Random Jottings

The Mythical Belief - Government Ought to Do Something by Robert A. Meyer

People act as if the government possesses magical powers that can solve all of our individual and social ills. All this mythical entity has to do is wave its wand and all our problems vanish in a blink of an eye. I know—most people would state that this belief is ridiculous. However, is that what they really think? I can prove that the majority of people act as if this were true.

How many times have you heard someone say “Government ought to do something?” I don’t know about you, but I’ve been hearing that statement all my life. If you ask them what government should do they tell you that they don’t know—but government ought to do something.

When enough people believe in “The Big Myth” or what some call “The Big Lie” there will always be charlatans that claim they know what ought to be done. These charlatans usually practice lifetime occupations called politician, intellectual, bureaucrat, world-improver, do-gooder, altruist, etc. Government needs the support and propaganda of these “professionals” to endow “The Big Myth” with a potency of its own. And of course, the deluded citizens wait in line to receive their shot of the “cure.”

What Government Is Not

Government is not some real life Santa Claus that dispenses gifts upon its citizens— despite the fact that intellectuals and altruists claim otherwise. It may seem that government is performing this magical feat, but this is an illusion of limited consciousness.

1. Government has absolutely no wealth of its own. And it is unable to create any wealth. The only money it possesses is money it receives from its citizens through taxes and inflation. It can also sell bonds on the open market— however, it is obvious that the funds it receives from this operation is diverted from productive ventures into government coffers.

2. Since it has no wealth of its own how is it possible that it can dispense “goodies” to its citizens? By taking the “gifts” from its citizens in the first place. When the hapless voters support another government program and vote for politicians who “promise” to institute it, they are unwittingly confiscating themselves.

3. Government is obviously not a Santa Claus figure. It is actually an evil Robin Hood. Even the supposedly good Robin Hood is a thief. Forcibly taking from an individual or group to give to another individual or group is immoral, no matter what justification do-gooders and altruists spout to support it.

The Nature of Government - What It Is

1. Government is the apparatus of violent compulsion and coercion (force). Its only legitimate function is to protect an individual’s life, liberty and property.

2. Voluntary and involuntary exchanges are the two possible types of interaction between people. In a voluntary exchange all parties enter it of their free will. Government shouldn’t interfere in this type of exchange. In an involuntary exchange at least one party is in it against his or her will. Robbery, rape, murder, extortion, etc. are examples of involuntary exchanges. Government applies its apparatus of violent compulsion and coercion to arrest criminals involved in these anti-social acts. It is government’s only legitimate function.

3. When people see social phenomena they disapprove of—social phenomena that results from voluntary exchanges they often say “Government ought to do something.” What they need to realize is that they are supporting the use of violent compulsion and coercion against their fellow citizens. They are advocating liberty violations and restrictions against individual freedom. They have become liberty violators.

Conclusion

As you can see the statement “Government ought to do something” is dangerous and leads to massive violations of an individual’s life, liberty and property. In fact the disastrous results we are experiencing in the form of economic crisis, war, restrictions on personal freedom, etc. are caused by the growth of that gigantic, destructive entity called “Big Government.” Its citizens have allowed a “mythical belief”, a simple five-word sentence to create a beast of mythical proportions—a beast that is destroying “The American Dream.”

Robert A. Meyer has been investigating and studying economics, philosophy, psychology and metaphysics for 30 years. He realizes there are basic principles of Human Action that will help you become successful. His knowledge that life is to be lived on a physical, emotional, mental and spiritual level allowed him to discover “The Libertarian Way.” He experiences its many pleasures and ecstasies on a daily basis.

http://libertarianway.com/

Article Source: Life Is Cheerful

Who Should Have Barack’s Back? by Todd A. Smith

Now that the dust has settled on Barack Obama’s historic nomination as the Democratic candidate for the presidency, an equally important challenge presents itself. Who should Obama choose as his running mate for the November election?

Hillary Clinton proved herself to be a formidable foe during the Democratic primary, inspiring approximately 18 million voters, especially women, to support her with frenzy-like enthusiasm. Many of her supporters even went so far to say that they would vote for presumptive Republican nominee John McCain if Obama and not Clinton was on the ballot.

While Clinton has enjoyed a huge advantage among White women and blue-collar Whites, is she the perfect fit for Obama in November? Many political pundits and politicians, including former President Jimmy Carter, believe this would be a disaster because of all the baggage that comes with the Clinton name.

Furthermore, many believe when frustrated Clinton supporters look at the issues and see how different Obama and McCain are on issues such as the economy, the Iraq War and abortion rights, they will tone down their disgust and join the Barack bandwagon.

Additionally, many Republicans, conservatives, and the all-important Independents despise Clinton, according to the Associated Press. Some even believe that having Clinton on the ticket will encourage conservatives to vote for McCain, despite having doubts that he is a true conservative. And Independents comprised a quarter of all voters in the 2004 presidential election.

According to an Associated Press-Yahoo News Poll, 32 percent of Independents strongly dislike Clinton. In addition, 67 percent of Republicans have a very unfavorable view of Clinton, 24 points more than Obama. However, Clinton does 23 points better than Obama against McCain among Hispanics, 18 points better with Catholics and 14 points better with elderly Whites, and each group will play a significant role on the outcome come November.

Another possibility could be the junior senator from Virginia, Jim Webb. Obama is often criticized by the McCain camp for not having a military background and a lack of experience on foreign affairs. Webb could possibly soften this criticism because of his successful career in the armed forces.

Webb served his country valiantly in the Vietnam War and was awarded the Navy Cross, a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Hearts. He also served under the Ronald Reagan administration as secretary of the Navy. Just as important is his southern roots, which could possibly appeal to blue-collar Southern Whites who largely supported Clinton in the primaries.

Despite his military experience, Webb is not without controversy. He is infamous for an encounter with President George W. Bush regarding his son’s military service in Iraq. And on March 26, 2007, his aide Phillip Thompson was arrested for carrying Webb’s loaded pistol as he entered the Russell Senate Office building and also for carrying unregistered ammunition.

Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, Jr. believes Delaware Senator Joe Biden would be an excellent answer to McCain’ war hero status because of his experience in foreign affairs.

Dionne wrote that Biden is from Pennsylvania, which will be a crucial state for the Democrats in November. He has run for the presidency twice, enduring the media scrutiny that comes with seeking the highest office in the land. He is also Catholic and from a blue-collar background.

Obama could also choose former Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards because of his appeal to Southern voters. Or maybe even New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson to appeal to Hispanic voters. Hispanics will be a crucial demographic for Obama to win because little separates McCain and Obama on immigration, with both favoring a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Regardless of who Obama chooses as his running mate, it will be crucial that he makes the correct choice and appeal to a broader audience if he is to be successful in his bid to become the first Black president of the United States.

Todd A. Smith is the web master for Regal Mag The preeminent Online Magazine for African American Men

Article Source: Life Is Cheerful

Bi-Party Tickets Totally Senseless by Stuart Nachbar

I receive a daily news feed from Salon, and for the past two days I have received articles about Obama-Hagel and McCain-Lieberman unity tickets. I have just three words for those who believe such events will happen: it ain’t happening.

Abraham Lincoln was the last president to choose a vice president from the other party, when he ran for re-election in 1864. But Lincoln didn’t run as a Republican. He ran on a fusion ticket, the National Union Party, comprised of Republicans, northern Democrats and southern Democrats who opposed the Confederacy. Lincoln’s vice president, and eventual successor, Andrew Johnson was the military governor of Tennessee. He was later impeached, and the National Union Party was soon dissolved. But there is a lesson to be learned: if something happens to the president, and you have a vice president from the other party, you might inadvertently hand the responsibility of governing to your opponents.

That’s why it makes no sense for either party to select a vice presidential candidate that their rank and file will not accept, not to mention it is an insult to party loyalists — quite often fine candidates — who want to be Vice President. It doesn’t say much for party leadership when they believe that their best chance of winning is to persuade someone to jump ship. It also shows that the party may lack strong candidates who appeal to an important voting bloc, for instance pro-choice or pro-life, pro-military or anti-war, that could mean electoral victory.

Of the two major party candidates, Barack Obama has the greater problem finding a running mate; he needs a Democrat with strong foreign policy credentials who can also win Republican states, as opposed to a Republican who will come under fire from his own party. Two such senators come to mind: Bill Nelson of Florida and Senator Jim Webb of Virginia.

Webb, an acclaimed author and former Navy Secretary under Ronald Reagan is the better known of the two, though he is only a first-term senator. He is the primary sponsor for new G.I Bill and a pragmatic voice on military policy and criminal justice. Nelson, a member of the Senate Armed Services, Budget, Commerce, Foreign Relations, and Intelligence committees, was re-elected in 2006 in a landslide, with 60 percent of the popular vote. He is the most powerful Democrat in a pivotal and largely Republican state. Either man would unify Democratic voters better than a Republican defector. Between Nelson and Webb, I’d prefer Nelson, though I like the other man. Nelson has stood the test of re-election and Florida has been the more important battle ground in the last two presidential elections. Bill Clinton won the Sunshine State in 1996, while no Democratic presidential candidate has won Virginia since 1964.

A Democratic president could also appoint Republicans to his cabinet and vice-versa. John F. Kennedy followed that example; he appointed Republicans (C. Douglas Dillon) to serve as Treasury Secretary and Defense Secretary (Robert McNamara). Bill Clinton’s last Secretary of Defense (William Cohen) was also a Republican. Even in fiction this happens: in Robin Gerber’s novel Eleanor and Ike, Democratic candidate Eleanor Roosevelt proposes that she will name General Dwight Eisenhower as Secretary of Defense and in the West Wing Democratic president Jed Bartlet asks Arnold Vinnick, Republican senator and presidential candidate, to become his Secretary of State (though he refused).

If a President McCain or a President Obama is serious about the politics of inclusion, he should appoint key cabinet members from the opposite party for advice and counsel and to try to create a win-win situation when nothing else will do. The war in Iraq is one good example; we are in this war, like it or not, and it will take wisdom from both parties to develop the diplomatic, humanitarian and military solutions to extract our soldiers from there. We are responsible for the reconstruction of that country. Other areas where we must create bi-partisan win-win solutions are emergency management, Social Security, Medicare, energy independence and health care.

But neither president needs to risk their line of succession to create the wins.

Contact Stuart Nachbar at Educated Quest, a blog on education politics, policy and technology or read about his first book, The Sex Ed Chronicle, a novel on education and politics in 1980 New Jersey, at Sex Ed Chronicles.

Article Source: Life Is Cheerful

Gaza Strip’s Plight by Jordan FeRoss

A great number of men, women and children in the Gaza Strip live in one of the most chaotic environments on Earth. The escalating violence between warring political factions such as the Palestinians and Israelis has caused many to doubt the prospect of a peaceful state. And many are wondering if the Gaza Strip will return to its former grandeur as the gem Mediterranean.

The Gaza Strip is rife with political contradiction and corruption. In retrospect, the actions of the Palestinians to retain control of Gaza have been considered by many to be outrageous and condemnable. Once the Israelis surrendered control of Gaza City, the Palestinians were divided into two major parties for the reign of Gaza- Hamas and Fateh. Will the Gaza Strip ever know peace?

Both the Israelis and the Palestinians have always been known for their convictions and unrelenting character, which some believe is their downfall. And while Palestinians quibble over their small scraps of land, the Israelites will continue to enjoy their vacation from Hamas violence. However, the future of the Gaza Strip does not look promising.

Until the late 1940’s, ethnicities and religions of all kinds lived together in peace in the Gaza Strip. Christians, Muslims and Jews were neighbors, all of whom worshipped on the same soil. After WWII, what many have referred to as “The Great War”, British troops seized control of Palestine and remanded the country to the hands of the Jews as a gift. It was then to be known as the Jewish Nation. Without remorse or approval, the Jews banished many Palestinian citizens from their own homes and land. A number of them fled to nearby countries, yet many remained – to fight what they viewed as tyranny and injustice. Thus, Gaza Strip Palestinians have been a requisite ingredient to define this region.

This serves as a great history lesson to the world. So long as Israel occupies the Gaza Strip Palestine will never see peace. The Palestinians’ view is that the Gaza Strip and the remainder of the land surrounding it belongs to the them alone. But since they cannot come to an accord then what will become of the Jews if they are forced out of Palestine. After having lived there for 50 years, Jews consider this their homeland. Several generations of Jews have been born and raised there. So removing them is hardly an option. Perhaps a return to the original state, where Christians, Muslims and Jews live together in harmony is what this region needs the most.

Is it right to empathize with the Jews or do we empathize with the original Palestinians? It is a difficult question. The atrocities of the holocaust left many feeling that the Jews deserved a home of their own. After all, they have been persecuted for thousands of years. Perhaps the correct answer is that we sympathize with both. But the worst attitude we could possibly take is to become callous to the events in this region. We cannot fall into apathy over the seemingly interminable violence.

This article about the Gaza Strip is brought to you by Jordan FeRoss. If you happen to Sympathize with Gaza then spread the word.

Article Source: Life Is Cheerful

Obama to Attack Tax Havens by Roger Munns

America and Europe face a pretty bleak 2009 as the world starts to feel the recession biting, and millions of people could be made unemployed.

And as unemployment rises and politicians see their poll ratings slip, part of the blame for the economic downturn will be put on tax havens, with astronomical sums being banded around of how much each country would benefit if tax havens didn’t exist.

Tax havens are an easy target for politicians - voters who take up residency in tax havens often legally are no longer able to contribute to political parties in their home country, and politicians have nothing to lose, but quite a few votes to gain by bashing the wealthy who have opted to move abroad.

And with a new President in the White House, and the next election campaign starting all over again in just a couple of years time, America as well as Europe will be putting tax havens such as Monaco under the spotlight in the months to come.

Obama campaigned in the Senate to reduce the effectiveness of tax havens, and it’s thought that the US Treasury Department will be given more manpower to investigate what can be done to stop American citizens money leaving the US for tax havens, with new legislation likely for 2009.

In Europe, it’s Germany leading the attacks on tax havens. Having already secured stolen data from Liechtenstein which identified German citizens with accounts there, Germany’s Chancellor, Angela Merkel, is thought to have Switzerland in her sights for the year ahead.

Monaco Hotels

But one British company who specialise in tax haven properties, and are the only company to have fully staffed associate offices in both Monaco and Andorra, thinks the politicians would be hard pressed to convince the public that tax havens were a major cause of the world’s economic problems if the facts were known.

‘The public perception of Monaco is often that it’s a glamourous country which is home to multi millionaires, the Monte Carlo casino and the Monaco Grand Prix - and that’s it’, say Tribune, who through their online presence try to show a more complete picture of Monaco.

‘The reality of the situation is that Monaco is much more than just a casino, fast cars and James Bond lifestyles led by millionaires and multi-millionaires in a tax haven. More people are employed in the Monaco manufacturing sector than the finance sector including the Monaco banks for example.’

As well as a misconception of the reality of Monaco, the company feels that the Principality is poorly portrayed by commentators when it comes to her taxes - income tax is famously zero - and points out that while Monaco might be small at just a square mile in size, it’s an independent country and a member of the United Nations.

‘Politicians in the US and Western Europe always beat the drum for freedom of choice’, Tribune say, ‘But when it comes to taxes they don’t want their citizens to have the choice of where to reside if it involves taxes lower than their own country. Monaco for example is able to subsidise public transport and do her bit for the environment as well as have minimal taxation - the truth is big government doesn’t like the competition.’

If the economy doesn’t show any sign of improvement in 2009, tax havens might be in the news quite a bit more.

Monacoproperty.net includes Monte Carlo hotels plus etiquette for the poker in Monte Carlo.

Article Source: Life Is Cheerful