The war that will not end

Hell Holes: Torture, starvation and murder the norm at world’s worst gulags

 This article addresses a topic that is almost to awful to comprehend. I would not post it here except for the gravity of the lesson that I believe it teaches, which is that history has shown that in every society there are those that seek power and will use any means to obtain and retain it.  They will kill and torture without limit. One can hardly believe that people would be capable of doing the things that are discussed in this piece but I wonder if we believe that we are immune from these things.  Do we think it is impossible that leaders in our country would be willing to do these things if given the power?  If we make the same choices that people in other countries did we will sadly get the same results.  How will it happen?  Perhaps by embracing torture, indiscriminate killing with no due process, and endless war in the name of the "war on terror". 
   Liberty does not erode in a day.  Like sandcastles in the rising tide, it is broken down slowly and is given up by those who do not know the tale of history and the vital need to wrest power from the tyrants who masquerade as benevolent leaders.  Liberty can only be preserved by a balance of power.  Government is force and when government is given to one man liberty is in jeopardy. 
  The reason I feel so strongly is out of the frustration I feel when people show such apathy and a complaisant disregard for small choices that erode liberty, such as allowing a president to decide when and how to start wars and do decide who our enemies are or the utter lack of value placed on privacy, property, and individual rights.  It is as though people believe that small choices have no consequences.  Everything in history happens because of small choices though.  Your voice, your opinion, your vote, your voice, and your resistance to the overreaching arm of government matters.  You, the individual, are the only thing that makes a difference.

The natural progress of things is for Government to gain ground and for Liberty to yield.
--Thomas Jefferson

Liberty Requires Individual Rights

Some politicians advocate the notion that individual rights are subservient to needs of the "greater good" of society, in other words that community rights trump individual rights.  What would this look like in practical terms?  Policies and laws that restrict or eliminate private ownership (property rights), restricting civil liberties such as outlawing free speech in the name of hate crimes or restricting the rights of parents to teach their children what they want, restricting the amount of natural resources such as water, land, or fuel, and possibly forcing you to participate in community projects.  Like so many socialist intentions, it sounds very noble but the reality is almost the opposite of what it promises.  Without respect for individual rights we will never establish good in our community.  Happiness requires individual rights, not community rights.

Red vs Blue is not the answer

  The ideals that are laid out in both the Democratic and Republican 2012 platforms are laudable and in general I find them agreeable to my personal values.  The philosophies laid out by each are things that would be hard to disagree with by any patriotic American:

"We see an America that outeducates, out-builds, and out-innovates the rest of the world"

"...in America, hard work should pay off, responsibility should be rewarded, and each one
of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us."

"This is a land of opportunity. The American Dream is a dream of equal opportunity for all."

"This platform affirms that America has always been a place of grand dreams and even grander realities; and so it will be again, if we return government to its proper role...If we lift up the middle class"

"Reclaiming the economic security of the middle class is the challenge we must overcome today."

It would seem that both parties aspire to high ideals and have the best of intentions.  But these statements are hard to quantify.  What matters much more than intentions is results.  If a strategy aims to make a better America but ends up diminishing productivity, freedom, and safety then it deserves to be abandoned, no matter how much we wanted it to succeed.  The problem is that many people do not look at results but focus almost exclusively on intentions.  We believe what politicians say they are going to do but turn a blind eye to what they actually do.
  Unfortunately too many fallen into the trap of thinking that our political and economic issues can be solved by a contest of Red vs Blue.  They fight and struggle within an artificial constraint, wholly believing that all philosophies, ethos, strategies, and plans fall neatly into either the bin marked Republican or the one marked Democratic.  This is a war that cannot be won because the premise is wrong.  Both sides are fighting straw men, or in other words, caricatures that they have created to represent what they believe their opponents espouse.  Each side claims that their party represents the highest ideals of charity, kindness, and morality while the other side revels in selfishness, elitism, and reckless decisions.
   The solution to this problem is for individuals to build a personal political philosophy that is based on enduring principles of good government rather than one derived from or defined entirely by one of the two political parties. 

While there are many fundamental issues to grapple with, one of the most basic issues is the degree to which government should be empowered to move society.  When we debate what government should or shouldn't do and the degree of regulation and federal governance that is appropriate, the question is really whether people will they do something on their on volition (within a presumed framework of basic laws and order) or whether they need to be explicitly forced to do it.  It is a fundamental question of what we believe the nature of mankind to be.  Does mankind deserve freedom or will they squander and abuse it?  The uniqueness of government as a vehicle for social movement is that it is force. 

“Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.”
—George Washington, 1797

  Let us not naively believe that government is free from corruption and abuse anymore than any other agency.  Human beings run corporations and they also run the government.
  It is up to each person to answer the question of how much government mankind needs. Your opinion will be shaped by your religious and philosophical beliefs and can hardly be influenced by what I write but I can offer my opinion, which is that basic freedom is essential to happiness.  In other words, the least amount of federal government possible is the best for society.  The unfortunate trap that too many have fallen into is the notion that the federal government is best vehicle for affecting change. I believe that the proper role of the federal government is to protect life, liberty and property and to secure our nation.  Frederic Bastiat purported that “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”  Local governments are much better equipped to dictate policy, laws, and regulations and when they do the result is almost without exception better for society. No doubt our country faces some very challenging problems.  Don't look to the federal government to solve all of them.  I believe that there still exists a majority of people who have an innate desire to help the needy, to act with a sense of personal responsibility, to cooperate with others, and to solve problems, that we can solve many of our problems without the force of federal government.  If I am wrong, and people must be forced to do good then we are surely doomed.  If mankind "cannot be trusted with the government of himself.  Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?  Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.” -Thomas Jefferson

Global Temperature Stability

Just for the record, I have never believed that global warming was true. As someone who works in the test and measurement industry I recognized that the science behind global warming was simply not there. For starters, it is impossible to measure the temperature of the entire globe to within 1/2 of a degree. If indeed such an increase was measured then it simply confirms that the temperature of the earth is extremely stable.

Looking for Order in a Chaotic World

An Educated Electorate

One of the main reasons our country is going down the flusher is because the general electorate is so profoundly ignorant of basic principles of government and economics.  It isn't that hard to get a basic understanding of what makes the (political) world go round.  If you were only to read a few books these are the ones I would recommend.

The US Constitution
I am continually amazed at how few people have read this.  It's only a few pages for crying out loud.  Every American over the age of 16 should read this periodically.

Economics in One Lesson
or
Basic Economics

The Law

Law 101

Leaving the Nest and it's Effect on the Economy

CNN Money recently ran an article about young adults living with their parents. The gist of the article was that because of the job shortage many young adults are still living with their parents or have moved back in. Their thoughtful conclusion is that because these young folks aren't out buying homes or renting apartments there is less demand for housing (so far so good, I would say) but the author then comes to the conclusion that "as a result, the economy as a whole suffers when young adults fail to venture out on their own". Here I beg to differ. This type of thinking illustrates the lack of understanding most people have about economics. While it is true that housing demand decreases, this does not in and of itself adversely affect the economy because every dollar that was not spent on housing is spent elsewhere. If a young person can't afford housing then the economy would not be helped by them attempting to pay for it. Doing so would force them to either cut back on other expenses ("hurting" the economy) or incur debt (also not helpful to an economy). Economics requires that you look at the whole picture not just one cause and one effect. I know, it seems nit-pick-y but it's an important principle.