile, this is what fractional-reserve banking is all about.  It is a system created on the gamble that not everybody wants or needs to withdraw and hold (or spend) all their money at the same time.  This system allows for an “expansion” of the money supply … presumably to help “fuel” the economy and help citizens buy, consume, and operate daily in the market place.

Even hard-core proponents of this scheme acknowledge that fractional-reserve banking is potentially dangerous, for it can lead on occasion to bank runs.  If all the depositors go to a bank and demand their money – in cold, hard cash – it will be impossible for the bank to comply.  The banking system is betting on this not happening.  On what authority do banks play this shell game?

Let’s compare and contrast the banking system to the world of insurance.

The big difference between the two is that everybody knows that insurance is a gamble from the outset.  We buy insurance knowing ahead of time that if nothing bad ever happens, we will have “lost” our money.  Yet, most of us are willing to do this because we know – from the moment our provider states we are covered – that what we are really buying is peace of mind.

Furthermore, we know mishaps and accidents are part of life, but that they rarely come in huge numbers.  Hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes are those exceptional events that keep the actuarial experts up at night.

One good thing about insurance is that it is optional.  Just as flat screen TVs, motorcycles, gold earrings, and cowboy boots are but choices in the gigantic market place of life, so are insurance policies.  We do not have to buy them, but many of us choose to – for we believe we gain value.  An apparent exception is that we are required to carry liability insurance if we own and operate an automobile or motorcycle, but of course we could choose to take a bus, a taxi, or to walk.

On the other hand, fractional-reserve banking, embedded in the secret world of the Federal Reserve, is not realistically optional.  Citizens of the United States of America are forced to use the “legal tender” of this nation, like it or not.  Yes, a few of us have practiced barter – direct trade of one good or service for another – but this is extremely limiting.

To the extent that we use money, have bank accounts, use ATM cards, and take out the occasional loan, we are caught in the web of those who have perpetrated the biggest con game in history: the Federal Reserve System.  The usefulness of widely-accepted currency notwithstanding, the ability of those at the Fed to strategically adjust the money multiplier, the prime lending rate, and other basic financial parameters is anathema to the Free Market.

Besides the questionable legitimacy of fractional reserves, our government representatives have seen fit, over time, to strip away any meaningful connection of our money to a base value or commodity.  We now use fiat money.  It is money that has value “by decree” … of the Government.

When I buy insurance, even in today’s fouled-up and misregulated environment, I still get some peace of mind.  On the contrary, when I go to my bank, I wonder how much devaluation will occur between my deposit and my withdrawal.  How many billions of new dollars are being printed daily, created by the ignorant and illegitimate decrees of the Central Bankers?

I’ve asked several anti-establishment questions, and I’ve failed to supply any hard data.  I know that.  But, can you deny that you feel powerless knowing the over-riding forces that are manifest in our lives are being manipulated by a cadre of elite authorities, with God knows what ulterior motives and schemes at work?

Wouldn’t it be vastly better to allow those phenomena – money and credit – to be “managed” simply and automatically by virtue of the egalitarian justice of the Free Market?

Food for thought …  Imagine a healthy insurance industry – one in which providers enjoy the freedom to sell policies only to those individuals or outfits that they deem fair risks given the premium/deductible/coverage structures of the contracts.  Imagine that the barriers to enter this industry are minimal, and that people are free to establish their own companies, selling policies to niche customers (e.g. those individuals “hampered by” pre-existing conditions).  Imagine a government that accepts and honors that its only proper obligation is to enforce the contracts.

Here’s a tougher one …  Imagine an economy that has no Central Bank, no Federal Reserve System, no fiat money, and perhaps no fractional-reserve scheme.  Imagine instead a healthy banking system that consists of private banks that issue their own currencies – based on immutable commodities (e.g. gold, silver, platinum).  Imagine a return to objective value, and thus a repudiation of “value by governmental decree.”

Both of these visions are idealistic, especially the banking scenario.  To transform the current clusterfuck of manipulation and government-approved, high-level embezzlement to the free market approach of money and lending would be horrendously complex.  Perhaps it could only happen after a complete collapse of the House of Cards, exposing it for what it really is.  Woe be unto Society if that occurs, but it may be inevitable.

Does the man with chronic pain benefit from knowing what disease is making his life miserable, perhaps killing him?  I believe so, for then he has the possibility of discovering a way back to health.  Know then, comrades, that you are handing your vaunted leaders the bats with which they gladly and prosperously beat you over the head, and charge you for the experience.

Don’t forget to say, “Thank you.”

Posted in Constitutional, Economic, Libertarian, Psychological.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , .

Comments Off

By Ben Easton – February 22, 2011

The Apple Didn’t Fall Far: Empire America

An empire by any other name is still an empire.

I enjoyed a lengthy discussion recently with some old friends, all of whom are well educated, well traveled, and well informed.   I was therefore surprised at how much they took pride in the superpower profile of the United States while denying any negative effects.  As I equated the actions of the USA to the British Empire, they looked at me in puzzled disbelief.

One of them put it this way: “It’s in our blood to show less developed nations how things ought to be done, and, since we come from a place of abundance and strength, we are obliged to do it.”  He had no problem with the now common practice by the Government of the United States of America of meddling in the business of numerous foreign nations around the world on any given day or week.  I maintained this was unconstitutional and detrimental to our security and prosperity.

As has happened many times before in such debates and discussions, my views were dismissed as idealistic and naive.  “Ben, you don’t get it – it’s just how things are done.  It’s natural for people to look after their interests and to protect them.  It’s just good business!”

Yes … “good business.”  That is when I distinguished between the legal business of individuals and the proper function of a constitutional government.  If a person, or a group of individuals, or even a large US corporation wants to venture onto foreign soil in order to take (big) risks in the hope of making (big) profits, that is, of course, their right to do so.  A fundamental problem arises, though, when he, she, or they expect the US Government to protect their property on foreign soil.  Physically and economically impossible, this goes against the design of the Constitution.

Our nation was founded upon a revolutionary tenet of self-ownership, which implies creative freedom and individual responsibility.  The government was laid out in such a way that it had one and only one purpose: to protect the property of the citizens, which of course includes their lives and physical safety.  This foundation and network of support and protection can only be supplied, reasonably, within the borders of the United States.

Beyond that, it is necessarily up to the individual to watch out and to carry as much self-protection as possible.  It is absurd to think that, especially in a world in which hundreds of thousands of Americans are traveling in or temporarily residing in a hundred or more foreign countries, the United States can send out police squads and military squadrons to protect every one of these.  It can’t be done, and furthermore it shouldn’t be done.

The foreign policy I suggest is one, not of indifference but, of respect – respect for sovereignty and local responsibility.  Imagine this: we individual Americans simply do our American thing on American soil.  We live, we play, we conduct our business, etc.  Some of us, of course, will want to venture out into the wider world, and we bid them good luck and godspeed.  And, some foreigners will, no doubt, want to come visit our great nation, and we welcome them (provided they are friendly, respectful, and industrious).  No official interplay or alliance between nations is necessary or desirable.  Individuals and groups of individuals simply work out what their needs and desires are.

Because governments have no business stepping in the way of peaceful and enterprising interactions of individual citizens, the existing foreign policy of the United States is a colossal enmeshment of illegitimacy, deceit, and corruption – not to mention a source of stupendous waste of US taxpayer money.  You are thinking, perhaps, about the Iraq War … the first one, at least.  Wasn’t that a justified action?  “Our” oil fields were seized by Saddam Hussein, and “we” had no recourse but to send in troops.

No.  It was not justified.  Consider the constitutional approach to this scenario.  American companies, some of which are “multi-national” companies decide to voluntarily travel the world in search of potential oil reserves.  Some of them seek oil “leases” from a corrupt and shady dictator (who happened to be a puppet installed by the US Government).  These smart and well-financed entrepreneurs knowingly play roulette with this scumbag, who is not the legal owner of those reserves in the first place.  The oil company executives do this because they know that if they get away with this sham of propriety, then they stand to make gigantic profits.  Fine and dandy.

After a few years of chugging along in this arrangement, making some of the investors loads of money, something goes wrong.  The corrupt dictator decides to seize (nationalize) the “property” of the various oil companies.  They, in turn, go crying to their home governments, wanting somebody to bail them out on the sudden huge losses in their high stakes gamble.

We all know what happened: the USA spent trillions of dollars it didn’t have, to fight a war that it had no right fighting, putting thousands of American troops and foreign innocents in danger, and fomenting resentment throughout the region (if not the world).

Here is what should have happened:

The American oil executives dialed the numbers of their “friends” in Washington, D.C., to signal the alert.  Instead of launching warships, the voices said: “Damn, that’s a shame.  I know that’s going to hurt your bottom line.  Unfortunately, my hands are tied.  As you know, our government doesn’t meddle in foreign business.  You might want to call ‘Acme Mercenaries’ or ‘Desert Stormtroopers.’  Both of those outfits are willing to go in to hot spots and ‘fix’ messy situations.  Good luck!”

Wait!  Isn’t that just the same as what really happened – but shadier?

Actually, no.  This course of action would have kept the responsibility where it belonged – with the risk-taking entrepreneurs who ventured into a hell-hole of quasi-contractual arrangements.  It would have protected the American taxpayers from gigantic losses and our soldiers in the Armed Forces from unconstitutional and unnecessary deployment and endangerment.

Yes, it probably would have caused a spike in gas prices at the pump, but so what.  That’s life in the real world of uncertain supply and volatile demand.  However, this would have been only a temporary spike.  The oil executives, being the pragmatic folks they are, would have taken the suggested action.  They would have called up several mercenary outfits, asked for bids on the proposed military coup, and hired the best team(s).  Within weeks of secret planning, these companies would have sent in several groups of bad-ass mercenaries (probably consisting of Special Forces ex-pats), and Saddam Hussein, along with his immediate underlings, twisted and sick bastards all, would have been exterminated.

That’s what you get when you renege on a business deal in that fashion – even if it was borne out of dictatorial illegitimacy in the first place.  The spike in oil and gas prices, over the following several weeks, would have mellowed out and returned to the former levels as the oil executives amortized the military expenses – which would have been part of their budgeted cost of doing business in the first place.

We must allow – and require – individuals and groups of individuals to solve their own problems on foreign soil.  The more we lead by example here in America, the more governments in those foreign nations will aspire to provide visiting Americans friendly treatment and justice.  It is in their best interest to do so.  A nation that is known to pick on, chastise, ignore, defame, and abuse Americans is a nation that deserves no visitors.  Any American who would knowingly enter such a place is either a suicidal idiot or an annoying religious proselytizer – both of whom deserve whatever abuse they get.

In the wide spectrum of wrongful treatment of Americans on foreign soil, from the caning of a guy in Singapore, to the raping of nuns in Bolivia, to the seizing of thousands of oil rigs in Iraq and Kuwait, their is never a sufficient reason to engage the Government of the United States of America.  The US of A, instead, ought to withdraw its meddlesome proboscis from foreign lands, surrender its Empire, and return to the humble and brilliant design of the Founding Fathers.

Posted in Constitutional, Economic, Political.

Tagged with , , , , , , , .

2 comments

By Ben Easton – February 20, 2011

“Giving Back” – Decoded

"Let's see what they are really saying."

In the last five to ten years, the phrase “to give back” has become more and more popular, pervasive, and insidious.  This jargon has bothered me since I first heard it, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on why.  Now, I want to share my theory about what is behind the language.

Typical examples of this are: “I want to give back to society,” “It’s time for me to give back,” and “I want to work for a company that knows how to give back to the community.”

While these utterances seem positive in their intent, they are actually subtle criticisms in the form of a two-pronged barb: one directed at the listener, one directed at the speaker.  At root is a fundamental misunderstanding of economics.

When I hear somebody use one of these phrases I have described, I infer confusion around morality and values.  The belief that one ought to “give back” – to Society at large – implies that there was a taking from Society at one point, that there is a debt or obligation that is now due.

I am the first to acknowledge that we all receive astounding benefits from the past efforts of creative, disciplined, committed, and generous people – some who are still living, some who are distant ancestors.  We are all indebted to them, beyond calculation.  Who were these people?  There were all kinds: philosophers, scientists, explorers, teachers, doctors, inventors, builders, artists, nurses, laborers, bankers, lawyers, designers, poets, architects, journalists, rebels, soldiers, mothers, fathers, ranchers, and farmers.

My sense is that the grand structure known as civilization, along with the incredible standard of living that most of us in the West enjoy, relative to the bare subsistence of early hominids in the primitive state of nature of, say, 10,000 years ago, is not the source of the obligation referenced above.  Furthermore, because I believe there are unspoken and subconscious feelings at work that are related to shame, resentment, and self-righteousness, this modern sense of duty to “give back” is only tangentially related to charity.

Consider a very simple transaction in the market place.  A man goes to one of his preferred restaurants and orders a hamburger, fries, and a drink.  He participates in a simple and wonderful two-way interaction; he gets nourishing and tasty food, and the restaurant gets the purchase price in money.  Assuming the cooking and serving staff are having a reasonable and normal day, and that the man has enough money in his wallet to afford his choices, neither party to this exchange expects more than what it gets.  Both sides win and are fully satisfied.

The point of this example is that the transaction is complete and perfect.  There is nothing extra or residual that needs to be taken care of here.  Neither party to this extremely common contract needs “to give back” anything to the other.  This would be true for a purchase of shoes, a television, or a yacht.  This would be true for somebody who trades her time and effort in the marketplace for wages, a salary, tips, and/or a commission.

If there is a dissatisfaction about the deal one gets, or the salary one earns, then it is the responsibility of the individual to bargain for more, or to be realistically satisfied with what one receives.  If there is guilt about how much one is being paid, or how little one had to pay for a good or service, then one can practice gratitude for being a beneficiary of a capitalistic society.

The urge “to give back” also seems to be related to a belief that only participating in the two-way transactions of the market place is not enough.  The fact is that the total of all economic transactions in a free market continually add to the standard of living of all society by virtue of creating and delivering constant technological improvements in various goods and services – at lower and lower prices!

The simple act of paying your way in the world, perhaps with a smile and a “Thank you,” is actually a contribution to the ongoing evolution of civilization.  Every voluntary transaction that takes place, whether it involves money or a trade of “in kind” services, adds to the wealth of the World.  This incremental positive growth is that principle about which those who want “to give back” are confused.

By the way, if you are thinking I am missing the big picture here: that some people just want to be charitable and selfless and altruistic, then consider this.  Some people hand a homeless person a $5 bill, or volunteer at the animal shelter, or spend several weekends a year building houses for “the needy” via Habitat for Humanity.  Are they “giving back,” or are they simply investing time and/or money in a solution to a problem?

Feeling good, feeling better about yourself, and feeling more hopeful about the future is a profit motive if there ever was one.  This has nothing to do with giving back.  If anything, it is about giving forward.  Ultimately, this issue hinges on understanding that freedom allows us, in fact requires us, to order our own lives, to act upon our own values, to achieve our own goals.  This implies that we are constantly calculating the benefits of working, investing, trading, spending, consuming, and enjoying, and then acting on those (economic) calculations.

I propose that those of you who are enamored with the trendy language of “giving back” take a thorough inventory of your lives.  Be clear about how much you are already a contributor to the grand edifice we call Society.  When you find that you need to readjust your focus and your energies, and that you want to recommit to certain activities while letting go of others, realize this is normal and that it has always been a part of daily life.

If you think too many people are wasting resources and investing them poorly, whether it be on an individual basis, a corporate basis, or a government basis, then speak up and communicate your thoughts.  Be honest and straightforward about it, and put away the misleading language of “giving back.”

Shifting your thinking, and thus your language, might yield some new commitments.  Compare these statements with the ones at the top of the article.  “I want to wake up and be more aware of my effect on society,” “It’s time for me to save more and spend less,” and “I want to work for a company that produces longer lasting value for its customers in a more elegant and respectful fashion.”

Posted in Economic, Linguistic, Philosophical, Political, Psychological, Spiritual.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , .

Comments Off

By Ben Easton – February 14, 2011

TANSTAAFL: Rights vs. Entitlements

"Oh, that's just theoretical. Put it on your tab!"

Putting Proper back in “Property” – Part 18

A predictably nasty by-product of the Nanny State, in which human life in Society is presented to the masses as a safe, easy ride with various perks and risk-free guarantees, is the state-sanctioned deluding of the vast majority of the population regarding the distinction between rights and entitlements.

A “right,” as I have explained in this ongoing series of articles on property rights, is a claim of freedom to live according to one’s essential characteristics – as a human being.  It is no coincidence that the noun form of “right” is related to the adjective form – used in related positive contexts.  Adjective: It is right that I get to breathe and move around unhindered and without coercion by other humans.  Noun: I have the right to breathe and move around unhindered and without coercion by other humans.

Rights extend from the metaphysical nature of our existence as rational beings, whether we fully practice this faculty or not.  All humans have the same basic physical requirements for proper, normal, healthy, social living.  Because of this fact of reality, all humans have the right to be left alone to live.  This implies that each individual ought not be molested or harassed as he/she moves about, breathes, explores, thinks, speaks, creates, trades, acquires property, etc.

Of course, there is a very important proviso: the right to act, move, speak, create, trade, acquire, and so forth is valid IF and ONLY IF these actions do not infringe on the equal right of other human beings to do the same.  It is vital that we maintain the logical connection between all downstream rights and this primary right that we all share: the right to live freely.

What is an entitlement?  “Entitlement,” as a noun, is a relatively modern term, and any legitimacy it may have must be confined to contracts and agreements.  For example, in a typical auto insurance policy, there is a clause that deals with towing service and/or car rental allowance.  If an insured motorist has a collision, or her battery goes dead, she is entitled to receive reimbursement for standard towing to a service station within, say, a 20 mile radius.  And, she is also entitled to receive reimbursement for temporary car rental (of a model similar to her own).

In other words, she is entitled to fair and secure coverage.  She cannot expect full reimbursement if she has the car towed to her brother-in-law’s garage 165 miles away.  She cannot expect full reimbursement if she rents a Mercedes CL550 coupe while she drives a Toyota Camry.  In the context of the insurance policy, the word “entitlement” has a neutral connotation and a utilitarian denotation.  No problem there.

However, in the modern parlance of Welfare-Speak, depending on whether you are a recipient of one, or you are the poor bastard who will have to pay for one, “entitlement” may have a spectrum of connotations.  The denotation is this: it is a government-mandated redistribution of wealth.  Entitlements are given to so-called “deserving” or “needy” individuals – usually at minimal or zero cost, for the purpose of buying votes or of inauthentically improving one’s spiritual profile.

Of course, gravity still exists, and goods and services do not grow on trees.  Therefore, the cost of these “gifts” is subsidized by other individuals.  Those suckers can be lumped into a lovely, if not a linguistically absurd, uncountable noun: the “rich.”  The late great Robert A. Heinlein, a science-fiction novelist, drew attention to this principle by popularizing a no-nonsense acronym in his The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress (1966).  It was used to sarcastically call bullshit on this kind of socialist, statist criminality.  TANSTAAFL: There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

Obviously somebody has to pay for the provision and distribution of entitlements.  The magnanimous giving away of “free” education to millions (hundreds of thousands of which do not pay taxes) does not mean that education can be provided without cost.  What about the issuance of food stamps by Uncle Santa?  What about the government-mandated “open door” policy required in hospitals across the land?  These general hospitals are forced to give away some of the most costly and advanced diagnostic and medical-related technology in the history of the human race in the form of Emergency Room care.

We’re entitled to these, aren’t we?  Well, you and I probably aren’t, but “the poor” are.

Never mind that the actual cost of a liver transplant or a triple-bypass heart operation is $150,000.  The bum who hasn’t paid taxes is entitled to it.  The Haitian refugee who has never paid taxes, and can’t speak English, is entitled to it.  The doctors, nurses, technicians, and generous taxpaying “rich,” like you and me, are not entitled.  But – we get a consolation prize.  We are privileged … i.e. we get to cover the cost!

Rights are inherent in the natural essence of who, what, and how we are.  They emanate, not from governmental decrees but, from Nature.  We have rights whether we live on desert islands or in modern metropolises.  Be clear: the Constitution does not grant us our rights.  The value of that great document is that it clearly delineates and names some of the more fundamental and important rights – toward the purpose of defining the proper role of government: that is, to protect our rights!

Entitlements are artifacts of man-made agreements called contracts.  They are legitimate and valid only to the degree that the contracts are entered into voluntarily and equitably – that is to say, legally.  Entitlements of the sort that are doled out by the charlatans and voodoo economists hailing from Washington are in no way valid, legitimate, or moral.

The next time you hear a politician dangling the term “entitlement” in front of an unsuspecting crowd of basically honest folks, consider standing up and boldly calling out, “TANSTAAFL!”  If the smooth-talking scum responds to you, take the opportunity to remind him: “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch!”  Proceed to let him know that you know the nature of his vote-buying scam.  Look him in the eye and call him a thieving, good-for-nothing bastard!  Then, with all the righteousness you can muster, let him know what his actions and intentions have entitled him to: his choice of a tar and feathering or just a good ol’ pistol whipping.

Posted in Constitutional, Economic, Libertarian, Linguistic, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Political, Psychological, Totalitarian.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , .

Comments Off

By Ben Easton – February 8, 2011

O’bama and O’Reilly: Two Peas in a Pod

"So, you agree that we should tell the Egyptians how to run their country?"

This evening, as I watched various replays of Bill O’Reilly’s interview of President O’bama yesterday – on Super Bowl Sunday, I became freshly aware of how the language of each vividly reflects the statist attitude shared by the two ideologues.  The fact that a Democratic President is in full agreement with a leading Republican pundit regarding the belief that the Government of the United States of America has an obligation to meddle in and influence affairs of sovereign nations is deeply worrisome.

I am freshly insulted and appalled by the monumental disregard demonstrated by both of the “machine” parties regarding the stance the United States should take with respect to foreign affairs.  Whether the issue is a revolution in Egypt, labor strikes in Greece, assassinations in Mexico, or physical disasters in Haiti and Australia, the proper approach, as implied by our Constitution, is neutrality.

What is an outrage is that our “leaders” in Washington, D.C. have so corrupted our founding document, for over a century now, that most Americans take it as gospel that the dialogue staged by the mainstream media reflects a comprehensive view of this issue.  The fact is that our government has no authority to present monetary aid to a foreign country for any reason.  By the same principle, our government has no authority to mix in the affairs of another nation.

People will naturally express their opinions about what the Egyptians should do in the present crisis.  Some believe they should continue to run their country as a “benign” military dictatorship.  Others believe they should continue in their apparent demands to dissolve the present regime and usher in a new democratically-based government.  Some believe that, if Egyptian democracy is to come about, they know the “correct ratio” of Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. to properly represent their new administration.

However, when it comes to Egypt, you and I have as much say as O’bama or O’Reilly.  Whether you consider yourself an expert in Egyptian history or have a doctorate in Transformational Middle Eastern Political Philosophy, you have no stake in the affairs of a sovereign nation.  Now, if duly elected and/or appointed officials of the Government of Egypt reach out to expert consultants to advise them and to help them brainstorm new solutions to their problems, that is for them to decide.  Until then, all Americans ought to butt out and confine themselves to respectful speculation about the outcomes.

Meanwhile, beware the rhetoric of “experts” on television.  After the O’bama and O’Reilly dance, I checked out Queen Noor of Jordan being interviewed by Piers Morgan of CNN.  Their language, although not nearly as categorically statist, was still pretty bad.  The underlying assumption of the right of the USA to meddle was all but granted by both.  It came down, therefore, to a discussion over whether to include the Muslim Brotherhood or not in Egypt’s (new) government.

Although insulted and disappointed by the lameness of the expertise that our media magnates have placed in front of us, I allowed myself to watch one more interview, for I knew it would provide fodder for my article.  On FoxNews, I see the plump smugness of political consultant Dick Morris enjoying yet another statist tango with the ever-cocky Sean Hannity.  They agreed that O’bama had been, so far at least, much too weak in his interactions with Egyptian leaders and officials.  They joked about how the President’s 2012 reelection bid would be seriously damaged by his “losing Egypt” … and “probably Yemen and Jordan too.”

Their is nothing wrong with O’bama, as an American citizen, stating to friends and colleagues that he hopes Egypt does this or accomplishes that.  When he speaks as President, though, his language had better be noncommittal, literally.  In other words, beyond whatever pro-democratic sentiments he may share, he had better not commit even one penny, or one American diplomat to the situation.  He can best show his political strength and savvy by recalling that he’s overseeing a cluster of crises here in America, many of which he helped to create.  If he wants to avoid an Egyptian style revolution here, he must extricate his toxic influence on North America by instructing his administration to cease its domestic meddling, too!

Posted in Constitutional, Economic, Philosophical, Political, Separation: Church & State.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , .

6 comments

By Ben Easton – February 7, 2011

Convictions, Guts, and Spines Top the Endangered List

"What part of 'maybe' don't you understand?"

“There’s no easy answer,” said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently in a story on the crisis in Egypt.  “… it is playing with fire to not raise the debt ceiling,” said Senator Chuck Schumer (D – New York) recently in a story about the spending bill that is currently funding the government.  “The majority of high-school biology teachers don’t take a solid stance on evolution with their students, mostly to avoid conflicts …,” stated a recent story about a national study.

These are just three fresh examples of the dangerous effects of political correctness, over-diplomacy, and fuzzy logic that are seeping into our daily lives, threatening the very fabric of our nation.  Whether it is a story about failing US foreign policy, failing US economic policy, or failing US educational policy, myriad facts confirm that we are in a crisis of morality.  This has been a long time coming.

The United States of America will continue its sad decline until our founding virtues are restored.  You know … thrift, independence, respect, accountability, responsibility, honesty.

Wait a minute!  In her careful and measured diplomacy, wasn’t Hillary Clinton being a champion of responsibility and independence?  In his urgent call to warn against Republican recklessness, wasn’t Chuck Schumer being a protector of thrift and accountability?  In their thoughtful silence, weren’t the majority of those high-school biology teachers modeling respect and honesty for their trusting students?

In a word, “No.”

What is missing throughout are the good old-fashioned American traits of common sense and integrity.  These imply respect for truth, respect for independence, respect for property, and respect for freedom.  Tolerance is not a virtue when it betrays these others.

The disease of multi-culturalism, which is a particularly virulent strain of the fatal form of cancer known as irrationalism, has swept our nation in recent decades.  The effects of this malady on the body politic have been exacerbated by a half-century decline in educational rigor, as can be seen by the common symptoms of poor judgement, indecision, and hopeless squandering of public monies.  This disease morphs and changes, seeming to defy simple analysis and treatment.  Like a nice sun tan or a new hairdo, it takes on different looks in order to impress and fit in.  Showing up as tolerance one week, inclusivity the next, it may quickly mutate into open-mindedness, or kid-friendliness.

Is this going to be our legacy?  Will we go down in history as the generation that sold its soul to federally-mandated homogeneity and forced equanimity?

White is no longer okay, but apparently brown is.  Masculinity is no longer okay, but femininity is.  Gender is no longer okay, but androgyny is.  Proof is no longer okay, but consensus is.  Discipline is no longer okay, but chaos is.  Gimme a break!

Yep – I’m fed up.  I have never been good at hiding my contempt for the compromising and corrupting of society.  I guess it’s because I see the root cause of all this madness, and it’s not what Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the Democrats, or the Republicans think it is.  It has to do with the forfeit of responsibility to judge for ourselves the facts of reality.  While our ‘leaders’ huddle together and compete for different ways to mumble that most insulting and pathetic of all questions, “Who are we to judge?” – decisions back up in a traffic jam of reality, demanding attention.

Well, I’ll say it.  “I am a judge!”  I have a brain, a spine, and a mouth – thank you very much.  My convictions and my guts empower me to call a spade a spade, and to call bullshit on the state of our leadership.  The recent influx of fresh faces in Congress seems to be a step in the right direction, but I have seen these two-faced demagogues before.  To keep these new leaders accountable, and to make sure they show up at the scheduled Tea Party, we need to speak up and speak out.  As many citizens as possible need to stand up and cut to the truth.

Here are some battle cries I suggest: “No more foreign aid – we’re broke!  No more foreign meddling – we’ve got our own problems!”  “Raise the debt ceiling again – are you insane?!”  “If you’re a science teacher who doesn’t practice and promote the scientific method, you’re fired!”

Every time I recommit to truth and reality, summoning the courage to stand up for my convictions, I feel a warm sensation in my guts.  I experience a strengthening of my spine.  It’s even better than working out at the gym.  Try it!

The next time the big government moralizers come at you with their brain-melting rhetoric, hoping to sway you into tolerance, which is just a lazy man’s excuse for discriminating respect and commitment to honesty, remember the truths that you know – independent of what anybody says.  Call them on their lies – to their faces.  Then, turn to your loved ones, your friends, your colleagues, and your neighbors, and tell them what you just saw.  Let’s help each other stay vigilant as we push back the flood of insanity.

Posted in Constitutional, Economic, Philosophical, Political, Psychological.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Comments Off

By Ben Easton – January 31, 2011

USA Complicit in Egypt Riots

"Hey folks - OUR way or the highway!"

As I write, there are anti-government riots in Cairo, Egypt – shown live on several major news channels.  I see Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking in a very measured tone: “Egypt has been an important partner of the United States …”  Then, comes her delivery of the official two-faced, fork-tongued, distancing language, hoping that her government’s contribution and co-responsibility to this latest mess is not too obvious.

This is the problem at its root: the belief that our nation has the ability, if not the obligation, to “partner” with other nations.  This is fundamentally wrong.  The government of the United States of America has no constitutional authority to make alliances or set up partnerships with other countries.  This wrong-headed belief is what has given rise to much of the unrest around the globe, for decades.

The Government of the United States of America is deeply complicit in much of what is coming to a head today in North Africa and the Middle East by way of riots, bombings, and continued strife.  By “partnering” with Great Britain and other member nations in the newly-formed United Nations just after WWII, to set up the illegitimate state of Israel by ejecting and scattering property owners from their lands, incredible death and destruction have been the results.  Over the decades since 1945, meddling by the UN and its main donor parent, the USA, has made matters worse at practically every step.

For the USA, the proper approach to foreign matters is simple, and has been simple from day one.  Defend the property of American citizens, from aggression within and without.  In extreme simplified language, the Constitution could be translated and distilled into one principle: Respect others, and mind your own business!

Alas, almost from the beginning, this was too hard for the humans who represent us in Washington, D.C. to comprehend and internalize.  The theme for the 20th Century was pretty much one of poking our collective nose where it doesn’t belong.  We are reaping the “rewards” of this irrational attitude.

Paradoxically, the more the United States of America quietly did what it does best – protect and foster free enterprise and every day living among peoples of a fantastic cross-section of humanity, the most fantastically productive and marvelous society in the history of the world grew and thrived.  The USA was almost universally admired for this and envied by the citizens of many nations.

The more the Government of the United States of America loudly proclaimed that it is the policeman of the world, that it is, not just a “super power” but, the Super Power, the shift from “land of freedom and promise” to “land of excess and belligerence” quickened.  Incredibly, mainstream and middle-class Americans do not see the direct connection between their obnoxious, flag waving, uber-patriotic loyalty – to the America as Super Power paradigm – and the logical decay of our reputation, our standard of living, our sense of security … our honor.

Have the actions of the U. S. Government been the sole contributors to the madness and unrest in Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Israel, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, etc.?  Of course not.  There are countless forces at work here, from a thousand different directions, cultural, religious, economic, linguistic.  One thing is for sure though: the more we keep our (American) hands in the pot, the worse it gets.

My proposal is to unilaterally withdraw our governmental entities from all foreign lands … carefully, diplomatically, absolutely.  If we were to announce that, over a period of 10 years, all American military bases would be dissolved or turned over to the host countries, and that all USA operatives would be recalled – except, perhaps, for a minimum embassy crew (10-100 persons per country, depending on size), we would see instantaneous improvement in most, if not all, our relations. ***

The reliance of several supra-national, war-mongering corporations on our global imperialistic profile notwithstanding, Wall Street would eventually rebound due to the evolution (back) toward production of constructive products as opposed to destructive products.

*** This should not be taken to mean I advocate a pacifistic defense strategy.  The trillions of dollars saved on ending our foreign deployments and the billions of dollars that would be forthcoming from increased private investment (welcomed into newly-friendly foreign countries) would more than pay for the powerful and daunting home-based military we would still maintain – very humbly, yet very publicly.

Posted in Constitutional, Economic, Philosophical, Political, Psychological.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , .

10 comments

By Ben Easton – January 28, 2011

Property and Abortion

"Oh well, I've changed my mind ..."

Putting Proper back in “Property” – Part 17

No matter what the era or the culture, the issue of abortion is at or near the top of the “Most Controversial” list.  My analysis of this topic will, of course, be rooted on the fact that we all own our bodies.

The reason that this issue is so divisive and tricky is that, for various reasons, the question of when an individual body comes into being is by no means that upon which we are unanimously agreed.  The religious among us, especially fundamentalist Christians, apparently believe that individuation occurs at the moment of conception.  And when is this?  Is this when the man gets a twinkle in his eye (for his wife, lover, girlfriend, rape victim)?  Is it immediately upon ejaculation during intercourse?  Is it some minutes or hours later, when the sperm joins with the egg?

Millions of people, whether Christians or not, believe that once the egg and sperm have joined – i.e. impregnation has occurred – the human being is on the way … there is a fetus.  The relevant question is: Does this fetus have the full rights of personhood: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Here comes my bold assertion: a person does not exist until physical individuation has occurred.  This clearly happens at the moment, just after birth, when the umbilical cord is severed.  Can a newborn baby fend for itself?  Of course not.  This is typically not possible until a child reaches the age of 5 years or more (under extreme, primitive, or tragic circumstances) … but preferably not until he/she is 18 or 21.

So, to jump ahead to my conclusion, I believe that abortion should be legal … in other words, not punishable by law.  Abortion is not murder.  There is no legal victim.

That being said, abortion is STILL controversial.  To most of us, the decision to abort a fetus is a sad, perhaps tragic, event.  There is a cost, and that is an utterly personal domain.  Is abortion a good and sensible solution to a problem?  Yes, when the mother’s life is in danger.  Yes, when it is known (by careful and proper medical science) that the fetus is undergoing malformation, and that it would never be a viable candidate for healthy human life.

Is abortion a good solution when the mother (and father) use it as hindsight birth control?  Perhaps not.  I know hundreds of men and women who are still sad about using abortion in that fashion.  Is there a better way to go about birth control?  Of course.

Why is abortion still used?  Simple – usually minor (or young professional) women do not believe that they could be properly responsible for raising a child.  And, they are usually correct!  The men that knocked them up are usually not mature enough, or committed enough, to step forward and claim responsibility alongside their partners.  Of course, in the Age of Promiscuity, “partner” might mean somebody that we just met a few hours ago.

The basic fact is this: abortion is here to stay.  The rational goal for a healthy society is to cut this solution to its minimal proper use … saving the lives of mothers whose lives are in danger … and ending unviable lives of malformed fetuses (as early as this condition can be determined).  For all other situations, better up-front contraception and discretion are recommended, and, when possible, giving the newborn up for adoption.

Special Case

I want to mention here a case that runs contrary to the popular “Women’s Rights” canon of the Pro Choice Movement, which states that abortion is always the woman’s right.  So far in this article, there has been an unstated assumption: the woman wants an abortion, and the man is in agreement.  What if the two “lovers” are not in accord?  What then?

Consider a case of a man and a woman (both of majority) who agree to conceive of a child and to raise it as their own.  In this case, I am assuming that there are no physical or health issues, and that the fetus is forming properly.  The woman decides, for whatever reasons (aesthetic, professional, emotional), to abort the fetus.  Does she have a right to do this unilaterally?  No – she does not!  She is obliged to consult with her mate and ask him his views.  She might convince him that because she is not really up to the task, he should let go of their conception to begin (or grow) their family.  In 99 out of 100 of such scenarios, he would probably say, “Gosh, it’s a pity, but I agree.  Go ahead and abort.”

If the man really wants to proceed though – to have the child, the woman is morally obliged to carry the fetus to term, have the child, and to give it to him as sole parent.  Of course, that would be a big responsibility on her part, but in this hypothetical I made it clear that she gave her word (as did he) to conceive and give birth to a child.  They have a contract – a shared property.  His huge responsibility is to support her, comfort her, and financially make it possible for her to fulfill her side of the bargain.  Finally, when he becomes a “single” parent to a newborn, he may not expect anything further from her.  He must release her of all liability and responsibility in terms of parenting.

Would this be a smart move on the man’s part?  No.  He would be an idiot to choose that course of action.  Nevertheless, in a world of 6.5 billion people, strange cases come up, and I wanted to cover how this special case ought to be handled.

Posted in Constitutional, Economic, Financial, Linguistic, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Political, Psychological, Spiritual, Technological.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , .

2 comments

By Ben Easton – January 27, 2011

“The State of the Union” Address: Decoded

"Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!"

Last night, President Barack H. Obama delivered his second “State of the Union” address.  He strode into the House Chamber to greet the combined Congress, Supreme Court justices, Joint Chiefs of the Military, and other luminaries with his usual poise and nonchalance.  Once the introductions were over, and he stood at the podium flanked by the next two in line for the Presidency, he got down to the tricky business of trying to convince us that he does not deserve immediate impeachment and conviction for Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Regardless of my judgement of his policies and his political record, I must acknowledge his ability to come off with confidence, compassion, and candor.  This is part of what makes him so dangerous to the Free World.  This charisma, which he has in spades, has been enough to sway a lot of very smart people – who should know better – to get behind him.

I pride myself on my ability to admire Obama’s eloquence while simultaneously engaging my logical circuits and training them on his long train of misleading and contradictory rhetoric.  As a Libertarian, I think I am in a strong position to call bullshit on his lies.  I have been practicing for decades – on Democrats … on Republicans.  Obama and the “Blue” Team lie about how government helps us by taking from the rich and giving to the poor, and by creating jobs that do nothing but soak up more tax money.  Bush and the “Red” Team lied about how they believed in smaller government and cutting spending.  So transparent.

I got excited momentarily when the President suggested that we stop giving subsidies to oil companies, but then he had the gall to declare that we (a.k.a. Government) ought to support clean energy – with subsidies, no doubt!  I think that’s called a shell game.

He acknowledged that we have a need to end our foreign (military) commitments, and he threw in some warm and fuzzy compliments.  Well-timed plugs for the military allowed the ovation-addicted crowd to stand up a couple of more times.  But then, Obama had the temerity to talk of his plans to continue his globe-hopping crusade to secure trade agreements and alliances.

The Constitution of the United States of America states nothing about the executive right to partake in these activities.  The President has no such authority.  To be fair, Obama is not the first president to illegitimately claim this power.  Every predecessor for at least a century has done so.

The President confirmed his fuzzy logic when he made a strong recommendation that Congress cut corporate taxes, and that they do so without increasing the deficit.  Possible, but extremely unlikely.  Later, he stated that he could not stand by and allow the permanent tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% of Americans continue.

I guess he relies on the ability of his smile and smooth delivery to misdirect our attention and our memories. He enchants many with his demagoguery without their realizing it, and he was obviously successful enough to get elected.  The question is, when will more people see that all he is really saying is: “Heads I win, tails you lose.”

Other examples of his verbal prestidigitation?  Well, he wants bipartisan moves to strengthen Social Security … without “slashing benefits” for retirees.  He stated that we can’t just confine our spending cuts to domestic spending.  We must make cuts across the board … including Medicare and Medicaid.  Then, he follows up that Tea Party-esque point with a but-remember-I’m-the-great-black-hope offsetting remark of, “Let’s make sure our spending cuts aren’t on the backs of our most vulnerable.”  Yes, Obama is a master of the bait and switch.

How about his boldly anti-Free Market statement that he is not willing to allow insurance companies to decline coverage to somebody due to a pre-existing condition?  Yes, his statist-socialist agenda couldn’t stay bottled up all night.  As somebody who has two pre-existing conditions myself, I condemn the President’s stance.  Of course insurance companies have the right to refuse me service, and, to those of us who love freedom, this right is sacred.

Here and there, he joked.  He smiled.  He threw a bone to Small Businesses – so that they could see how magnanimous he is prepared to be … “to correct a bookkeeping error.”  But then, in his patented ability to look right and throw left, he said something like, “Let’s not go back and argue about the shortcomings of the health care bill … let’s fix what needs to be fixed and move forward!”

My favorite part of his speech was when he said he would veto any (future) bill that contained any earmarks.  I haven’t checked with the Las Vegas bookmakers yet, but I imagine that’s a 1000 to 1 long-shot.  The other one was a point in which he rightly criticized the bureaucracy of our federal government in the way it has so many agencies working at cross-purposes.  One agency, he remarked, regulates salmon when they’re in fresh water, and a different agency handles them when they get to saltwater.  “I wonder which one handles them when they’re smoked!”  Yes, I chuckled.

As the address drew to a close, President Obama received applause ranging from the polite to the zealous.  He must have been successful in his primary objective, for nobody stepped forward to put him in handcuffs.  In a rational society, he would never have been elected in the first place.  I suppose it is wishful thinking on my part to imagine that the same electorate would suddenly wake up and drag the treasonous bastard to jail.

Oh well … I’ll try to get over it.

Posted in Constitutional, Economic, Philosophical, Political, Psychological.

Tagged with , , , , , , .

11 comments

By Ben Easton – January 26, 2011