Toyota recall – Would you turn over damaging information to competitors?

When U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Toyota owners should stop driving their cars, questions immediately emerged about LaHood’s motivations. There is no way to prove of disprove his motives; only LaHood knows for sure what motivated the statement. The perception that our government doesn’t have pure motivations is real, and this view will continue as long as they are tied to GM and Chrysler.

One question to bring up is why Toyota didn’t address the defect sooner; was it because they didn’t want to turn over damaging information to one of their competitors? Toyota could claim they were worried about the severity of the problem being exaggerated by U.S. officials, and can point to LaHood’s statement to back up those concerns.

If new regulations are put into place to protect consumers from the defects found in Toyota’s cars, Japan could start accusing the United States of regulatory misconduct and unfair trade practices. There is no guarantee a trade war will erupt from the recall, but it is a possible unintended consequence.

There might be calls for a congressional investigation of the transportation department to make sure nothing fishy has been going on. As much as I like keeping congress busy with innocuous distractions, an investigation will just be a waste of time and money because it is so difficult to prove pure or impure motivations.

The longer government motors is in existence the more the problem will grow. When GM or Chrysler wins a contract with the government, the conflict of interest problem will be brought up again. Ford will be able to claim the government is showing favoritism each time they don’t win a contract.

This story is another example of what can go wrong when one institution of society becomes too entwined with another. Hybrids work well in cars, but government and industry hybrids are accidents waiting to happen. The government should have stayed focused on its role of governing and not subsidizing industry. Staying focused on protecting liberty it is the best way to govern and avoid conflict of interests and the resulting unintended consequences.

Share Button

Democratic Party no longer Socially Liberal

Rachel Maddow questioned why Republicans are considered the “natural party of fiscal responsibility” when they don’t have a history of fiscal responsibility. Now I’m questioning why the Democratic Party is considered the natural party of being socially liberal for the same reason.

Are they really socially liberal, as in permitting freedom of action, or are they trying to shape society to what suits them?

The health care legislation is far from liberal, it is very authoritarian because it is mandatory. The only liberal part of health care bill is allowing an exemption for the Amish faith. Liberty-minded people object to the health care bill on moral principles too; maybe if we formed a religious organization we could get an exemption.

The President and many other Democrats recently denounced the Supreme Courts decision on free speech. Now Congresswoman (D) Donna Edwards is introducing a Constitutional Amendment to undo the Supreme Courts ruling.

‘‘SECTION 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds for political speech by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity.

‘‘SECTION 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.’’

Media corporations will have freedom of speech. I guess all other groups will have to become part of the press to be able to speak on political issues.

Democrats are now defending huge amounts of deficit spending. Selling future generations into slavery is a far cry from defending freedom. Deficit spending in reality is a poverty tax, because poor people don’t buy up treasury bills but have to pay them back.

Instead of defending free speech they are advocating restricting free speech and have become the party of censorship. Some Democratic party legislators are interested in bringing back the Fairness Doctrine and others have proposed hate speech legislation.

In the past they would defend the minority view and now in power they defend majority rule, as in the majority of people voted for health care reform so its OK to force the minority who do not wish to participate to buy health insurance.

So tell my why again they consider themselves the natural party of being socially liberal?

Share Button

Fleeing from Advanced Modern Democracy?

German homeschoolers granted US political asylum (volunteertv.com)

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A German couple who fled to Tennessee so they could homeschool their children have been granted political asylum by a U.S. immigration judge.

Here is another example of what life might be like living in an advanced, modern democracy. In the modern democracy of tomorrow, we won’t have to worry about the best way to raise children; there will be a department to handle those difficult decisions for parents.

The guilt parents sometimes feel because their children didn’t turn out as they had hoped will be gone. There will be no reason to take responsibility for a child’s behavior, since a state agency will have already made sure your child is well-adjusted. Parents will be mercifully spared from ungrateful children, because children will have nothing to be grateful for.

What could possibly motivate people to flee from a life lived under the worlds oldest universal health care system? Why would anyone give up all the wonderful security of Germany’s advanced modern democracy?

Its that old-fashioned, outdated notion called freedom raising its ugly head again. The sooner the United States does away with outmoded concepts of liberty, the sooner we can move on to become an advanced modern democracy– just like Germany.

Share Button

Call the Police, I’ve been attacked on Facebook

(wivb.com) 7th grader busted for Facebook attack

A seventh grader in suburban Syracuse is in deep trouble after police say she attacked a teacher through Facebook.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YnisVNClqc

Are weapons available on Facebook?

Share Button

Ron Paul “WE NEED TO TAKE OUT THE CIA”

Once again Ron Paul demonstrates that being pro-liberty means pointing out any danger of unchecked power in government. Once again the far right will call Paul crazy because the CIA is the good kind of big government bureaucracy.

Share Button

Secret Test – Military Drones being readied for Law Enforcement in AMERICA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLfd_IOneus

Ok…I’m officially a conspiracy nut now. There have been police helicopters for years, but using the same tools and tactics used to fight terrorism on US citizens is scary.

Share Button

Massachusetts Senate Race – It’s the Agenda, Stupid

The lesson to learn in the latest ping pong game of politics is when governing with an agenda other than defending freedom, you are asking for rude awaking from voters. It wasn’t Obama’s agenda that was the problem in Massachusetts–it was having an agenda to begin with. The goal of our form of government is to defend freedom, and when the power of government is used to serve other purposes there will be consequences.

No amount of marketing or packaging or media can turn a loss of freedom into something everyone will gleefully accept as beneficial. Neoconservatives tried to sell national security in exchange for liberty and paid the price at the ballot booth. Progressives have been trying to sell the security of health care insurance in exchange for liberty, and will eventually suffer the same fate as neoconservatives.

The agenda of redefining freedom as security didn’t work for the Bush administration, and redefining freedom as health care security isn’t working for Obama’s administration. They can use the power they have to force their new definitions onto the public, but there will always (and should always) be a backlash for stripping freedom rather than preserving freedom.

What happened in Massachusetts is not a lesson in politics; it’s the rule of getting into trouble when you aren’t doing the job you were hired to do. Jobs have specific requirements. You are expected to X,Y and Z and if you add V and W and stop doing X and Y, you might get fired. We hired the President and Congress; they are our employees, not our leaders. They were not hired to create new definitions of their jobs or draw up a new rule book.

I hope Washington got the message loud and clear; it’s time to put the agendas aside and get back to doing the job you were hired to do. If there is any question or doubt about the responsibilities of their job, somewhere there is a two hundred year old employee manual to follow.

Share Button

Drinking Pepsi Made Me Fat, so I’m Switching to Coke

If you heard someone say, “Drinking Pepsi made me fat, so I’m switching to Coke,” you’d think they were joking, or ignorant of the fact there isn’t much difference between the two. Maybe this person just hasn’t heard about drinking water, tea or cappuccino? Perhaps they have a short memory, and forgot they put on weight when they used to drink Coke?

Much of the debate on political blogs runs along these same lines. The Republicans sure made a mess of things, so vote for the Democrats; the Democrats are screwing up worse than the Republicans, so vote Republican. The blogs sometimes say its the voters’ fault for not voting for the good candidates, but that’s like saying you got fat by picking the wrong can of Pepsi.

Democrats and Republicans keep telling us they have changed the formula in their products. They tell us this election is different. “We are now New Coke, and New Coke tastes much better than Pepsi or old Coke.”  Then it turns out the formula hasn’t changed, and they’ve only put a new label or logo on the bottle.

As screwed up as things are right now, why do people insist on choosing between two obviously faulty products? I’m disappointed in America because there hasn’t been a third and fourth party emerge. How screwed up do things have to get before other political parties gain popularity when there is clearly a market for other brands of politics?

I like the Libertarian party, but things are so far removed from the ideas of limited governing that having Libertarians in office sounds dangerous to most. I’m not opposed to a radical change from the present situation, but to the general public, Libertarian views seem more radical than changes proposed by the far left.

I’d settle for something simpler at this point–something along the lines of a growing freedom party. Not a party to revolutionize or change everything at once, just a very simple philosophy of looking for ways to grow freedom. Any new or proposed change to legislation would be held up to the simple question: Will this lead to more or less freedom?

No hidden agenda with being pro-liberty; it would be a clear goal to restore freedom one baby step at a time. No overzealous unrealistic promises of changing the political landscape required; instead, just a very simple promise of increasing liberty when the opportunity presents itself.

It’s sad to be hoping for a party that in essence would be defending and upholding the Constitution, but that sums up just how far away from liberty we are.

Share Button

War on Drugs – the GOOD kind of Socialism?

Fark.com Seattle’s new city attorney dismissing all cases of pot possession. Conservatives outraged, saying that expensive, bureaucratic, pointless lawyers and jail cells are the GOOD kind of socialism (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

The headline is funny because its true; liberals and conservatives both suffer from “its not socialism when we do it” blindness.

It is socialism, because the mindset behind the war on drugs and health care reform are one and the same:  creating a better society through force of government. It’s saying individuals don’t own the right to choose their actions if their actions don’t benefit society as a whole.

The definition of socialism is ownership and control of the means of production and distribution. When you can force your neighbor to follow your ideas of what is good for them, you are in essence claiming ownership of your neighbor’s morality and following the philosophy of socialism. You don’t own your neighbor. You are not your neighbor’s authority. You don’t own their thoughts, or the right to determine which actions are to their benefit.

Its a good thing to want to be part of a beneficial change. America is a society rich in morality. It comes as no surprise there are large numbers of people speaking out on issues that need improvement. Improving America’s society through force damages that source of morality,  free people choosing to do the right thing without the intervention of others.

The way to achieve a better society is through persuasion and reason, not force. To those who embrace these socialist principles: the next time you see an evil in society and want to take a some action to improve the situation, speak up about it. Let others know how you think, explain your reasons for supporting or opposing an action. When reason fails to persuade and doesn’t change views , you should MAKE A BETTER ARGUMENT! Listen to the objections to your view, and use the feedback to craft a more persuasive argument.

Using force solve the problems in society is cowardly, because if you really believe in the logic and morality of your view, you’ll let the view stand on its own. If the change you seek really is beneficial, then it’s inevitable and predictable the change will come about, even if you take no action at all. Promoting a principle through force bastardizes the principle; a good principle doesn’t require force for others to adopt.

Using force to solve the problems in society is shortsighted. Force is only effective while force is present. When an authority isn’t present, people will do what they want to do. Forcing anything, even a good thing can cause people to reject it, because it’s natural to object to someone else running your life. The best society possible is one where people of good conscience act to the benefit of themselves and others by their own choice.

There is no good kind of socialism. Individuals with free will, reflecting principles of morality, own the means and production to a better society.

Share Button

Health Care Reform Bill – A Modern Advanced Civil Right?

Health care reform was sold with the argument that all Americans had the right to health care. How can something you are forced to do be considered a right? Call me mad, call me crazy, but I thought a right was something you could choose to do, or not do.

Imagine –

You were required to speak out.

You were forced to prove you are a member of a religious organization.

You were mandated to publish something.

You must own a weapon to defend yourself.

You had to peaceably assemble a certain amount of times each year.

Imagine if you didn’t do any of the above, you had to pay a 750 dollar fine for not exercising each of these rights.

This is the logic behind the health care reform bill: you have the right to health care insurance, and if you choose not to exercise this new right, you’ll pay a heavy penalty.

To sum it up, we are are being sold a lie that individual rights are an old-fashioned notion. A negative campaign is being waged that says America needs to change and be more like modern advanced countries that believe society as a whole has rights that supersede individual rights. Putting individual liberties first is only old-fashioned to Americans, because the rest of the world is still catching up with the concept. Ignoring individual rights is an age-old concept and that can hardly be described as modern or advanced.

Let me point out some less advertised features of these advanced countries American has been compared to. These are examples of what happens in countries where individual rights are placed behind society rights:

Canada – The Customs and Revenue Agency is responsible for determining which books, videos, comics, and other material should be allowed into the country.

Germany – Declared the Church of Scientology unconstitutional.

France – Wants fines for wearing burqas in public.

United Kingdom – Censors political speech and attitudes.

These countries should be examples of what not to do; they are example of the dangers of putting individual rights at the back of bus. Don’t look to them for examples on how to run America, because changing the definition of rights is not progress, it’s not advanced, and it is not a bright future.


Share Button