We all know that quote, and it may be true. But it's also true that giving something that doesn't smell like a rose an attractive name will make it more appealing, at least initially. Take the term "liberal." If you didn't know any better, you would think a liberal was someone who was committed to freedom and liberty. You would think a liberal would praise economic as well as individual liberty, and in general advocate freedom from government intervention. This was true up until the end of the nineteenth century, perhaps even as late as the New Deal era, but it is no longer true today.
Today, a true liberal has to be called a "classical liberal" or a libertarian in order to distinguish him from a left-wing Democrat, with which "liberal" has now become conflated. Those of us on the right have helpfully given the word over without a fight, with all of its positive connotations. Even better, we now use it as a four-letter word: You're such a bleeding heart liberal! No one on the right wants to be called a liberal, but that's exactly what we should want to be called. We need to take our word back.
Those of us who believe in liberty, true liberty, ought to stop looking at "liberal" in the specious context in which it is now used, and instead look at it in the context in which it ought to be, and so recently was, used. True liberty is about having the right to make choices for yourself (even bad ones), to keep your own money, to live without excessive government intervention. Real liberals know this. Left-wingers don't believe in true liberty, so they don't deserve to be called liberals. (Believing in a woman's right to choose does not make you a true liberal when you also believe in taking gun rights away from lawful citizens. With liberty, it's an all or nothing proposition.) Stop letting them (and helping them) smear "liberal" with meanings that have nothing to do with liberty, and start taking it back.
"Bleeding heart left-winger" doesn't have the same ring to it, but it sure is a lot more accurate.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves.
In 2004, there were approximately 221 million people of voting age. Of those, almost 175 million were registered to vote, or 80%. Of those, only a little over 122 million actually voted in the 2004 presidential election- or 55% of all the people of voting age (from now on, for purposes of brevity, I'll use "Americans" to refer to people of voting age). And of those, only 50.7% of them voted for President Bush. Lest anyone think I'm choosing sides, in 1996 there were almost 197 million people of voting age. Of those, 146 million of them were registered to vote, or 75%. Of those, over 96 million voted in the 1996 presidential election- less than 50% of Americans. Of the people that did vote, only 49% of them voted for Bill Clinton.
I know that was boring, but I hope you made it this far: it's important. The president is being elected by 25% of Americans. (I won't even get started on the elections in years in which there wasn't a presidential election- suffice to say, the numbers are even more abysmal.) I only gave the numbers for two years, but they're no better in other years- you can look it up yourself. Our leaders are being elected by a minority of Americans, not a majority.
Presidents assert that because they were elected, it means that Americans trust them and want to be led by them. The opposite is true. Most Americans are so disillusioned that they don't even bother to register to vote, much less vote. (Even if you consider the few million felons who can't vote, it's not enough to change the numbers much.) Presidents are granted power, but only 25% of Americans are granting that power. There's something wrong with this picture.
The biggest problem is the two-party system which forces people to vote on the basis of one or two "big issues." Even if you aren't a libertarian, I'm sure you don't agree with many of the views of your party- but you're stuck with it because there's nothing better. A second problem is the prohibitive cost of running for president: in 2004, it cost over $1 billion to finance a campaign. Most people can't afford that. There are certainly more problems, but these are the two big ones. Something needs to be done. 75% of Americans had no say in choosing our president, and that percentage is even higher when it comes to Congress.
So what can be done? There's no easy answer, but hopefully if enough people start thinking about it we can change things. Getting rid of the two-party system is key. Again, even if you aren't a libertarian, I'm sure you'd like to have more options. So would the 50% of Americans who don't even bother to vote for president. I wish I had something more enlightening to say, but I don't have any answers- just a bunch of ideas, the same as you. It's up to all of us to put them into action and get candidates out there that will actually excite people. When was the last time you truly believed in a politician? (And it doesn't count if you just though he'd do better than the other guy.)
The title of today's post is a quote by Betrand de Juvenal.
I know that was boring, but I hope you made it this far: it's important. The president is being elected by 25% of Americans. (I won't even get started on the elections in years in which there wasn't a presidential election- suffice to say, the numbers are even more abysmal.) I only gave the numbers for two years, but they're no better in other years- you can look it up yourself. Our leaders are being elected by a minority of Americans, not a majority.
Presidents assert that because they were elected, it means that Americans trust them and want to be led by them. The opposite is true. Most Americans are so disillusioned that they don't even bother to register to vote, much less vote. (Even if you consider the few million felons who can't vote, it's not enough to change the numbers much.) Presidents are granted power, but only 25% of Americans are granting that power. There's something wrong with this picture.
The biggest problem is the two-party system which forces people to vote on the basis of one or two "big issues." Even if you aren't a libertarian, I'm sure you don't agree with many of the views of your party- but you're stuck with it because there's nothing better. A second problem is the prohibitive cost of running for president: in 2004, it cost over $1 billion to finance a campaign. Most people can't afford that. There are certainly more problems, but these are the two big ones. Something needs to be done. 75% of Americans had no say in choosing our president, and that percentage is even higher when it comes to Congress.
So what can be done? There's no easy answer, but hopefully if enough people start thinking about it we can change things. Getting rid of the two-party system is key. Again, even if you aren't a libertarian, I'm sure you'd like to have more options. So would the 50% of Americans who don't even bother to vote for president. I wish I had something more enlightening to say, but I don't have any answers- just a bunch of ideas, the same as you. It's up to all of us to put them into action and get candidates out there that will actually excite people. When was the last time you truly believed in a politician? (And it doesn't count if you just though he'd do better than the other guy.)
The title of today's post is a quote by Betrand de Juvenal.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
One man's frankness is another man's vulgarity.
It's the weekend, so I thought I'd keep it light. Consequently, the subject of today's post is language. To begin with, a few phrases that annoy me:
1) "It's not fair." Life isn't fair, deal with it. Use a different word. If you can't think of one, you shouldn't be complaining. For example, something can be unfair but still be just and correct. It may suck for you, but that's life. Deal with it.
2) "I'm offended." Again: use a different word. If you can't, you're obviously trying to be PC: shut up. Why not say it makes you angry, or it's a stupid thing to say, or something that actually explains what the problem is? If you can't say anything like that, taking offense is probably silly. Furthermore, you're contributing to the dumbing down of our language. We're becoming a nation of people who can't articulate a more intelligent response than "I'm offended." That brings discussion to a halt: how do you even respond to a comment like that?
3) "Less fortunate." I never thought about this one till Neal Boortz commented on it one day, but since then I've been paying attention. It's not used when someone's house burns down; it's only used when talking about poor people. The implication is the only difference between a rich man and a poor man is luck, or fortune. It implies hard work and thriftiness isn't a factor.
4) "Giving back." Every time Bill Gates or Warren Buffett donates money to charity, the media says they're "giving back." When someone is on the news talking about his charity work, he says he's "giving back." But what does that even mean? By definition, you can't give something back that was never given to you. But it's used synonymously with "gave away" or "gave to charity." So why not just say that? Something is being implied here too: think about it.
There's a deeper problem here than lack of precision. Language is how we express ourselves and what we use to conceptualize problems and ideas. When we start dumbing language down or using it to make implied value judgments, we are also changing the way we think. In 1984 George Orwell observed that when language is limited a person's ability to think is limited to the concepts that exist in words. Even if we don't take it that far, by controlling language it is possible to shape thoughts. You may think I'm being paranoid, but there are many books and articles written on the subject.
So be careful with language. I gave you some examples, but there are many more out there. Look for them and recognize them when you see them. Don't let your thoughts be shaped by the media and politicians in the name of political correctness (whatever that is).
The title of today's post is a quote by Kevin Smith.
1) "It's not fair." Life isn't fair, deal with it. Use a different word. If you can't think of one, you shouldn't be complaining. For example, something can be unfair but still be just and correct. It may suck for you, but that's life. Deal with it.
2) "I'm offended." Again: use a different word. If you can't, you're obviously trying to be PC: shut up. Why not say it makes you angry, or it's a stupid thing to say, or something that actually explains what the problem is? If you can't say anything like that, taking offense is probably silly. Furthermore, you're contributing to the dumbing down of our language. We're becoming a nation of people who can't articulate a more intelligent response than "I'm offended." That brings discussion to a halt: how do you even respond to a comment like that?
3) "Less fortunate." I never thought about this one till Neal Boortz commented on it one day, but since then I've been paying attention. It's not used when someone's house burns down; it's only used when talking about poor people. The implication is the only difference between a rich man and a poor man is luck, or fortune. It implies hard work and thriftiness isn't a factor.
4) "Giving back." Every time Bill Gates or Warren Buffett donates money to charity, the media says they're "giving back." When someone is on the news talking about his charity work, he says he's "giving back." But what does that even mean? By definition, you can't give something back that was never given to you. But it's used synonymously with "gave away" or "gave to charity." So why not just say that? Something is being implied here too: think about it.
There's a deeper problem here than lack of precision. Language is how we express ourselves and what we use to conceptualize problems and ideas. When we start dumbing language down or using it to make implied value judgments, we are also changing the way we think. In 1984 George Orwell observed that when language is limited a person's ability to think is limited to the concepts that exist in words. Even if we don't take it that far, by controlling language it is possible to shape thoughts. You may think I'm being paranoid, but there are many books and articles written on the subject.
So be careful with language. I gave you some examples, but there are many more out there. Look for them and recognize them when you see them. Don't let your thoughts be shaped by the media and politicians in the name of political correctness (whatever that is).
The title of today's post is a quote by Kevin Smith.
Friday, January 25, 2008
If people have to choose between freedom and sandwiches, they will take sandwiches.
One of the big issues that's been getting a lot of discussion is universal healthcare- or, as I like to call it, socialist health care. Most of the Democrats are for it, the polls show that the people who are being polled want it, and most people I talk to seem to think it's the bee's knees. I, however, do not. I think the last thing we should be doing is putting the government in charge of our healthcare. That's not because I think the healthcare system we have now is great. I don't, it needs to be reformed.
But I don't believe that more government is the solution. I know politicians tell us it is, but really: when has more government ever made things better? I'm not going to list all the things government has made worse and more expensive, because it would take too long. But do some research, read some books, and if you still think more government is the answer we'll talk then. For now I'll just mention Social Security and Medicare. Two programs that started small, were supposed to be efficient, weren't supposed to be too expensive, and so on. Now? They are both enormously expensive programs that have continued to balloon out of control. They are both going bankrupt. And so on. You can look up both the original claims that were made about the programs and the current numbers, if you don't believe me. History repeats itself. And if we don't do something, it will again: compare what was said about the New Deal programs when they were passed and what's being said about universal heathcare now.
It is especially important to understand this because there are other, non-governmental options that would work much better. Unfortunately, the media doesn't discuss these options and most people are unwilling to do the research themselves. I'm just going to give one example here, but there are many others. Look into them! This one is not my brainchild, other people have proposed it and I just happen to agree.
In 2006, ~$220 of every $1,000 of your tax dollars went to pay for healthcare. Under this plan you'd be allowed to keep that money, put it in the bank where it would earn interest. But when you went to the doctor, you'd pay for it out of your own pocket- no health insurance, no middle man. Most people don't go to the doctor very much (or they go for unnecessary things, like stomach aches), so odds are you'd just save most of that money. At the same time, because insurance would be out of the picture you'd be able to go to any doctor you wanted to. Because doctors would be competing for business 1) the best doctors would rise to the top and be available to everyone, and 2) prices would go down (competition lowers prices, look it up, and dealing with insurance is expensive). Finally, you could buy some sort of emergency insurance, for if you got cancer or something else too expensive to pay for out of pocket. This sort of plan would work, and work better than any government insurance ever would.
Start thinking outside the box, do your own research, and maybe we can get our freedom back. We can make our own sandwiches.
The title of today's post is a quote by Lord Boyd-Orr. Sadly, it still applies today.
But I don't believe that more government is the solution. I know politicians tell us it is, but really: when has more government ever made things better? I'm not going to list all the things government has made worse and more expensive, because it would take too long. But do some research, read some books, and if you still think more government is the answer we'll talk then. For now I'll just mention Social Security and Medicare. Two programs that started small, were supposed to be efficient, weren't supposed to be too expensive, and so on. Now? They are both enormously expensive programs that have continued to balloon out of control. They are both going bankrupt. And so on. You can look up both the original claims that were made about the programs and the current numbers, if you don't believe me. History repeats itself. And if we don't do something, it will again: compare what was said about the New Deal programs when they were passed and what's being said about universal heathcare now.
It is especially important to understand this because there are other, non-governmental options that would work much better. Unfortunately, the media doesn't discuss these options and most people are unwilling to do the research themselves. I'm just going to give one example here, but there are many others. Look into them! This one is not my brainchild, other people have proposed it and I just happen to agree.
In 2006, ~$220 of every $1,000 of your tax dollars went to pay for healthcare. Under this plan you'd be allowed to keep that money, put it in the bank where it would earn interest. But when you went to the doctor, you'd pay for it out of your own pocket- no health insurance, no middle man. Most people don't go to the doctor very much (or they go for unnecessary things, like stomach aches), so odds are you'd just save most of that money. At the same time, because insurance would be out of the picture you'd be able to go to any doctor you wanted to. Because doctors would be competing for business 1) the best doctors would rise to the top and be available to everyone, and 2) prices would go down (competition lowers prices, look it up, and dealing with insurance is expensive). Finally, you could buy some sort of emergency insurance, for if you got cancer or something else too expensive to pay for out of pocket. This sort of plan would work, and work better than any government insurance ever would.
Start thinking outside the box, do your own research, and maybe we can get our freedom back. We can make our own sandwiches.
The title of today's post is a quote by Lord Boyd-Orr. Sadly, it still applies today.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Oh, I don't pay taxes-- I get money back!
I'm still thinking about taxes today. What's bothering me most at the moment is the coverage of the "tax rebates" that Congress has been working on. It annoys me that all of the articles I've read make it sound as though Congress is giving (some) taxpayers a gift, not giving them back a small portion of the money that Congress steals from them. It annoys me that taxpayers who make over $75K won't get a dime, even though they pay a larger portion of their income in income tax. Finally, it really annoys me that people who don't even pay any income tax get a "tax rebate." I mean: why stop there? Why can't we all get the manufacturer's rebates for new cell phones and cars, even though we haven't bought them? Why don't we just call a spade a spade - it's income redistribution.
Apropos of nothing in particular: the title of today's post is the response of a mooncalf from Denver, when asked on April 15 why she continues to pay taxes.
It's a ridiculous answer, but it got me thinking. Why are most people still paying income taxes? The government steals much of their hard-earned money and wastes most of it, but almost no one stands up and refuses. Most people don't seem to care. For example: I'm sure you've heard of pork barrel spending, but have you ever researched it? Have you seen examples of the pet projects that your tax money goes toward? Do you have any idea what it all adds up to? If you haven't, you need to open a new page and run a google search right now: the results should make your hair stand on end. And if you have, you should still refresh your mind: you're nowhere near as angry as you should be.
And for that matter, do you even know how much you actually pay in income tax? Or are you like the simpleton from Denver, and you think the money the government condescends to return to you is all that was taken from you? or perhaps even a gift? Did you know that up until WWII, there was no withholding of income tax (with a few shortlived exceptions)? That means that at the end of the year people wrote the government a check for the taxes they owed. That also means that people were much more questioning of what happened to their tax dollars and much more upset about any tax increase, because they always knew exactly how much they were paying. Now the government steals a good portion of your money before you ever even get your paycheck; but instead of seeing it that way, if you're like most people you're happy to get a portion of it back because you don't even think of that money as yours. Great deal for the government, raw deal for you.
If you want to learn more (and you should) or if you're wondering what can be done (and you definitely should be) pick up a copy of The Fair Tax Book by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder (some of the ideas that are in this post, I got from that book). It doesn't matter if you hate Neal Boortz, that's not the point. The point is, your money is being stolen and wasted by a government that is hellbent on stealing more and more and will never be satiated. How long are you going to stand for it? If you've even heard of the Fair Tax, you've probably heard of it from a politician who opposed it or the mainstream media. These people can't seem to get their minds around how it actually works, and they don't want to. Rather than believe them, do some research yourself: if enough people learn the truth, things could actually change. Aren't you angry enough yet?
Apropos of nothing in particular: the title of today's post is the response of a mooncalf from Denver, when asked on April 15 why she continues to pay taxes.
It's a ridiculous answer, but it got me thinking. Why are most people still paying income taxes? The government steals much of their hard-earned money and wastes most of it, but almost no one stands up and refuses. Most people don't seem to care. For example: I'm sure you've heard of pork barrel spending, but have you ever researched it? Have you seen examples of the pet projects that your tax money goes toward? Do you have any idea what it all adds up to? If you haven't, you need to open a new page and run a google search right now: the results should make your hair stand on end. And if you have, you should still refresh your mind: you're nowhere near as angry as you should be.
And for that matter, do you even know how much you actually pay in income tax? Or are you like the simpleton from Denver, and you think the money the government condescends to return to you is all that was taken from you? or perhaps even a gift? Did you know that up until WWII, there was no withholding of income tax (with a few shortlived exceptions)? That means that at the end of the year people wrote the government a check for the taxes they owed. That also means that people were much more questioning of what happened to their tax dollars and much more upset about any tax increase, because they always knew exactly how much they were paying. Now the government steals a good portion of your money before you ever even get your paycheck; but instead of seeing it that way, if you're like most people you're happy to get a portion of it back because you don't even think of that money as yours. Great deal for the government, raw deal for you.
If you want to learn more (and you should) or if you're wondering what can be done (and you definitely should be) pick up a copy of The Fair Tax Book by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder (some of the ideas that are in this post, I got from that book). It doesn't matter if you hate Neal Boortz, that's not the point. The point is, your money is being stolen and wasted by a government that is hellbent on stealing more and more and will never be satiated. How long are you going to stand for it? If you've even heard of the Fair Tax, you've probably heard of it from a politician who opposed it or the mainstream media. These people can't seem to get their minds around how it actually works, and they don't want to. Rather than believe them, do some research yourself: if enough people learn the truth, things could actually change. Aren't you angry enough yet?
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
In its essentials not only is completed socialism the same as communism but it hardly differs from facism.
Lately I've been thinking a lot about leaving this country. I'd already decided that I was going to leave New York for somewhere less stifling on individual freedoms within the next three years, but now I think that may not be drastic enough. Don't get me wrong, I love America and everything she's supposed to stand for. What I don't love is the politicians that are perverting it. Yesterday I read an article about Hillary Clinton in the New York Times. For those of you that haven't yet had the displeasure of reading it, I'll post the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/us/politics/21clinton.html?_r=1&ex=1358571600&en=ff696d598a7af887&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
First let me say: if you don't know what's wrong with the picture she's drawing, you really need to be reading an economics book right now. But let me help you get part of the way. An executive's compensation is agreed upon by him and the company. CEOs get paid so much because they're worth it, in the eyes of the market. HC wants to step in and impose her opinion of what's too much on parties who would otherwise come to a mutual understanding: freedom of choice being taken away. Instead of lowering taxes, which would increase the economy by letting people spend more of their money, she wants to raise taxes on the "wealthy." The top 1% of wage earners is already paying 40% of all taxes, and the bottom fifth is paying nothing... but that's not good enough. According to her, raising taxes on the wealthy will help the economy. How? She's not asked, and she doesn't explain. Freedom to keep what you earn continues to dwindle away. Socialism, anyone?
She also wants the government to create more jobs by raising spending on "job creating projects." Forget all the free market options that would help create jobs, the government to the rescue. Final thoughts: jobs did once pay enough to allow one parent to support the family, but they don't anymore. A couple of reasons you won't hear HC mention: taxes are too high, and the government refuses to control inflation so prices are rising while wages can't keep up. HC wants to halt foreclosures and freeze subprime interest rates. This would make it nearly impossible for anyone without perfect credit to qualify for a mortgage at an affordable interest rate. Sounds like socialism to me.
I've been asking myself, when did we get to the point where people actually agree with ideas like this? Do she and Edwards get away with their socialist views because people don't understand why it won't work? or do they just not care? I am very, very frustrated, and you should be too. I for one am not going to work if taxes keep getting raised. I'm already angry that in September when I start work I'll be paying at least 30% of my income in taxes. I'm angry, but I'm trying to do something about it, so I'll work anyway. But if I'm expected to pay 40% or 50% of my income in taxes, I'm just going to leave the country. I don't think I'm alone in thinking this way, either. Except for American companies relocating to other countries and wealthy Americans moving their money offshore I don't have any data to back me up, but you can only push people so far before they just say "no." (I think more people should have said no a long time ago, but that's a whole other post.) This country is quickly coming to a point where one of two things will happen: we'll either have an Atlas Shrugged scenario, or there'll be a revolution. Things can't keep going the way they're going.
Do you hear that? It's the death throes of individual responsiblity- and freedom. If freedom lovers are going to prevail we have to unite and start making a concerted effort now- we have to take a stand. If we don't... well, I can almost hear the socialists cheering.
The title of today's post is a quote from The Socialist Tragedy, by Ivor Thomas.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/us/politics/21clinton.html?_r=1&ex=1358571600&en=ff696d598a7af887&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
First let me say: if you don't know what's wrong with the picture she's drawing, you really need to be reading an economics book right now. But let me help you get part of the way. An executive's compensation is agreed upon by him and the company. CEOs get paid so much because they're worth it, in the eyes of the market. HC wants to step in and impose her opinion of what's too much on parties who would otherwise come to a mutual understanding: freedom of choice being taken away. Instead of lowering taxes, which would increase the economy by letting people spend more of their money, she wants to raise taxes on the "wealthy." The top 1% of wage earners is already paying 40% of all taxes, and the bottom fifth is paying nothing... but that's not good enough. According to her, raising taxes on the wealthy will help the economy. How? She's not asked, and she doesn't explain. Freedom to keep what you earn continues to dwindle away. Socialism, anyone?
She also wants the government to create more jobs by raising spending on "job creating projects." Forget all the free market options that would help create jobs, the government to the rescue. Final thoughts: jobs did once pay enough to allow one parent to support the family, but they don't anymore. A couple of reasons you won't hear HC mention: taxes are too high, and the government refuses to control inflation so prices are rising while wages can't keep up. HC wants to halt foreclosures and freeze subprime interest rates. This would make it nearly impossible for anyone without perfect credit to qualify for a mortgage at an affordable interest rate. Sounds like socialism to me.
I've been asking myself, when did we get to the point where people actually agree with ideas like this? Do she and Edwards get away with their socialist views because people don't understand why it won't work? or do they just not care? I am very, very frustrated, and you should be too. I for one am not going to work if taxes keep getting raised. I'm already angry that in September when I start work I'll be paying at least 30% of my income in taxes. I'm angry, but I'm trying to do something about it, so I'll work anyway. But if I'm expected to pay 40% or 50% of my income in taxes, I'm just going to leave the country. I don't think I'm alone in thinking this way, either. Except for American companies relocating to other countries and wealthy Americans moving their money offshore I don't have any data to back me up, but you can only push people so far before they just say "no." (I think more people should have said no a long time ago, but that's a whole other post.) This country is quickly coming to a point where one of two things will happen: we'll either have an Atlas Shrugged scenario, or there'll be a revolution. Things can't keep going the way they're going.
Do you hear that? It's the death throes of individual responsiblity- and freedom. If freedom lovers are going to prevail we have to unite and start making a concerted effort now- we have to take a stand. If we don't... well, I can almost hear the socialists cheering.
The title of today's post is a quote from The Socialist Tragedy, by Ivor Thomas.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
A slave is a being who allows others to make his choices for him.
I've been a libertarian forever. I don't like the government, except in very small doses, and I especially hate paying taxes. But it's been just recently that I've started reading a lot more; economics books (if you haven't ever read one, get a simple one and read it - The Undercover Economist by Tim Harford is a great place to start), political blogs, etc. The more I read, the angrier I get. Every day, the government encroaches a little more on our freedoms, takes a little more choice away from us. Even more upsetting, few people seem to care. Talk to most people about smoking bans or mandatory seatbelt laws, and they'll say they don't care because "they're for our own good" or "those don't affect me." And granted, these are very small things- if you look at them by themselves.
But if every day, or every month, the government takes a small freedom away from the people... those small freedoms are going to start adding up before too long. Unfortunately, many people are too shortsighted to see this. Others are happy with the government making decisions for them, so they don't mind that they aren't truly free. I mind a lot. And I think we're already at a point where so many small freedoms have been taken from us, that most of us don't even think much of it when another one is taken away. I think something needs to be done now, before it's too late - if it isn't already.
I argue politics when I had an opponent, rage at the TV when I see Hillary Clinton on it, and frequently tell everyone how much I hate the government. And people say to me: "What can you do about it? Stop getting so upset." And while that may be true, I would like to try to do something. This blog isn't much, but it's better than sitting on the couch complaining about the way things are going. I know there are many people that think like I do. If we all get angry enough to start doing something about it, we could change this country for the better. Do something! Start a blog, write a letter to an editor, join a local group that believes as you do. But do something! Apathy will get us nowhere.
~Libertarianista
Reading suggestion: Hologram of Liberty, by Kenneth W. Royce. He argues that the Constituion was never meant to keep the government small, that it was structured in such a way to allow the creeping growth of the federal government that we've seen. Very good book, and more than worth picking up a copy.
Finally: the title of this post is a quote by Aristotle.
But if every day, or every month, the government takes a small freedom away from the people... those small freedoms are going to start adding up before too long. Unfortunately, many people are too shortsighted to see this. Others are happy with the government making decisions for them, so they don't mind that they aren't truly free. I mind a lot. And I think we're already at a point where so many small freedoms have been taken from us, that most of us don't even think much of it when another one is taken away. I think something needs to be done now, before it's too late - if it isn't already.
I argue politics when I had an opponent, rage at the TV when I see Hillary Clinton on it, and frequently tell everyone how much I hate the government. And people say to me: "What can you do about it? Stop getting so upset." And while that may be true, I would like to try to do something. This blog isn't much, but it's better than sitting on the couch complaining about the way things are going. I know there are many people that think like I do. If we all get angry enough to start doing something about it, we could change this country for the better. Do something! Start a blog, write a letter to an editor, join a local group that believes as you do. But do something! Apathy will get us nowhere.
~Libertarianista
Reading suggestion: Hologram of Liberty, by Kenneth W. Royce. He argues that the Constituion was never meant to keep the government small, that it was structured in such a way to allow the creeping growth of the federal government that we've seen. Very good book, and more than worth picking up a copy.
Finally: the title of this post is a quote by Aristotle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)