Money is You

I like this YouTube video from Stefan Molyneux.

I'm sure there are more elaborate definitions of "money", but it boils down to this: Money is a tool for trading your productivity for goods and services. Your productivity is your time and energy.

The money in your wallet, the money in your bank accounts, the money in your stock or bond portfolio,...

all of this money represents your past and future productivity, your time, your decisions, your sacrifices, and your energy.

Your money is you.

YouTube - Money is You - Freedomain Radio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd-SLRyuRq0

"It is not dollars, treasuries, bonds and debt that is being sold by your government. It is you." Stefan Molyneux

Left vs. Right, redux

A friend of a friend took issue with my short comment about Left / Right politics being a big waste of time, money, and energy.

Conservative means to conserve what we have, and yet be productive, and innovative, all the while replacing what we used.

Hmm, "conserve what we have". So, you're all for the Tory loyalist position? That's where conservatives came from; they wanted to "conserve" the old ways of British rule. And I'm not saying they were entirely wrong for that. I'm all for conserving the relative freedom that Americans had before big government set up house in D.C.

Conservation also brings a sense of morality towards mankind, and yes many get this from religion.

"Conservation" is not what "conservative" means.

I've never heard any conservative talk about "conservation" in this context.

That's a new one on me.

And, as far as a so-called "sense of morality" - one of my biggest problems with conservatives is that they think they can force their relative morality on the world, just like the liberals think they can force their version of relative morality on the world. This illustrates my point (and Shaun's, though I don't presume to speak for him) that there is about a dime's worth of difference between left and right politics. That's all I was pointing out. Neither left nor right grasp the simple fact that you can't have morality or charity through force.

Force is a good tool for self-defense. Force is not a good tool for creating a better world. We have other tools for that, as you alluded to; productivity, innovation, science, creativity, industry, education, charity, free association, . . . all the good things that government mucks up on a daily basis.

Republicans want to take us to their socialist future at 80mph, Democrats want to take us to their socialist future at 100mph. Arguing between left socialism and right socialism is like arguing what kind of hood ornament you would like on the truck that is 20 feet away from running you down in the street.

I hate it when people try to divide this county up into categories, it’s the same as White, Black, Latino, and Asian. We should all just be American.

I'm with you on that. It is politics that makes two people hate each other, who might otherwise be good friends, in the absence of political fighting. If you take away all that wasted energy that goes into political fighting, we would all still be Americans. Conservatives mistakenly equate love of country with love of government.

People become political radicals because they aren't getting their piece of the government pie. When pie is lacking in a free market, no one turns into a bitter radical full of hatred; you can go make your own pie. But, that becomes difficult or impossible when government has monopoly control over everything they broadly define as "commerce".

This country was built by, and still contains free people

As a student of history, I'm here to tell you that just ain't so. The leaders of the Revolutionary War did not fight to be free - they fought so they could have a local government telling them what to do, instead of a government 3,000 miles across the ocean.

I have to agree that most of the farmers and ranchers had no need for any government at all, so you're right about those folks.

The sentiment of the country-folk, put into words by Ben Franklin, was "why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?".

But, and this is a big BUT; the constitution wasn't written by freedom-loving country folks, it was written by some of the biggest property owners, big businessmen, and bankers of the day. And the freedom lovers, who had somewhat of a voice in Thomas Jefferson, lost out to the Federalists who were headed by Alexander Hamilton, a big-government lover who argued for a strong, ever-expanding central government and eventually got it.

if you want your side to count, you better make it one of the big boys, cause the rest can’t do shit. There’s your reality, whether you like it or not.

That has always been the argument of people who want to preserve the status quo. If you study history, you find that quite the opposite is the truth of the matter; Revolutions in thinking are always started by a tiny minority. Progress happens from the bottom up, while the "big boys" are stuck in the mud of their habitual mindset.

Those trying to overthrow the monarchy were told that the odds were against them. But they went ahead and overthrew the monarchy. Those trying to abolish chattel slavery were told that the odds were against them. But they went ahead and abolished slavery.

And, those of us who see the next step in the evolution of human social structure are being told that we can't abolish the idea of big government, because the odds are against us. We should "work within the established system". But, the left / right ball-game is on its way out, because big government is on its way out, whether you like it or not.

Freedom works.

We punctured the power of witch doctors, of emperors, of kings, of popes, ... and now we will puncture the power of legislatures.

Best regards,

Rick Doogie

"The history of government intervention is the correcting of the ill effects of earlier interventionism"

- - Ludwig von Mises

Left vs. Right

The left's shtick is they want to use government force to empower the poor and downtrodden, use government force to protect and heal the environment, and use government force to give everyone "free" healthcare and a "living wage".

The right's shtick (political theater, that is) is they want to use government force to protect corporations from failing, use government to police the world and make everyone like US, and use government to make everyone moral.

Hardly anyone seems to realize that the biggest problem is the whole idea of government as the way to get things done.

(See the quote at bottom.)

I've run into 5 main categories of political attitude when I discuss social problems with people;

1. Liberal Left - if you disagree with them, they accuse you of being conservative

2. Conservative Right - if you disagree with them, they accuse you of being a liberal

3. Conspiracy Theorist - all politics is run by evil rich people, and we need to expose them

4. Christian Libertarians - no one should be in charge, because Jesus is the only boss

Every one of these 4 types are just about worthless, as far as trying to steer them towards seeing the bigger, long-range picture.

The fifth type is the only type that is worth talking to very much:

5. Anarchist - Leaning skeptics - you, me, and about 5 other people in Michigan

"There has never been an idea in human history that has retarded progress more than the idea that the way something was being done at any given time was the best way that it could be done."

Brett Veinotte

http://schoolsucks.podomatic.com/

Modern Medicine

I have a bad attitude toward most of Modern Medicine. I explained my medical skepticism in a recent e-mail to a friend:

You need to know that I'm not just picking on modern medicine. These doubts are warranted for ANY heavily goverment-funded, regulated, and licensed industry. For example, ... now that I mention it, let's examine something very mundane, Consider the tow-truck or cab industry. Without the government in the way, any schmuck could put a sign on his car or truck and go out picking up people who need a ride or hauling someone's broke-down car somewhere. You could probably get a tow or cab ride for 10 bucks, anytime, anywhere.

If I'm towing my Mercedes, I would call the more expensive and reputable company. But for hauling my winter beater, I'd call the cheapest thing I could find. Same with cabs; If I'm out on a fancy date, I go with the better reputable cab company. If I need a ride to work, who cares? Instead of having a wide range of towing and cab services and innovations, we pretty much have the one-size-fits-all government-licensed cabs and tow-trucks. And only so many are allowed per city, so competition is almost non-existent. Innovation is almost non-existent, because competition is not there to make innovation necessary to cab and towing companies.

Same with the medical system. Very little competition. All possible free-market innovations are not even thought of. There's no incentive. And medical research is completely crippled and steered in the wrong directions by billions of dollars of government funding. So, medical science is probably as screwed up as climate science. Only, we have no way of knowing the actually truth, since the studies are usually government-funded. Because of Medicare, Medicaid, and sweet insurance plans for government employees, at least 3/4 of all medical care is directly paid for by government. Add that to medical regulations, medical subsidies, government's medical research funding, and the government-controlled medical schools.

Have I forgotten anything? You get the idea. The biggest things controlled and monopolized by government are ALL worthy of skepticism; public safety, medicine, public utilities, airlines, zoning, public parks, state-funded research, state grants, roads, space exploration, wars, courts, schools, . . . When you start thinking outside of the "only the government can do these things" box, incredible new ideas start springing to mind. And, if money could be made coming up with non-government solutions in these areas, the ideas would multiply exponentially.

Worry Worry!

Last week, my inbox contained an e-mail warning that the Democrats have a plan, and that they are going to secretly shove Obama's healthcare "reform" plan down everyone's throats, with no further scrutiny or feedback allowed.

I replied:

There have been plenty of pieces of legislation that have been "confirmed" by political watchdogs; this or that piece it going to be "hurried through and passed without public scrutiny" . . . And more times than not, this doesn't happen as anyone planned or predicted. If there is a big public outcry, or if some well-connected political groups decided to lobby against the plan, or if some other priority pops up unexpectedly, ... there are dozens of scenarios where the predicted "confirmed" plan doesn't pan out.

I clearly remember many of these; Hillary care is one of the best examples. It was a done deal, supposedly. But Clinton was overestimating his popularity and his supposed "mandate". Obama is doing the same thing; he, along with his fellow dems in Congress, are overreaching and overestimating their "mandate" and their popularity. In the end, after all the hoopla and scare stories from the anti-Clinton camp, Hillary Care got shot down in flames. This health plan won't get shot down, but it will get watered down, a lot.

These Authoritarian Sociopaths (a.k.a., "congress-critters") care mainly about one thing: keeping their job and their political career. Moving up a notch or grabbing more power is secondary to them. That can wait. If they see their funding sources (public and private) wavering, they will run for the nearest exit. They have been watering this plan down and changing it for a long time now, and some version will get passed, but not the huge over-haul that is feared. The Daily Show, despite it's leftist-leaning bias, is very good at showing clips of Obama speeches from a few years ago, then from his campaign, then from a few months ago, and then from this week; the series of clips shows how the plan is watered down and changed as the political winds shift. The weaving and waffling is never-ending in DC.

Of course, I could be wrong as well. All of this is like the endless long analysis before a football game - there's plenty of truth and intelligence in the football announcers' analysis. But at the end of the game, it's usually "who came closest" in their prediction, not "who predicted everything". The exact predictions rarely come true, unless the prediction are suitable vague and broadly stated. Political football is way more complex than football. Historically, what almost always happens is this: the politicians try to shove through a 100% socialist plan, and they end up having to water it down to a 20% socialist plan. And socialism takes another small step forward.

I read a great book about this called "Crisis and Leviathon" by Robert Higgs. He shows how each war or depression creates a public outcry for the government to "save us". And then, a bunch of new laws and programs are put into effect to "save" us from the crisis, real or imagined, planned or natural. The government power over us is ratcheted up several notches. When the crisis cools off naturally, the government pats itself on the back and proclaims itself the hero. And then the emergency programs are cut back, but not eliminated. So, there is a ratchet effect; 3 notches up, 1 back down, 3 notches up, 1 back down. Higgs shows this in his book very thoroughly. Almost every nasty government program that is operating today was started because of some impending crisis; the income tax started during the so-called Civil War, the welfare state started during the Great Depression, Foreign Aid ramped up during the Cold War, the so-called "Patriot Act" was enacted after 9/11, ... and so on.

This is the way it almost always has worked. That's why I don't worry and stress-out over every small step that the government is taking. The big picture is what needs to be worried about. And the big picture is the only picture that shows what needs to be done in the long run. Small, defensive moves against every "hit" from big-government just gets us playing "their game". I refuse to play their game, because it does nothing to stop the game. You stop one piece of legislation, they just come up with something else, and then they sneak that first piece back in under a different name, or as an amendment to some unrelated bill. No progress is made playing this type of defense.

The revolution has to be in people's minds. That's all there is to the big picture. Everything else is just playing their game, and playing nothing but defense; begging our masters not to whip us too harshly.

Excuses for Obama's war

It seems incredible to me that I should have to point out the evil of keeping a war going that has lasted longer than WWI and WWII combined.

On Oct 17, 2009, my friend wrote to me:

The Real Problem is that conservative republicans got us neck-deep in Afghanistan and then conveniently hid it behind the Iraq mess. Then left both disasters for Obama to try to clean up.

Yeah, the old "if only the leaders I like were in charge, things would be great" argument.

The fact is that liberals love government more than they hate war, and your reaction proves that, ... sad to say.

Obama has the power to stop the carnage now - withdrawing is the only compassionate thing to do.

The same argument is always used to keep wars going indefinitely; "we can't stop now, there would be chaos and death". You don't see the irony of that? We'd still be in Vietnam today if everyone followed that line of irrational thinking.

Can Obama do anything wrong in your eyes?

Sometimes I think that the best thing America can do is quick, complete withdrawl from the whole region. Let them all kill each other and we'll deal with whoever is left standing after the carnage. But then, I'm too compassionate to advocate that. Damn it.

Keeping a war going because of your "compassion"? That's Orwellian double-speak to the max.

But if we continue what we've been doing the last 10 years, is that better? No, I'd say.

Obama is ramping things up and spilling the war over into Pakistan. And you still refuse to admit that Obama is a war monger.

He is beholden to the corporate entities and politicians who got him elected, and most of them want war to continue. It's good for business and good for the politicians.

Liberals love a war when it's started by a liberal, conservatives love a war that's started by a conservative.

And around and around it goes. When the killing will stop, nobody knows. - All in the name of "peace" and "compassion".

Perhaps, read some history about wars, and the popular arguments of the time - they are no different now than they were a hundred years ago when the US invaded the Philippines to "protect the locals". And then the slaughter began.

But, pick a war, any war. I just randomly picked the war in the Philippines because I knew it was about a hundred years ago.

Read what Mark Twain wrote about war back then.

In my eyes, you either are adamantly and always against war, or you are forever going to be making excuses for double-talk; "war is peace, ignorance is strength, slavery is freedom".

Note that in all modern history NO invading force has ever done any good in Afghanistan nor has any foreign power ever subdued- permanently- any bit of the violence, nor has anyone ever succeeded with any plans for whatever future they had in mind in this country.

I don't see how that is relevant to the argument that war can stop NOW, no excuses. There is no good way to stop a war, especially not by extending the violence like Obama is doing.

I think at least Obama is trying to change the way Americans think about the Middle East. That has to be the first step. I wish things would move faster but remember he's fighting against a lot of very ingrained and inbred thinking. He can't change the world right this minute any more than you or I can?

Baloney. He can stop it. He loves his political career more than he hates innocent bloodshed.

Smile, man. We can agree, disagree, or agree to disagree. And that's a good thing!

That is not right. The truth is the truth, regardless of who agrees. And war is wrong. You wanna dig up the old Catholic argument about a "just war"?

These are innocent lives that are being destroyed by your tax dollars, and you treat it like a coffee-table discussion.

Stand up for what is right, not for which side of the left / right debate you are on.

Liberals Against Obama

With persistent hesitation ... I begin.

I need a place to publish all my musical and political writing. Sometimes I write a long-winded reply to someone's e-mail, and I feel the need to post it somewhere. So, that's why I'm starting a blog. A central clearing house for Rick's ranting and raving about sundry topics.