The Philosophy of Liberty

I don’t have the right to rob you. I don’t have the right to make you do things that you don’t want to do, and neither does anyone else, because we’re all equals and we all own ourselves.

So if I don’t have the right to take your stuff or make you do things, and my neighbor doesn’t have the right to take your stuff or make you do things, then that means that both of us together don’t have that right either.

If no individual on their own has the moral right to take your stuff or to make you do things against your will, then no grouping of individuals has the right do to it either.

There is no majority on earth so big that it gains the moral right to rob you and to force you to do things against your will.

By extension, if I don’t have the right, and if no majority has the right, then we also don’t have the right to hire anyone to take your stuff as our representative, because how can we transfer a moral right to someone when we don’t have the right in the first place?

Think about how this might apply to government.

Republicans’ list of 10 Principles candidates should share

[ARTICLE]

So the Republicans have released a list of 10 policies their 2010 candidates should adhere to. Let’s just cut to the chase and take a look.

“(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;”

Great! Or at least it WOULD be great if it were true. But Bush and the Republicans in congress spent more money than any President before him (and Obama is even worse). Republicans are NOT for smaller government. They only say they are when Democrats are in power. But time and time again, it’s Republicans who outspend Democrats. Don’t get me wrong, both sides are big government scumbags and I’ll never vote for either of them. But at least Democrats don’t pretend to be for smaller government. At least they’re honest about their scumbaggery. And I like how they call it the “Obama stimulus”. If I remember correctly, the first stimulus bill went through during Bush’s term. McCain pushed for it and voted for it. Have you forgotten already? He tried to cancel a live presidential election debate so he could go vote for it. It was a big deal. Man, Americans have short memories. And when the first stimulus Bill was voted down in the House (before it was later passed), Bush went ahead and authorized his own little bailout with an executive order. Look it up. Republicans ARE NOT for fiscal responsibility. They just want it to be THEM wasting all the money on big flashy programs rather than the democrats.

“(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;”

Again, great!…if it were true. Sure “Obamacare” is going to be awful when it finally passes (and it WILL eventually pass), but so is “RomneyCare”. That’s right, Mitt Romney had his own little statist healthcare program as the governor of Massachusetts. Under his plan it was against the law to NOT have healthcare. No government sponsored healthcare, just a mandate that said you had to buy it yourself. So the democrats’ plan (government-run healthcare) is socialism and the republicans’ plan, (government-mandated private healthcare) is fascism. Whoopie. I can’t wait to vote on which party I want in office.

“(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;”

I actually can’t really comment on this. I oppose cap and trade as well but I haven’t taken the time to research what Republicans plan to do about energy reforms. But judging by their past records, I’d be willing to bet it’s just a different but equally bad option.

“(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;”

Unions. Ugh. I don’t like them but I also think that people have the right to associate with whomever they want and in whatever way they want…and that right extends to employers and business owners. They should be able to fire whoever they want for whatever reason they want. It’s their damn property.

“(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;”

At least they’re honest about this one. I disagree with them, but at least they’re not lying.

“(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;”

And this is the #1 reason that Republicans are bigger spenders than Democrats. They like war more….or do they? WWI, WWII, Korea, Clinton’s Yugoslavia nonsense; all started while democrats were in power. Both parties love their wars. Yes. Even Obama. On to Sudan! Save (bomb) Darfur!

“(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;”

Blah Blah Blah more warmongering.

“(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;”
Screw you Republicans! If you are religious, then marriage is a religious ceremony. If you’re not, marriage is a contract between two people. Neither of those areas are any of the government’s business. Legalize gay AND straight marriage!

“(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and”

Finally something I could agree on…if I knew they didn’t have a statist healthcare scheme of their own.

“(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.”

One more time, say it with me: GREAT!….if I knew it wasn’t a lie.

Look up H.R. 1022 sometime. It didn’t pass, thank goodness, but it was supposed to be another Clinton-style assault weapons ban but this time it was written and sponsored by Republicans. I will agree that more republicans seem to understand and support gun rights but don’t trust someone just because they have an (R) after their name. In fact, never trust ANY politician until you get to know them and their positions because, as we can see, they’re all liars and scumbags to the last….yes that includes YOUR pet politician.

An Open Letter to General Motors. By My Brother.

Dear GM,
Your most recent commercials include the catch phrase “May the Best Car Win,” challenging car buyers to put your cars up against any other car, from any other manufacturer. What a wonderfully free market attitude, one which I agree with completely. It’s about time the free market was allowed to decide which cars and car companies should survive. My gripe, though, is that General Motors seems only to have adopted this free market stance after being bailed out to the tune of billions by the tax payer. General Motors was rescued from the free market consequences of not being the best. In fact, being one of the worst. The best cars and car companies did win, and GM should have lost, but you weren’t allowed to lose. As far as I’m concerned, General Motors already has all the money they will ever get from me. I will never, for the rest of my life on this earth, spend a dime on General Motors products. That’s the free market speaking, enjoy.

Scumbags in the House vote to pass the Healthcare bill. Scumbags.

Just watched it on CNN. Not a whole lot to say about this.

Barney Frank is a fat disgusting slob.

I’m sorry. I know I haven’t written in a while and then I come out and say something as stupid and trivial as this. But it’s true. It’s true and I can’t keep it inside any longer. Barney Frank makes me physically ill. And it’s not because he’s a politician it’s because he looks so gross and he’s a douche-bag.

Just check out the video in this article [LINK]

What an colossal ass, what a boob, what a fat disgusting slob. No offense to fat people. There’s nothing wrong with that. But this guy is just gross. He can’t even sit up straight. And listen how full of himself he is. “Ralph gets to luxuriate in the purity of his irrelevance. *burp* *gurgle* *hiccup*” What the hell does that even mean? What a douche bag! And I swear there’s week-old nacho cheese stuck to his lapel.

I haven’t even gotten into his statement which is the whole point of the video. “We’re trying on every front, to increase the role of government…”

Well of course he is! That’s nothing new. He’s a scumbag politician…a fat disgusting slob of scumy douchbag politician.

I appologise for the asinine and immature nature of this article, but I just couldn’t hold it in any longer. I promise my next article will have actual substance.

Obama’s Healthcare could be used to ban guns.

[ARTICLE]

From the article:

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has something to say to gun owners: “Own a gun; lose your coverage!”

[...]

It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as excessively dangerous activities. And, given Sebelius’ well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment — she vetoed concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas — we presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm. It is even possible that the Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.

The ObamaCare bill already contains language that will punish Americans who engage in unhealthy behavior by allowing insurers to charge them higher insurance premiums. (What constitutes an unhealthy lifestyle is, of course, to be defined by legislators.) Don’t be surprised if an anti-gun nut like Sebelius uses this line of thinking to impose ObamaCare policies which result in a back-door gun ban on any American who owns “dangerous” firearms.

After all, insurers already (and routinely) drop homeowners from their policies for owning certain types of guns or for refusing to use trigger locks (that is, for keeping their guns ready for self-defense!). While not all insurers practice this anti-gun behavior, Gun Owners of America has documented that some do — Prudential and State Farm being two of the most well-known.

And here is the main point…

The good news is that because homeowner insurance is private (and is still subject to the free market) you can go to another company if one drops you. But what are you going to do under nationalized ObamaCare when the regulations written by Secretary Sebelius suspend the applicability of your government-mandated policy because of your gun ownership?

The answer? Give up your guns or become a criminal for not having insurance.

A user on the Free Talk Live Forums summed it up nicely:

“So you are forced to get health coverage at the point of a gun and if you have a gun it is considered a dangerous activity and you will lose your health insurance,thus making you a criminal because you cant get coverage……

The evil cunning here is breathtaking.”

The police are not your friends.

The police are not your friends, they are not here to serve you, they are here to serve the state and themselves.

Just in case you couldn’t understand what the officer was saying in the video, here are a few quotes…

“As far as I’m concerned. I’m going to put words in his mouth. She went to accelerate and a cat jumped out of the window at which point he thought it could have been a pedestrian, which distracted him,” Pressley tells Sgt. Andrew Diaz, another veteran officer. “I mean what’s the chances of hitting a f—in drunk when a cat jumps out of the window?”

“I nailed her on the video. I already hung her on video. She said she has been doing a beer party,” Pressley says. “She’s gonna blow.”

“I know how I’m going to word this with the cat so we can get him off the hook. I’ll write the narrative,” Pressley says. “We’re going to bend this a little bit.”

“I don’t lie and make things up EVER (sarcastically), it’s wrong, but if I need to bend it a little bit to protect a cop, I’ll do it,” Pressley tells Francisco after reassuring him no one will ever find out. “She’s freaking hammered anyway.”

[ARTICLE]

Beer Review: Stone Vertical Epic 9.9.09

The Vertical Epic series from Stone Brewing Company is very special. For those who don’t know, every year since 2002, Stone comes out with a unique, one-time-only beer. In 2002 it came out on 2.2.02. In 2003 it came out on 3.3.03. And so on all the way up to this years beer, 9.9.09. The idea is to keep each release in your cellar until after the last edition is released on 12.12.12 and then open them all up and see how they’ve aged. Of course most people are like me and we just drink them right away. The early years are very hard to come by and apparently they’re pretty expensive if you can find one.

Anyway, I digress. On to this year’s Vertical Epic.

Stone’s Website describes this beer as a “Belgian porter brewed with dark candi sugar, chocolate malt, tangerine peel, vanilla beans, and aged on French oak.” It has 8.6% alcohol by volume.

Appearance 5/5
As I poured it instantly turned black. Seriously, no light makes it through at all. Very healthy chocolate/coffee colored head. Great lacing. It really sticks to the glass. Exactly what a porter should be.

Aroma 4/5
Not as strong and powerful as I was expecting but very sweet and very smokey at the same time. Alcohol is masked well. Chocolate and vanilla come through strongly.

Palate 4/5
I love Stone, I love their Vertical Epics, and I love porters and stouts. So I was expecting this to be the perfect storm of over-the-top excellent mouth-feel. And I think they delivered. The mouth feel actually changes a little bit the longer you have it in your mouth. I almost missed it. Starts off about like what you’d expect an average porter to feel like. Fairly thick and rich, a little bit of a bite, a slightly dry finish. Nothing too spectacular. Then I took another sip in order to judge the flavor. As I held it in and gently swished, trying to take in all the different changing tones (we’ll get back to that part in a minute) I noticed that the beer also started to get smoother, soft, silkier (Pablo Francisco reference anyone?). It turned in to that velvety smooth ale that I was expecting. I knew it had to be hidden in there somewhere. Bravo Stone, Bravo.

Flavor 4/5
Like I said before, this beer has many undertones that change and evolve as you hold it in your mouth. The first thing I noticed was the choclatey-sweet maltiness and the vanilla beans. Then it developes a slight tang and a very distinct sense of spices. It finishes on a pleasantly bitter smokey quality that sticks around until your next sip.

Overall 17/20
Another excellent edition to the Vertical Epic series. I bought a second bottle and this year I intend to actually cellar it. I was so excited to try this beer that I almost rushed through it and very nearly missed a very interesting twist in the palate department. I should have listened to my own advice: like I always say….

Sip slowly and enjoy in good company.

Beer Review: John Henry 3 Lick Spiker Ale

This is going to be a quick one. I don’t have a whole lot of time. I picked up a 12 oz. bottle of this John Henry 3 Lick Spiker Ale by Cold Spring Brewery. Some websites call it an Imperial Stout, others call it a Strong American Ale. Either way it’s pretty awesome. It’s 9.1% alcohol so it’s got a slight kick to it. But the main feature is the fact that it was fermented on bourbon soaked oak chips; a technique I’ve been meaning to implement in my own brewing adventures.

But anyway, I digress. Let’s hop right in.

Appearance 3/5
Dark brown. Not quite black. Amber tones come through when held up to the light. Thin coffee colored head…a little bit too thin.

Aroma 4/5
Very sweet due to the bourbon. It almost doesn’t even smell like beer at all. Very Choclatey. Caramel. Espresso. And of course, whiskey. I love it.

Palate 3/5
Not bad at all but nothing special. If I wasn’t purposely focusing on it for the review, I wouldn’t have even noticed it. It feels like cold liquid. It’s right in the middle so I’ll give it a 3 out of 5.

Taste 5/5
This is where the beer excels. Very sweet, very bourbony but not overly so. The high alcohol level is masked very well by the malt sweetness and the caramel whiskey overtones. One of the best oaked/whiskey soaked beers I’ve had. Very pleasing.

Overall 15/20
Like I said, one of the best oak barrelled and whiskey soaked beers I’ve had. I will definitely buy this again. It wasn’t perfect but I enjoyed myself thoroughly.

As always, sip slowly and enjoy in good company.

Ronald Reagan’s Legacy is a Fraud

I saved this article by Harry Browne in my email a long time ago, intenting to eventually write about it. I just found it again today after having forgotten about it for years. I’ll post the link to the article so you can go check it out for yourself (and you definitely should). But I’ll also summarize it with a few excerpts that I found interesting.

http://harrybrowne.org/articles/Reagan’sLegacy.htm

Few people may remember that when Ronald Reagan took office, the federal budget was only $678 billion. During his 8-year tenure, the budget grew by 69% — on its way to today’s $2.3 trillion budget.

The annual average increase in government during Reagan’s administration was 6.8%, compared with “big government” Bill Clinton’s average annual increase of 3.6%.

Reagan promised to balance the budget within his first term. Instead, the annual deficit rose from $79 billion to $212 billion in that first term — and the Reagan years added $1.9 trillion to the federal debt.

Reagan is known as a tax-cutter, and the term “Reaganomics” implies dramatic cuts in tax rates. But after pushing through a tax cut to be implemented over three years, he cooperated during the second year in the largest tax increase in American history up to that time. The nation’s annual tax load increased by 65% during his time in office.

Conservatives like to blame the increase in government on the Democratic Congress. But Presidents have the power of veto.

Pens are cheap. A President can sign thousands of vetoes. Unless his opposition can muster a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, nothing can be forced on him.

The determining factor is whether the President has the will to reduce government. If he does, no one can stop him.

And while Reagan did veto some bills (unlike George W. Bush), in eight years Congress passed only nine bills over Reagan’s veto. And only one of those was a budget bill. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This article comes from 2004. When it was written, Bush had not vetoed even one bill. In his second term he vetoed only 11. -DontTreadOnMike]

Thus Congress didn’t enlarge government in spite of Reagan’s determined opposition. He actively participated in the growth of government.

He resurrected the War on Drugs, which had declined in activity during the Carter administration. Some of today’s worst law-enforcement policies were initiated by Reagan’s prodding.

In the 1980s asset forfeiture escalated from a little-used quirk in the law into a major weapon and source of funding for law-enforcement agencies. Thanks to “compassionate” Ronald Reagan, tens of thousands of American citizens — convicted of no crimes — have had homes, cars, and bank accounts confiscated by government.

Mandatory minimum sentences were initiated in 1986. Thanks to “sensitive” Ronald Reagan, tens of thousands of American citizens have received long, long prison sentences — sometimes life without hope of parole — for non-violent drug offenses.

But wherever he promised more liberty, he failed to deliver. When he ran for President, he vowed to end draft registration (which had been revived by Jimmy Carter), but Reagan never even asked Congress to consider such a bill.

Conservatives praise Reagan for his aggressive foreign policy. But I’ve seen no evidence that his policies did anything other than stimulate terrorism throughout the world.

One example was his all-out support for the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. He called them “freedom-fighters.” Today, many of the same people are called “terrorists.”

Reagan ordered the Air Force to bomb Libya in April 1986, hoping to kill Muammar Khadaffi and to demonstrate to the world that Khadaffi couldn’t get away with terrorist acts. But two years later a Pan American airliner exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, and the U.S. government swears that Khadaffi was responsible. So much for the idea that bombing people deters terrorists.

In 1983 Reagan sent U.S. Marines to Lebanon to keep the peace there. But over 200 of them died from a truck-bomb explosion on October 23. The event was a severe blow to the popularity of Reagan’s foreign policy. Fortunately, Reagan reacted wisely by bringing the rest of the Marines home — rather than retaliating with a military attack on someone.

Ok ok I don’t want to post the entire article, but it’s just so good! There’s some great info in there about the Cold War and how…um….Reagan really DIDN’T end it singled handedly

But to sum it all up, Republicans, stop calling yourselves “Reagan Conservatives”. The man was NOT conservative. He was a statist thug who increased the size of government, increased taxes, and bombed things for no good reason. Actually, that DOES sound a lot like the Republicans (and Democrats) of today. So I guess….carry on then, “Reagan Conservatives”.