Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
We’ve seen that the government doesn’t have a stellar history when it comes to cutting costs. Yet it has a miserable record when it comes to reducing paperwork, too. When filling out tax forms every April, nobody says, "Wow, that was refreshingly easy! If only the rest of the world worked like the I.R.S.!"
The government ruins everything it touches. Many high school graduates are functionally illiterate, even though per pupil funding is much higher now than in previous generations. Despite billions in subsidies over the years, Amtrak continues to lose money. The Post Office, though not an official arm of the government, enjoys a monopoly on first-class mail and is not renowned for its efficiency. And when a comedian wants to illustrate poor customer service, his reference case is the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Why in the world do so many people want to entrust this same government with our health care?
Things get worse. It’s not merely that bigger government will exacerbate the problems in the health care industry. More than that, the problems themselves are largely the fault of earlier government intervention.
For example, government restrictions allow the American Medical Association to act as a cartel, limiting the supply of new health care providers. Many tasks (such as checking blood pressure, administering shots, and otherwise prepping a patient) could be safely administered by employees with merely on-the-job training. Yet many of these tasks are "union jobs" under the present system. Government regulations also restrict the supply of pharmacies who are able to fill prescriptions, tending to raise prices.
I think there is doubt that any statist health insurance reform will be passed into law this year.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Here's more wisdom from the peace, freedom, and sound money presidential candidate.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Cedric Glover, Shreveport's Castroite mayor.
What a bastard.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
Here and there you may notice small, dark clumps of the disaffected, those dour punk/goth/whatever kids who don't seem impressed by any of this. They will be treated harshly by teachers for being negative, antisocial, or – heaven forbid! – lacking in proper "school spirit." There is something wrong with them, most would agree, or they just want attention. And these malcontents are all freshmen or sophomores. Upperclassmen of their ilk have long since learned that such rallies are the perfect time to sneak behind the school for a cigarette or a few bong rips.
Of special significance is the rally against the major rival school down the road, the archenemy who must be denounced, ridiculed, and defeated. No one can tell you why that particular school is the big rival. "Because they're the Broncos (or whatever the rival mascot might be)" is a typical, circular answer. Some don't even bother moving in a circle: "They just are," such people say, probably convinced, after a lifetime of learning to accept such answers from teachers, that this would appropriately resolve the question.
In my experience, one revealing answer came from my high school Latin teacher: "You must support the home team. Support the home team. Support the home team." (Also, teaching Latin by rote had apparently programmed her to repeat all statements three times. Not kidding.) She didn't follow up with any explanation of the virtues and benefits to accrue from home-team-supporting behavior. It was just crazy to think that, although the state forced us into this ridiculous institution, with its ridiculous rules and overlords, we would ever consider the school to be anything but our "home." We were certainly intended to identify it as such. The football team was there to defend our honor (against what, nobody knows).
Having read some Henry David Thoreau and Thomas Jefferson, I concluded that the entire culture and organization of public schools must be a mistake. There were so many authoritarian attributes, I thought, they weren't teaching kids to be responsible citizens of a republic, but subjects of a police state. Serious reforms were clearly needed. (Years later, having studied John Taylor Gatto and Austrian economics, I realized that a) the state raises kids this way deliberately, not by mistake, and b) a free market in education would quickly find and disseminate the best methods for teaching children.)
Sometimes these assemblies could be miniaturized versions of Nuremberg rallies.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Apparently, Keith, as long as your side is conducting their version of hate crimes, you have no qualms, but when the other side comes up with reasoned counterpoints, like eliminating the Federal Reserve, you love to tar and feather them.
Here's a very reasoned take from Ron Paul:
We may very well see bathtub smokes after all. Thanks again Nanny State fascists. The should reshape the rotunda at the Capitol building into the shape of a vagina.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Yessir, ladies and gentlemen, coming to a jurisdiction near you: good ole waterboarding and all the jazz!
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Friday, June 5, 2009
A suicide-bomber blast, which occurred inside a mosque in the city of Zahedan, killed at least 30 people: a rebel Sunni group with reported links to the U.S. claimed responsibility. The Iranian government immediately accused the U.S. and Israel of being behind the attack. The violence was very shortly followed up by attacks on banks, water-treatment facilities, and other key installations in and around Zahedan, including a strike against the local campaign headquarters of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Add to this an attempted bombing of an Iranian airliner, which took off from the southwestern city of Ahvaz, and you have a small-scale insurgency arising on Iran’s eastern frontier.
The Iranians, confronted with peace overtures from Washington, can be blamed for wondering if the war against them has already begun.
A recent op-ed piece in the New York Times by Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett opines that President Obama’s "Iran policy has, in all likelihood, already failed" due to America’s covert actions in Iran. In the current debate within the administration over what course to take with Iran, hard-liners like Dennis Ross – special envoy for the region – argue that Iran’s lack of a positive response to Obama’s overtures are evidence the whole effort is futile, and that it’s time to start thinking about harsh sanctions and military action. The Leveretts, however, have a different take:
"But this ignores the real reason Iranian leaders have not responded to the new president more enthusiastically: the Obama administration has done nothing to cancel or repudiate an ostensibly covert but well-publicized program, begun in President George W. Bush’s second term, to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to destabilize the Islamic Republic. Under these circumstances, the Iranian government – regardless of who wins the presidential elections on June 12 – will continue to suspect that American intentions toward the Islamic Republic remain, ultimately, hostile."
Last year, the same terrorist group behind the Zahedan suicide bomb blast kidnapped 16 Iranian policemen and videotaped their execution. The video was played on al-Arabiya television.
More of the same stuff left over from the Bush Administration.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
Panarchism proposes a comprehensive extension of liberty to the consensual choice of government itself, in form and content. It proposes government by consent for any persons who arrange such government for themselves. Conversely, it proposes that a government has no authority over any persons who do not consent to it.
Panarchy is a condition of human relations in which each person is at liberty to choose his own social and political governance without being coerced. Panarchy means that persons may enter into and exit from social and political relations freely. It means that government exists only with the consent and by the consent of the governed.
Panarchism has new conceptions of what a people who are governed, a government, and consent mean. These give rise to a new conception of the nonterritorial State and revised ideas about sovereignty and authority. By viewing government as nonterritorial, panarchism reorients the movement for liberty away from destroying the governments that others may prefer and toward obtaining the governments that each of us may prefer.
An interesting concept of government.