Archives for May 2004

Being a complete sucker for good sci-fi special effects, I went to see The Day After Tomorrow. Unbelievably well done, and in that respect alone, it’s an entertaining movie. As for the subject matter, well, there’s not much to say. Anyone who cares to spend only the briefest space of time gathering their own information will plainly see that the science of global warming and massive climate change are not nearly as settled as one-half of the circus vying for political power (and their media soul mates) would have you believe. In fact, even if you accept that the earth is warming, you still are left with showing that man’s industrial and consumption activities cause anything more than negligible effects on such global events. From there, you need to show that such warming will cause net harm to civilization rather than net benefit.

A lot of dots to connect, which is why most real scientists hold the only tenable position on the matter: inconclusive.

Returning to the film, it was only after a few minutes that I was gratified to realize that the Church of the Environment had relegated itself to the same level as those who have been predicting the return of Jesus Christ for centuries, along with all the comparable cataclysmic ends.

The story and pictures. And here’s the official page for the two guys who put it together.

Joshua Holmes at No Treason sure opened the flood gates in a post about how libertarians, normally allied against statism, are quite divided in their positions on The War.

…the War on Terror and the War on Iraq have separated the libertarians who mean it and the libertarians who are faking it.

He concludes:

Really, what separates we libertarians from market-oriented conservatives is that radical critique of the power of the state. More than empty small government conservative promises, the libertarian critique says the power of the state is so immoral that it must either be drastically limited or completely abolished. Saying, “Boy, I hope the Bushies get their act together in Iraq!” isn’t a critique a libertarian makes. A libertarian goes right to the heart of the problem: the state.

When I first read it a few days ago, I really didn’t think much of it. While I regret that we are at war, as any sane person would, I also understand that there are a lot of things in play. Sometimes in life, you are not able to get to a place you want [or have] to be without going through a place you’d rather not traverse. Running a very complex company, I’m confronted with these sorts of scenarios every day. While age and maturity bring clarity of principles, the added responsibility and accountability that goes along with it can complicate matters beyond easy reconciliation. It’s a “real-life thing.”

So, I was meandering about this morning and discovered that Holmes’ post had spurred quite a regalia of libertarian dissent. Here’s a money quote from Greg Swann:

What argument are you making? That pretend-libertarian vigilante assholes are bad guys? I agree. That Batman is insane? I agree. That people can make mistakes? There’s a revelation. Is it your claim that doing nothing in response to Islamism will have happy consequences? That would be incorrect. We are lucky that libertarians on either side of this debate are mere ballast. I would that my position with respect to Western Civilization were better understood by Bush and Blair, et alia, but the contrary strategy, cavil and cower, is absurd on its face. A radical critique of the state is a fine thing, just as much as a radical critique of a restaurant. But we shouldn’t confuse them with freedom or dinner. The libertarian argument will be no less true when our granddaughters are forced to wear burqas. But that is a fate that mere argument will not forestall.

To get what Greg means about “Batman,” above, see this post. At any rate, going through all the comments, as well as all the references linked to in the comments is a worthwhile experience. After going through all of it, I’ve got to say “advantage Swann,” although I’d have to credit John Lopez with at least a wound in his comment about Swann embracing utilitarianism.

After many years of having a minimalist website for my company, and now that we’re getting to be upwards of 40 employees, it was time to do a complete redesign.

You can view it here.

In the May ’04 issue of Reason, in an article entitled It’s So Simple, It’s Ridiculous, Brian Doherty gives a pretty comprehensive account of the current tax protest movement in America. Brian also posts a piece to Hit & Run that references his Reason article, as well as one in the New York Times. What sparked my interest here, more than the article in Reason, which I had already read, were the comments to Brian’s post. I suggest you look them over.

The comment I posted pretty much sums up the nature of what I read:

In reviewing the comments, it appears to me that there are two separate issues being conflated. The first issue is whether taxation, as administered, is legal. The second issue is whether taxation, as administered, is moral. The key to differentiating these issues lies in first asking oneself the question: “are laws necessarily moral?” Slavery was legal, but was it moral?

I think that tax protesters miss the boat entirely. Taxation is clearly legal. But, since I believe that all rights are individual rights, which means that associations of individuals (as in “governments”) possess no more rights than individuals possess, then the government has no more right to rob me than you do.

But the real rub is contained in the realization that it doesn’t matter whether the tax protesters are correct or not in their claims that there is no law requiring persons to file or pay income tax. Observe this excerpt from the Reason article, cited above:

Most significantly, a tax honesty true believer named Vernice Kuglin, a vivacious and attractive Federal Express pilot who has a crowd of admirers following her everywhere during the conference, was slammed with criminal charges for failure to file and for tax evasion. She beat the rap in August, acquitted of all charges by a federal jury in Memphis.

Also last year, Texas plastics manufacturer Dick Simkanin was finally brought to trial for failure to withhold income taxes for his dozens of employees. Simkanin had been a poster child in We The People-sponsored ads in USA Today, featured as a businessman who honestly believes it is his right under law not to withhold. Two grand juries who had gotten to speak to Simkanin failed even to indict him. Finally a third grand jury, whom he didn’t get to speak to, did indict. But at the end of his first trial in November, the jurors could not reach a verdict, with 11 out of 12 favoring acquittal.

Both these events occasioned great rejoicing in the tax honesty community. But both had grimmer denouements. Kuglin stayed out of jail, but she was slapped with civil liens for past taxes due and penalties. These days she’s only collecting around $290 per pay period from her FedEx job, with the rest snatched by the IRS. Simkanin was promptly retried and found guilty in January, and he now faces a potential 129 years in prison.

How the Simkanin case played out should give the tax honesty movement pause. Judge John McBryde was not entirely fair to his client, says Simkanin’s lawyer, Arch McColl, who spoke at the conference. Schulz and other movement heroes testified on Simkanin’s behalf in vain. McBryde prevented McColl from mounting a real defense, the attorney complains, sustaining the prosecutors’ objections almost every time he tried to raise tax honesty arguments.

The jury sent back a question to the judge asking to see the codes that directly stated Simkanin was required to withhold. (Some of the defendant’s ideas clearly had gotten through.) The judge told them simply to trust him when he said the law required Simkanin to withhold — essentially directing the verdict, since Simkanin never denied not withholding. (McColl has strong expectations that this response, among other things, will help guarantee a successful appeal.)

I really hate to have to keep pointing this out, but this is what happens whenever you concede the premise, particularly to a totalitarian thug who is prepared to crush you no matter what. In this regard, the tax protester movement actually does far more harm that good. These bunch of well-meaning nitwits go around telling the lawmakers, courts, media and everyone else what amounts to: “it’s perfectly fine to rob me, but please make it legal, first.”

It’s sad. When you can’t even count on people whom the article calls “staunch exemplars of America’s glorious Protestant heritage” to differentiate between “legalities” and moral principles, who can you count on?

Well, I normally delete unread those silly, "thoughtful" missives and devotionals that often litter my inbox. This time, I got far enough into it to gather an interest. And it was timely. As one once said whom I quote often enough on this blog, "man does not live by rage alone."

There’s one hell of a lot wrong with the world. Good moms are one thing that’s sure right with it. So, here’s that silly little email:

POSITION:
Mother, Mom, Mama, Mommy, Ma

JOB DESCRIPTION:
Long term, team players needed, for challenging permanent work in an often chaotic environment. Candidates must possess excellent communication and organizational skills and be willing to work variable hours, which will include evenings and weekends and frequent 24 hour shifts on call. Some overnight travel required, including trips to primitive camping sites on rainy weekends and endless sports tournaments in far away cities. Travel expenses not reimbursed. Extensive courier duties also required.

RESPONSIBILITIES:
The rest of your life. Must be willing to be hated, at least temporarily, until someone needs $5. Must be willing to bite tongue repeatedly. Also, must possess the physical stamina of a pack mule and be able to go from zero to 60 mph in three seconds flat in case, this time, the screams from the backyard are not someone just crying wolf. Must be willing to face stimulating technical challenges, such as small gadget repair, mysteriously sluggish toilets and stuck zippers. Must screen phone calls, maintain calendars and coordinate production of multiple homework projects. Must have ability to plan and organize social gatherings for clients of all ages and mental outlooks. Must be willing to be indispensable one minute, an embarrassment the next. Must handle assembly and product safety testing of a half million cheap, plastic toys, and battery operated devices. Must always hope for the best but be prepared for the worst. Must assume final, complete accountability for the quality of the end product. Responsibilities also include floor maintenance and janitorial work throughout the facility.

POSSIBILITY FOR ADVANCEMENT &  PROMOTION:
Virtually none. Your job is to remain in the same position for years, without complaining, constantly retraining and updating your skills, so that those in your charge can ultimately surpass you.

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE:
None required unfortunately. On-the-job training offered on a continually exhausting basis.

WAGES AND COMPENSATION:
Get this! You pay them! Offering frequent raises and bonuses. A balloon payment is due when they turn 18 because of the assumption that college will help them become financially independent. When you die, you give them whatever is left. The oddest thing about this reverse-salary scheme is that you actually enjoy it and wish you could only do more.

BENEFITS:
While no health or dental insurance, no pension, no tuition reimbursement, no paid holidays and no stock options are offered; this job supplies limitless opportunities for personal growth and free hugs for life if you play your cards right.

I caught a bit on the radio on the drive in this morning. Seems that a local consituent wrote his congressman, who turns out to be Pete Stark. Here’s the link to the letter, but because so many of these news organizations have yet to learn the meaning of permalink, I have copied it below in its entirety:

Pete Stark
House of Representatives
239 Cannon HOB
Washington D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Stark,

I am appalled that you voted against today’s House Resolution 627, Roll Number 150. This measure would have shown publicly that you condemn the abuse of the prisoners in Iraq while simultaneously commend the service of the fine men and women who are serving in Iraq that bring honor to the uniform that they wear and to the Nation that they serve.

There are many Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen and Coastguardmen from your 13th Congressional District who are serving with pride and distinction . These men and women bring great credit upon their hometowns and the State of California.

Your “NO” vote is an indication that you do not support the troops who selflessly serve our nation and in many cases have given the ultimate sacrifice so that you might have the freedom that you enjoy as a citizen of this great Nation. Further, your “NO” vote on this resolution is a disgrace to the people of this district who have elected you.

I urge you to stop your contemptuous display of bitter partisanship and your politicization of this War. Your actions are very divisive and destructive to the morale of our troops and the morale of our nation. I know that a majority of the population of the 13th Congressional District are very strong in their support of our soldiers and in their support of the War in Iraq. Your “NO” vote today reflects that you are way out of touch with the people of this district.

Very Sincerely,

Daniel L. Dow

Now, take a listen to the congressman’s response. If that quits working, here’s a link to my copy of the file.

I post this not so much in a flag-waving expression of support for the troops (though I’d take their company over that of their political leaders any day), but merely to illustrate what your political leaders think of you.

They think you’re stupid, incompetent, and certainly not qualified to choose your own values in life or make decisions for yourself. They are the anointed ones.

But, given sufficient reflection, it’s damn hard not to wonder if these assholes actually have a point. Given that there are so many of these creeps running my life and yours, and that they were elected to these positions and remain there, at what conclusion do we arrive? What other than extreme naïveté, unfathomable ignorance, or breathtaking stupidity can explain it?

As I’ve mentioned before, I do admire much of the economic and consequentialist arguments that show why self-responsibility, personal accountability, and unbridled liberty is ultimately a better deal for everyone than the pragmatic (unprincipled), heavily regulated, safety-at-all-cost welfare State in which we live. But these arguments have been around forever—which is good evidence that the mostly-stupid public either can’t comprehend such arguments, or can’t work out the simple economic cause & effect scenario on their own.

It goes without saying that we can’t count on the political class or their bedfellows in the media (right or left) to clue anyone in to the nuts-&-bolts reality of the current economic situation, or the potential economic situation in the face of actual liberty (as a principle, not a rule of thumb). The left wants a socialist welfare state, which is what we have, and the right wants a flag-waving, God-fearing, “moral” socialist welfare state. If you’re counting on them for anything more than continued intrusion into your life…you’re, uh, stupid.

Until you’re blue in the face; that’s how long you can go on giving valid economic arguments, to no avail. Observe; in the space of about 10 minutes this morning, I came across no less than two posts that reference two other posts, all of which demonstrate most clearly to anyone with more than a pretense of a brain that governments are, as a general statement, totally incompetent to make decisions that effect economic reality. It’s a simple fact.

Here, John Venlet references an article by Thomas Sowell that clearly shows what a bunch of incapable and ineffective dufuses run the San Mateo, CA city planning commission. But, does anyone detect that the problem goes far beyond San Mateo and is the predictable result when principles involving private property are violated? No, of course not. Instead, the focus is narrowed to laser-beam precision: San Mateo has a problem, so Fix San Mateo (if we’re lucky).

And here’s one where Brian Michlethwait expounds upon a post by Dr. Eamonn Butler, clearly showing what a bunch of dildos the Germans are.

Whether you willingly give someone the power, or whether they take it by gun-backed threat of force (all governments worldwide, throughout all time), when someone has the virtual unchecked ability to dictate what your values are going to be and make you pay for them whether you like it or not, it’s going to result in a mess. Every time. Without exception. There is no fixing it. There’s no patch. And there’s no middle ground. If you are not choosing your own values, then you are the subject of whomever is choosing them.

Economic arguments will make great I-told-you-so darts if ever we can get the moral principles underpinning individualism and freedom in place. I won’t be holding my breath, lest I turn blue in the face.

In a post yesterday, I referenced a story of a boy receiving his first paycheck, then getting rolled for about half of it. Here’s an email I received from a reader in response:

… “You are locked in the modern prison: quantity, logic, matter, mechanism, money, ego, the Market. That is not false, but only part of a much larger Truth. I am hardly the first person to say it, as it constitutes the opinion of all cultures prior to the Modern Age. So there’s no point continuing this line of inquiry unless you can open your mind.”

Well, I must say, a lot of people who know me best would say that admonishing me to open my mind is kind of like admonishing a skydiver to open his parachute. Still, as someone once said, you don’t want your mind so open as to let your brains fall out.

I do think it’s important to maintain a sense of open inquiry. That’s what an open mind is, and that is what I’ve always embraced. But that’s not what this reader is talking about, is it? No, in this case, it’s that he possesses the “Truth,” and unless I accept it, I have a closed mind. Convenient, but a falsehood for this seeker of “Truth” nonetheless.

The more curious part about this email is the outright fraud it perpetuates. It pretends to be profound, wide, large, integrative, and all encompassing. In rendering its judgment, IT exudes “Truth.” No, not just “Truth;” “The Truth.” All this truth and deeper meaning, yet the reader cannot seem to grasp the simple and profound truth, the general principal that was illustrated in that story of a boy and his first paycheck.

You’d think this reader has no soul, no sense of morality, no principles. All he sees is a material reality on one side, and an inexplicable yet deep mystery on the other. Between them, a dichotomy so profound as to be irreconcilable, necessitating the endless struggle to seek this deeper meaning—over there—that’s ultimately pointless, because everyone dies. Enlightenment alludes. The story falls on the side of material reality. It’s all just a bunch of number crunching, so it’s “unbalanced,” and therefore, to be dismissed.

The problem with this whole “sophisticated” dichotomy thing — take your pick, they all amount to the same thing: mind / body; theory / practice; left-brain / right-brain; heaven / earth; material / spiritual — is that you are forced to choose one over the other. In Western religions, such as Christianity, it has often meant that you must deny the material realm entirely. In the east, the material “side” is true and necessary, but you need a balance with the spiritual “side.” Still, they are seen as different things, different sides, and I hold that this is crippling for the mind.

People are not the equivalent of split-personality schizophrenics, one moment satisfying the body, and the next, the spirit. People are integrated, whole beings, and they must embrace an integrated philosophy that encompasses all, not forcing them at every turn to make an impossible choice between the flesh and the spirit.

So, what’s the simple moral principle that was illustrated in that story, the moral principal that goes far beyond the accounting for that paycheck? The principal is that associations of individuals do not possess rights that individuals do not possess. All rights are individual rights. So, if it’s morally wrong to rob someone, then it’s wrong if I do it, you do it, or anyone else does it, regardless of what they call themselves (“the public interest;” “the social contract;” “the government;” “the people;” “the democracy;” “the greater good”), and, regardless of what they purport to do for you in exchange, be it shining you shoes or providing you an insurance policy on retirement. Here’s a simple fact: if you believe that forced taxation of any form is justified, for any reason, then you do not hold against theft and robbery as a moral principal. That’s just a simple, clear, and pristine fact. The best you can muster is that it’s a good rule of thumb.

If the “greater good” is so good, then shouldn’t it be so obvious that people line up to pay for it, kind of like they do for concerts and all manner of things? It doesn’t work that way, does it? At the end of the line of admonitions and platitudes waits the gun-backed force that represents the “greater good.”

Boy gets first job. Boy buys first shoeshine. Boy saves for retirement.

The story here.