Showing posts with label Libertarianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libertarianism. Show all posts

Thursday, May 21

The Kim Kardashian Liberals

Kannu

This is a classic column written by a friend of mine. It's a very simple elucidation of rights and liberalism.  I talked yesterday about how people got upset with me for saying rent control is stupid. It relates to natural rights.

This is why I hate religion. Because it doesn't respect natural rights. Frankly you cannot be religious and avoid being a hypocrite. And inconsistent. Idiocy. And more importantly they know it. Which is why, when pressed, they almost always descend into violence as if that's the final solution.

Classically liberalism means that you need to respect your own rights and others.

See the election cacophony at the moment. Everybody is out trampling my rights. Everybody. Without exception. That's what we have as leaders. In the land where liberalism was born. Along with France. And USA. Thomas Paine comes to mind.

Also read up the rule of but. It's a really great rule. In your debates and discussions with these idiots and hypocrites who use 'but' to qualify assertions, use this. It just makes them completely befuddled. Brilliant thing.

As for Kim kardashians butt, that's a work of art.

Look forward to speaking with you son. We are going to go to the garden centre today and are going to get some flowers and stuff. Do up the garden.

Love

Baba



The Kim Kardashian Liberals - The India Uncut Blog - India Uncut
http://indiauncut.com/iublog/article/the-kim-kardashian-liberals/
(via Instapaper)


This is the 13th installment of Lighthouse, my monthly column for BLink, a supplement of the Hindu Business Line.

You can hold a currency note up against the light, if you have been trained well, and detect whether it is real or fake. Is there a similar test that can help catch and expose a counterfeit liberal? Yes,  there is. It is the ‘but’ test. A counterfeit liberal is one who will espouse a liberal principle but then, immediately, before putting a full stop on the sentence, add the word ‘but’. And there’s always a universe after that ‘but’.

For example, a faux-liberal will say, “I believe in free speech, but…” Or “I believe in free markets, but…” That ‘but’ invalidates all that comes before it. Anyone who says he believes in free speech “but…” is not a liberal but a hypocrite. (And he doesn’t believe in free speech, obviously.) I have a term for these kinds of people, who abound in the Indian intellectual space. I call them Kim Kardashian Liberals. Too much But.

Wednesday, January 14

'Calculated to Alarm'

Whilst I'm a libertarian and fully support people wanting to buy guns, oranges or green hair dye son, what I do not understand is being idiotic about risk. The question is about risk. The idea of defending against government tyranny using a gun when the government has got bombers and computers is so ludicrous that one immediately thinks that the man's a muppet. 

Also just because you can doesn't mean you should. For example would you want to carry an open beaker of sulphuric acid? You can of course but is it safe? Same thing. 

I was watching cnn over the last 4 days in Canada. And pretty much, for example, every day, I heard about shootings in the universities and schools. Hello? ERM. Why? What? 

I've used guns and rifles son. Even hunted. But I wouldn't have a gun at home for the same reason I wouldn't have highly corrosive acid in the house. It's too risky. 

Very strange. But very interesting campaign by the mothers, son. Take a lesson from them. The gun owners will loose of course. Never bet against a mother wanting to protect her child Kannu. Very powerful emotions and determination. 

Love

Baba. 

'Calculated to Alarm'
http://mag.newsweek.com/2013/10/11/calculated-to-alarm.html


The weapon he was carrying, an AK-74 assault rifle, measures three feet long, with a barrel of about 16 inches, and is capable of firing several dozen rounds per minute. Brian McCauley says he never meant to scare anyone. The state of Texas disagrees, and his upcoming trial has become a focal point in a dangerous new battle in the national debate over gun laws.

By the time McCauley walked into a San Antonio Starbucks in August, tensions had been building for years. The chain's corporate policy was to defer to local gun ordinances, many of which allow the open carrying of weapons, and gun owners from Virginia to California had been visiting the coffee shops with handguns worn outside their pants, as the songwriter Townes Van Zandt once put it, "for all the honest world to feel." In response, a gun-control group, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, started promoting a national boycott called "Skip Starbucks Saturday."

Police officers arrested McCauley outside that Starbucks, charging him with disorderly conduct, which under the Texas penal code, covers 11 categories of behavior, including that of a person who "displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm."

Those last three words – calculated to alarm – have inflamed passions on both sides. Leaders of the open carry movement, once regarded as fringe-y by more traditional gun rights organizations, are rapidly signing up new members and staging bolder public confrontations. Gun-control advocates, who failed to win legislative change following the massacre at Connecticut's Sandy Hook Elementary School, are using the image of semi-automatic weapons in public places to reinvigorate their supporters.

As McCauley awaits his day in court, both sides are escalating their tactics. In September, two men wearing AR-15s walked through a farmer's market in downtown Appleton, Wisconsin. Gun rights advocates scheduled a major rally at the Alamo on October 19, to coincide with a national event called Guns Next Door, where gun owners are encouraged to "for one hour stand or sit in your front yard armed." In response, Moms Demand Action is advising supporters who encounter someone carrying a semi-automatic rifle to "call 911 immediately."

Monday, September 22

Top 10 Libertarian Supreme Court Decisions

Here's a good overview of some areas which Libertarians get involved in and some which they are still fighting for. For example, I was quite happy with the fact that UK decided not to get involved with Syria. I find this idea that the state can, willy nilly, go about choosing a side and getting involved in a war, bombing people, is as equivalent to the Syrian govt doing poison gas in its cities. The UK govt's job is to protect ourselves, not everybody and his dog. Not only that, it has to think about the cost of the war, which you have researched, we will be paying for the iraq and afghan war for a long long time. And for what?

Still, read these cases son, very useful to know the boundaries and areas where you as a Libertarian need to be involved with and know where to draw the lines. 

Love

Baba

Top 10 Libertarian Supreme Court Decisions - Reason.com
http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/02/top-10-libertarian-supreme-court-decisio/print


It’s no secret the U.S. Supreme Court has often been a disappointment to libertarians. Whether the justices are giving the green light to eminent domain abuse, securing absolute immunity for dissolute prosecutors, or rubber-stamping the latest power grab from Washington, the Court routinely fails to live up to James Madison’s famous description of the judicial branch as “an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive.”

But that doesn’t mean the High Court always gets it wrong. Here, in no particular order, are 10 Supreme Court decisions still standing where the Court put individual liberty and limited government first.

10. Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)

In 1922 the Ku Klux Klan and other anti-Catholic groups spearheaded an Oregon initiative designed to eliminate the state’s private schools, many of which were run by Catholic charities. Under the terms of the Compulsory Education Act, all children between the ages of eight and 16 were required to attend "a public school for the period of time a public school shall be held during the current year." The Society of Sisters, an Oregon corporation organized in 1880 to care for orphans and carry out various educational purposes, challenged the law in court, arguing that it violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which forbids the states from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

The Supreme Court agreed. “The child is not the mere creature of the state,”declared Justice James McReynolds in a unanimous decision rejecting “any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only.” Thus the right of parents and guardians to send their children to private school was secured.

Friday, August 8

A Liberal Decalogue: Bertrand Russell's 10 Commandments of Teaching

Here's another amazing man pontificating on education. I'm proud to call myself as a liberal. The traditional liberal. Not the idiotic thing that the Americans have made it into. And we come from a long line of teachers kannu. Your father is a Professor. Your grandparents are professors. My grandfather was a professor. And so it goes back generations. Who knows you may also become one. It's one of the most rewarding of professions son. Not only you get paid to learn, you are constantly on a journey of exploration. 

But even if you become a corporate member or setup your own business, you will still need to teach. These principles are worth knowing and following. 

Love

Baba

A Liberal Decalogue: Bertrand Russell's 10 Commandments of Teaching | Brain Pickings
http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/05/02/a-liberal-decalogue-bertrand-russell/


by Maria Popova

“Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.”

imageBritish philosopher, mathematician, historian, and social critic Bertrand Russell endures as one of the most intellectually diverse and influential thinkers in modern history, his philosophy of religion in particular having shaped the work of such modern atheism champions as Christopher Hitchens,Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins. From the third volume of The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell: 1944-1969 comes this remarkable micro-manifesto, entitled A Liberal Decalogue — a vision for responsibilities of a teacher, in which Russell touches on a number of recurring themes from pickings past — the purpose of education, the value of uncertainty, the importance of critical thinking, the gift of intelligent criticism, and more.

Tuesday, November 26

Three essays on the economics of gender, health and happiness.

Kannu

you don't have to read the full dissertation, but at least check out the first chapter. It is a fascinating study in the field of happiness and economics. As you know, one of the objectives of life is to be happy so there is a burgeoning body of research which is analysing this area.

the first one was about headscarfs, i don't understand this but then who does….there are strange reasons given to cover your head and wear ties, but as long as its done voluntarily, who cares? but in this case, the Ataturkian militantly secular state bans headscarfs in public institutions. Result? women are statistically significantly unable to work as well as they could, hence they stay at home and pump out more babies resulting in more babies being brought up by women in veils. If the idea was to reduce the number of religious people, it fell foul of the law of unintended circumstances. As a libertarian, you will appreciate this, eh?

the second one was interesting, as you know, in our family we have a tradition of donating our bodies to medicine and organs for transplants. Your great uncle did so, Dadu and Didu have written so in their wills, while your parents have organ donor cards. This is informed consent, son. But where this happens, the rate of organ donation is very low. But where there’s presumed consent, like in Belgium, where bodies are taken assuming consent has been given, the donation rates are double or triple. Excellent news, eh? the nudge theory, son. This is why you need to be very careful about what questions and public policy angles you take. Its like the question, “when did you stop beating up your dog” and you can only answer yes or no. stiffed. in some cases, it works like in pension provision. Everybody knows that you should save for your pension, but hardly anybody saves. Read the HSBC report I linked into. But there is a difference, if you have presumed consent and force everybody to store and save before your salary lands in your bank account, then automatic savings happen.

And finally the question of charity. As you know, I do loads of this stuff and yes, I feel good, so its not purely altruistic. The lady in question has found evidence for this. But yes, that makes me happy. Doing stuff for others, son, makes you feel good, really really good. So I felt so proud when you were teaching your friend. Seriously proud. I know you are getting a reputation of a good friend and somebody who is always willing to help others. Keep it up, son, it helps to be happy with helping others.

If you were a libertarian, then each of these cases will challenge your thinking and enforce your principles even better. It’s the gray areas where the principles are tested, son. Religion, personal aspects, etc. etc. Fascinating area to keep thinking and challenging one self.

Love

Baba

 

 

    1. From headscarves to donation: Three essays on the economics of gender, health and happiness.

Date:

2013

By:

Ugur, Z.B. (Tilburg University)

URL:

http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ner:tilbur:urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-5927864&r=hap

Abstract: Zeynep’s research interests are mainly in the field of health and labor economics. In this thesis, she explores a broad range of topics within the domain of the economics of gender, health and happiness. The first chapter provides the motivations for the studies and summarizes the main findings. The second chapter documents differences in educational attainment, labor market outcomes and childbearing among women by their use of headscarves and investigates the impact of the headscarf ban in Turkey on women’s educational attainment, labor force participation and childbearing decisions. In Chapter 3, she explores the relationship between presumed consent legislation and various organ donation indicators such as willingness to donate one’s organs, organ donation card holding, actual organ donation rates and kidney transplantation rates. The last chapter looks at the relationship between pro-social behavior and subjective wellbeing and tries to quantify the happiness effect of donating in the Netherlands.

Tuesday, July 16

Welcome to Mogadishu

In one way son, Somalia should be a libertarian wet dream. Total or near total absence of the state. Which should leave individual rights all right? Self defence. Self reliance? And as this article says, the economy is ok with companies flourishing in the absence if the state. 

But then on the flip side you have a classic example of how societies cannot function when the mob takes over. It's the state that provides security. And that leads to durable institutions. Take the example of Egypt and Pakistan. Pakistan just completed one parliamentary term, despite the govt being totally corrupt. The new govt was sworn in. Best way forward. Institutions take time to build. At this moment, I have more hope for Pakistan than Egypt. Which basically has screwed itself. The promising beginning even with that idiotic Morsi was stopped in the middle. Now the secular liberal military backed idiots have basically created a bigger injury to Egypt than what Morsi and his beards ever could. 

Egypt has deep structural problems. And to think that a liberal secular new pm will be able to resolve exhibits a dangerous level of blindness. The incoming govt now has to deal with a pissed off large part of the electorate and the same if not worse economic and social problems, the financial aid from the gulf not withstanding. And given that its been established that mobs on the street can bring down governments for bad governance, the brothers will and can do the same. Result? Egypt's people have made a huge mistake. But revolutions,while exciting, take a very long time to repair the damage. All I can think is the quote, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. 

Love

Baba

Welcome to Mogadishu - FT.com
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/e0c521b4-c8bd-11e2-acc6-00144feab7de.html#slide0


Despite the threats from Islamist militants, the Somali capital is bursting back to life

Boys repairing fishermen’s nets on Mogadishu seafront©Petterik Wiggers

Boys repairing fishermen’s nets on Mogadishu seafront

You can see where their heads hit the roof,” says a member of Somalia’s bomb squad. He is showing me pictures of the latest co-ordinated suicide attack. Even in the mess that mingles body parts of victims and perpetrators, the explosives team finds it easy to collect a suicide bomber’s DNA: you just look up. Red stains, splattered flesh and a pair of earphones are all that’s left of two al-Shabaab bombers who – posing as soldiers of the national army – detonated themselves at the entrance of a courthouse in the capital, Mogadishu in April.

After the initial explosions, more gunmen wearing suicide vests entered the building and went from room to room, assassinating people before blowing themselves up when they ran out of ammunition. Court workers cowered in rooms before escaping by ladder; altogether 60 people were killed, estimates the man showing me the photos. The attack was the work of Islamist militants, allied to al-Qaeda, who emerged in the mid-2000s as the biggest threat to Somalia – 15 years after the former Italian colony started tearing itself apart in a civil war which has yet to end.

Thursday, June 27

To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize – Voltaire

Not much to say beyond saying that this is a great quote, cuts straight to the core of human behaviour and society. As a libertarian and freedom of speech absolutist, this is clearly very important.

Two US bloggers were banned from entering UK. This is clearly a failure of the Sharansky test. The book is very good, and the test is simple:

If a person cannot walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm, then that person is living in a fear society, not a free society. We cannot rest until every person living in a "fear society" has finally won their freedom.

I saw so many people wittering on along two lines, “i support freedom of speech but…” that but means you are not a freedom of speech supporter.

Second was, what kind of a society are we producing if we allow people like these guys in? Well, as the Sharansky test says, we are living in a fear society. USA is happy to have freedom of speech, but here in the UK?

ESPHOKS on the Home Office Minister, bah

Wednesday, November 14

The Brain on Trial

Quite an interesting discussion on free will son. And whilst its concentrating on outliers, the question arises about how does the law treat the question of free will and/or free wont. 

Not sure about the answer but the certainty I had about libertarianism and free will is a bit more nuanced now. 

Love

Baba

The Brain on Trial
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2011/07/the-brain-on-trial/8520/


Adrianna Williams/Corbis

On the steamy first day of August 1966, Charles Whitman took an elevator to the top floor of the University of Texas Tower in Austin. The 25-year-old climbed the stairs to the observation deck, lugging with him a footlocker full of guns and ammunition. At the top, he killed a receptionist with the butt of his rifle. Two families of tourists came up the stairwell; he shot at them at point-blank range. Then he began to fire indiscriminately from the deck at people below. The first woman he shot was pregnant. As her boyfriend knelt to help her, Whitman shot him as well. He shot pedestrians in the street and an ambulance driver who came to rescue them.

The evening before, Whitman had sat at his typewriter and composed a suicide note:

I don’t really understand myself these days. I am supposed to be an average reasonable and intelligent young man. However, lately (I can’t recall when it started) I have been a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts.

By the time the police shot him dead, Whitman had killed 13 people and wounded 32 more. The story of his rampage dominated national headlines the next day. And when police went to investigate his home for clues, the story became even stranger: in the early hours of the morning on the day of the shooting, he had murdered his mother and stabbed his wife to death in her sleep.

It was after much thought that I decided to kill my wife, Kathy, tonight … I love her dearly, and she has been as fine a wife to me as any man could ever hope to have. I cannot rationa[l]ly pinpoint any specific reason for doing this …

Along with the shock of the murders lay another, more hidden, surprise: the juxtaposition of his aberrant actions with his unremarkable personal life. Whitman was an Eagle Scout and a former marine, studied architectural engineering at the University of Texas, and briefly worked as a bank teller and volunteered as a scoutmaster for Austin’s Boy Scout Troop 5. As a child, he’d scored 138 on the Stanford-Binet IQ test, placing in the 99th percentile. So after his shooting spree from the University of Texas Tower, everyone wanted answers.

For that matter, so did Whitman. He requested in his suicide note that an autopsy be performed to determine if something had changed in his brain—because he suspected it had.

I talked with a Doctor once for about two hours and tried to convey to him my fears that I felt [overcome by] overwhelming violent impulses. After one session I never saw the Doctor again, and since then I have been fighting my mental turmoil alone, and seemingly to no avail.

Whitman’s body was taken to the morgue, his skull was put under the bone saw, and the medical examiner lifted the brain from its vault. He discovered that Whitman’s brain harbored a tumor the diameter of a nickel. This tumor, called a glioblastoma, had blossomed from beneath a structure called the thalamus, impinged on the hypothalamus, and compressed a third region called the amygdala. The amygdala is involved in emotional regulation, especially of fear and aggression. By the late 1800s, researchers had discovered that damage to the amygdala caused emotional and social disturbances. In the 1930s, the researchers Heinrich Klüver and Paul Bucy demonstrated that damage to the amygdala in monkeys led to a constellation of symptoms, including lack of fear, blunting of emotion, and overreaction. Female monkeys with amygdala damage often neglected or physically abused their infants. In humans, activity in the amygdala increases when people are shown threatening faces, are put into frightening situations, or experience social phobias. Whitman’s intuition about himself—that something in his brain was changing his behavior—was spot-on.

Tuesday, October 30

Why aren't kidneys for sale?

This article is brilliant. I quote:

Maybe one day people will regard it as repugnant that other people hold their moral views on kidney sales so strongly that they are willing to cause innocent people to die for them.

When I can sell my brains, my arms, my energy, my voice, my acting, my back, and and and, why cant I sell my kidneys? And no, just because some will be forced does not mean that I cannot sell my kidneys, just like just because some people are sold into slavery cannot mean that I cannot work like a labourer.

bah!

Tuesday, August 7

Good exercise in logic

I do not like the concept of photo id, but that’s basically from a libertarian perspective. I do not need to prove to anybody who I am, believing in freedom of self. As soon as somebody has the power to ask for my identity, my identify is compromised. At the same time, I do believe some element of self identification is required, if nothing else but for making sure assets, property, etc. etc. can be suitably linked to individuals. So for example, some form of identification will always be required.

That said, this was a great little argument.

In March, the Justice Department denied the Lone Star State the necessary clearance for this new law, arguing that it would disproportionately affect Hispanic voters. Texas officials appealed.  To preserve the access of all citizens to the right to vote . . . the District Court should follow the Justice Department’s lead and strike down this highly suspect and unnecessary law.

What is interesting here is the role disproportionality plays in these leftist attempts at argument.  Let's see if we can uncover the 'logic' of these arguments.

Suppose people of Italian  extraction are disproportionately affected by anti-racketeering statutes.  Would this be a good reason to oppose such laws? Obviously not.  Why not? The reason is that the law targets the criminal behavior, not the ethnicity of the criminal. If it just so happens that people of Italian extraction are 'overrepresented' in the memberships of organized crime syndicates, then of course they will be 'disproportionately affected' by anti-racketeering laws.  So what?

Friday, March 9

Let my sperm go!

What a fascinating story. An excerpt

Trent Arsenault has never had sex, but he’s the father of fifteen children—and counting. The more he antagonizes the FDA, and unnerves television audiences across America, the more his in-box is flooded with requests for his sperm.

When Trent was 16, he and his best friend made a pact to devote their lives to science and never to marry. “Like most of our wild plans at the time, it was Trent’s idea,” this friend remembers. “I went along for entertainment’s sake. It was simply this zit-faced, socially awkward, nerdy teenager’s excuse for not having to ask out the girls I liked.” In other words, it was the sort of vow that teenagers make and soon forget, except that eighteen years later, when FDA agents showed up on his porch in August 2010, Trent was a well-paid computer-security engineer at Hewlett-Packard and a 34-year-old virgin. He was also, by that point, the father of ten children. The government was not happy about how Trent had pulled this off.

But if the FDA hoped, by intervening, to save America from someone it viewed as a dangerous rogue breeder, its action did more to set back its cause than it could possibly have imagined, turning Trent into something of a poster boy for an entire generation of new DIY donors. The showdown between man and state on the free-sperm frontier drew predictable media interest, mostly mocking and outraged, which in turn generated considerable outreach from strangers, almost all overwhelmingly supportive. Since appearing on various television news programs, Trent has received hundreds of encouraging e-mails, and he’s closing in on 2,000 Facebook friends. Someone recently formed a new Facebook group called Free Sperm Donors, mimicking Trent’s eschewal of anonymity, and a similar new organization called the Known Donor Registry has quickly attracted more than 5,000 members.

Trent's Baby Book: Recent hospital photos, shared by recipients and posted on trentdonor.org.  

The requests for Trent’s own sperm have only increased. Just in the last few weeks, he has received about a hundred new requests from women across America. He has, by now, made more than 500 “donations,” been responsible for fourteen successful pregnancies (and fifteen births—one mother had twins), has three more pregnancies under way, and is adding an average of three new prospective mothers to his portfolio each month. Paradoxically, the more children Trent fathers, the more his services are in demand—last month, he signed up seven aspiring mothers. “I’d think this would be a turnoff,” he says, “but that’s not how people think. It’s maybe even an attractive trait. If you look at lions, it’s like the females know to look at the ones that have demonstrated fertility.”

The idea that this bloody government has the cheek to intervene in a private transaction between two adults is seriously bizarre. What’s next? regulate the exchange of bodily fluids in exchange of monetary recompense?

The added advantage of pissing off the assorted po faced religious nutters is just the cherry (pun intended) on the cake.

Go for it Trent, let your little wrigglers go!

Sunday, September 18

Pimp My Ride

Kannu


I forgot to say that I like your new haircut. But I still think I can give you a better haircut than those poxy hairdressers. One day you will realise the benefits of cutting your own hair, its liberating, it saves a heck of a lot of time, it saves money and best of all, it will manage to upset a whole bunch of women in your life and that's fun. But at this moment, when you are in teenagerhood, hair has a vastly bigger significance. The fate of the world depends upon the hair style. That is fine, that's what the teenaged girls are also looking for. But then when you realise that hair is nothing but a holdover artefact from our evolutionary times to keep us warm (its fur after all), the importance level reduces. What actually matters is what's below the hair rather than the hair itself. Thankfully, you are a smart fellow so I am also happy with that. Remember what I keep on saying, everything evens out, if you have less hair to comb, you have more face to wash.


But that's not the point of this missive, this is about libertarianism. This is the operating philosophy that I follow. There are literally thousands of philosophies out there, and you can judge them on several basis. Here is a very short survey you can do to find out what your operating philosophy is all about.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz


Here's what this website defines libertarianism as: Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.


I know you are still young, but I hope to raise you and Diya by those principles. We make you take responsibility over your own career and choices, there isnt much bureaucracy other than few things like having to water the garden and to empty the dishwasher, no taxes, you are trained on how to manage your own money and are doing well on your investments, not doing much on the charity side for some strange reason, but we will work on that, we are happy with what you want to do with your lifestyle - girls, whatever, you have had the choice to imbibe in alcoholic drinks (but not ciggies) etc. etc.


Anyway, here is a story about a presidential candidate in the USA and how he is a pure libertarian. Interesting views. Obviously he doesnt have a hope in hell's chance of becoming the president, but those views exist and hopefully the huge overhang of debt that we have will be removed.


Check out the austrian school of economics here, its an interesting read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School
One thing which bothers me is the ability of running this giant ponzi scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme) of using debt to pay for today's spending while future generations pick up the bill. At this moment, the amount of debt being racked up by all the bloody governments means that YOU and DIYA will be paying for our mistakes for couple of generations. Learn from our mistakes, son. Never let governments become too big, they steal your money and they steal your liberty. Friedman said this, "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.". Some more great quotes from him here. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/milton_friedman.html

Happy reading son.


Love


baba

 


Pimp My Ride
http://www.tnr.com/print/article/representative-ron-paul-2008-republican-primary-president


The first thing I learned from driving around Nevada with Ron Paul for a couple of days: People really hate the Federal Reserve. This became clear midway through a speech Paul was giving to a group of Republicans at a community center in Pahrump, a dusty town about 60 miles west of Las Vegas. Pahrump is known for its legal brothels (Heidi Fleiss lives there), but most of the people in the audience looked more like ranchers than swingers. They stood five deep at the back of the room and listened politely as the candidate spoke.

Until Paul got to the part about the Fed. “We need a much better monetary system,” he said, a system based on “sound money, money that’s backed by something.” Paul, who is small and delicate and has a high voice, spoke in a near monotone, making no effort to excite the audience. They cheered anyway. Then he said this: “The Constitution gives no authority for a central bank.” The crowd went wild, or as wild as a group of sober Republicans can on a Monday night. They hooted and yelled and stomped their feet. Paul stopped speaking for a moment, his words drowned out. Then he continued on about monetary policy.

Wow, I thought. The constitutionality of a central bank is not an issue you see on many lists of voter concerns. (How many pollsters would think to ask about it? How many voters would understand the question?) Yet a room full of non-economists had just responded feverishly when Paul brought it up. Hoping for some context, I went outside and found a Paul staffer. He didn’t sound surprised when I told him about the speech. “It’s our biggest applause line,” he said.

Our biggest applause line? There are two ways to interpret a fact like that: Either the Ron Paul movement is more sophisticated than most journalists understand, or a lot of Paul supporters are eccentric bordering on bonkers.

One thing you can say for certain: The crowds at Ron Paul rallies aren’t coming to be entertained. Stylistically, a Paul speech is about as colorful as a tax return. He is the only politician I’ve ever seen who doesn’t draw energy from the audience; his tone is as flat at the conclusion as it was at the beginning. There are no jokes. There’s no warm-up, no shout-out to local luminaries in the room, no inspiring vignettes about ordinary Americans doing their best in the face of this or that bad thing. In fact, there are virtually none of the usual political clichés in a Paul speech. Children may be our future, but Ron Paul isn’t admitting it in public.

Paul is no demagogue, and probably couldn’t be if he tried. He’s too libertarian. He can’t stand to tell other people what to do, even people who’ve shown up looking for instructions. On board the campaign’s tiny chartered jet one night (the plane was so small my legs were intertwined with the candidate’s for the entire flight), Paul and his staff engaged in an unintentionally hilarious exchange about the cabin lights. The staff wanted to know whether Paul preferred the lights on or off. Not wanting to be bossy, Paul wouldn’t say. Ultimately, the staff had to guess. It was a long three minutes.

Being at the center of attention clearly bothers Paul. “I like to be unnoticed,” he says, a claim not typically made by presidential candidates. “That’s my personality. I see all the excitement and sometimes I say to myself, ‘Why do they do that?’ I don’t see myself as a big deal.” Ordinarily you’d have to dismiss a line like that out of hand—if he’s so humble, why is he running for president?—but, in Paul’s case, it might be true. In fact, it might be the key to his relative success. His fans don’t read his awkwardness as a social phobia, but as a sign of authenticity. Paul never outshines his message, which is unchanging: Let adults make their own choices; liberty works. For a unified theory of everything, it’s pretty simple. And Paul sincerely believes it.

Most Republicans, of course, profess to believe it too. But only Paul has introduced a bill to legalize unpasteurized milk. Give yourself five minutes and see if you can think of a more countercultural idea than that. Most people assume that the whole reason we have a government is to make sure the milk gets pasteurized. It takes some stones to argue otherwise, especially if nobody’s paying you to do it. (The raw-milk lobby basically consists of about eight goat-cheese enthusiasts in Manhattan, and possibly the Amish.) Paul is pro-choice on pasteurization entirely for reasons of principle. “I support the right of people to drink whatever they want,” he says. He mocks the idea that “only government can make sure we’re safe, so we need the government to protect us. I don’t think we’d all die of unsafe food if we didn’t have the FDA. Someone else would do it.” If you know Ron Paul primarily from watching the Republican debates, you probably assume he spends most of his time ranting about September 11 and the Iraq invasion. In fact, his real passion is Austrian economics. More even than the war, Paul despises paper currency, which he considers a hoax, “fiat money.” He can become emotional talking about it. Caught in traffic in downtown Vegas on the way to an event, Paul looked out the window at the casinos and mused aloud: “Can you imagine when all those slot machines used real silver dollars? All that silver … ” His words trailed off, as in a pleasant daydream.

Paul trusts coins, and he has bought them all his life, first as a childhood collector, then as an investor. During the 1980s, as he ran unsuccessfully for the Senate and the White House, he became involved in a coin business, Ron Paul Coins. Numismatics, he says, is a labor of love. “You only make five or ten dollars a coin. You’ve got to sell a lot of coins to get rich. I was just promoting something I believe in.” It’s a rare person who admits something like this. Everybody knows the gold standard is for cranks. It’s complicated, unwieldy, and basically incompatible with the modern world. Worse, it’s boring. Paul doesn’t care. “It’s been over one hundred years since that issue has been talked about in a presidential election,” he told me with apparent pride.

Over dinner at the coffee shop in the Saddle West Hotel, Casino, and RV Resort, Paul and his staff talked about little else. There were eight or nine of us at the table, with the 72-year-old obstetrician-congressman at the head in a gray suit, working over a chicken platter and discussing hard money. It had the feel of a familiar conversation, a dialogue that doesn’t really end but that never diminishes in intensity. At one point, Paul’s assistant checked his BlackBerry for the latest gold and silver prices and read them aloud to the table.

For Paul, the original sin in monetary policy took place in 1933, when FDR uncoupled the currency from gold. This removed limits from federal spending, allowing Congress an endless supply of money it could print at will, while leaving citizens vulnerable to the inflation that inevitably resulted. But, worst of all from Paul’s point of view, it was compulsory. Private currencies are forbidden, so Americans had no choice but to participate. The whole system is a mandatory Ponzi scheme, built on faith in the government. Except that, now that the bottom has dropped out of the dollar, it’s clear there’s no reason to have faith in the government or its money.

That’s Paul’s essential argument. His solution: allow competing currencies.

If individuals want to circulate gold or silver coins (or scrip backed by metal reserves), let them. Give citizens the chance to decide which money they trust.

The owners of NORFED, an Indiana coin company, gave it a shot. The company minted and sold thousands of silver Ron Paul dollars, complete with the candidate’s face in profile, before federal agents showed up in November and confiscated their entire remaining inventory. In its affidavit for a search warrant, the FBI accused NORFED of trying to “undermine the United States government’s financial systems by the issuance of a non-governmental competing currency for the purpose of repealing the Federal Reserve and Internal Revenue Code.” That may be a crime, but it’s also pretty close to Ron Paul’s stump speech.

It’s hard to think of a presidential candidate who’s ever drawn a coalition as broad as Ron Paul’s. At any Paul event, you’re likely to run into self-described anarcho-capitalists, 9/11-deniers, antiwar lefties, objectivists, paleocons, hemp activists, and geeky high school kids, along with tax resisters, conspiracy nuts, and acolytes of Murray Rothbard. And those are just the ones it’s possible to categorize. It’s hard to say what they all have in common, except that every one is an ideological minority—or, as one of them put it to me, “open-minded people.” To these supporters, Paul is a folk hero, the one person in national politics who doesn’t judge them, who understands what it’s like to be considered a freak by straight society.

Which is odd, because, in person, Paul doesn’t seem like a freak. He seems like someone’s grandfather. I first met up with Paul after a rally at University of Nevada, Las Vegas. He apparently hadn’t known I was coming but accepted my arrival with Zen-like calm, welcoming me into the seat next to him in the minivan and offering me baked goods from a plate on his lap. We were both finishing our brownies when he mentioned they’d been baked by a supporter. I stopped chewing. Where I work, this is a major taboo (Rule One: Never eat food sent by viewers), and my concern must have shown. Paul grinned. “Maybe they’re spiked with marijuana,” he said.

If so, it would have been his first experience with illegal drugs. Though Paul argues passionately for liberalizing marijuana laws and is beloved by potheads (Timothy Leary once held a fund-raiser for him), he has never smoked pot himself. He sounded shocked when I asked him. “I have never seen anyone smoke marijuana,” he said. “I don’t think I’d be open to using it.” For some people, libertarianism is the philosophical justification for a zany personal life. Paul, by contrast, describes his hobbies as gardening (roses and organic tomatoes) and “riding my bicycle.” He has never had a cigarette. He doesn’t swear. He limits his drinking to an occasional glass of wine and goes to church regularly. He has been married to the same woman for 50 years. Three of their five children are physicians.

Ron Paul is deeply square, and every bit as deeply committed to your right not to be. “I don’t gamble, but I’m the gambler’s best friend,” he says, boasting of his support for online casinos. He is a Second Amendment absolutist who doesn’t own a gun. “I’ve only fired one a couple of times in my life. I’ve never gotten around to killing anything.” It’s an impressively, charmingly principled world view, though sometimes you’ve got to wonder how much Paul has in common with many of the people who support him.

Before we left the speech in Pahrump and headed across the state, I’d called a friend of mine in Carson City named Dennis Hof. Dennis owns the Moonlite BunnyRanch, probably the most famous legal brothel in the country and the setting for an HBO series called “Cathouse.” Dennis isn’t very political, but he’s smart, and I suspected he might lean libertarian. I told him Ron Paul was speaking the next morning in Reno. He said he’d drive down to see it.

I wasn’t planning on showing up at Paul’s press conference with a bordello owner and two hookers, but unexpected things happen on the road.

I’d arrived with the campaign at the Best Western Airport Plaza Hotel in Reno at two in the morning the night before, and, at some point while I was sleeping, the power in the hotel went out, disabling my alarm. By the time I woke up, Paul and his staff had left. So I called Dennis for a ride. He was there in ten minutes, in an enormous stretch limo with a BunnyRanch logo on the side. He’d brought two of his girls, Brooke and Air Force Amy, as well as his driver, a middle-aged man in a cowboy hat and Western wear. It was a conspicuous group.

Probably because they didn’t fully understand who I was coming with, the Paul people waved the limo through a roadblock outside the auditorium and brought us in through the loading dock. A Paul aide informed us that press conferences are for press only. That’s us, said the girls, and we walked right in.

The other, actual journalists looked confused. Dennis is built like a linebacker and was dressed entirely in black. Brooke and Air Force Amy looked like hookers because they are. All three slapped on Ron Paul stickers (“we could use these as pasties,” Air Force Amy said, giggling) and sat near the front. Pretty soon, Paul showed up and did his 15 minutes on liberty and Austrian economics. If he noticed there were prostitutes present, he didn’t show it.

The first time I heard Paul talk about monetary policy, I’d felt like a hostage, the only person in the room who didn’t buy into the program. Then, slowly, like so many hostages, I started to open my mind and listen. By the time we got to Reno, unfamiliar thoughts were beginning to occur: Why shouldn’t we worry about the soundness of the currency? What exactly is the dollar backed by anyway? And, if the gold standard is crazy, is it really any crazier than hedge funds? I’d become Patty Hearst, ready to take up arms for the cause, or at least call my accountant and tell him to buy Krugerrands. I looked over at Dennis and the girls. They looked like they might be having the same thoughts.

Once the press conference ended, Paul left to do interviews with local TV reporters. Dennis and the girls stood at the podium and had their pictures taken under the Ron Paul sign. Air Force Amy hammed it up. What I really want more than anything, she told me, is to get my picture taken with Dr. Paul. She meant it.

I considered trying to explain to her that I was not actually affiliated with Ron Paul, merely writing about him for a political magazine back in Washington. But I didn’t. Instead, I led all three of them into the back room where Paul was doing his interviews.

Paul was talking on camera and never saw us. But his staff was on high alert. They looked more uncomfortable than I have ever seen a campaign staff look. Air Force Amy didn’t appear to notice. Dressed in red, her Dolly Parton hairdo and 36DDs at full attention, she sidled up to Lew Moore, Paul’s campaign manager, and made her pitch. “Hi,” she said. “I’m Air Force Amy, and I’d like a picture with Ron Paul.” I knew right away it wasn’t going to happen. “I’ve got a concern, I’ve got to be honest,” Moore said, tense but trying to be nice. “If that picture surfaces, it could be very damaging to him politically.” Dennis stepped in to take up Air Force Amy’s cause, but Moore wasn’t budging. “The mainstream in the early primary states is not moving in that direction,” he said.

I really thought Air Force Amy was going to cry. She looked crushed. Like a child of alcoholic parents, she immediately started to rationalize away the pain. “It wasn’t Ron’s decision,” she told Moore. “It was yours. So I can’t take it personally.” But it was obvious that she did. It was awful. There wasn’t much left to say, so Dennis and the girls and I left and went downtown to a casino for pancakes. There were no hard feelings. They wore their Ron Paul stickers all through breakfast. If I’d had one, I would have worn it too.

Tucker Carlson is an anchor on MSNBC.

This article originally ran in the December 31, 2007 issue of the magazine.