Why Amnesty Doesn't Solve The Problem

The Senate recently passed, and the House is currently debating, legislation that would give amnesty to the 11+ million illegal immigrants currently in the United States.  At the same time, it would also increase border security.

This legislation is self-defeating.  What's the point of increasing border security and doubling down on future illegal immigration while at the same time rewarding past illegal immigration?  Talk about sending a mixed message! 

If we really want to allow people to just walk over the border and become citizens - then we should change the law to allow that! - OR - If we really want to keep people from just walking over the border and becoming citizens - then we should enforce the law to stop that!  Stop pussyfooting around!  Take a damn stand!  Quit pretending you're "for border security" if you're really going to undermine it and reward those who got past our Border Patrol.  And quit pretending you have "compassion for those who just want a better life" if you're going to turn around and "get tough" to stop them from now on!   We can't have our cake and eat it too. 

The problem is that those who really want to open the borders don't have the guts to do that and those who really want to enforce border security don't have the guts to do that.  So they all take the 'back door' method: making another "one-time exception" while leaving the existing immigration laws intact.  The system is broken and politicians are cowards.  Until we start electing courageous men and women who will actually say what they really think and stand on those principles, we're destined to see more of this kind of back door, "try to please everyone so I can get re-elected (and not be accused of racism)" legislation. 

That this nation is in serious need of immigration reform is beyond debate.  The system we have in place now is ridiculous.  We have: A) people lined up for years, jumping through hoop after hoop to come here legally; B) people who just walk across the border, settle in and become part of society with no real problem; and C) the same government on the one hand enforcing every jot and tittle of immigration law and on the other refusing to enforce it at all.

We need to decide, once and for all, what it should take to become an American citizen or legal resident alien.  That's the issue.  Congress needs to debate that, change the law to reflect that, then stand behind that.

Black Sabbath - 13 - An Album Review

So, first things first: I am a Black Sabbath fanatic.  They've been my all-time favorite band since I first heard them on some kid's turntable back in the early seventies.  (I don't remember the details - the album, the kid's name, the exact year - I just remember thinking "this is the heaviest music I've ever heard!")

So when the four original members of Black Sabbath - Tony Iommi, Ozzy Osbourne, Geezer Butler and Bill Ward - announced on 11-11-11 that they were going to make a new album (their first together since 1978), I was ecstatic.  I also had some trepidation. 

My main concern was that the band would not return to their original form, which was a mixture of doom, anger, power, and beauty, and stylistically: heavy rock interspersed with jazz, blues, classical and folk.  And tempo changes: Black Sabbath songs were always full of tempo changes. 

Tony was my main worry. 

When the Black Sabbath Reunion album was released back in 1998, it brought about a sudden resurgence of interest in the original Black Sabbath with lots of press proclaiming them "the inventors of heavy metal", and more specifically calling out Tony as the "doom-master".  Tony, it seems, had bought into the press's characterization of him and had been releasing albums (2000's Iommi, 2005's Fused - with Glenn Hughes, and 2009's The Devil You Know - with the Ronnie James Dio fronted Mob Rules version of Black Sabbath going under the name "Heaven and Hell") which contained an over abundance of slow "doomy" tracks - many of which seemed to be variations of Electric Funeral (from Paranoid) and Black Sabbath (from their self-titled first album).   He had also grown to eschew tempo changes.  He had fast tracks, slow tracks and mid-tempo tracks, but not many that would actually change tempos mid-song like the old Sabbath songs used to.  So I was afraid we'd get another overly doomy album lacking the jazz, blues, classical and folk elements, and tempo changes, that had dotted the landscape of the original 8 Sabbath albums.

Then I heard that Rick Rubin, who was going to produce the album, was going to try to get the band to return to their roots.  He actually mentioned that Black Sabbath was not a "metal" band and that they had elements of blues and jazz in their songs.  OK, so I was encouraged. 

Then Tony got cancer.

Now Ronnie James Dio had just died from cancer before Tony got diagnosed and I was really scared for him and prayed immediately for his recovery.  I was also (selfishly) concerned for my own dreams: could it be that the 4 original members of my favorite group of all time would never get to make another album together?  I was devastated (musically speaking).  But Tony, by all accounts, had caught the disease early on and had taken the appropriate steps, and he wanted to continue with the album.  So that was a good sign.

Then Bill Ward dropped out.

Now Bill is, by far, the most eclectic member of the group.  His solo albums (1990's Ward One: Along The Way and 1997's When The Bough Breaks) were totally removed from the Black Sabbath doom and gloom, yet they contained, what were probably, the best songs written by any of the original 4 members in their solo careers. Plus, Bill was essentially a jazz drummer.  He has almost none of the characteristics of the modern metal drummer.  He refers to himself as an "orchestrationalist" and patterns his drum style on the percussion section of an orchestra.   For this reason, I was really encouraged to see what he was going to bring to the table when the four of them got in a room together.  Then he was gone.

The band began doing some promotional shows with Tommy Clufetos - Ozzy's solo band drummer - and he did absolutely nothing for me.  He was the typical metal drummer: hard hitting, predictable and boring.  "Please", I thought, "don't let him be the drummer on the album!"

Well Rick Rubin saved the day again!  He told the band that he didn't think Clufetos fit and suggested Rage Against The Machine's Brad Wilk.  OK, now I'm interested again.

Fast forward to today.  I've got the finished project in my hands.  The album's awkward title "13" is, according to Ozzy, based on the fact that it took 13 years to make (they had initially tried, and failed, to make a new album back in 2000).  The cover - a burning "13" effigy - is also a bit ho hum.  But Black Sabbath has never really been about album names or album covers - so what about the music?

Well, it's an amazing accomplishment.  Given all of my fears and trepidations, I have to say that I am impressed with the album Rick Rubin was able to pull out of these guys.  Most of the songs on the 8 song main album and the  4 song* bonus disk, have tempo changes and there's a ton of cool riffs here.  That's good.  The album has a decidedly "live" feel to it, and is much more raw than I expected.  That is also a big plus.  Then there's the song Damaged Soul, which is a trippy "Hendrix meets Cream then gets crushed by Black Sabbath" blues jam.  Wow!  And lastly, Zeitgeist has a jazzy guitar solo at the end.  So all the elements I yearned for are there. 

Tony's guitar playing is every bit as good as anything he's ever done - better perhaps.  His riffs are amazing and his solos are too - never being over-the-top but always seeming to fit the song perfectly.  And his blues guitar playing in Damaged Soul is right up there with my favorite blues rock legends: SRV, Hendrix, Roy Buchanan, Peter Green, etc.  It's good to hear Tony stretch out and play something besides doom and gloom for a change!

And Geezer is a monster on bass!  If you just listen to the bass playing on this album, you can't help but think "wow!"  He is all over that bass!  And his tone!  It's the best bass tone I've heard from Geezer Butler in a long time - maybe ever.  It's that good.

And Ozzy gives his best vocal performance in years.  He has always been the weak link in Black Sabbath - not because of a lack of ability, but because he's blown his voice out so many times that he can no longer hit the notes he used to.  And he never really took care of his voice.  In fact I don't think he's ever taken singing seriously - I doubt if he's ever worked on breathing techniques, or singing from the diaphragm, or anything a professional singer would worry about - for him it has always been about having a good time and putting on a good show.  Even back in the day, he often had trouble recreating the songs live like he had done them in the studio.   But Ozzy's strength has always been his amazing knack for vocal melodies.  And that ability shines through on this album.  Even though he's working with a very limited range now, his melodies are right up there with Tony's riffs and Geezer's bass playing.

Brad Wilk does a credible job on drums.  He doesn't really add to the songs but, more importantly, he doesn't detract from them either.  He's no Bill Ward, (nobody is - perhaps not even Bill himself anymore), so there's really no eclectic orchestrationalism like I was hoping Bill would bring, but there's also no heavy handed rock drumming.  So, all in all, Wilk is neither a plus nor a minus.  That's good though because my main concern about the drumming was that I would notice it (in a bad way).  I don't.

So what are my criticisms?  Well, I have a few.  First is the lyrics.  They are never bad, that's not it at all.  Geezer, who is Sabbath's chief lyricist, does a terrific job, along with Ozzy (who wrote the lyrics for 4 out of the 12 songs) in crafting interesting, topical lyrics with many an excellent "turn of phrase".  So what's my criticism?  Well, I've been spoiled by Geezer's otherworldly, phenomenal lyrics on albums like Sabotage, Sabbath Bloody Sabbath and Volume 4.  Those lyrics were some of the best ever written in my opinion!  Needless to say, nobody could probably live up to that standard, and on this album, Geezer falls (slightly) short.

Another criticism is that there are parts of certain songs that are completely derivative of previous Sabbath songs.  The song Zeitgeist - with its lyrics about space travel, Leslie effected vocals, jazz outro and bongos - is a clone of Planet Caravan, (from the Paranoid album), while the song End of the Beginning borrows heavily from the song Black Sabbath.  There's also a riff in God is Dead? that sounds remarkably similar to the main riff of Hole in the Sky (from Sabotage).

Also, I think the album could've used a little more diversity.  I think Bill Ward would've helped in that area.  I think that, more than his drumming even, is where Bill Ward is most sorely missed.  I think he would have had some off-the-wall suggestions that Rick Rubin would've probably loved.

But those are nit-picky little things.  All in all, I find the album to be excellent and, (and this is probably the biggest compliment I could think of), I would rate it right up there with the original eight Black Sabbath albums.  It's that good.

Now, if you're not a Black Sabbath fan (meaning they're not your favorite band), then you probably won't get what all the fuss is about.  That's OK, you're not meant to.  This album was made for Black Sabbath fans.  It wasn't made for the media, or the casual listener.  In fact, if you're a casual fan, don't even listen to it because there is really only one way to listen to a Black Sabbath album, and that is at maximum volume!  If you're not going to do that, then don't even bother.

Album rating:  9 out of 10.

=========================================
* I got the Best Buy exclusive which features one more bonus song (Naïveté In Black) than the normal deluxe edition.

On Separation of Church and State

I recently had a discussion with another blogger (Tony) over at WWWtW on the issue of separation of church and state.  I was arguing for separation and he was arguing against it (both of us from a Christian perspective BTW).  Unfortunately I was away from my computer for several days and when I returned, the thread had been closed so I never got a chance to respond to his last comment.  (You can read the entire thread here.)

Here's where we left off:

Me:  I think it is possible to have a wall of separation between church and state without one entity having to go away. Sure, the two realms will cross paths, but if their boundaries are set in stone, they can coexist without encroaching on each other.

Tony: Yeah, you think it is possible, and I don't. The matter isn't about whether the "boundaries" are set in stone or more fluid, the problem is that any stated "boundary" between them cannot even in principle work for all cases and scenarios. The reason is that both the civil and the spiritual encroach on each other in the human person, who is subject to both.

Christians generally believe that the human person is ordered to a civil order and also to a spiritual order, but that this bi-fold directedness is ITSELF ordered: the one is related to the other as superior to inferior. (If that weren't the case, there would be no guarantee that the two directions are mutually and universally compatible, there would logically be the possibility that one direction results in a fundamentally incompatible requirement compared to the other.) In particular, the spiritual end of man is his permanent, eternal end, whereas the civic end is for this life only, which leads to the eternal end, and so the latter is subservient to the former.

This ordering principle, however, is more integrated into man than merely referring to those actions that are about his final end(s). Man attains his spiritual good even in and amidst attaining his civic end, because ALL of his human acts are spiritual acts. To make a truly human voluntary choice is to act using the spiritual aspect of man, his reason and his free will, and to do so with some recognition (or moral failure thereof) to choose in reference to one's final goal - either comforming [sic] to the final goal of unity with God or in adhering ultimatelhy [sic] to some created which is incompatible with union with God alone. Thus, regulating one's daily civic life is, itself, a spiritual act.

This affects all of civic life, in little ways as well as big. For example: The state sees it as a common good that all citizens be educated. In order to be able to mandate this, the state sees it as necessary to have schools paid by the state. But (in our case) the state considers itself forbidden to actively promote any specific religion, and mandates that its schools refuse to promote any religious perspective at all. The net result, then, is promotion of an ANTI-religious perspective in state schools. It is literally impossible to have a complete educational system from grades k to 12 that fails to promote some perspective about human nature, and if it fails to promote one that says humans are ordered to an end with respect to God it will perforce promote the opposite.

More generally, civic life as a whole and laws in particular have to be molded to be in conformity with the ends that society and the government see as the ends for its human beings. Because humans are integrated, the ends for civic government must be made and maintained as compatible with the spiritual end of man, which requires constant reflection back and forth between the two to keep them working together.  

My response then, is this:
 
Sure, humans are spiritual creatures with both a spiritual and a civil end, and sure, everything we do has some spiritual component to it...  BUT... that does not mean that we need the government to meddle in areas of spiritual behavior and beliefs in order to have civil order.

This notion that the two are somehow "inseparable" if we want to have civil law and order is demonstrably false.  We know, for instance, that there are people who have no regard whatsoever for God's law, and have no inclination at all towards the "spiritual good", yet prove themselves perfectly capable of adhering to a civil code of conduct every day.   The most die-hard atheist may well live his entire life having never once been arrested, or reprimanded, by civil authorities.  This without spiritual foundation.

We know also that there are governments all over this world that are completely without Christian foundation and yet manage to maintain civil order quite admirably - despite this deficiency.   This too, we see demonstrated every day.

So the notion that you cannot have one without the other is entirely without basis.

In this, we find scripture in agreement as well.  Look at Paul's words from Romans 13:3-5:

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.  Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority?  Then do what is right and you will be commended.  For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.  

Now what kind of government did Paul have in mind when he made this statement?  Surely his readers would know that he was referring to the Roman government circa 40 AD (or thereabouts).  This was a pagan government, not Christian in any sense.  Yet Paul called them "God’s servants" and commanded that his readers submit to their authority.  Did that mean that Paul thought that Christians should get their spiritual direction from the Roman government or that he recognized the Roman government as authoritative on spiritual matters?  Obviously not!  If so, he was a hypocrite for it is a matter of record that Paul and the early Christians were often jailed for disobedience to the spiritual directives of the various civil authorities in the region.  No, Paul did not hold or teach that civil magistrates were to be submitted to in spiritual matters.  He was specifically talking about civil authority over civil matters and advocating adherence and submission to civil laws.

So we do find a scriptural basis for separation of church and state in Paul's teaching and in the early church's way of life.  We also find that, when church and state combine, as has often happened in the past, a theocratic nightmare often ensues - with civil authorities making declarations of "heresy" and the like, and with punishments doled out for all manner of "incorrect" beliefs.

The fundamental question then is this:  Do you really want the government involved in settling spiritual matters for us?  Do you really want the government teaching our kids (their version of) man's spiritual ends? 

I don't!

What if the Federal Government Just Went Away?

Here's a thought experiment: What if the federal government were suddenly dissolved?  What would happen then?  What would we actually lose?

All the hand-wringing and crocodile tears being shed over the federal "sequester" (with its draconian "cuts" into projected increases in bloated federal spending) would lead one to believe that without the federal government, society would immediately descend into lawlessness, anarchy and chaos - after all what would we do without a government?

But wait a minute... if the federal government closed its doors tomorrow, we would still have, (according to the 2010 census,) 90,740 state and local governments in this country!  And, each of these governments has its own laws and public safety infrastructure.  So would there be lawlessness, anarchy and chaos?  Nope, not at all - far from it actually.  How much "order" does the federal government keep anyway?  We would lose the FBI and Homeland Security, but the 50 states and all the local law enforcement apparatus would stay in place.  They could still share information and extradite prisoners.  So what would we really lose?

Well, what about national security?  Surely we would immediately be vulnerable to attack!  Would we?  Wouldn't we still have National Guard units in all 50 states?  And couldn't these 50 states come to some kind of agreement to jointly fund a combined military if they so desired?  We may lose the capability to strike anywhere in the world at any time - but do we really need that to be safe?  Isn't it more important to protect our own borders and our own shores rather than policing the world for democracy?  Of course we would no longer have the TSA so travel would be more pleasant!  The airlines themselves could go back to providing passenger security.  Other than that, what do we lose?

Yeah but what about the terrorists who "hate us for our freedom"?  Won't they be emboldened and run amok causing untold chaos?  Well, first off, when the federal government goes away, all the troops come home, the CIA closes its doors (and stops overthrowing other people's governments), and the tentacles of US government intervention into foreign affairs are permanently withdrawn.  So the terrorists, who don't really "hate us for our freedoms" but actually hate us for all the crap we do, would have less reason to hate us at all.  Do they hate Switzerland?  Does Switzerland need a leviathan Homeland Security Department aggressively encroaching upon the civil liberties of the Swiss people in order to "protect" them?  Do they need drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan?  No.  If we weren't constantly meddling in the middle east, the terrorists would have little reason to think about America.

But, you ask, what about immigration?  Seriously?  Does anyone think the federal government does a good job with immigration?  Every state and local jurisdiction has its own immigration policy anyway, - many in direct opposition to federal laws - so what would change?  The illegal immigrant population in Arizona might go down, but California will gladly absorb it!

But what about the war on drugs?  Who will stop drugs from permeating society if not the feds?  Again - seriously?  Each state would have its own drug policy.  Maybe - once some states lifted the prohibition and gave us concrete figures to work with - we'd get some definitive answers as to the effectiveness of the war on drugs.

But what about the poor?  What about the safety net?  Well, for one, you mean "the enslaved" not "the poor".  Government programs subsidize and perpetuate a permanent lower class.  But, that notwithstanding, even if the people decide they want to continue government "aid" to the poor - again we'd have 50 states - 50 laboratories - through which to try different approaches to the age old problem of poverty.   All we lose when the federal government goes away is one way of doing things.  The states handle the majority of the actual workings of welfare, medicaid, medicare, etc. anyway.

Which brings me to healthcare.  What would happen if Obamacare, medicaid, medicare, etc. go away?  Well, the hospitals and other healthcare providers would be free to negotiate prices.  That's right: before the federal government asserted its domination over the healthcare industry - with all of its regulations and payment plans - hospitals, doctors and other healthcare professionals were negotiable as to price.  I'm sure you've heard the stories how, in the old days, doctors actually made house calls and were often paid in livestock!  Well, that can't happen today because the government has stepped in to "save" you!  (Imagine if they got out of the way!)

But what about our money?  Who's going to make all the dollar bills?  Well that's another interesting story.  While the federal government still technically coins money (they run the mints and the printing presses) they no longer set its value or determine how much of it there is.  You see, in 1913, our illustrious federal government proved that they have our best interests at heart when they handed that responsibility over to the banking industry!  Yeah that's right, the banking industry (in the form of the Federal Reserve) is in control of the money supply in this country.  What's most interesting about that is: from 1813 to 1913, a US dollar bought exactly the same amount of goods and services.  But, from 1913 to 2013, that same dollar has gone down in value like a Himalayan avalanche!  So, in 1913, if grandma said, "I remember when a loaf of bread was a nickel," all her grandkids would laugh and say, "grandma, a loaf of bread is still a nickel!"  Needless to say, that conversation can't happen today.  Maybe, just maybe, 50 competing currencies would be better.  Heaven knows it couldn't be worse!

What about education?  Who's going to teach our kids if not the feds?  Well, the feds don't teach our kids - they just mandate what we teach them.  The actual teaching is all local (that's what school districts are for).   Sure, we would lose some federal funding, but we would gain local control over what our kids are learning.  In other words, local communities would be free to teach the kids as they see fit - as opposed to how the Department of Education mandates.  Which is more important in the end - money or freedom?

But what about higher education?  Students can't get a college degree without student loans!  Blatantly false.  Student loans, i.e. government regulation of tuition, has only made college more expensive.  Tuition levels are through the roof precisely because institutions of higher learning have a big pot of federal money at the end of the rainbow - not some poor student.   Like with healthcare, if the government were to butt out, the prices would level off via the mechanisms of the market. 

Now I've only covered a few of the bases here.  There's much more to be said and thought about in this thought experiment.  But let me ask the question again: what would we actually lose if the federal government were dissolved tomorrow?  I'm sure someone out there can think of something!

Will Obama Indefinitely Detain Himself?

According to the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the President has the authority to indefinitely detain persons he deems to have "substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces ".  Here's the actual text outlining who the President can detain without trial:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

Now the thing is, this administration has been showering substantial support (in the form of weapons and money) upon the "rebels" in Syria and Libya, many of whom, lo and behold, are members of, or closely aligned with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces!

So Obama can indefinitely detain himself - and anyone else in his administration who has taken part in this fiasco!  Somehow I don't think we'll be seeing the black helicopters swarm the White House anytime soon though.  

From the Fifth Way to Omniscience?

Is it possible to infer from the workings of the universe the omniscience of God?

Thomas Aquinas argues in his Fifth Way that it is impossible to explain the determinations (teleology) exhibited by natural things without appeal to intellect.  My question is – can we go beyond that?  Can we, through examination of observable phenomena, reasonably infer the necessity of an omniscient being?

If we can infer intelligence from the behavior of mindless nature (as Aquinas argues), can we then look at the complexities of nature as a whole and – from that – infer omniscience?

It seems like it should be possible.  If you look at nature, there’s a lot going on.  Pretty much everything is busy doing something that fits into the giant puzzle somehow.  If you take all of it into account – every relation, of every thing, in every system, one to another – and consider the fact that the intelligence required by the Fifth Way would have to know and understand all of it, I sincerely think the case could be made.

What To Do About Gun Violence

We are constantly bombarded with solutions to the problem of "gun violence". Inevitably, these solutions involve "gun control". The problem with this, as I see it, is that there are two things in play when it comes to gun violence: "guns" and "violence". And, of the two, the root cause is not guns, it is violence. So why are we not hearing a public outcry for "violence control"?

Think about this for a minute... Guns are inanimate objects. Millions of people own guns in this country - the vast majority of which will never be involved in a crime. Why? Because they are in the hands of non-violent people.

What gun control does is turn those non-violent people into criminals. Gun control makes it illegal for a non-violent person to own certain types of guns - even if they may have owned them safely and legally for years.

If you really think that guns are the root of the problem, let me ask you one question: If you had been at Sandy Hook Elementary School that morning, and you had a gun with you, would you have been shooting at the kids or would you have been shooting at the guy who was shooting the kids? If you say you would start shooting kids just because you had a gun, then yes, guns are the problem. If however, you would have used your gun to defend the kids, to save innocent lives and to stop the bad guy, then you've just proved my point.

Gun control is typical blanket, one-size-fits-all policy. It reminds me of grade school where the teacher's solution to a few disruptive kids was to make the whole class stay in for recess. It doesn't deal with the root of the problem but rather satisfies the demand to "do something about it".

We live in a schizophrenic society when it comes to violence. On the one hand we campaign against bullying and hate crimes. On the other hand we resist those who would instill notions of morality and "good and evil" into our kids. Then we flock to violent movies and video games.

The "war on drugs" is also a factor in this equation. So much of our legal system is tied up in prosecuting drug users and dealers that we end up with short sentences and plea deals for violent offenders because of prison over-crowding and an overwhelmed criminal justice system.

In conclusion, we need to stop waiting for the government to solve our problems. We need to become a non-violent society in our own houses, our own families and our own schools. And if we are going to push for laws, let's push for laws that punish violence first, and let's push against laws that punish non-violent people and treat them as if they are criminals.

We Live in a Libertarian World

One argument I’ve often heard against libertarianism goes something like this: “we’ve never seen a libertarian government in actual practice, so there’s no way to know if it would even work”. Well, I think I may have an answer (and a big one at that!)

My answer? Well, to understand my answer we first have to lay some groundwork. Traditionally, libertarianism has been all about the individual and the relationship of the individual to the government. But, libertarian concepts also apply as we go up the ladder of the various levels of government. A county government’s relationships to its constituent cities can be libertarian, for instance, if the county gives the cities freedom to do as they choose. Likewise, a state government can be libertarian in its relationship to counties, and the federal government in its relationship to the states. So libertarian principles apply - not only to the individual - but also wherever there is the possibility for one group to have authority over another.

Which brings me to my answer: the world government. But wait, you say, there is no world government! Well that’s kinda the point. Because there is no central government for the entire world (though some are pushing for one) the world essentially runs on libertarian principles between the constituent nations. Now some would say that "no government = anarchy", but that’s not really what we have. There are several “one-world” organizations like the U.N., the W.T.O., etc., but these organization’s power is derived solely from the willingness of the participating nations. In other words they are like private, voluntary organizations that take the place of a strong central government – just like libertarians advocate for. If enough nations decide to ignore a U.N. or a W.T.O. “order”, and if there are a few powerful nations among the dissenters, the order goes unheeded.

So the world basically runs on libertarian principles –chief among them, the principle of a market driven society: If a nation gets along well with other nations and produces things other nations want, their status as a nation goes up – if they don’t get along or are unproductive, their status diminishes. These are libertarian concepts – only “the individual” (the cornerstone of libertarian philosophy) is replaced by “the nation”. Yet we can see working in the macro what could also work in the micro. In the world, nations have to form coalitions; they have to come to agreements and sign treaties, they have to learn to work together without a behemoth centralized government forcing them to do so.

That, my friends, is libertarianism.

Why I’m a Libertarian

I frequent a conservative Christian website called “What’s Wrong With The World” (WWWTW) where my Libertarianism is often challenged on the basis of Natural Law theory, the “common good”, or on some other philosophical footing.  Now I have to admit that their views of Libertarianism are so worked out that most of them describe it in terms completely foreign to me.  I’m often confronted with “doomsday scenarios” where, in some theoretical Libertarian society, all societal structures break down (even the family) and all that is left is individuals battling other individuals in a barren wasteland.  (The only thing missing is the zombies!)  Now, I’m only a recent convert to Libertarian thinking and as such am not well versed in its history or philosophical underpinnings.  I will say this though: the Libertarianism I have learned about from Libertarians themselves differs dramatically from that described by the WWWTW sages – so I’m not sure what exactly they’re against, but I’m fairly certain what I am for…  For simple-minded me, Libertarianism is all about the nature and proper role of government. 

First, the nature of government:  Government is the only entity in society (other than parents) that can legitimately exercise coercive control over individuals.  The government can come to your house, break down your door, confiscate your property, drag you and your family into the street and beat you to a pulp if you resist – all with relative impunity (even if it turns out later that it was the wrong address).  Individuals (even parents) cannot legally do that.  We, as a society, have collectively agreed to submit to an authority with the power of life and death over us.  We do this because we believe in the necessity of government for order and peace.   Everything the government does (and this is important), ultimately resolves in the threat of lawful force if resisted.  Even the most innocent of crimes---say parking tickets---if ignored long enough will result in the government forcing its will upon you.  The nature of government then, is ‘legitimized tyranny’.  Or, in the words of Thomas Paine, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

So, given the tyrannical nature of government, the question then becomes “over what areas of society should we grant such tyrannical authority?”  In other words: “what is the proper role of government?”   The pure Libertarian answer is that the role of government is solely to protect the innocent from force and fraud.   Coercive force, in a Libertarian society, is legitimate only for keeping the peace and protecting the innocent.  A Libertarian State then, would have departments of Defense, Corrections, Law Enforcement, and not much else.  Other shades of Libertarianism will add other areas into the mix such as Immigration, Environmental Protection, or whatever.  But each area added moves the State one step further from pure Libertarianism.  (Of course you'd still have an independant Judiciary and a Legislative branch - though the legislators would have much less to do in a Libertarian society!)  For me then, the answer to the question of 'areas to grant tyrannical authority over' is: “as few as possible”.  I’m not a pure Libertarian.  I think that a nation should have borders and an immigration policy.  I also think there needs to be environmental protections of some sort.  And, I know that many Libertarians are pro-abortion – I’m not.  I think that the primary function of government is to protect innocent life.  For me, that means life at conception (see: Science, more specifically: Biology, even more specifically: Genetics, for further information).

So where are we at in this country?  Well, currently in this country, we have allowed the government tyrannical access to so many areas the list is dizzying!  (For a list of just the federal departments of government see here.)   We have collectively agreed that we are willing to submit ourselves to coercive force in the areas of health care, transportation, agriculture, retirement, education, commerce, the environment, housing, wages, labor relations… the list goes on and on and on!  And, if you doubt that these departments would ever use force against us, think again.  Many of these departments have “enforcement divisions” consisting of armed officers.  The Department of Education, for instance, has its own law enforcement arm (the “U.S. Department of Education Office of Inspector General” or “OIG”) that, on June 7, 2011 broke down a door to a Stockton, CA residence, dragged a man and his three children out of their home, handcuffed the man and detained all of them for several hours in squad cars for the “crime” of living in the previous residence of the man’s ex-wife (who was wanted on some warrant having to do with student loan fraud).

Such is the nature of government.  Something as seemingly innocuous as the Department of Education can, when provoked, turn quite ugly!

Interestingly, the one area from which the government has voluntarily withdrawn its tyranny is in the area of the US currency.   This, in spite of the constitutional mandate stating that “only Congress” can coin money and set its value!  So who does the government trust to create currency and set its value?  Believe it or not it has given that power over to the banking industry!  Yes, the Federal Reserve Bank (a private bank over which the government appoints officers – but oddly refuses to audit) is in charge of the money supply in this country!  It’s a little like letting the fox guard the hen house.  (Of course that's another issue worthy of its own thread!)

So - build a house without a permit: the government steps in, condemns your house and kicks you out on the street; forget to pay your parking tickets long enough: they haul you off to jail; arbitrarily devalue the US dollar so your buddies in the banking industry can profit: government winks, extends their open hand and looks the other way! 

This then, is the nature and role of government in this country.  It’s time people, to think Libertarian thoughts and get ourselves free!

Racism 101

Listen to this radio ad put out by aRicherLife.org (a public awareness campaign developed by the National Fair Housing Alliance) and see if you can spot the racism.  (I'll wait)

Did you hear it?  If not, then I'll spell it out for you.  Here's the dialog: 
First guy: "I grew up in an all white neighborhood."
Second guy: "I grew up in a diverse neighborhood."
First guy: "Everyone I knew was just like me."
Second guy: "Everyone I knew brought something different to the party."
First guy: "They looked like me, thought like me, acted like me - so my neighborhood always stayed the same."
Second guy: "They introduced me to different tastse, different ideas, different ways of doing things - so my neighborhood always got more interesting."
Together: "They definitely helped shape the way I look at things"
Second guy: "and they prepared me for the future."
First guy: "They did?"
Second guy "They did."

The announcer then goes on to tell us how great diversity is.

So, if you still don't get it, here's the racism: the implication that all white people look, think and act alike simply because of their skin color.  That, my friends, is textbook racism.

Think about this for a minute...  Do all white people really act and think alike?  Think about all the white people you know.  There are white people who are liberals, and white people who are conservatives - white Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Independants, Greens...  There are white Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, atheists, agnostics... and even within the white Christians there are Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Pentecostals, Seventh-Day Adventists... There are white Packer fans, Bronco fans, Laker fans, Celtic fans...  white soccer fans, baseball fans... white scientists, white vegetarians, meat lovers, broccoli haters...  well you get the picture.

If all white people thought and acted alike, they'd all be Libertarian Ron Paul supporters and Black Sabbath fans whose favorite football team was the Denver Broncos.  (I'm pretty sure that's not true.)  And that's because diversity is not due to the color of one's skin - diversity comes from our uniqueness as human individuals.  So not all white people think and act alike, and not all black people think and act alike (and I'll save you the suspense; neither do all brown, red, yellow or any color in between).  There is no race that thinks and acts alike simply because their skin is the same color. 

To think otherwise is to be a racist.

I'm Out!

No, not in that way.  I am officially out of the Republican party.  So what did it?  Well, the straw that broke the camel's back for me was the GOP's shameful treatment of Ron Paul, and by extension all of his followers (which includes me!)  Why should I be part of a political party that actively campaigns against the things I hold dear?  That's just stupid - right? 

So I am now a registered Libertarian.  It was only a matter of time anyway.  I've been attracted to the Libertarian party ever since I read the voter's pamphlet entry by the Libertarian candidate for President back in 2000 (who I voted for by the way).  He said (paraphrasing) "we have a Department of Transportation that doesn't transport anything, a Department of Energy that produces no energy, a Department of Agriculture that produces no crops..." well, you get the idea.  All of these government agencies tend to get in the way of the producers who want to transport things, and give us energy and food.

Now, I don't agree with everything the Libertarians believe (I am decidedly pro-life) but I agree with way more Libertarian ideals than Republican ideals (do they have any?)

So that's it.  34 years (plus or minus) as a Republican.  Seems weird.  I think I'll get used to it though.

Stripes on a Zebra

Obama and Romney are like stripes on a zebra: different color - same animal.

Both support undeclared, unauthorized, illegal wars.
Both support massive increases in government size (and power).
Both support corporate welfare to the tune of $trillions.
Both support fractional reserve banking, the Fed and the inevitable monetary collapse they will cause.
Both support government intervention to permanently enslave the poor, destroy the middle class, and reward the financial industry.
Both are beholden to the military industrial complex.
Both support extreme interventionist foreign policy.
Both support sending billions in US dollars abroad.
Both support spending billions on the racist "war on drugs".
Both will do nothing to curb illegal immigration.
I could go on, and on, and...

When will Americans wake up?

When will we vote for someone that corporate-owned media has NOT picked for us?

Write in Ron Paul.

The Myth of the Two Party System

A certain Soviet leader once reportedly commented, "We have a hard time convincing people in the USSR that our elections aren't rigged because we have only one party on the ballot, you Americans have figured it out though... you have two parties on your ballots!"

We do.  We have two political parties on our ballots.  But are our elections still rigged?  What good does it do to have two political parties if the people chosen to run against each other are hand picked for us by big money?

What good does it do to have two political parties if there's not an ounce of difference between them?

Case in point: Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney. 

Both support the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which gives the US government the power to indefinitely detain US citizens on US soil without a trial (a clear violation of the fourth amendment.)

Both support the right of a US president to assassinate US citizens if they are deemed a "terrorist" or a "terrorist sympathiser" by top administration officials (remember that this administration was calling the Tea Party "terrorists" not too long ago!)

Both support bailouts of big financial institutions that have made incredibly bad business decisions (rather than letting the bad ones fail so the good ones can rise to the top.)

Both support Corporate Welfare - the idea that the government needs to intervene on behalf of the corporations it wants to succeed--with bailouts, and tax incentives--and against those it wishes to fail--with excessive regulations and environmental restrictions (refusing again, to let the free market sort out winners and losers on a level playing field.)

Both support the idea that the president can take us to war without a congressional declaration of war (in other words, without the approval of the people.)

Both support Keynesian economics - the idea that government spending will improve a bad economy (in spite of the fact that we are so deep in debt right now that there is not enough physical money in the world to pay what we owe!)

Both support the Federal Reserve system and the idea that financial crises are "eased" (and Wall Street is buoyed) by printing more money (despite the fact that every time money is printed - without being tied to anything with concrete physical value: ie gold or silver - it is worth less in real spending power.)

Both support an interventionist foreign policy and the idea that it is up to America to right the wrongs in the world (despite the fact that the blowback from all of our international interventions has been catastrophic in every region we're in and the fact that we're broke and can't afford to police the world any longer.)

Both support continued foreign aid (again, even though we're broke and even though most of our foreign aid actually goes to interests counter to our own.)

The list is even longer but those are the points I can think of just off the top of my head. 

This Republican primary season has been a real eye opener for me.  I watched in amazement as all the big money interests, and their propaganda machines, got behind Mitt Romney from the very beginning.  I watched them weed out his challengers one by one.  And I watched them completely ignore the one candidate who doesn't share the common views listed above.

So what now that big money has chosen its contenders?  Who do they want to win?  That's the genius of it - it doesn't matter!!!  Either way Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex, and the corporations chosen by the government will win.  And everyone else loses.

It's time to wake up America.  It's time to stop letting the media--and the big money interests behind it--pick our candidates for us.  We need to take our country back!

The Media Blackout Continues...

OK now... Ron Paul is either winning, or has won, the most delegates in Iowa, Minnesota, Washington, Louisiana, Alaska, Maine, Nevada and even Massachusetts (Mitt Romney's home state) yet there is not a peep of this on Drudge, Fox News, or any other "conservative" (re: neocon) media outlet.  The media, both mainstream and neocon---believing the AP's "delegate count" (a made up prediction based on straw polls)---has declared those races "over" and has already placed most of those delegates in the Romney column.

This is a disgrace!!

But while the media sleeps, the rest of the country is waking up to find that there IS an alternative to "Obamney" and it is Ron Paul.

While every mainstream or neocon media outlet speaks of Dr. Paul as "having no chance", his supporters are silently taking the country back - wresting it from the greedy, soiled hands of the corporate interests and power brokers who have been destroying it for profit for the last 50-100 years.

Dr. Paul's message of freedom, liberty, sound money, foreign restraint and constitutionaly limited government cuts across party lines and has become the new rallying cry of the youth in America.  This also goes under-reported.  Perhaps what the youth realize (and what some of us old-timers are slowly realizing) is that big government is not the answer.

Think about this: there are currently 90,741 governments in this country, but one---the federal government---completely drowns out the other 90,470.  Is that really the answer?  The 90,470 state and local governments do a better job, and are more accountable to the people, than the monstrous federal behemoth does for 90% of what governments do (national defense, immigration and regulation of interstate commerce being the exceptions).  Why then all the hand-wringing about cutting the federal budget?

I think the country is starting to realize that.  Let's face it, there's a whole lot of government we could do without.  I also believe the country's starting to understand that there's only one candidate who would actually do something about that.

So keep an eye out because the fat lady hasn't even started warming up yet!!!

Ron Paul Or No One At All!!!

I've been a Republican for over 30 years.  I've never voted for a Democrat in my life.  But I've become so disillusioned with the Republican party lately---because of their hostility toward Ron Paul and his supporters (like myself)---that I've decided that I will not vote for anyone else.  I don't care who the nominee is, if it isn't Ron Paul, I'll write his name in (or I'll stay home).  I'm so sick of this "electability" crap!  Ron Paul is the only candidate who represents me, and, in a representative form of government, that's all that matters!

If that helps Obama get re-elected, so be it.  I honestly don't care anymore.  If the Republican party cared about that - they wouldn't treat their own members with such disdain!  Screw them.  4 more years of Obama is what they deserve!!

Chris Berman Foreign Policy

Ever notice how schizophrenic our US foreign policy is?  Like a bad politician, we were always "for that dictator before we were against him"!  It's not like our foreign policy is "evil" or the product of bad intent though - the United States has always been well-intentioned enough when it comes to our dealings with other nations.  It's just that we really don't know enough about what we're doing.  There always seem to be a slew of unintended consequences to our foreign entanglements (of course the same can be said for all manner of central planning!)

Take Iraq for instance...  We went there to eradicate Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction" and to stop him from "handing them over to Al Qaeda".  Then, when it turned out that neither of those reasons were valid, we changed it to a Wilsonian "spreading of democracy".  All of those things are well intentioned and noble on their face, but unfortunately, like every big government intervention into volatile areas, reaped all manner of unplanned consequences (more oil contracts for China and more dead Iraqi Christians to name just two.)

And, have you ever noticed how every time we slap sanctions on a country, Russia and China step in and start trading with that country?  Is it because Russia and China are our sworn enemies?  Or is because they are smart enough to recognize large untapped markets when they see them?  I have to think it's the latter.  Of course this leaves all the "experts" scatching their heads and wondering "why do Russia and China always oppose us?"  Well DUH!! 

In truth, our foreign policy can only be described as---to paraphrase ESPN's Chris Berman---"bumblin', stumblin', foreign policy!"

Why Are Conservatives Such Pussies?

I was listening to Mark Levin on my way home from work and he made a statement to the effect that "when conservatives get into office they try to shrink government but when liberals get in they try to grow it".  All I could think was "why are conservatives such failures?"  Nobody's shrunk government in decades!  In fact, government grew exponentially with Republicans in charge of everything!!  It immediately hit me that the reason conservatives are such dismal failures is because they fail to embrace any sort of radicalism for their cause.

Take the debt ceiling debate last year: conservatives had the chance to make a radical change in the way government works... all they had to do was vote against raising the debt ceiling and immediately the federal government would have been forced to live within its means.  But did they do it?  Hell no!  That would be "too radical!"  And the debt spirals out of control.

Now look at the Republican presidential candidates: only one of them is proposing anything close to "radical" spending cuts and the entire Republican establishment can't do enough to distance themselves from him.  All I can say is WTF?  Ron Paul proposes a trillion dollars in real spending cuts and the "conservatives" run and hide!  "It's too radical!"  "We need someone electable!"  And the debt spirals out of control.

What are Romney's proposed spending cuts?  How about Gingrich's?  Santorum's?  Nobody knows because every conservative journalist, every conservative talk-show host, every conservative debate moderator will not ask the question!!  "We can't talk about spending cuts - that's too radical and it might scare people!"  And the debt spirals out of control.

Does God Have Any Potential?

(Disclaimer: These are the ramblings of an amateur philosopher and thus these thoughts -- while new and exciting to me -- have probably been answered thousands of times already by real philosophers throughout the ages.  That said, I’m just going to say them anyway!  So here goes…)

Question:  Would something that is pure actuality necessarily have all active potentiality?

Aristotle defined two types of potencies: active and passive.  Active potency is that which is intrinsic to the thing because of its nature – it requires no external source of activation (an acorn has the active potential to be a full grown tree.)  Passive potency requires an external source of activation in that it is not in the nature of the thing to actualize (a tree has the passive potential to be a chair.)

My thoughts on that are these:  When an acorn becomes a tree -- although it exhibits many physical changes -- its nature does not change.  Thus active potency entails no change of nature.  In fact active potency is derived entirely from the nature.  The two are inseparable.  A thing’s nature entails all that it is and all that is in its nature to do or be.  In fact, it can be argued that the nature is the 'being' and the changes are not 'new beings' or 'changes of being' but rather actions stemming from the 'actual being'.  Thus, when an acorn ‘changes’ into a tree, it is not a change of being at all but rather the acorn acting according to the active potency of its nature.  The development into a tree is the nature of the acorn in action.

Now God is shown, through the five ways, to be a necessary, purely actual being whose essence just is to exist.  God is said to have no potential – active or passive.  This doesn’t make sense to me.  While it is certainly true that God can have no passive potential, I think the case can be made that -- because of his purely actual nature -- God necessarily has all active potential.  If active potency encompasses all that a being can do, then God -- who can do anything that is possible -- has the active potency to do all things.  In other words God has pure active potency.  The acorn can only do the things necessary to grow into a tree, it cannot do things to cause itself to play golf, nor can it read a book.  God, on the other hand could conceivably do all these things.  What’s more, if God has no active potency, then his ability to do anything is incoherent unless he is actually doing all possible things at all possible times – which is itself incoherent.  If God is not actually doing all possible things, all the time, his ability to do so when he chooses must be described as “pure unlimited active potential”. 

Thus, I’d argue, the nature of God -- which is purely actual -- necessarily possesses all active potential. 

[Postscript:  I brought this up in a post over at Edward Feser's blog and he confirmed that, not only has this issue been hashed out a long time ago, but none other than Thomas Aquinas himself said the same thing I'm saying!!!  (See Summa Theologiae I.25.1:)  Thank you Dr. Feser!]

US Foreign Policy: More Big Government

Why is the US taxpayer paying for the "defense" of Germany, Japan, and South Korea?  Aren't these all prosperous countries capable of paying for their own militaries?  Why then is the US taxpayer saddled with the bill? 

Well, it turns out the answer is pretty simple: Like every other government program, our military bases overseas (there are around 900 of them!) are just a symptom of a bloated federal government's constant overreach.  Installing military bases all over the globe is nothing more than big government trying to solve the world's problems.  That's right, not content with solving all domestic problems, our wonderful government has decided that it, (and only it), can solve all of the world's problems as well!  If you're for small government, you should be against the ever expanding role of the federal government - including its expansion into the affairs of sovereign nations around the world that are, truth be told, none of its business!  (Just like most of the domestic problems it is "solving".)

Here's the truth about our military bases overseas: The countries who want us there, don't need us there - they can afford to pay for their own defense; and the countries who don't want us are not worth defending anyway!  In fact there's ample evidence that a lot of our terrorism problems around the globe are generated from blowback due to our heavy handed interventionism.  We would actually be safer if we closed all our foreign bases.  If you doubt this, think of Canada: They are not being attacked by terrorist organizations like we are.  And why is this?  They have the same freedoms and lifestyle the world supposedly hates us for - so it can't be that.  The difference is that they have no foreign bases (that I know of anyway) and a non-interventionist foreign policy so they are not constantly inserting themselves into other nation's affairs.  (Even Canadian big government does not stretch to foreign lands!)

If any of the candidates for President are serious about ending BIG government (and only one of them is), they will pull the theiving hand of government out of our pockets, stop the spread of government into foreign lands, and keep OUR money here at home!