Abolish the Drinking Age Laws

Why is it that collectivistic statist groups such as MADD, the American Medical Association, and the Governors Highway Safety Association and individuals such as Mayor Richard M. Daley of Chicago, Illinois oppose the idea of lowering the legal drinking age from 21 back to its original age of 18? Honestly, why do they REALLY oppose it?

This latest opposition to lowering the drinking age has come due to a recently-submitted national petition organized by well over a hundred college and university presidents nationwide in an effort to stir up a discussion over whether the age limit should be scaled back. Daley is strongly against it, especially when he issued a statement such as this:

'Will that be the motto: "Come to my university. Drink as much as you can as long as you pay your tuition"? … Do you think you send your son or daughter to come home as an alcoholic? … That’s a bad message … I’m sorry. You have enough time to drink the rest of your life,'Daley said.

Of course the typical statist claim is that, if the age limit were pared down to its original limit of 18, there would be an increase in teenage drinking-and-driving and vehicular accidents on the road. Of course, MADD, Daley, and others will say that there is a good amount of research to support this, yet they never cite the source of the research they state to make their cases.

The real reason, of course, is, if the age of consent with respect to drinking is lowered, then the state's control over the life of the students (who are already considered adults by the age of 18) would be diminished and no longer childified to the nth degree as it is now. Of course, the control wouldn't be entirely eliminated, but it would be lessened and weakened substantially. Moreover, the slave-driven mentality would be challenged and possibly abolished if that happened.

While lowering the drinking age would be a step in the right direction, why not repeal them entirely and let parents teach their kids the importance of responsibility? Let's stop childifying our youths and adults and return the responsibility of teaching responsible drinking back to the parents.

The State's Economic Stimulus Checks Not Sent to Thousands in Muskegon County, MI

Leviathan has not remitted its "economic stimulus" checks to thousands of Muskegon County residents in the State of Michigan. The checks are supposed to be "up to $600 to more than 3,500" people in the county.

According to MLive.com, if the checks are not cut and remitted by October, the checks, which total over $1 million, will remain in the vile, diabolical governmental beast's coffers.

Here's the article in its entirety:

Thousands haven't claimed stimulus checks
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
By Brian McVicarstaff@muskegonchronicle.com

MUSKEGON COUNTY -- The federal government is waiting to dole out economic stimulus checks of up to $600 to more than 3,500 Muskegon County residents.

But unless the residents file for the checks by Oct. 15, the money -- over $1 million -- will stay in Uncle Sam's wallet.

So on Sept. 27, a group of Muskegon-area organizations will help residents fill out paperwork to get their stimulus checks. The help is being provided from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Goodwill Workforce Development Center, 950 W. Norton, Norton Shores.

The event is free and open to everyone.

'Sometimes people simply don't have the knowledge they can do it or still have the opportunity to do it,' said Martha Bottomley, executive director of Volunteer Muskegon. 'We're simply trying to get the word out that there's more money available to those out there in Muskegon County.'

The $168 billion nationwide relief effort was signed into law by President Bush in February with the goal of providing cash-strapped residents a boost in spite of high gas prices and a slumping economy.

The stimulus checks 'were designed to help people and our economy out,' Bottomley said. 'The more money people spend, the better it is for our economy.'

While some of the unclaimed checks may belong to workers who didn't file tax returns, many likely belong to residents who receive Social Security or veterans benefits but aren't required to file taxes because they don't earn enough, said Cathy Guenthardt, of Volunteer Muskegon.

'A lot of people are intimidated by income tax forms,' Guenthardt said. 'But the money can help a lot. It can pay for car insurance or a gas bill.'

Anyone with income of $3,000 or above qualifies for the checks. Parents who have children under age 17 also qualify for an additional $300 per child.

Aside from the fact that some of these bozos in the article have long since inculcated (by the government "public" schools, no less) with the belief that government can somehow "stimulate" the economy, as if the economy were a living and breathing entity. That is hardly the case at all. The state can only take money from those who produce to those who don't, even if it is allegedly meant for the "good" of society. The government can only tax and regulate jobs out of existence and overspend our money while wasting it at our expense. It cannot "create" jobs out of thin air, nor can it pump the economy with a "stimulus package" considering the money is already in the economy. It means that wealth in every area of the economy is already being moved around to send out the checks.

This brings to mind the "broken window fallacy" -- the view that one only sees what the money is being spent on but doesn't see what the money could have been spent on. As Sheldon Richman recently pointed out on the Independent Thinking show with John Caldara, "You cannot consume your way into prosperity." Higher spending, as Sheldon also pointed out, is the result of consumption, not the cause of it. The way that the economy can be truly stimulated is a slashing or repeal of taxes, regulations, and spending and laws dictating who will be paid and how much they will spend, along with many governmental edicts and barriers that have wreaked havoc on the marketplace and the economy. Consuming your way into prosperity is a Keynesian fallacy. True economic growth is from savings and investment, not an injection of cash into the economy by the Democrats and Republicans.

This is done merely for political stimulus, not economic stimulus. This means that the statists in power want it to look as if they are doing something to "help" the economy, not allow bipartisanship to stand in the way of responding to this grave emergency. Thus, economic stimuluses can never work.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is guilty of economic ignorance and self-delusion.

Ron Paul Predicted Russia/Georgia Conflict in 2002

Ron Paul, who appeared on NOW with Bill Moyers, predicted the Russia/Georgia mess and the U.S. government's involvement with both of their governments in 2002.



If only Congress, Bush, and the American people heeded Paul's warning then...

Olympic Pride or Nationalist Pride?

I may have had enough of athletes wrapping themselves in flags and eagerly waiting to sing the state song. It is one thing to be proud of one's accomplishment, but it's totally different to believe that you are "representing" a country (I can say with confidence that no one is representing me in Beijing or in Albany or in D.C. for that matter).

Sadly, the Olympic games showcase not just amazing athletic achievements but also political relevance. Most media will keep track of who (by country!) has obtained the highest number of medals and declare winners in such a way. This "us vs. them" emphasizes the notion of the nation-state and its aggressive and arbitrarily established borders.

I don't know how much different things would be in a free world, but I bet we'd see a lot less flag wrapping. And the ceremonies might not even feature national anthems.