This section features items from the media with to the point commentary from yours truly.
08/23/2013
NM SUPREME COURT: 'TOLERANCE' MEANS FORCING RELIGIOUS PHOTOGRAPHERS TO SERVE SAME-SEX WEDDINGS
TCW: "Tolerance is only for those who agree with us" is basically the argument of the New Mexican Supreme Court. This is exactly the type of conflict that arises when people illogically believe they have a right to a good or service produced by another--one's rights actually get violated in order to protect the so-called "rights" of another. True rights never conflict--that's freedom.
I also must fundamentally disagree with the court's idea that forcing someone to act against their moral judgment, however much I disagree with such judgment, is the "price of citizenship." That's nothing but collectivist/ statist bull----. I suggest the photographer exercise a bit of civil disobedience and continue to refuse service, and the couple should seek service elsewhere. Anti-discrimination laws, although well intentioned, are barbaric in practice, and this is just the latest example.
I also must fundamentally disagree with the court's idea that forcing someone to act against their moral judgment, however much I disagree with such judgment, is the "price of citizenship." That's nothing but collectivist/ statist bull----. I suggest the photographer exercise a bit of civil disobedience and continue to refuse service, and the couple should seek service elsewhere. Anti-discrimination laws, although well intentioned, are barbaric in practice, and this is just the latest example.
TCW: Another crazy actor speaks: "The government may change faces from time to time, but it's not like we fight wars for democracy—we fight wars for capitalism and for oil. I keep coming back to the same goddamn subject. I guess because it's what really bugs me the most."
We fight wars for capitalism and oil? What a contradiction in terms! Capitalism, in its absolute and consistent form (i.e. laissez-faire) is a system where the government does not initiate force against peaceful people or peaceful nations and exists only to protect the rights of its citizens. If a government has initiated a war to impose a certain ideological system, it certainly is not a government of a free, capitalist country, but one led by a tyrant. Capitalism and freedom is not something you can impose. It comes about when government gets out of the way of peaceful, productive people. War is certainly not equal to leaving people alone. So much for that.
About that oil Bush allegedly plundered from Iraq (I assume that's what he's referring to), where the hell is it? We could certainly use it to pay off the debt we incurred from the war.
And I'm pretty sure imposing democracy through war is, well, undemocratic. Just saying.
Get a clue, Woody.
TCW: Rand would definitely not approve (and if she could, she'd be screaming in her grave)! As much as I and my fellow Objectivists think this would benefit students, forcing them to read it would not only be immoral, it would be a blatant contradiction of the book's pro-reason, anti-force message.
And besides, good ideas don't need t be forced, they merely need to be persuaded through reason. If people choose not to agree or abide by the principles set forth in the book, what can I say but "their loss."
TCW: Wow, just privatize it already! Or at the very least, end the government imposed monopoly on the delivery of 1st class mail. Let FedEx or UPS (or any other postal company) be able to send regular mail so that people who need or what Saturday delivery will be able to pay for it. The solution is so simple, but instead, our ingenious government would rather inconvenience people so they can hold on to their power. This is madness!
01/27/2013
TCW: If you need anymore evidence that the regulatory state has gotten out of hand, here it is. It amazes me that people have the audacity to think that government regulations are put in place as protections for or to the benefit of the consumer. It's never been about that. It's about control.
11/04/2012
TCW: Aside from the moral issue that no one should be forced to subsidize something against their will, I think there are slightly more pressing issues than whether your favorite puppet gets taxpayer dollars.
However, once again, I turn to Rand who wrote and warned of what she called the "Aristocracy of Pull," a series of pressure groups that arise as a consequence of a mixed economy (that is, an economy where elements of a free market exists but where government nonetheless has a hand calling the shots), with each group clamoring for "their" piece of the pie, currying favor with various politicians to pass legislation in their favor, essentially forcing Peter to subsidize their art project, or their farm, or their television station. And then, when society's eyes finally open (if they ever do), we will find that we have created a system that mimics man in a state of anarchy, where everyone violates everyone else's rights.
"Progressives" like to call this the "Social Contract." I call it evil.
10/03/2012
TCW: In a newly surfaced video, Obama likens tax loopholes to violence against the poor.
The one legitimate point implied in this speech is that fraud is a form of force against people. But tax loopholes (i.e. letting people keep more of THEIR money) cannot reasonably be packaged with fraud and violence. That is just ridiculous.
The one legitimate point implied in this speech is that fraud is a form of force against people. But tax loopholes (i.e. letting people keep more of THEIR money) cannot reasonably be packaged with fraud and violence. That is just ridiculous.
TCW: In the wake of the Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) shooting, the "Left" called for civility in our rhetoric.
They ought to have looked in a mirror, because since then, we have heard that Paul Ryan (R-WI) wants to throw grandma off a cliff, Republicans hate children and old people, they want dirty air and dirty water, Chick-fil-a and the Family Research Council (among others) are organizations of "hate," Tea Partiers (and those who stand against Obama) are racists, etc., etc., etc.
Where are they now?
Where are they now?
TCW: Biden said "They're going to put y'all back in chains!" Of course, he was referring to Romney/Ryan and how they intend to minutely (if that) deregulate (i.e. unchain) Wall Street. My challenge to Obama supporters: How does ObamaCare, especially the individual mandate which forces people to buy insurance, not enslave people to the government's whims? Or how about how Obama/Biden supported the auto-bailouts, forcing taxpayers to pay for the mistakes of executives (I can go on and on)? Seriously tell me that you believe the Democrats are looking out for my interests and not putting chains around my arms and my neck. Honestly answer- who is enslaving who? Oh, how I'd love to hear your answers to that! Seems to me, with this administration, we are already in chains. Eh?
If you are finding this a difficult task, I ask that you look inside yourself, activate your heart and mind, introspect, and ask yourself why that is. And, (here's the hard part) answer honestly. You owe that much to yourself.
(As an aside, understand Biden's false dichotomy that the unchaining of one person/entity leads to the chaining of another. It's a false either-or. Ask yourself why we all cannot be unchained. The government's proper role is to ensure no one is chained by anyone (i.e. to preserve our freedom), not to choose who gets chained and who gets unchained. This irrational thinking is purely outrageous and it must be denounced!)
If you are finding this a difficult task, I ask that you look inside yourself, activate your heart and mind, introspect, and ask yourself why that is. And, (here's the hard part) answer honestly. You owe that much to yourself.
(As an aside, understand Biden's false dichotomy that the unchaining of one person/entity leads to the chaining of another. It's a false either-or. Ask yourself why we all cannot be unchained. The government's proper role is to ensure no one is chained by anyone (i.e. to preserve our freedom), not to choose who gets chained and who gets unchained. This irrational thinking is purely outrageous and it must be denounced!)
7/30/2012
TCW: Most people don't realize the unseen effects of burdensome legislation—the inventions that don't come to market, the lost jobs and prosperity that could have been, the life saving drugs and devices put on hold and thus resulting in a stagnant quality of life and earlier deaths. This is an underlying evil of ObamaCare that most people will never think about but it's already becoming reality right under their noses.
7/19/2012
Fort Hood report faults FBI for missteps in Hasan review, cites political correctness
TCW: Ayn Rand once said:
"Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man's character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil.
"It is obvious who profits and who loses by such a precept. It is not justice or equal treatment that you grant to men when you abstain equally from praising men's virtues and from condemning men's vices. When your impartial attitude declares, in effect, that neither the good nor the evil may expect anything from you—whom do you betray and whom do you encourage?"
In short, political correctness kills.
5/31/2012
Big soda ban: Bloomberg administration proposes ban on sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces
Big soda ban: Bloomberg administration proposes ban on sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces
TCW: All hail Food Nazi Bloomberg! America is sinking further and further into statism, a system where the government rules with an iron hand and is omnipresent in our every day lives, making decisions for us, even when it comes to such a menial task as choosing the size of one's drink. Judge Andrew Napolitano put it best when he wrote "How can the government decide that 16 ounces of Coke is acceptable, but 17 ounces is not?" The answer is simple: such a proposal is non-objective, i.e. based on arbitrary emotional whims. Such proposals make a mockery of legitimate laws that serve to protect our rights, not violate them. French historian Alexis de Tocqueville warned early Americans about the possibility of our republic slipping into soft despotism (a state of tyranny based on good intentions). He wrote that this type of power would "resemble parental authority" resulting in a coddled populace kept "in perpetual childhood" ultimately diminishing any sense of self-reliance and relieving citizens "from all the trouble of thinking and all the cares of living."
(As a side note, what about the environmental impact of those who would choose to buy two smaller sized drinks to make up for the forced downsize. This will only lead to more garbage in a city that barely seems to manage it all as it is. Clearly this was not well thought out.)
And to that I say "SHAME ON YOU, MAYOR BLOOMBERG!!!"
(As a side note, what about the environmental impact of those who would choose to buy two smaller sized drinks to make up for the forced downsize. This will only lead to more garbage in a city that barely seems to manage it all as it is. Clearly this was not well thought out.)
And to that I say "SHAME ON YOU, MAYOR BLOOMBERG!!!"
TCW: The statists are at it again! The answer is not for the government to "make an example" out of Saverin, it is to repeal (and ultimately phase out) the income/corporate tax code!!! It's amazing how they don't stop to consider how unjust the current system is. Instead, as always, their first thought is to resort to more force via banning this individual from the United States. Saverin is a hero and we ought to be encouraging individuals like him to become citizens, not disincentivizing them. Imagine all of the bright engineers, doctors, scientists, and other highly productive people who ultimately make the same decision that they are better off not being a citizen. This does us no good as a nation, nor as individual traders.
