Think about this, from L. Neil Smith

Science fiction writer extraordinaire:

The Mercury program came and went, the Gemini program came and went, the Apollo program came and went, followed by SkyLab, the Shuttle program, and the International so-called Space Station. What they all taught us (unless you actually care about fruitfly reproduction in microgravity) was that the only individuals who would ever be allowed to get into space were precisely the kind of government-approved jockstraps who were on the varsity football team when you were in high school — oh yes, and an occasional cheerleader — oops, make that public school teacher.

To all the rest of us, meaning those who are "encouraged" (at the point of a gun) to pay for these programs, the message was clear: "Get lost. Outer space, 99.99999999999999999999999999999999 percent of all there is, is government property, like the Lincoln Monument and Area 51."
....
Government property, eh? Let's privatize it.

Kantian philosopher Kelly Ross says,

“Whether it is called ‘permissiveness’ by the Right or ‘consumerism’ by the Left, the exuberance of popular culture, especially its vulgarity, garishness, frivolity, and eroticism, is a profound challenge to the anaesthetic moralism that characterizes the mentality of those who would like to be, or are accustomed to be, telling others what kinds of worthy things they ought to be doing.”

Moralism is a technical term meaning the extension of moral judgment into activities requiring only ethical, aesthetic or practical judgment. Morality is properly concerned with actions, intentions and consequences involving harm to others and oneself. Ethics are such things as manners and conventions, activities which improve or harm relationships and prosperity. Aesthetics is about beauty and quality. Practical judgment is simply about what works, into which any of the previous categories may fall.

Here's a verbatim copy of a post from

Human Liberty.

10/25/2003
More On Zealots

I love when zealots say that they have some claim over my body because someday their tax money might pay for my health care, presumably through Medicare or Medicaid. I think it's unhealthy to not eat meat, so I demand that you eat chicken. Ben and Jerry's ice cream is fattening; Ben and Jerry are proof. I demand that no one eat it.

I want to opt-out henceforth from all taxpayer-funded health care. Where do I do that? Because I would rather die than give you a claim over my life.

Thanks. I feel better now.
Comment (0)
// posted by Brendan @ 9:03 PM


That's what I say.

And here's a person being truly honest.

Or honestly true.

Destroy all straw men!

This post says what I think.

I am a member of the Libertarian Party, but I see the need for The Free Country to defend itself against unfree countries.

Here's a new guy who's all right.

His current events commentary kicks butt on mine.

Here are some exerpts from Cato's Letters

sent to me by the Mises.org folks:
Cato's Letters
By liberty, I understand the power which every man has over his own actions, and his right to enjoy the fruits of his labor, art and industry, as far as by it he hurts not the society, or any members of it, by taking from any member, or hindering him from enjoying what he himself enjoys. The fruits of a man's honest industry are the just rewards of it, ascertained to him by natural and eternal equity, as is his title to use them in the manner which he thinks fit: And thus, with the above limitations, every man is sole lord and arbiter of his own private actions and property...no man living can divest him but by usurpation, or by his own consent.
....
True and impartial liberty is therefore the right of every man to pursue the natural, reasonable, and religious dictates of his own mind; to think what he will, to act as he thinks, provided he acts not to the prejudice of another; to spend his own money himself, and lay out the produce of his labor his own way; and to labor for his own pleasure and profits, and not for others who are idle, and would live...by pillaging and oppressing him, and those that are like him...

The Witless Battle Over General Boykin

(Actually, the article is not there yet. Sign up for Reports from the Front. They'll email it out to you. Over on the right side there.)
By David Kelley

"The problem here is not intolerance, divisiveness, or extremism. It is rank
irrationality. The whole exchange is another tiresome example of a false
dichotomy: dogmatism vs. relativism. Conservatives are right that liberals are
afraid to assert the truth of their convictions. Liberals are right that
conservatives are claiming truth for sectarian religious dogmas—and rightly
alarmed that they invoke those dogmas to justify war.

"What both sides ignore is the alternative of reason and rational certainty. When
Islamic terrorists attack us out of hatred for our secular way of life, our
pursuit of happiness, our wealth and productive achievements, it is reason, not
Jesus, that tells us they are viciously wrong. And reason does tell us that they
are wrong, objectively wrong, and that we are objectively right in responding
with force."

The next two paragraphs begin with these phrases: "Earth to General Boykin..." and
"Earth to Ellen Goodman...." Read the whole thing.

Johan Norberg, In Defense of Global Capitalism

Buy it here.

Chapter: Democratization.

Paragraph 1:

The accelerating spread of information and ideas throughout the world, coupled with rising education standards and growing prosperity, is prompting demands for genuine political rights. Critics of globalization maintain that a dynamic market and international capital are a threat to democracy, but what they really see threatened is the use that they would like to make of democracy. Never before in human history have democracy, universal suffrage, and the free formation of opinion been as widespread as they are today.

Emphasis Norberg's.

Steven den Beste today

"Is it immoral to be prepared to do evil things if through your willingness and preparation you avoid the need to do so and also prevent someone else from doing the same evil thing?"

"...Deterrence is a real moral problem. In some cases it's the only way to bring about the best possible case, but the only way you can have a deterrent is by being willing to commit tremendously evil acts."

Sorry, got interrupted.

I actually have a job and a life. No offense to those who don't.

The majority of individuals within the borders of a country have the power to do as they wish, limited only by what they believe is possible and the Laws of Nature (or, what really is possible). What I'm saying is that the government is not the only means available for society, or any subset thereof--majority or minority, to get its way.

Indeed, most people get their way most of the time by earning the means and doing it themselves.

Lew Rockwell has this to say today.

"In the war on terrorism, we’re dealing with the oldest political error: the belief that because everyone wants something (e.g. security and defense), government should or must provide it. If the error is pervasive, the result is the total state. If it is completely uprooted, the result is the purely free society."

Lew Rockwell is the mentor for those of us who desire to be Austrian economists. I always take his commentary seriously. I do wish I felt the same about his good friend Justin Raimondo, but Raimondo is the James Carville of the Peace Party. If he were elected Chairman of the Peace Party the world would be a better place, but Noam Chomsky or Ralph Nader would probably get that job first. Well, we don't need to build a metaphor into an allegory....

I would say that if Society wants something, "it" may use whatever means it has at its disposal to get it. Unfortunately, due to the constant conflation by pundits of society and government, people keep thinking that if the government doesn't do a thing nobody will. Frederic Bastiat and Tom Paine blew that crap out of the water 155 and 227 years ago respectively.

Of course, one must have the temerity to question the wisdom of the experts.

I was also thinking about humility.

Humility

I define it as the willingness to learn. Not the subjection of my will to another.
I would venture to say that no one ever learned anything without humbling himself. One must humble himself before the facts... before the laws of nature and nature's God as it were. And those whose knowledge may exceed ours.

Unfortunately, before we do our studies, we seldom know who the true masters are.

Holy Mackeral! A whole week!

I was just over here checking out the Angry Economist, while I was looking over a book about the FDA hearings back in '95, and I had the thought: the assumption of innocence may just be the primary reason for the prosperity of western societies. We just don't go around assuming that our neighbor got his stuff illegitimately. And attacking him to take it away. Much. Yet.

The more that goes on in a society, the poorer it is. How do I write the grant to check that theory out? Tom Sowell's probably done it already. Well, it can't be repeated enough. Of course, it's probably buried in Human Action. Mary Ruwart pretty much says it in Healing Our World, and I wouldn't be surprised to find it as the major theme in Johan Norberg's In Defense of Global Capitalism.

What the hell's the html code for "new paragraph".

I just realized what I was doing wrong with that header up above. By the way, you can find that quote in the big article A New Name for an Old Whig over at the Center for Independent Studies, who work out of Australia as I recall. Hell, I've got the window open... http://www.cis.org.au. There's a hint.

I just added Libertarianism.com to my links.

I figure some basic info wouldn't hurt.

I've been working hard, researching, family manning and freeping.

And where's it got me? Right here. Check out Pejman Yousefzadeh (thank God for the right clicker) at TechCentralStation. His article The Nobel Freedom Prize is about the fact that the most deserving Nobel Peace Prize winners weren't fighting for Peace but Freedom.

The fact that peace can exist both under conditions of freedom or of oppression indicates that peace is not the primary goal to aim for.

How come nobody mentioned this?

I guess I heard about it, but nobody pumped it enthusiastically. Not conservatives, not libertarians, not Republicans....

I guess I don't listen to Hugh Hewitt enough.

KSTP let me down.

Den Beste's got an interesting point.

The Europeans want the US to participate in "fruitful dialogue" on abolition of the death penalty. What's there to talk about? They don't use capital punishment, we do. They don't like it, and we don't care what they think. They want us to stop using capital punishment, and when they say fruitful dialogue they mean that we accept their point of view and stop executing people.