When The Couch Patrol Arrives

There are the big tyrants (presidents, prime ministers, dictators, legislators, court justices ...Joe Arpaio) and then there are the small, local tyrants, the ones who often go house to house to make sure that you don't have the wrong kind of swimming pool (or a pool without fences...THINK OF THE CHILDREN!); that you have not installed anything without the permission of the local government; or even that you are not using your property in the way they want it to be used.

In the troublemaking town of Keene, NH, a resident was fined for a code violation: a couch on the yard used for birdwatching. The busybody/bureaucrat was caught on camera as the left the citation notice. A moment of hilariousness ensues when the city official repeatedly recommends voting as a means to solve problems (Yeah right!).

Driving with Air Fresheners is Suspicious

It would appear, according to US vs Branch (US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 8/20/2008), that the cops have been given more powers:

A federal appellate court ruled last week that police can delay a routine traffic stop as long as necessary to conduct a search for drugs. In its decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the validity of a thirty-minute traffic stop in Maryland because the arresting officer claimed the nervous driver had an air freshener hanging from his rear-view mirror and had previously been spotted driving in a run-down neighborhood.

"First, the presence of several air fresheners -- commonly used to mask the smell of narcotics -- hanging in the Mercedes," Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote to explain the source of probable cause. "The prior traffic stop of the Mercedes in a drug-trafficking area, Branch's evident nervousness, the presence of air fresheners, and the fact that Branch was driving a car not registered to him. These factors, in combination, could form the basis for a 'reasonable suspicion' of narcotics trafficking."

First of all, the state should not be prosecuting anyone for drug crimes. Then there's that word again: "reasonable." Should the government itself determine whether its own actions and policies are reasonable? According to Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "a state is an institution that decides who is right and wrong in conflicts involving itself" and thus, at least (but not limited to) in the case of victimless crimes, the state is both prosecutor and judge. It's not difficult to realize that this is a conflict of interest. State justice is an oxymoron; it is not a neutral third party.

Along Stephan's line of reasoning, the problem with state justice (or rather, non-justice) is the state. Reforms can only do so much. I <3 libertarian anarchy!

McCain Now Ahead of Obama

It appears that, after choosing Biden to be his running mate, Obama lags behind McCain in a newly-released survey while the Democrats are partying at their tax-funded, government-subsidized national convention in Denver. According to a new Gallup poll released to the public, there is a 46 percent lead for McCain over Obama's 44 percent showing.

It seems that, based on Obama's poor choice in selecting Biden as his VP, it's going to be a close race. In reality, it's neck and neck. Obama's popularity is beginning to lose momentum, and his true colors are starting to show in the public's eyes. So the public may very well choose McCain over him, as he is slightly better than Obama on some issues (but then that's not saying much anyway).

Here's the entire report on the survey's findings for any LLR reader's convenience:

Gallup Poll Shows John McCain Lead, No Obama Bounce With Joe Biden Pick

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
August 26, 2008

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A New Gallup poll shows pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama received no bounce from choosing pro-abortion Senator Joe Biden as his running mate. In fact, John McCain now holds a lead in the survey for the first time in August as Democrats are in Denver for their national convention.

The daily Gallup tracking poll from August 23 to 25, the first three-day period falling entirely after Obama's Saturday morning vice presidential announcement, shows 46% of national registered voters backing McCain and 44 percent supporting Obama.

This is the first time since Obama clinched the Democratic nomination in early June that McCain has held any kind of advantage over Obama in Gallup Poll Daily tracking.

In fact, the poll shows Obama losing a 46-44 percent advantage over McCain immediately before he picked Biden as his running mate.

That Obama lost support nationally instead of getting a bounce from his selection is contrary to historical trends that show a small bounce following a vice-presidential announcement.

Gallup notes a four percentage point bounce for John Kerry in 2004 after selecting John Edwards, a 5-point bounce for Al Gore in 2000, and a 3-point bounce for George W. Bush in 2000.

Meanwhile, a Rasmussen Reports poll also found little post-Biden bounce for Obama as both he and McCain receive 44 percent apiece in the poll. With 'leaners' added to the mix, the candidates are tied at 46 percent.

However, with voters leaning towards one candidate included, Obama had a 1-2 percentage point lead in the days leading up to the Biden pick and a 2-4 percentage point lead without including leaning voters.

The Rasmussen poll also finds the Biden pick failed to unite Democrats behind his candidacy as just 78 percent of Democrats back Obama while 85 percent of Republicans are behind McCain.

'Obama's support has declined in each of the last three individual nights of polling,' Rasmussen notes. 'This may be either statistical noise or a reaction to the selection of Biden.'

McCain is viewed favorably by 57 percent of Americans while 53 percent view Obama positively.

A third national poll, conducted by CNN, finds the race tied at 47 percent each.

Biden's pro-abortion track record in the Senate mirrors Obama's.

He received a pro-life voting record of 0 percent from the National Right to Life Committee for 2007-2008.

Before that, Biden compiled records of 0 percent, 16 percent, 0 percent, and 22 percent with the pro-life group in previous Congressional sessions. His support for a ban on partial-birth abortions represented one of the only times he voted with the pro-life side -- with Biden voting repeatedly to force taxpayers to fund abortions at home and abroad.

Ted Kennedy's "Season of Hope"

At tonight's Democratic National Convention in Denver, Senator Ted Kennedy, whose ailing health has been making waves on the TV networks, appeared at the podium, giving a rather lengthy speech about how Obama will "close the book on the old politics" of race and gender and "group against group not just for the few." During his speech, he kept talking about "new hope" for the United States and that we are entering in "a season of hope."

This is what he said in part:

For me this is a season of hope -- new hope for a justice and fair prosperity for the many, and not just for the few -- new hope.

To me, this mention of a "season of hope" is governmentese for "let's expand the state the Democratic way and not John McCain and the GOP's way." I don't know about you, but that's how I see this latest state lovefest and what it truly stands for.

The Naive Support of the State to Protect Intellectual Property

To expect the welfare-warfare state--which taxes, regulates, murders, invades, bombs, hampers, conscripts, lies, imprisons, steals, and invades--which impoverishes us and hampers the economy, which penalizes innocent behavior and wastes trillions of dollars--which imposes antitrust, tort, FDA regulations and penalties on companies--to expect this agency to "create" legitimate property rights or to add "wealth" to the economy--and by setting up a state-run bureaucracy to grant monopolies to "applicants," under the oversight of the bunch of federal "judges"--is naive and confused beyond belief. It is certainly not a libertarian view.

See also Regret: The Glory of State Law, where I wrote:

Now libertarian proponents of state legal systems are for some reason optimistic about the ability of state legislature and courts to promulgate just laws. Objectivist attorney Murray Franck , for example, wrote:

Just as the common law evolved to recognize "trespass by barbecue smoke," it would have evolved to recognize property in the airwaves and in intellectual creations. But even if it could be established somehow that the common law would never have recognized intellectual property rights, this would not be an argument against such rights. The common law often requires legislation to correct it (for example, in recognizing the rights of women). Indeed it is a myth that the common law evolves to reflect, and that legislation always is in conflict with, the requirements of human nature. The same minds that employ induction and deduction to decide a particular case, making common law, can employ those methods to legislate universal laws.

Hayek also believed that case-law might need occasional "correction" by the legislature (see my Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society, p. 171). Both Franck and Hayek here express confidence that it is possible for the state--via its courts and legislatures--to issue "just" law. Well, I don't know about that. Here we have a "bad" judicial interpretation of a "bad" legislated statute. Oh, well, I guess they can at least "regret" it.

Gay Magazine Skeptical of Bob Barr's Claims

Washington Blade, a gay and lesbian magazine which champions gay rights, has published a piece on Bob Barr's alleged about-face on his support for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) bill when he was still in Congress. Furthermore, it even mentions Barr's recent pledge to repeal only a part of the law -- specifically, the part where he says the federal government should get out of the marriage protection business. Of course, that means that he supports the morally-and-politically-bankrupt conservative view of states' rights (that is, states having rights over the individual) as opposed to taking all levels of government out of the entire game once and for all.

Here's a part of the article that should be of interest to pro-liberty groups:

'Barr and his campaign staff declined to answer follow-up questions about the legal chaos that could follow if the part of DOMA that bans federal recognition of gay marriages was repealed, with the rest of the law still intact. … "The response from the campaign staff is we won’t answer hypothetical questions," said Barr’s campaign manager, Russell Verney.'

Obama Picks Joe Biden as His Running Mate

It's now official: statist Democratic candidate Barack Obama picks statist Senator Joe Biden to be his VP.

Here's the official press report which confirms this:

Obama picks Biden for veep

Aug 23 12:53 AM US/Eastern
By LIZ SIDOTI and NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware is Barack Obama's pick as vice presidential running mate, The Associated Press has learned.
Biden, 65, is a veteran of more than three decades in the Senate, and one of his party's leading experts on foreign policy, an area in which polls indicate Obama needs help in his race against Republican rival John McCain.

The official who spoke did so on condition of anonymity, saying they did not want to pre-empt a text-message announcement the Obama campaign promised for Saturday morning.

MIA For The Weekend Because It's My Fiancee's Birthday

I will be MIA for the weekend until either Monday afternoon or Monday night (or possibly Tuesday) because it's my fiancee Beckie's birthday. She will be turning 25. Although not a pure libertarian, she has libertarian-minded views and is pleased that her fiance and loving honey will be there to celebrate her birthday with her.

Please, if you can and like, send some kind pro-liberty birthday messages to her. I know she will love and appreciate them.

See you guys until either Monday or Tuesday, whichever comes first.

Two College Presidents Rescind Their Support for Petition to Lower Drinking Age

Two of 125 college and university presidents who have come out advocating a nationwide petition that calls for reconsidering the legal drinking age are withdrawing their support for it.

Check out the New York Times piece on this:

August 22, 2008
2 Withdraw From Petition to Rethink Drinking Age
By SHAILA DEWAN

ATLANTA — Two college presidents, both in Georgia, have withdrawn their names from a petition to reconsider the legal drinking age after it drew blistering criticism this week from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, safety experts, transportation officials and politicians.

But 15 more from across the country have signed on, the organizers said Thursday.

All told, 123 presidents from colleges including Dartmouth, Duke, Ohio State and Tufts are supporting the petition, which says that raising the drinking age to 21 has fostered a culture of clandestine binge drinking and that students’ use of fake identification has eroded their respect for the law.

'Twenty-one is not working,' the statement reads.

But critics have accused the presidents of misleading the public, shirking their responsibility to enforce the law and trying to dodge the problem of student drinking.

The Governors Highway Safety Association has promised to hold at its national meeting next month 'a workshop to help highway safety agencies counter any effort in their states to lower the drinking age.'

Kendall Blanchard, the president of Georgia Southwestern State University in Americus, said he had pulled his name off the list in part because critics had misunderstood the petition’s intent. 'It was clear to me that they didn’t see this as a dialogue; they saw this as some kind of effort on our part to turn our schools into party schools,' he said.

The other president who withdrew from the petition was Robert M. Franklin of Morehouse College in Atlanta.

Many critics said they objected to the suggestion that studies did not conclusively show a benefit to raising the drinking age, particularly the reduction of alcohol-related traffic deaths among young drivers.

'Why would you take the one thing that has been tried in the last 30 years that has been shown to be most successful and throw that out the window and say, "I have a better idea?" ' said Alexander C. Wagenaar, an epidemiologist at the College of Medicine at the University of Florida.

But college presidents say they are fighting a losing battle with binge drinking and alcohol poisoning.

'Many of our university presidents are doing as good a job as they can at enforcing the drinking age,' said John M. McCardell Jr., the former president of Middlebury College in Vermont and a leader of the petition effort, which began last month. 'They’re doing all the right things, and what is the result? Well, young people are moving beyond the view of the college officials and often beyond the boundaries of the college campuses, and campus officials have no authority there.'

S. Georgia Nugent, the president of Kenyon College in Ohio, who signed the petition, said, 'I think there’s a direct connection between this law and this pattern of secret, fast consumption of high-octane alcohol. It’s much more dangerous than the traditional great big, loud keg party because it happens quietly, out of view.'

Mr. McCardell is the founder of Choose Responsibility, an organization that advocates lowering the drinking age, but the petition drive, called the Amethyst Initiative after the gemstone that the Greeks believed would ward off intoxication, calls only for 'dispassionate public debate' of the issue. The drinking age has been 21 across the country since 1988.

In a written statement that Mr. McCardell called 'intimidation bordering on bullying,' Laura Dean-Mooney, the president of MADD, asked the public to call the signers and demand that they remove themselves from the list.

'As the mother of a daughter who is close to entering college, it is deeply disappointing to me that many of our education leaders would support an initiative without doing their homework on the underlying research and science,' Ms. Dean-Mooney said in the statement. 'Parents should think twice before sending their teens to these colleges or any others that have waved the white flag on under-age and binge drinking policies.'

College presidents should focus on changing the culture on campus, Ms. Dean-Mooney said. She cited efforts like requiring alcohol education, scheduling more Friday classes to cut down on Thursday night parties, fighting marketing efforts like drink specials and ladies’ nights near campuses and coordinating with local law enforcement agencies.

But students said they were not getting drunk in bars.

'From freshman year on, I hardly ever went out on the weekends without having four or five shots of vodka beforehand,' said Diane Bash, a senior at Ohio State University. 'You’ve got to preload before you get to a bar because you can’t drink once you go in. I definitely drink a lot less now that I’m 21, and so do all my friends.'

Despite such tales of excess, experts said there was little hard evidence that binge drinking became more prevalent after the drinking age was raised to 21. One of the most comprehensive studies shows that heavy drinking among college students, defined as five or more drinks in a row, peaked in 1984.

Other studies by Henry Wechsler, a retired professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, show that binge drinking remained steady, with about 44 percent of college students doing it, from 1993 to 2001.

The controversy shines a light on the culture gap between college students and their nonstudent peers, who drink less.

Chuck Hurley, the chief executive of MADD, acknowledged that widespread drinking on campus fostered a distinct set of problems. 'The drinking age is working far better in blue-collar America, or community college America, than in Ivy League America,' he said.

If parents who support the current drinking age limit don't like it when college presidents push for the lowering of the drinking age law, then they should call for ending the government's involvement in higher learning. They shouldn't send their kids to that environment where underage drinking is the cultural norm. But, of course, they want it both ways: they want the government to finance the colleges and universities that encourage an environment of drinking but don't want the drinking age lowered. They can't -- and shouldn't -- have it both ways. Either the drinking age should be lowered to a uniform age limit or be abolished and stop victimizing the college students who are on the government dole or repealing the government's financial aid for and involvement in higher learning. In other words, either they support privatizing the colleges and universities or they accept the fact that a much-lowered drinking age will promote more of an incentive for the youth to be responsible with their actions, including drinking.

Not that the government should be subsidizing the entire education industry. Not that these parents and other taxpayers should be forced to pay for the tuition and education of college students of all ages, including the Pell Grants, other federal grants, and subsidized and unsubsidized student loans. That entire boondoggle should be eliminated entirely and immediately or at least as soon as possible.

However, parents should be responsible for promoting responsible drinking by educating their youths on the effects of alcohol and drop the idea that an arbitrary age limit of 21 will avert more drinking and driving accidents at the age of 18 or that a lower drinking age will encourage more "binge drinking," meaning out-of-control irresponsible drinking. That's already happening under the current system, and yet the statist parents and government officials can't and won't see that. Besides, "age of consent," in governmentese, is an artificial moron construct. Although federal and state laws don't see it this way, real age of consent (meaning an individual youth's choice consenting to the activity and not some arbitrary edict setting the limit) not only includes sex, but it also includes smoking, drinking, watching an adult film, voting, and going off to fight a war in some faraway land.

Parents should even stop supporting the "childification" (infantilization) of these youths, who have been taken out of the hands of their own families and become warded to the state which has placed them under its control and enslaved them until they reach the magical age of 18. By the time they reach the age of 18, it's too late: that "child-like" mindset under which these young people labor has taken over completely and will be a permanent part of their lives. If anything, it's the parents who are at fault for allowing this to happen. They think that they are not responsible for teaching their kids about sex, drugs, alcohol, the importance of work ethics, and other paramount things that will become a crucial part of these youths' lives.

If only these parents had spines, stopped supporting groups like SADD and MADD, and pushed for control over their kids' lives, perhaps we wouldn't be in this mess. But that's wishful thinking. Parents and the government are the reason why the youth are binge drinking, having sex, using drugs, not working and learning work ethics before they're 18, and rebelling in a childish fashion because they are not allowed to understand responsibility that will be a paramount part for the rest of their lives.

Federal Judge Says Florida Government School Principal Persecuted Gay Students

A federal judge recently ruled in favor of a 17-year-old Florida lesbian government school teen by berating her principal for pursuing a "relentless crusade" against gay and lesbian teens at the government school known as Ponce de Leon High School and violated their First Amendment rights. Heather Gillman, the lesbian teen who was attacked by Principal David Davis, turned to the American Civil Liberties Union for legal assistance and took the school district to court after the government administrator told her that she couldn't wear gay pride clothing, stickers, and buttons in 2007.

Here's the story on the entire matter:

Judge: Fla. principal mistreated gay students
Wednesday Jul 30, 2008

PONCE DE LEON, Fla. - A federal judge scolded a Panhandle school principal, saying the administrator led a "relentless crusade" against gay and lesbian students at Ponce de Leon High School and violated their First Amendment rights.

Student Heather Gillman and the American Civil Liberties Union sued the Holmes County School District, saying that the principal prohibited the teen from wearing gay pride clothing, stickers and buttons in 2007.

Students, including Gillman, had begun showing support after the taunting of a gay student at school. In response to the taunting incident, David Davis told the gay student it wasn’t right for her to be homosexual and held a morality assembly, according to testimony.
He also suspended several students for supporting Gillman, court records show.

A two-day trial was held in May, but U.S. District Judge Richard Smoak’s 36-page opinion wasn’t released until last week.

Smoak ruled that Davis violated Gillman’s rights by silencing all pro-gay messages. The principal also interrogated students about their sexual orientations, warned gay and lesbian students to stay away from other students and said that homosexuality was a sin.

'I emphasize that Davis’s personal and religious views about homosexuality are not issues in this case. Indeed, Davis’s opinions and views are consistent with the beliefs of many in Holmes County, in Florida, and in the country,' Smoak wrote. 'Where Davis went wrong was when he endeavored to silence the opinions of his dissenters.'

Smoak ordered the Holmes County school District to pay more than $300,000 in damages.

School Superintendent Steve Griffin said July 28 that Davis is no longer a principal; he now teaches American government classes at the high school. In response to the ruling, all teachers are undergoing sensitivity training this summer, he said.

'We’re working on training our teachers on First Amendment rights and free speech,' said Griffin.

This is another reason why the government schools should be abolished and why the free marketplace can allow students of all ages to pursue their education voluntarily. The government schools, such as the one mentioned in the above article, do not provide an environment of diversity but rather discrimination and segregation. Tax dollars are being funneled from property taxpayers to the schools and the bureaucrats have no incentive to spend the money the way you want them spent on. Plus, the one-size-fits-all policies have created an environment of conflict, belligerence, bigotry, and violence in the schools. (Have we all forgotten about Columbine?)

Moreover, there is no accountability in the schools, and the behavior of government officials like Davis who force their religious doctrine upon the students is unethical, unconstitutional, and immoral. This is the reason why more and more youths who are victimized by these statist thugs in the schools are despising the public "government" schools year after year. They don't want to be there but are coerced to remain on the grounds 8 hours a day, five days a week for 9 months out of the entire year and end up committing a variety of criminal acts, even though they are viewed as juveniles, thanks to the compulsory attendance and truancy laws. Additionally, the fact that they are "childified" (infantilized that is) and treated like children and not as youths (or, if you prefer, young adults) is indisputable, although the critics of that fact will write it off as a "viewpoint" or "opinion" and not address the reality of what transpires in these schools.

If we really want to end this nightmare of the government schools, let's repeal all school taxes (which coerces parents, childless couples, and young single people to fund the schools via their property taxes) and return education to the province of the free marketplace.

Mises was Right, Part 2: Feulner, Neocons, Heritage, Georgia, Mont Pelerin

“It turns out, of course, that Mises was right.”
—Robert Heilbroner (1990), "After Communism", The New Yorker, September 10: 92 (1, 2, 3)

Regarding Paul Craig Roberts's "I Resign from the Mont Pelerin Society":

Interesting connected facts:

1. Formerly libertarian Mont Pelerin Society (which lists Hayek, Friedman, "Coase," and others as "Notable Members", but not Mises): its Treasurer is one "Edwin Feulner."

2. Feulner is President of Heritage.

3. In "Saving Georgia," Heritage Web Memo #2021, and The Russian-Georgian War: A Challenge for the U.S. and the World, on "Ariel Cohen, Ph.D." buys into the Bush administration's propaganda that uses "the Russian invasion of Georgia" as an excuse for further American hegemony.

No wonder Hans-Hermann Hoppe founded the Property and Freedom Society to take up the reins that MPS has dropped.

As Guido Hülsmann noted in "Ludwig von Mises and the Mt. Pelerin Society. Strategic Lessons" a speech delivered at the inaugural meeting of the PFS in 2006 (summary; program):

As classical liberal economists were usually not employed in institutions of higher learning (the teaching of economic science was not primarily organized within the universities), they built other institutions, from loose networks to political parties. By 1860 governments realized the danger to themselves that the classical economists posed. Their answer was to create their own economists and thus control the market of ideas. This strategy was first applied in Germany with the German Historical School or “Schmollerism” and soon spread to other countries, each with its own specific national feature. John Stuart Mill in Britain for example changed the meaning of liberalism into interventionism, while the Russian government thought that Schmoller was too tame and hired Marxist economists instead.

This trend continued into the 20th century, with Ludwig von Mises being one of the very few setting himself against it. After demolishing the case for socialism and putting the case for radical liberalism, he insisted that no “third way” was possible, as this would invariably lead to a loss of prosperity and in the end, socialism.

In the first half of the 20th century, a number of societies were founded by liberals to counter the trend towards socialism. By 1938, four schools of thought were represented:

Neoliberalism, i.e., practical and theoretical compromise with socialism; F.A. v. Hayek, for whom a small amount of intervention was permissible; Alexander Rüstow, who considered natural hierarchies as necessary for society; and Ludwig v. Mises, who stood for complete laissez faire.

Nine years and one World War later, these groups convened to form the Mont Pèlerin Society (MPS). At the same time, Leonard Read’s FEE in America was publishing leaflets explaining the ideas of Mises and organizing seminars and speeches for Mises and others. These activities were extremely important for spreading Mises’ thoughts, especially to young people. Ralph Raico, George Reisman and Murray N. Rothbard were among those influenced by the FEE papers. Without the FEE, the Chicago School would have totally dominated the field of free market ideology.

Mises was skeptical about the MPS right from the start; he was particularly concerned because of the participation of certain people. In 1947, he stormed out of a meeting, saying: “You’re all a bunch of socialists.”

Today, the MPS, a society of eminent scholars, mainly represents Neoliberalism. Therefore, the PFS could play the role that the MPS was originally designed to play: spreading the uncompromising intellectual radicalism of freedom.

(See also Hülsmann, Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism, pp. 871, 989-90, 1003-10, 1032, et pass.)

This helps place in context the principles for the PFS as announced by Hoppe at its founding in 2006:

The Property and Freedom Society stands for an uncompromising intellectual radicalism: for justly acquired private property, freedom of contract, freedom of association .... It condemns imperialism and militarism and their fomenters, and champions peace. It rejects positivism, relativism, and egalitarianism in any form .... As such it seeks to avoid any association with the policies and proponents of interventionism, which Ludwig von Mises had identified in 1946 as the fatal flaw in the plan of the many earlier and contemporary attempts by intellectuals alarmed by the rising tide of socialism and totalitarianism to found an anti-socialist ideological movement. Mises wrote: "What these frightened intellectuals did not comprehend was that all those measures of government interference with business which they advocated are abortive. ... There is no middle way. Either the consumers are supreme or the government."

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.