Friday, November 07, 2008

Fun with Compulsory National Service....

Monday, April 10, 2006

Immigration Solution?

With the immigration protests bringing the issue to the forefront,
I've decided to think on the issue. The border is broken. We know it and the Mexicans know it.

There are three solutions bandied about:

1. Do Nothing
2. Legalize the aliens.
3. Use the army and build a real wall along the 2000 mile border.

Option One is stupid. Option two is a slap in the face for legal immigrants.
Imagine it this way, you are waiting in line for a ride at disneyland. After a two hour wait you reach the front of the line only to have 300 people cut in front of you and demand to go on the ride. It strikes me a dreadfully unfair to those who tried to play by the rules, who spent time and money to come here legally.

Option three could be done for around 16 billion dollars. This is a real option. We would need to bring the troops home from around the world (a good thing IMO) and we could build a replacement for the panama canal as part of it.

But what if there was another option? One so crazy it just might work?

My suggestion:

We have the seven northern states of Mexico vote on whether to join the USA.

The consequences:

If all seven joined, the US would grow in land area by 10%. Those wishing to become Americans could move to these states and thus have a smoother transition. We could have a five to ten year transition period, were any work done in this area is tax free. This would probably drive skilled workers SOUTH from the US into these new states.

Currently 15 Billion dollars is transferred into Mexico from the US. Since Mexico has done nothing to stop the migration (indeed they encourage it) We make them an offer:

Allow your northern states the chance to vote on US statehood, or we cut off all wire transfers. The US could then pay Mexico for any state just like the Louisiana Purchase.

Imagine the explosion of jobs in such a huge tax free zone. We could even add a requirement that those here illegally MUST return to the new states and live there for 5-10 years at which time they would become citizens. Those who refuse to do so would be permanently banned from US soil (a mandatory 10 year jail sentence if caught in the US again).

These new states would see an explosion of jobs, the new citizens would have plenty of room to live, and a smooth transition into the American way of life.

Monday, April 03, 2006

Why Liberals and Conservatives just don't get it.

Conservatives love to bash Liberals for their idealism, and Liberals love to bash conservatives for their moralism. Did you know however that neither word means what it originally meant?

Classical Liberalism is based upon the idea that Liberty, both social and economic go hand in hand and are INNATE. It stems from the idea that society is there as a voluntary construct, which serves to enhance the quality of life of those within it.

Classical Conservatism is based upon the idea that radical change is usually a bad idea, that the values and customs of previous generations have worth. The idea that these things have survived the test of time and thus should not be tinkered with unless there is a great need to do so.

Most of the world's societies are based upon the idea of private property.
Yet Both modern liberalism and modern conservatism violate this fundamental ideal.

Liberals violate this ideal by seeking to make the world "fair". They seek to redistribute wealth using the power of the state. Conservatives violate this ideal by intruding upon the private moral decisions of the individual. It always amuses me when liberals talk about those evil gun owners, and how we should do away with all guns (except for the police and army of course).

If you are one of these liberals I have a question:

You equate guns with violence. Yet, guns can be used both in a responsible manner for self defense, and an irresponsible one (murder,theft). My question is this how does this differ from voting?

Voting is the ultimate use of force. It is a mandate which subjects the minority
to the will of the majority. It allows elected officials to wage war, punish dissent, and use your property (tax dollars) as he sees fit.

If you were to have a consistent position, you would either support a ban of universal suffrage AND gun ownership, or admit that if a man is competent to use force at the ballot box, then he is competent to own a gun.

Conservatives amuse me whenever they try to mandate morality, on issues such as abortion. It is a typical conservative position on issues such as welfare that a person should be held responsible for their decisions. This is in my opinion a correct assumption. However they sidestep this position in a major way when it comes to moral issues.

To wit, If you seek to use governmental power to ban abortion outright, you have taken over freedom of choice from an individual, and thus YOU are morally responsible for the outcome. This means YOU as an individual now have a responsibility for raising said child.

If you seek to punish drug use, You are then responsible for providing treatment for those addicted, who now cannot use said substance. If you seek to ban adoption by gay couples, then ethically YOU must step up and adopt an unwanted child yourself.

In short any time you limit the freedom of an individual to make such a moral judgment YOU MUST then take responsibility for YOUR actions.

I started this post with the fact that society is based upon the idea of private property. I will end it with the question that should be the foundation of any political viewpoint. That question is Who owns you?

Your body is physical property just like anything else. Thus there can be three answers:
1. You own yourself.
2. The state or society owns you.
3. No one owns you.

Answer Three makes no sense in a world where everything else is owned by someone/something. Thus the remaining choices are either you own your body, or society does. If your answer is number one, then you consider yourself a free person. If you answer is number two then you are a slave.

Any rational political world view should be based upon answer number one. It follows that ALL men are free, and that any action which limits that freedom is a step towards slavery.

Government in its purest sense is the balance between pure freedom and slavery. It is a necessary evil, and thus the smallest possible government which allows society to work is its optimum size. From this flows a clear set of political ideals. Whenever any law is proposed, or any official runs for election, you must be willing to analyze the law or person, see which freedoms are being curtailed and then trace what responsibilities you take on by voting for it/them.

Monday, March 06, 2006

The Death of Dissent.

Well it seems the Imperial Administration is at it again. This time going after
the press. Lets see what former presidents thought about it :

"Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels-men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine, as their heirs, we may never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion."
- Dwight David Eisenhower

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
- Theodore Roosevelt

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost."
-Thomas Jefferson

"The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. "
-Thomas Jefferson

"If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
- George Washington

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Monday, December 12, 2005

King George - "Constitution is just a goddamned piece of Paper!"

Well well, the cat is among the canaries now. Reading through a pro Second Amendment site, I came across this news Story

Friends, there is a REASON for the second Amendment, and this story clearly shows WHY. Our right to bear arms is not and never has been about hunting. The founding fathers recognized that an armed citizenry is the LAST check against tyranny.

Am I saying we have reached despotism? No, but when the President can call the Constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper" (after swearing a LEGAL OATH to preserve, protect and defend it) that is a large step towards tyranny.

At a minimum Congress should hold impeachment hearings to determine if the president did indeed make that remark. If true, he should be immediately impeached and removed from office!

The Authority of the President and indeed the entire Federal government comes from that goddamned piece of paper. The troops which "Mr." Bush so blithely sent to Iraq also swore an oath to defend that goddamned piece of paper. Indeed although that goddamned piece of paper DOES NOT grant rights to the people (they are natural rights and thus INHERENT in ALL PEOPLE) it DOES GRANT power to the government FROM THE PEOPLE.

If King George uttered these words, he must be removed from office. Forward the story to your friends and family, call the news, and call your congressmen. Demand an investigation and impeachment proceedings.

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Support Cindy, Buy Nothing

For many years I've watched the slow and agonizing death of the republic. The fourth amendment is all but dead thanks in large part to the patriot act and the war on drugs. Both the fifth and sixth amendments are now meaningless in a world where every government act is justified in the "war on Terra". The ninth and tenth amendments are also long gone.

The federal government has grown from one with only the power of defense to a monstrosity whose tentacles reach into every niche of daily life, yet all without a change to the constitution, from whence its power comes.

I've watched the media with interest, noting what it says, and more importantly what it does not say. Some examples of what you did not see:

Did you know in the 2004 presidential election there was another candidate on the ballot in 48 states? (Ralph Nader was on the ballot in only 34)

Did you know he was a staunch anti-war candidate?

Did you know that he was arrested for trying to attend the presidential debates?

Yet none of this was mentioned on the nightly news. Ask yourself, If this had happened in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, would the news have covered it?

Today our troops are bogged down in Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and we are now there to spread "democracy". Strangely the administration no longer mentions Osama Bin Laden, the whole reason we invaded in the first place. We are told the troops cannot be pulled out because our prestige as a nation is at stake, or that if we do withdraw all the troops that have died will have died in vain.

If you lost your son in Iraq, would you want your neighbors son to die fighting just to make yourself feel better? Is the prestige of the nation worth more than your own son or daughter? If this war is so important, why do less than 10 members of congress have children serving in the military? Ask yourself, what would you do if Chinese or Russian troops were here in the USA to promote their version of "democracy"? Well intentioned or not, democracy cannot be imposed.

Cindy Sheehan, having gone through the loss of her son, is determined to ask the president (her public servant remember) exactly why it is he feels he can play at empire regardless of the consequences. One woman alone can be ignored. She has neither the wealth nor the influence to be taken seriously. Neither do we. Even a few hundred people gathered outside the presidential vacation house can be safely shunted aside.

What cannot be ignored is the corporate bottom line. My suggestion is simple:

Buy NOTHING. From this moment on until the troops are withdrawn from Iraq, until the Patriot Act is repealed, until the National I.D. is repealed we as freedom loving people refuse to buy anything from corporations. Stop buying from Wal-mart and McDonald's and Taco Bell. Don't rent movies from Blockbuster, don't buy music, don't buy airline tickets, don't go to major league sporting events. Boycott the corporate news networks. For the things you have to buy, use only local mom-and-pop shops.

How long would it take before the corporate donors are screaming in the halls of congress? Two weeks? A Month?

If you really want to restore our freedoms, tell your family and your friends.