After watching this circus for about an half an hour, I think: I see what is going on here.
Ron Paul is actually the star, the debate is literally framed around
him.
Since the establishment is afraid of him, they need to deal with him somehow.
It goes like this, everyone mimics Paul on the issues "approved" by mainstream republicans (issues most none of them held before '09), and then the stage is set to demonize him on the issues where is consistent on the constitution, freedom, and peace.
Romney and Perry are portrayed as the front runners, but in reality they are to serve as the main distraction. It almost goes without saying that it does not matter which of those two are elected, just as long as it is someone who won't challenge the corruption of the state and likes power.
It is actually amusing to hear them rattle off much of what Paul has been saying for 30 years. I suppose I find it amusing that I can see through this state propaganda storm and see that it's all a show, an act, put on simply to inject totalitarian messages into society, here and there, all in a palatable way, of course.
It really is unreal to watch.
And agonizing at the same time. I am wondering what is the matter with me, why would anyone willingly subject themselves to people who are going to lie to their face for almost two hours.
Guess I was curious.
Next time I'll just wait for someone to put the Ron Paul highlights of the debate on youtube.
But I get the most amusement in knowing that so many others were watching and they could see through the lies and they knew what I knew.
The gig is up boys, we know what's going on. We're not members of the "greatest" generation, the generation of our fathers, who knew nothing else and still believe your lies.
Your time is up, state.
We see you.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Sunday, September 11, 2011
What restrains him is only the inevitable natural phenomenon of scarcity.
Ludwig von Mises: "The member of a contractual society is free because he serves others only in serving himself. What restrains him is only the inevitable natural phenomenon of scarcity." - Human Action
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Ayn Rand and the Libertarian Party
Ayn Rand and the Libertarian Party
Recently, I was browsing on The Ayn Rand Institute when I came across an article titled; Ayn Rand's Q and A on Libertarianism. It is not really an article, but excerpts of different interviews of Rand spanning the decade of 71'-81'. Each comment is a direct smear against the Libertarian Party. I am sure that the LP has drastically changed since the time of Rand, but that wasn't my main point of focus.
First I want to state, I am a huge fan of Rand. I have read most of her novels and ate up many of the essay compilations such as The Virtue of Selfishness or Philosophy, Who Needs it? Although I do respect how Rand was spot on with so many philosophical observations, I always keep in mind that she was only human.
Towards the end of the page on the ARI website, there is a quote where Rand says: "Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program. "
What really stuck in my mind, and quite ironically as well, was that Ayn Rand being such a champion of individualism, was divulging headfirst into collectivism. If there were certain members of the LP that she wanted to call out, she could have. But instead, she painted with a broad brush every single person who called themselves Libertarians. Had she met each individual, she may of been more cautious with her words. It is undeniable that if you talked to each person who proclaims themselves to be members of a certain political party or religious collective, you would soon realize that each person is in fact an individual, and can never share the same beliefs or opinions with any large group.
This is the problem with assigning labels to a large grouping of people, although convenient, it lends to the collective mindset of us verses them. Examples such as this serve as a warning that even the best of our thought leaders can stumble from time to time.
It is also important to state that in the 30 plus years that have passed since most of these comments were made by Rand, Libertarianism has changed a great deal. I often wonder what Rand would have thought of what has become of the Mises Institute, or what she would have to say about Lew Rockwell.
Since we will never find any large group of people that will agree with us 100% of the time, we need to work together to promote ideas we can agree on. Instead of quarreling with groups such as the Libertarian Party or the modern Tea Party movement, we should look to find common ground, and from there we can, as many the like of Ron Paul have, promote the ideas of individual rights and personal liberty.
We must be careful though, if we are to disagree with people, we must do it on an individual basis, and not by lumping a whole crowd of people into an ideological collective. This is the lesson we can learn from Rand, we learn not just by the things she said and wrote that are right, but also from her inconsistencies.
Recently, I was browsing on The Ayn Rand Institute when I came across an article titled; Ayn Rand's Q and A on Libertarianism. It is not really an article, but excerpts of different interviews of Rand spanning the decade of 71'-81'. Each comment is a direct smear against the Libertarian Party. I am sure that the LP has drastically changed since the time of Rand, but that wasn't my main point of focus.
First I want to state, I am a huge fan of Rand. I have read most of her novels and ate up many of the essay compilations such as The Virtue of Selfishness or Philosophy, Who Needs it? Although I do respect how Rand was spot on with so many philosophical observations, I always keep in mind that she was only human.
Towards the end of the page on the ARI website, there is a quote where Rand says: "Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program. "
What really stuck in my mind, and quite ironically as well, was that Ayn Rand being such a champion of individualism, was divulging headfirst into collectivism. If there were certain members of the LP that she wanted to call out, she could have. But instead, she painted with a broad brush every single person who called themselves Libertarians. Had she met each individual, she may of been more cautious with her words. It is undeniable that if you talked to each person who proclaims themselves to be members of a certain political party or religious collective, you would soon realize that each person is in fact an individual, and can never share the same beliefs or opinions with any large group.
This is the problem with assigning labels to a large grouping of people, although convenient, it lends to the collective mindset of us verses them. Examples such as this serve as a warning that even the best of our thought leaders can stumble from time to time.
It is also important to state that in the 30 plus years that have passed since most of these comments were made by Rand, Libertarianism has changed a great deal. I often wonder what Rand would have thought of what has become of the Mises Institute, or what she would have to say about Lew Rockwell.
Since we will never find any large group of people that will agree with us 100% of the time, we need to work together to promote ideas we can agree on. Instead of quarreling with groups such as the Libertarian Party or the modern Tea Party movement, we should look to find common ground, and from there we can, as many the like of Ron Paul have, promote the ideas of individual rights and personal liberty.
We must be careful though, if we are to disagree with people, we must do it on an individual basis, and not by lumping a whole crowd of people into an ideological collective. This is the lesson we can learn from Rand, we learn not just by the things she said and wrote that are right, but also from her inconsistencies.
Friday, December 31, 2010
A Father's Legacy
This is a submission to the Ayn Rand Institute's 'Atlas Shrugged Video Contest.' It was one of the few I though worth sharing.
All Submissions
Friday, December 24, 2010
George Ought to Help
I found a beautifully simple video that explains in clear terms how state-run welfare programs are in their very essence, immoral, coercive institutions that cause more damage to society than the good they supposedly offer.
The main idea is that if you want to do good and help others, on principle, you cannot harm others in the process. The very idea of robbing one person to help another is a negation and perversion of the idea of goodwill towards men.
The main idea is that if you want to do good and help others, on principle, you cannot harm others in the process. The very idea of robbing one person to help another is a negation and perversion of the idea of goodwill towards men.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
The Murder of John T. Williams
On August 30, 2010 at approximately 4:12 PM, Seattle PD officer Ian Burk fatally shot and killed Native American woodcarver, John T. Williams. Officer Burk claimed that he was justified in the killing since he demanded that Williams drop his knife, and Williams did not. The main controversy here is that upon viewing the video below, which was recorded by Burk's dashboard camera in his cruiser, one can plainly see that the victim was not given enough time to respond or react to the officer's request. Family members and associates of Williams even state that he was deaf in one ear, thus being why he did not acknowledged officer Burk's request. Also, not only did the officer wait less than 10 seconds after initially confronting Williams before opening fire, the autopsy results show that the victim was shot in the back. AUTOPSY LINK
Why, you ask? What was this man doing that was so wrong that he deserved to die? The answer to this, whittling a piece of wood. As the video below shows, the officer sees the man walking across a crosswalk with a knife and piece of wood and within the small span of 10 seconds he is gunned down by said officer. I was so stunned the first time I viewed it that I had to check other sources to see if it was even real. I simply could not believe what I was seeing.
Two minutes into the video, you can hear a woman shout, twice; "he didn't do anything!" To this, the officer responds, in an almost pleading tone; "ma'am, he had a knife and he wouldn't drop it." Officers take an oath to serve and protect, so it is extra disturbing when someone in a position of authority abuses said authority. It is said cases such as these give more reason to fear our supposed "protectors" rather than respect them.
As Andrew Patrick Edgewood said in a letter to the editor of the Seattle Times, referencing the SPD; "I am now officially scared of all of you." SEATTLE TIMES
Here is the video below, the events begin just before the 1 minute mark:
Why, you ask? What was this man doing that was so wrong that he deserved to die? The answer to this, whittling a piece of wood. As the video below shows, the officer sees the man walking across a crosswalk with a knife and piece of wood and within the small span of 10 seconds he is gunned down by said officer. I was so stunned the first time I viewed it that I had to check other sources to see if it was even real. I simply could not believe what I was seeing.
Two minutes into the video, you can hear a woman shout, twice; "he didn't do anything!" To this, the officer responds, in an almost pleading tone; "ma'am, he had a knife and he wouldn't drop it." Officers take an oath to serve and protect, so it is extra disturbing when someone in a position of authority abuses said authority. It is said cases such as these give more reason to fear our supposed "protectors" rather than respect them.
As Andrew Patrick Edgewood said in a letter to the editor of the Seattle Times, referencing the SPD; "I am now officially scared of all of you." SEATTLE TIMES
Here is the video below, the events begin just before the 1 minute mark:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)