Has it really come to this?!

As I am writing this the day before the Super Tuesday primaries, it is widely anticipated that John McCain will be the Republican nominee for President in '08. What a tragedy for Conservatives(C) and True (commonly referred to as "classical") Liberals(TL) alike. As Rush Limbaugh opined on his broadcast today, it is the liberal media that have characterized McCain as a "maverick" Republican. To the sane among us, he is not a maverick, he is a liberal in Republican clothing. Rush's well-taken point was that he is no maverick with respect to MSM/Liberal establishment, with whom his politics resonate. As for his characterization as a Republican "maverick" by the MSM, turncoat would be a more apt description. He can only be described as a "maverick" Republican from a liberal standpoint. From a Republican standpoint, he must be viewed as a liberal Republican, as evidenced by the support he is getting from Sen.'s Snow and Collins, Gov. Schwarzenegger, Rudy (who I at least believed would appoint constitutionalist judges) and for-the-love-of-God the NY Times! His self-description, as promoted by his TV ads, as a "true conservative" is chillingly Orwellian.

Furthermore, he is a liberal by inclination. He has obviously, and by his own admission, expended little effort in contemplating the essential fundamental economic principles that make Capitalism not just the most productive anti-poverty economic system ever devised by man, but, precisely because it has raised more of humanity out of poverty and oppression than any other system, it is simultaneously the morally superior system, as well. Not coincidentally, it is the only economic system perfectly consistent and compatible with the fundamental, non-negotiable, natural human right to personal liberty, as enshrined in our founding documents.

Given his class-warfare rhetoric in rejecting the Bush tax cuts, his assertion on Katie Couric's show last week that the book, other than the Bible, that he would choose to take with him to the White House, if he were permitted only one book, would be "The Wealth of Nations", is hard to swallow. That book is a difficult read for a trained economist, never mind someone who admits to economic ignorance as Mr. McCain has done. He would do better to take "Common Sense" by Thos. Paine or "The Federalist Papers" (if as Hillary contends, that would be her choice, if she read it she certainly did not comprehend it) from the same era, or Henry Hazlet's "Economics in One Lesson" from the mid-twentieth century, or perhaps Frederic Bastiat's "The Law" from the mid-nineteenth century. All four would be commendable residents in any American's library.

The only reason John McCain is unaware of the demonstrable superiority of capitalism, is the same reason that makes passionate and otherwise intelligent people liberals: intellectual laziness. Mr. Limbaugh also hit on this briefly in the course of characterizing the necessarily gruelling nature of the intellectual commitment to reason that leads one, inevitably, to a commitment to personal liberty (which Mr. Limbaugh somewhat sloppily equates with conservatism. I can only hope that he continues his journey). People who avoid this hard work remain or become liberals by default ("Unless you think hard about political questions in our culture, you are liberal by default. You have to think your way out of liberalism." - Heather MacDonald). Mr. McCain is a "default" liberal precisely because he makes no attempt to contemplate the founding principles of this nation for which he has so bravely and selflessly sacrificed.

Would that he applied the same tenacious passion to the intellectual heavy-lifting required to lead one out of 21st century liberalism, as he heroically applied in the face of unspeakable brutality in captivity in Hanoi. I would just like to digress here for a moment to add that I will always hold Mr. McCain in the most esteemed awe and admiration for his sacrifice on behalf of American generations unknown and unseen to him, including myself and my children, in his service in combat, as well as in his dark days of captivity. That is a debt that can never be repaid to him, nor do I believe that he would dishonor that sacrifice with any expectation of reward. That was Benedict "Hero of Saratoga" Arnold's particular sin, and I am as certain of Mr. McCain's innocence of it as I am of my own name. Likewise, we American voters, especially us veterans, should not devalue that sacrifice with any misguided sense of obligation to repay it by reward of office, especially the highest office in the land. There is no reward, other than a continued and deep sense of gratitude, that might be remotely adequate to compensate him for his sacrifice.

This all leaves us C/TL adherents with a choice between a Republican liberal, or a Democrat liberal. If I become convinced that McCain will appoint judges to the Supreme Court such as Janice Rogers Brown, or Sam Alito, I will cast a ballot for him come November. If not, I will stay home. Absent that confidence in judicial appointees, this is less a choice between Tweedle-dumb and Tweedle-dumber, than a choice between the lesser of two liberals. And for me, that is no choice at all. If he can't be relied upon to appoint constitutionalist judges, then, per Mr. Limbaugh, I'd just as soon the blame for the debacle which will ensue in the coming years were not laid at the feet of the Republican party. With all the flaws exhibited by the GOP, as evidenced by the validity of McCain's candidacy, it still is not as riddled with anti-American liberal sentiment as the Democrats.

For my 2-bits, I wish the GOP would foreswear the self-destructive diluting primary process, and revert to the "smoke-filled room" method for choosing a candidate to put before the American people.

The Founders were deeply concerned with the "one man, one vote" forms of democracy that had proven disastrous and short-lived throughout history. The electoral college was meant to be a bulwark against tyranny of the majority, and against power hungry megalomaniacs. Especially in this day and age, the average citizen cannot possibly be sufficiently informed (especially given the largely successful propaganda effort from the liberal media/academia/Hollywood cabal) to make a truly intelligent voting decision, and the younger they are, the less informed and wise (and consequently more liberal) they are likely to be. Liberalism is dependent for its ascendancy on ignorance and intellectual vacuity. Of course, today's average liberal politician is so much wiser than the Founders were (NOT!) and they have flattered the ignorant masses that they are indeed sufficiently informed and wise to grasp the issues at hand and directly elect all of our representatives, the president included. It has become a point of ridiculously false pride that everyone is just as smart and informed as anyone else. This is just as demonstrably false as the premise that everyone is just as tall or short as anyone else. It's objectively absurd. The Founders instituted the Electoral College precisely in anticipation of this kind of manipulative power grab by those motivated almost exclusively by the need to grab it. Unfortunately, the Electoral College has proven vulnerable to liberal predation. This is why we end up with people who advocate "stimulus packages" and anti-1st amendment legislation on one side, and mortgage rate freezes and socialized health care on the other (not that the Republicans are blameless in the progress of socialized health care, as evidenced by Pres. Bush's prescription plan). The first step on the path to knowledge and wisdom is the admission of ignorance. There is no shame in ignorance, only in the conceit that one is not ignorant. We are all 95% ignorant, at least. This is obviously objectively true. We must have, as individuals, in all humility, enough imagination to imagine that there is a great deal that is beyond our imagination. That is true wisdom as well as humility.

In the halcyon days of my youth, the political parties would decide what they stood for, BEFORE choosing a candidate. Then they would search for a politically viable candidate who could be counted on as a standard bearer for those views, and decide upon that candidate in private conclaves, outside the purview of the press and public. We have already, to a dangerous extent, mistakenly devolved the elections to the public at large, but the party selection process is not (or at least should not) be subject to approval of elected politicians and appointed bureaucrats. The parties could re-introduce some of the cautionary distance between the public and their candidates, which has been corrupted (from the Founders' perspective), by this near religious commitment to the one man, one vote heresy.

There is nothing new in the one man, one vote political philosophy. The philosophy was well known in antiquity. The Roman emperors offered the citizenry circuses to buy their votes. Our would-be rulers offer us stimulus packages and "free" health care. Direct voting for politicians inevitably introduces the lowest common denominator effect to the process. The Founders tried to protect us from that (Benjamin Franklin warned, "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."), but like much of their wisdom, it has been successfully obscured by our would-be rulers. A bold move on the part of the GOP might restore some semblance of reason to the process and yield candidates who are truly dedicated to the ideals of liberty, property, and the rule of law. Whether a direct vote would elect them is anybody's guess, but given the current state of affairs, it's hard to imagine how it could be any worse.

BTW:
I was deeply moved and heartened watching the Super Bowl, by the reading of the Declaration of Independence which was so eloquently delivered to all America by sports figures who are revered by so many of our children, as by so many of their elders. I am hopeful that the sentiments of our Founders took root in their hearts. It is unlikely that such a reverent reading of our Founders' eloquence was ever witnessed by them in their educational experience. I can't imagine a more productive and beneficial use of those precious $4M/minutes than that to which the NFL put them last night. THANK YOU!. And thank you, Jordin Sparks, for your moving and emotional rendition of our National Anthem. BRAVO!!!

Once again, now that the significantly lesser statists, Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson, have failed to impress the ignorant masses, we are guaranteed a more statist president yet again. The only difference I can discern amongst all those left standing that have a chance of winning their parties' nominations, is one of degree.

There isn't one of them who demonstrates any understanding of fundamental economics, which is not surprising given the abysmal level of economic literacy to be found even in our university economics departments, where Marxism is still taught with, not just a straight face, but with reverence. While it is foolishness to expect Democrats to exhibit any comprehension of basic economic principles, I think it was at least defensible to hope for more from Republicans.

While Paul, who has no chance of nomination, understands economic fundamentals, due to his embrace of personal liberty, he has no appreciation of the fact that in order to have a nation dedicated to liberty, you must first have a viable nation. Economic parity between the formerly free market classical liberal nations of the west and the increasingly competitive despotic cultures, due to our failure to protect private property and free markets that were the source of our primacy and prosperity, have left us vulnerable to existential threats that a more vigorous commitment to liberty and capitalism (BTW, the only moral economic system, and consistent with personal liberty) might have thwarted.

Our wanna-be annihilators, as a direct result of our shackling of the free market here in America, can now afford technology sufficient to destroy us. Not because of their cultural superiority, but because of our willful abandonment of ours. Had our economy been firing on all 8 cylinders, rather than 1 or 2, for the past several decades, we would certainly have had superior technology and resources with which to defend ourselves. Imagine, if you will, that we had developed our own coal, oil, and nuclear energy resources, bearing in mind that historically, environmental concern is a luxury only the most prosperous peoples can afford. Environmental improvement is directly proportional to national wealth. Not only would that energy have been more abundant, and therefore resulted in burgeoning development here, but would simultaneously have deprived these despotic cultures of the American dollars we've been throwing at them by the billions, enabling their nefarious intentions for America. The same holds true for our idiotic "War on Drugs". Those enemies that don't have oil with which to accumulate American dollars, have drugs! Between the 2 misguided "Wars" on poverty and drugs, we have simultaneously impoverished our innovator/entrepreneurs, bankrupted our children, and enriched our enemies. If this hadn't been foreseen by our founding fathers it would have been bad enough, but our "educators" have kept generations of Americans ignorant of their heritage, having convinced themselves that their "new", "progressive" ideas have trumped the true genius of their forebears. They are as imbeciles when compared to our founders. Their "new", "progressive" ideas are older than dirt. It's despotism in "liberal" clothing. They are classic cases of arrested development, resulting in juvenile delinquency! As Pelosi promised, the children are in charge, now.

We have been eating our seed corn. I fear it may already be too late to salvage this noble American experiment in personal liberty and self-government. The main culprit in this disgrace, in my opinion, has been the socialist school system. Not only has it failed to educate our citizens in matters of economics, but has failed to teach history, language, literature, Western culture and, in many instances, basic literacy! It has churned out the socialists who infest our public schools, universities, and media outlets, and have consequently put the very survival of America in peril. They have deliberately destroyed the traditions (please see Thomas Sowell's "Conflict of Visions" for a lucid explanation of how traditions got to be traditions, and their importance to a functioning society) that are essential to the informing of a truly liberal society, and replaced them with... what? "New" traditions? That's an oxymoron. How about, no traditions! That way lies madness.

We now find ourselves in an untenable situation. The capability to defend ourselves as a nation requires capital and innovation, precisely those resources that are in short supply in our over-regulated socialist economy. I fear for our children. WE HAVE BANKRUPTED THEM! WE HAVE EXPOSED THEM TO ANNIHILATION! And they have had no voice in their fate. It is they who will be at the mercy of our tormentors. When I meet my maker, it will be cold comfort to be able to say that I raised my voice in opposition to the arrogant, ignorant, socialists who betrayed our ancestors' sacrifice and derailed the American experiment., bringing about the end of commitment to personal liberty.

Modern "liberals" have succeeded in convincing a majority of Americans that they should be ashamed of the material and moral superiority that our commitment to personal liberty has generated, and the exponential growth in our prosperity that it has afforded us. For them, personal liberty is the enemy. Had we not succumbed to liberal/socialist BS, we might have taken advantage of the window of opportunity afforded to us, and converted the rest of the world to personal liberty, private property, and capitalist economics and, albeit inadvertently, created a prosperous, free-trading global economy with minimal international conflict. I fear that window is rapidly closing. Those who write the history of the demise of America, being the victors, will likely portray us unkindly, after the fashion of Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Edwards, Pelosi, both Clintons, Gore, Obama, et al. Perhaps several centuries afterward, some semblance of the reality of the essence of America - personal liberty, the sanctity of private property (beginning with ownership of one's own body, as argued by Frederic Douglas) and the inherent generosity of a free people - will be rediscovered. That is, if humanity avoids self-annihilation. Perhaps it is our role in human history to be yet another milepost on the road to a global, free society, rooted in personal liberty. Greece, Rome, America, ? . American constitutional federalism may yet prevail in the centuries to come.

For now, I will hold my nose and vote for Tweedle Dumb, the Republican, again.

I received the following email forwarded by an old friend today:

 

Subject: FW: Thanks for taking action! Will you forward this message?

Hi Family, Friends, and Activists,

 

Did you know that in 31 states it's perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay?  Or that in 39 states it's legal to fire someone for being transgender?  I found it pretty hard to believe.  Here we are in the 21st century, in a country that prides itself on equal opportunity, and millions of Americans can be denied a job or fired - not for poor performance, but for simply being themselves.

 

I just took action with the Human Rights Campaign to end this appalling injustice.  I hope you'll join me today, by sending a message to your lawmakers in Congress urging them to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which will make this kind of discrimination illegal once and for all.

 

It's easy.  To take action, go to:

<http://www.passENDAnow.org>

 

Here is my response to the list of recipients:

 

***,

 

My old friend! As much as I love you, I will not be forwarding this email.

 

Perhaps some of you might find this worthy of consideration.

 

Where does Liberty enter into this issue? It is apparently of little concern to those proposing this “solution” to the "problem", as stated. Is there a human being anywhere who does not see themselves as perfectly suited to the job they are seeking or doing? How then to explain rejection or firing? There must be some other reason. Prejudice! If all of us got to determine our conditions of employment, we’d all be making 7 figures and be immune to termination. Liberty guarantees me the right to seek any job I choose, not to secure it on my terms. This is the true nature of equal opportunity. What the petition refers to is equal outcomes, as determined by the employee. Liberty also gives my potential employer the right to hire and fire whom he chooses, including me. This is only the best solution, not perfect by any means. Perfection will have to await Divine Intervention.

 

What do you do if an employee of yours is gay or transgender, and incompetent? Apparently, we have 19 states that have decided to make it difficult for a business owner to do what’s best for the rest of his employees, his customers, and the survival of his business. Is there something inherently inferior in the character of the business owner that makes him less capable than a government bureaucrat in deciding his own staffing issues? Is there something inherently superior in the character of gays that they should enjoy immunity from the vicissitudes of the labor market? Is there some inherent quality of bureaucrats that endows them with faculties superior to those of the business owner, in determining what's best for all concerned? Or is it that business owners, by virtue of being business owners, don't deserve the protections of liberty? This "solution" may look OK from your house, but it will be pure hell on business owners.

 

It seems obvious to me that a business owner would be more inclined to ignore his personal prejudices and keep a productive gay employee on the payroll, while a bureaucrat who has no financial stake in the outcome would more likely force a business owner to keep an incompetent gay employee for political appearances, and less likely to permit him to fire him for blatant incompetence. Any business owner who would indulge his prejudices at the expense of his business would be all the more likely to suffer, in this instance, a well-deserved bankruptcy. By the same token, any bureaucrat who indulges his prejudice against the business owner (who, by the way, is a minority in any economy), and panders to gay political organizations, has everything to gain, and nothing to lose by his interference. His prejudices are given free reign. If the bureaucrat is wrong, he can just say, “Oops”, walk away from the damage he causes, and move on to the next target. Incompetent gay employees become political appointees at the expense of the business owner, his customers, and employees. That benefits no one.

 

A private citizen should not have to seek permission from some bureaucrat to conduct his private business as he sees fit. If his judgment is faulty, the market place will punish him in perfect proportion to his offense. No sane business owner, regardless of his prejudice, is inclined to leave money on the table by firing an employee who is a net contributor to his bottom line. Assume, for the sake of argument, that Alex Rodriguez were gay and Steinbrenner were prejudiced against gays. Given these assumptions, do you believe that Steinbrenner would fire A-Rod and risk seeing him in a Red Sox uniform in the post-season? I think not. I think Steinbrenner would find a way to suppress his prejudices and keep him on the payroll, don’t you?

 

Let’s not forget, we’re all human beings here. None of us is “without sin” with regard to prejudice. The problem with all prejudice is that “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”. If your prejudice leads you to believe a substantial percentage of business owners are inclined to indulge their prejudices regardless of the consequences to their businesses, you will see it everywhere. I’ve been on enough jobs with enough gay people to know that that is clearly not the case. In addition to the chilling effect on the rest of your staff; if you fire competent people to satisfy your prejudice, your competition will hire them and beat you with them. The more astute of the remaining employees would be likely to see this one coming, and seek more secure employment elsewhere, hastening the outcome. This is a far more likely circumstance than a world populated by wise beneficent bureaucrats, tort lawyers, and D.A.’s on white horses, righting wrongs (Mike Nifong, anyone?). Business owners have an existential stake in their hiring practices. Politicians and bureaucrats have an existential stake in justifying their existence by finding politically unpopular targets, and currying favor with gullible voters. This “solution” will do far more to keep incompetent gays on the payroll, for fear of lawsuits, than it will to prevent a relative handful of clearly prejudicial firings, where those unduly fired employees can likely find work elsewhere, if they are truly competent, and the business owner will suffer very real consequences.

 

I’ve never come across a human being who was entirely free of prejudice. Likewise, I’ve never come across a human being who was capable of mind-reading, sufficient to determine whether someone else was acting purely out of prejudice. I am reasonably certain that gathering a number of such super-humans sufficient to populate a bureaucracy created for this purpose will be beyond the capacity of the legislature, impressive as they may be. The balance, the overwhelming majority of such bureaucrats, will be fit, in the course of justifying their paycheck, to cause a lot of damage to business owners and, consequently, the general public.

 

MYOB has always been some of mom’s best advice. It’s no less so today. The less government does, regardless of how wonderful it all looks on paper, the better off we all will be, gays included. It may be legal in 31 states to fire someone for being gay, but it’s pretty damn stupid always and everywhere to do so. The marketplace will more than adequately punish such stupidity. Conversely, stupid legislation will punish all of us, diminishing our Liberty, granting new powers to the government, and once on the books it’s practically immortal.

 

The fact that there are 50 different experiments going on in this arena is a good thing, and precisely the intent of the Founders of our federal republic. Time will tell who has it right. There is no place for federal legislation in this matter, according to our Constitution.

 

Don’t just make a difference. Make a positive and substantial difference. Preserve Liberty.

 

For further reading:

 

http://www.fee.org/library/books/critique.asp

 

Sincerely,

 

Bill Reed

 

I received the following response from my friend's daughter:

Hi Bill-

I don't know you.  I am *******'s daughter.  I think you miss the point of ENDA.  A business owner can fire a gay person if the gay person is incompetent.  The PROBLEM occurs when the business owner fires or chooses not to hire this person for the sole reason that he or she is GAY. 


I do not have the time to go into a detailed response to what you have said here.  I wish I did.  Just so there is full disclosure here, I am a lesbian.  Maybe you didn't know that **** had a gay kid when you sent that email, but now you do know.  Maybe you have never experienced prejudice so you do not know what it is like to be discriminated against.  I hope you never have to.

*****

 

 

******,

Here's my response to her:

 

I’m an old friend of your dad’s from High School.

The problem you refer to will be small potatoes compared to the problems that will ensue from your solution. Determining whether or not the “sole reason” is that they are gay is going to be a little less straightforward than you seem to imagine.

To begin with, there isn’t a human being walking the face of the earth that hasn’t experienced the sting of prejudice. The suggestion that my disagreement with your argument betrays a lack of sensitivity to the sting of prejudice is a condescending insult. I know you did not intend it to be (because I have some idea of how you were raised ;-) ), but it is. It is also a conversation stopper. It is little more than a suggestion that I butt out of an argument that has far-reaching negative repercussions for my children. It is an effort to silence opposition, rather than engage the substance of it. In friendship and affection, I hope that by my stating this, you will in the future limit yourself to addressing the substance of arguments, and leave the ad hominem stuff alone. The logic of my argument is not dependent upon who is reading it. I would not be surprised to find that you have silenced a great many opponents with such a tactic. Not that you intentionally do it with silencing in mind, only that it works and if you don't bother to examine it, you will be inclined to indulge in it. It's a bad habit and not conducive to self-education.

 

Secondly, who is the omniscient personage who will sit in judgment as to whether the employee in question is being fired for the reasons stated by the employer, or from blind prejudice as contended by the employee? I don’t think you will find many examples where a person is told, at least formally, that they are being fired for being gay now, and even less if such a law is put into place. That adjudicator will not only have to possess the Wisdom of Solomon, but the telepathic mind-reading abilities usually found only in science fiction and fantasy novels. I doubt that one such person could be found, never mind a sufficient quantity of them to adjudicate the deluge of cases the tort lawyers are salivating for. The incompetent gay person would not only have to be incompetent in the eyes of the employer, who stands to lose financially due to his incompetence, but in the eyes of the adjudicator, who has no such stake. If the adjudicator never finds a case where the charge of incompetence is unwarranted, how can he justify his lofty position as adjudicator? So, even if, in the most unlikely case, no such offense is ever truly proved, there is tremendous pressure on the adjudicator to nonetheless occasionally find in favor of the employee. Finding in favor of the employer offers no benefit to the adjudicator. Finding in favor of the employee constitutes job security. These adjudicators will be drawn from the same class of humans as the business owners. They will consequently be no less inclined to moral corruption than employers, employees, or anyone else. The out-of-court buy-offs by the corporations will do nothing to improve their profitability, with decreased payrolls a likely side effect.

 

A person’s private life is, and ought to be, of no concern to anyone but that person. That’s the essence of liberty. Your own private life has no relevance to me or my argument. You have no way of knowing whether or not I am gay. Neither do I assume you are, or should be, ashamed of being gay. If I thought there was anything insulting to gay people in my argument, I wouldn’t support it myself. The fact is, there is nothing in my argument that could possibly be taken as an offense, unless you were determined to interpret it that way as a strategy to avoid the substance of it. My argument was never intended to be whispered amongst heterosexuals only. The fact of your lesbianism is meaningless in this context.

 

You should not consider every disagreement with your goals as an attack on your chosen lifestyle. That makes civil discourse impossible. Any disagreement we might have lies in whether this is an area in which the coercive powers of government need to be brought to bear. I don’t think you will find anything in my remarks that could rationally be interpreted as prejudice against, or an insult to gay people. I know this, because that is not how I feel about people. There is no greater expression of love for humanity than a commitment to universal liberty. “The right to be wrong” is a serviceable definition of liberty. Your right to the lifestyle of your choice, like mine, should not be subject to the approval of anyone else, least of all some bureaucracy. That’s more in line with Bin Laden’s worldview than Thomas Paine’s.

 

Liberty for a few at the expense of others is license, not liberty. Several hundred years of common law, and our constitution, recognize that a business or corporation is on a more or less equal footing under the constitution with an individual. Consequently, the protections of liberty extend to corporations and businesses. Freedom of association is a fundamental liberty of all Americans and is ordinarily considered a natural right. It is the principle under which your gay relationships are protected. Abridging that right, in the case of businesses, has a greater potential for evil than for good, despite the best of intentions.

 

The crux of the issue here is whether an ordinary human bureaucrat or politician is going to be any better at ameliorating this particular “flavor” of stupidity/prejudice than an equally human business owner, and, if so, whether it’s worth giving up still more of our liberty. The argument I make is that they will do worse. At least a business owner’s potential prejudiced proclivities are significantly attenuated by his interest in profit (see the A-Rod reference in my email). There are no such brakes on the behavior of the government, and they have the guns to enforce the stupidity/prejudice of their officials

 

Always bear in mind that all government regulatory activities are not just coercive in a rhetorical sense, but backed up by incarceration and the force of arms. Additionally, every decision we cede to the government diminishes our liberty. It is tragic that our education system has obscured our history, and the arguments that were settled long ago (see: The Federalist Papers) and incorporated in the foundations of our country. There is nothing progressive about these “progressive” ideas. They will ultimately move us backward and put us on the road to totalitarianism; the “Tyranny of the Majority” that so concerned the Founding Fathers. Believe me, these people have not discovered some better method of running things than were codified in our Constitution.

 

I do not have a right to be employed by the employer of my choice, or at the rate of my choice, against his will, regardless of my feelings of alienation or victimization. Neither do I have the right to employ the person of my choice at the rate of my choice against his will. I think you will recognize that as slavery. If an employer doesn’t have the wit and imagination to value my contributions, he doesn’t deserve me. If I am right about my worth, I will have little difficulty finding employment elsewhere. The onus is on me to find that employer, without the interference of the government.

 

The best guarantee for all Americans, regardless of lifestyle, religion, politics, or any criteria you care to mention, is the guarantee of liberty, as prescribed by the Constitution. Despite the best of intentions, any and all abrogations of that liberty threaten all of us, including, perhaps especially, you.

 

Sincerely,

 

Bill Reed

 

In response to Frank Pastore: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/FrankPastore/2007/09/03/the_latest_problems_with_the_%e2%80%9cman_evolved_from_apes%e2%80%9d_thesis

"Think of it as finding out dad and grandpa were actually brothers, not father and son." Sheer idiocy! My dad and I coexisted for 50+ yrs before he passed away. Does that make us brothers?!

This is absolute nonsense and evidence of a complete lack of imagination, or, perhaps, a simple refusal to imagine a possibility that apparently threatens a deeply held belief (although, not necessarily so - continue reading.).

The fact that h. habilis and h. erectus inhabited the planet simultaneously only proves that h. habilis and h. erectus inhabited the planet simultaneously! In and of itself, it neither proves nor disproves parentage, although that case has been made through other means. However, I'm not aware of any doctrine in evolutionary theory that requires that the parent species must disappear off the face of the earth the instant that a child species makes it's appearance. On the contrary, the theory of evolution, as opposed to depending on instant annihilation of parent species, would seem to predict that the parent and child species would inevitably coexist in the manner described. "The Origin of Species" does not contemplate a supernatural "instant annihilation of parent species". This is pure fantasy on your part. Congratulations. You have "disproved" an "essential" pillar of evolutionary theory, that is, in fact, no part of evolutionary theory! You remind me of liberals, who can't resist inventing straw dogs to knock down in their quest for legitimacy.

The insistence on the part of creationists that God must be kept "on the reservation" of the literaral biblical text, is evidence of an absence of humility, bordering on blasphemy, that sets limited human imagination above God's will.

When Einstein famously proclaimed that "God does not play dice with the universe", Nils Bohr responded, "Albert, stop telling God how to run the universe". You would do well to heed the same sage advice.

And here I was thinking that only Islamists thought that God was inaccessible through reason ("The Jews say: Allah's hand is fettered..." Qur'an (5:64) ). Silly me! As is the case with the solar system, if truths derived subsequently through reason are not represented in the Bible, it is of no importance whatsoever. Our Bible was never intended to be the unquestionable source of all knowledge, nor are it's pronouncements regarding the details of God's universe meant to be the final word. That is the Islamist view of the Koran, not the Judeo-Christian view of the Bible, or at least so I thought.

To a God whose time frame is infinite, what's a few billion years amongst friends? To Him, it's a nanosecond. He still created man, but not according to the limits of human time scales. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." (Shakespeare's Hamlet). Get over yourself! Do you really believe that God is confined to the limits of your imagination? What monumental arrogance! What a puny god that would be.

As to the 2/3 of Americans who believe in Alley Oop (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alley_Oop>): "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." - Marcus Aurelius

How about bankrupting our enemies and attacking THEM for a change, instead of bankrupting ourselves and our criminal justice system, while attacking our own citizens?

As deeply misguided an exercise of liberty as personal recreational drug use may be, it does not rise to the level of a threat to me (or anyone else), until it is criminalized by government.

If the argument that I own myself and it's nobody's damn business what I choose to ingest doesn't impress you, how about - funding terrorism and corrupting entire nations, to say nothing of the corruption of our own institutions and sacrifice of entire neighborhoods to this insane god-like quest?

Any harebrained movement that doesn't have access to oil, it seems, uses our oppressive drug-prohibition lunacy to finance their aggression.

Here we have an unholy alliance between conservatives and libs that conspires to make the most despicable thugs on the planet fabulously wealthy, while simultaneously bankrupting our criminal justice system and violating fundamental, self-evident natural rights.

While the actual commodities, the drugs, are worth about as much per pound as soybeans, the risk of incarceration or death due to the criminalization of those drugs adds a tremendous overhead cost, multiplying the cost on the street a thousand-fold. Essentially a "service fee" to hedge the risk.

We could far more easily contain the various movements using this elicit source of funds (mostly communists, would-be dictators, Taliban and other Islamo-nazis - all enemies of America), empty perhaps a majority of our jail cells, unburden the courts of about half of their case load, and reduce the ill effects of drugs on our society by removing the stigma and cost to its victims, while reducing the financial incentive to pushers to enlist new addicts by eliminating most of their profit incentive.

While I harbor no illusions that these tremendous savings might be returned to the taxpayer, at least they might be expended in a manner that does not produce the devastation currently visited on humanity by American drug policy.

Drug abuse has tragically impacted my family directly. I am no advocate of recreational drug use. But these quixotic, destructive, futile efforts to use the coercive and corrupting power of govt to interfere in a private, admittedly self-destructive, exercise of personal liberty are causing 100 times the damage they are trying, but failing abysmally, to remedy.

Conservatives sound a lot like liberals on this issue. The spectacular failure of this celebrated "War on Drugs" to achieve any of its goals, while actually exacerbating the destructive power of drugs and their purveyors, seems to evaporate in the face of the "moral force" of the good intentions that inspired it. Do good intentions really trump the actual horrible, if unintended, consequences of a policy? Isn't that eerily similar to the libs "War on Poverty" rhetoric? At least we found the moral backbone to reverse some of the welfare state. Our grandparents found the moral backbone to repeal a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT! to undo the exact same damage caused by alcohol prohibition.

Yet, here we find ourselves in 21st century America, ignoring the natural rights of man, to wage a mindlessly stupid, demonstrably futile crusade against human nature, while blithely ignoring the laws of supply and demand, as well as our own recent history with regard to the 1920's Prohibition debacle. It's absolutely stunning!

Mr. Novak, with all due (and considerable) respect, you are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Could we please, finally, steer ourselves clear of the iceberg to which we are plotting our course at 40 knots? All it would require would be a renewed embrace of liberty.

Those of us who had the good sense to decline an ARM or subPrime to purchase a home we can't afford, should bail out those who did? Not with my money!

Their defaults and foreclosures should serve as a cautionary tale to those who indulge in foolish, self-delusional beliefs in "risk-free" home buying. While prudently foregoing home ownership for myself, it is proposed that I be commanded to reward the imprudence of my neighbors.

While sensibly postponing my own home-ownership, I am now to be ordered, under penalty of incarceration should I choose not to pay the tax for it, to sacrifice my resources for the home-ownership of my less sensible neighbors, rewarding their imprudence while making that sum of my own hard-earned money unavailable to me for the purchase of a home for myself!

This is not compassion or charity by any recognizably sane definitions of the words. What it is, is plundering my resources using the coercive power of government, in order to redistribute those resources to fellow citizens, whose reckless behavior was diametrically opposed to my best advice as well as my example. If Hillary or anyone else wants to bail these folks out, they are always free to contribute to them from their own considerable resources. They should not be free to reach into my pocket to reward greedy, unwise, and ultimately self-destructive behavior. Behavior which, not incidentally, negatively impacted my own ability to purchase a home.

It is worth noting that the increased demand for homes fueled in part by ARMs and subPrimes, served to further inflate the cost of housing for those of us waiting for an opportunity to enter the market via traditional mortgages. In a manner of speaking, they "jumped the line", purchasing a home before they were actually sufficiently financially solvent to do so safely. Now I'm to be ordered to financially support those whose reckless behavior contributed to depriving me of an opportunity to own my own home. This is the ugly truth of superficially well-intentioned, but deeply misguided liberalism. It will beget still more reckless, destructive behavior while punishing good sense by confiscating the resources of sensible people to pay for the foolishness of the foolhardy.

Who is more likely to make a profitable investment? The sensible or the foolhardy? Let the sensible invest their own resources wisely, and limit the foolhardy to wasting their own resources as they will. The entire country would profit by it.

Having successfully removed the lower half of the voters, in terms of income, from the tax rolls (the lower 50% pay 3% of the tax burden), socialists (or, if you prefer, liberals) have created a majority class of citizens who are removed from virtually the entire burden of cost for any hare-brained scheme they can come up with to curry votes. I think that goes a long way towards explaining most of their electoral success. Bailing out the subprime home buyers, a number of whom can safely be considered to be among that class, is just the latest example of that strategy.

This makes the Fair Tax proposal all the more important to America, and all the more frightening to liberals. It could signal the extinction of this unwholesome new class of voters. This new class presents an evolutionary dead-end for constitutionally protected liberty, indeed, for the American experiment itself.