I travel with my pistol and I have a proper gun case and the required TSA locks. Federal law mandates that you declare your firearm at check-in, then a TSA agent checks it out and then it is checked in your luggage. In my lateness and rush I forgot to declare my pistol. Turns out it doesn't matter because they didn't catch it in their screening. It was obviously a firearm and it was at the top of my bag, but it still wasn't caught. It could have very well a been bomb in a terrorists luggage. I hope TSA searching Grandma makes you feel safer, because to me it looks like they don't know what they are doing. When are we going to stop turning over our personal sovereignty over to the federal government in exchange for security, when it's obvious we'll get neither?
Merry Christmas!
Friday, December 24, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
The Case for Small Government in the BP Oil Spill
In the first 30-45 days of the BP oil spill there was an outcry from small government conservative governors and legislators who were pleading with the federal government to speed up the response and increase available resources to fight the oil spill. Many people in the media were asking if there was a contradiction in their philosophy. How can one be so opposed to big government, but when things go wrong they scream and yell for government assistance? This is a great question, but it was answered very poorly by those who were asked.
After the recent trend of botched relief/recovery operations by the federal government e.g. Hurricane Katrina and BP Oil Spill it would seem that the government is trending downward in what would be considered its critical functions or core competencies. What is the cause of this decline and what can we do to correct it?
The concept of the "core competency" is something that business has understood for a long time. Essentially, the concept embraces the principle that the further away you get from what you are good at then the less effective you will be at doing anything. This has been proven true by the government and businesses and as of late the gulf coast has suffered the most. The original intent for our government can be summed up best by Thomas Jefferson:
With government now running health care, parts of the automotive industry, and large swaths of the financial industry, while also eyeing takeovers for newspapers, radio and other media it is clear they have strayed from the government's rightful scope intended by our founding fathers. This new direction puts more strain on already scarce resources and puts people at risk. When lives and livelihoods are at stake in situations like the BP Oil Spill we simply cannot afford a fractured government that lacks focus and competence in its critical functions. When the federal government proves itself to be impotent and restricts state and local government from doing what needs to be done, then it is the responsibility of the states to shrug off the federal government and do what is necessary to protect its citizens. In turn, it is the citizens responsibility to protect those elected officials that choose to take the risk and do the right thing. Force your elected leaders to take a stand and hold their feet to the fire. Whether its your local, state or national leaders don't allow them to continue to make big promises with no results. Don't continue to allow a government that makes mediocrity something to strive for.
In conclusion, the simple truth is that if the government were smaller, it would be more effective during the times we really need it. So the outcry from small government advocates should continue. After all if they had their way with government then most of this pain could be avoided. Our question should no longer be what power and responsibility can we give the government, but what power and responsibility should we give the government?
After the recent trend of botched relief/recovery operations by the federal government e.g. Hurricane Katrina and BP Oil Spill it would seem that the government is trending downward in what would be considered its critical functions or core competencies. What is the cause of this decline and what can we do to correct it?
The concept of the "core competency" is something that business has understood for a long time. Essentially, the concept embraces the principle that the further away you get from what you are good at then the less effective you will be at doing anything. This has been proven true by the government and businesses and as of late the gulf coast has suffered the most. The original intent for our government can be summed up best by Thomas Jefferson:
"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
With government now running health care, parts of the automotive industry, and large swaths of the financial industry, while also eyeing takeovers for newspapers, radio and other media it is clear they have strayed from the government's rightful scope intended by our founding fathers. This new direction puts more strain on already scarce resources and puts people at risk. When lives and livelihoods are at stake in situations like the BP Oil Spill we simply cannot afford a fractured government that lacks focus and competence in its critical functions. When the federal government proves itself to be impotent and restricts state and local government from doing what needs to be done, then it is the responsibility of the states to shrug off the federal government and do what is necessary to protect its citizens. In turn, it is the citizens responsibility to protect those elected officials that choose to take the risk and do the right thing. Force your elected leaders to take a stand and hold their feet to the fire. Whether its your local, state or national leaders don't allow them to continue to make big promises with no results. Don't continue to allow a government that makes mediocrity something to strive for.
In conclusion, the simple truth is that if the government were smaller, it would be more effective during the times we really need it. So the outcry from small government advocates should continue. After all if they had their way with government then most of this pain could be avoided. Our question should no longer be what power and responsibility can we give the government, but what power and responsibility should we give the government?
Sunday, June 13, 2010
A Second Look at Public Health Care
While I am a consumer of PBS television and enjoy their relatively calm take on the days events I often find myself repulsed by the slant of their "journalism" or the views their commentators take on certain issues. I was especially appalled on a National Press Club debate on the subject of health care rationing. While this nudge toward more control is not surprising to many who are/were paying attention it is surprising at the speed at which its arrived.
The latest public testament from the progressive left is the doctrine of health care rationing. People who spoke up during the public debate that spoke of the coming health care rationing and "death panels" were derided as sensationalists or inflammatory and were quickly dismissed. It seems however that these voices in the wilderness were speaking the truth.
The vicious cycle of government intervention into the free market with one variation or another goes something like this; The government sees something that they would like to make more available to the public, the next step is some sort of guarantee through takeover, public financing or mandate. These artificial constraints on the marketplace flood the market with new consumers and higher demand which deplete resources and create shortages. The government responds to these shortages by rationing. So the market always wins, but what we must look at is in what context does it claim victory? Does it claim victory with the drab and grey backdrop of social democracy with ever increasing controls and intrusion into our daily lives? Or does it claim victory in the dynamic and bold marketplace of a liberal Republic with our liberties still intact?
A common sentiment in the pro-rationing movement is that they believe that if we are able to focus resources through the government we will be able achieve a specific desired result. For instance, the pro-rationing debaters posited that if we could re-focus the resources that companies expend on researching what this panel viewed as unnecessary technologies then so much more could be accomplished. On the surface this may appear to make sense, but it violates a principal that Friedrich Hayek (1974 Economics Nobel Laureate) outlined in "The Constitution of Liberty" that says that the more focused or centralized resources are, the less likely that certain discoveries that we currently know nothing about can be made. Essentially supporting the Socratic Maxim that, "The only real wisdom is knowing you know nothing". I think this is a valuable ethic, but alas it is very difficult for it to penetrate the cloud of smug and ignorant self assurance that hangs like a plague in the halls of government.
Another common sentiment is that if only Grandma would die quicker we could devote so much more in the way of money and health care infrastructure that many other lives could be saved. With a straight face and no recognition of the evil they eruct they posited that essentially grandma has no real right to make these decisions for herself because after all we are paying for this now. With all of the research done on comparative effectiveness the "community" has decided that this hip replacement or that pacemaker really gives no benefit to society because she is no longer a producer. Meanwhile Grandma twists in the wind and we justify our evil deeds by telling ourselves that this is what she really wants, that sick people don't think rationally and that they can't be trusted to make decisions regarding their own health.
These are not American ideals. These ideas come from a long and dark world history where the state or the "community" made decisions for people, where the state was sovereign and the individual subject. These are not our values. The sovereignty of the individual is at stake and if it's lost it is very difficult to restore.
The latest public testament from the progressive left is the doctrine of health care rationing. People who spoke up during the public debate that spoke of the coming health care rationing and "death panels" were derided as sensationalists or inflammatory and were quickly dismissed. It seems however that these voices in the wilderness were speaking the truth.
The vicious cycle of government intervention into the free market with one variation or another goes something like this; The government sees something that they would like to make more available to the public, the next step is some sort of guarantee through takeover, public financing or mandate. These artificial constraints on the marketplace flood the market with new consumers and higher demand which deplete resources and create shortages. The government responds to these shortages by rationing. So the market always wins, but what we must look at is in what context does it claim victory? Does it claim victory with the drab and grey backdrop of social democracy with ever increasing controls and intrusion into our daily lives? Or does it claim victory in the dynamic and bold marketplace of a liberal Republic with our liberties still intact?
A common sentiment in the pro-rationing movement is that they believe that if we are able to focus resources through the government we will be able achieve a specific desired result. For instance, the pro-rationing debaters posited that if we could re-focus the resources that companies expend on researching what this panel viewed as unnecessary technologies then so much more could be accomplished. On the surface this may appear to make sense, but it violates a principal that Friedrich Hayek (1974 Economics Nobel Laureate) outlined in "The Constitution of Liberty" that says that the more focused or centralized resources are, the less likely that certain discoveries that we currently know nothing about can be made. Essentially supporting the Socratic Maxim that, "The only real wisdom is knowing you know nothing". I think this is a valuable ethic, but alas it is very difficult for it to penetrate the cloud of smug and ignorant self assurance that hangs like a plague in the halls of government.
Another common sentiment is that if only Grandma would die quicker we could devote so much more in the way of money and health care infrastructure that many other lives could be saved. With a straight face and no recognition of the evil they eruct they posited that essentially grandma has no real right to make these decisions for herself because after all we are paying for this now. With all of the research done on comparative effectiveness the "community" has decided that this hip replacement or that pacemaker really gives no benefit to society because she is no longer a producer. Meanwhile Grandma twists in the wind and we justify our evil deeds by telling ourselves that this is what she really wants, that sick people don't think rationally and that they can't be trusted to make decisions regarding their own health.
These are not American ideals. These ideas come from a long and dark world history where the state or the "community" made decisions for people, where the state was sovereign and the individual subject. These are not our values. The sovereignty of the individual is at stake and if it's lost it is very difficult to restore.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Viva La Revolucion!!!!
Its not often that I say this, but I think I agree with him. President Obama has done what I didn't think was possible and has signaled that he would like to lift some if not all of the restrictions on travel and trade with Cuba. This is welcome news for those who love liberty. It should never be up to the government to decide who the sovereign citizens of the United States can or should trade with or visit. Although I understand there are limits to this line of thinking it should be a general principle that our nation should try to adhere. Read the article below and start making your travel plans, unless you're are one of the many who'll object to this decisiion. So what are your thoughts? Can't wait to hear what you have to say!
Cuba Readies for U.S. Tourists With Luxury Hotels (Update1) - Bloomberg.com
Cuba Readies for U.S. Tourists With Luxury Hotels (Update1) - Bloomberg.com
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Groupthink and Pragmatism
Groupthink or the "mob mentality" is a very interesting phenomenon that we see all over the world, but I am particularly interested in the American brand of groupthink. While in other parts of the world groupthink is largely of nationalistic, ethnic or religious origin, American groupthink is different. Granted, we have elements of nationalistic, ethnic or religious groupthink in our country, but the American form of groupthink is highly political and frankly a little puzzling. Traditionally Americans have liked to think of themselves as individualistic and self-reliant, even the most ardent American progressive usually has an individualistic bent, but thats not exactly what I am talking about.
In a nation as vast and diverse as the United States of America I have a hard time understanding that nearly 100% of the votes cast in the last presidential election were cast for one of the two major parties. Do these parties really represent our country? To the outside observer I think the two party platforms would seem to contradict themselves and appear to be bit contrived. So why do we tend to fall into line? Are we intellectually lazy? Do we like the comfort of being part of a larger group and were simply born into a two party system?
On one side of the aisle we have a party that embraces individual or "social" freedoms they don't extend that same tolerance to people of faith who are open about their opposition or disagreement with elements of their platform. When it comes to economic freedom they believe its the government's right and obligation to bend the will of the individual to achieve any stated goal that they deem necessary or beneficial to the collective. They often fuse their interests with large corporations and organizations in a fascistic attempt to achieve their goals.
On the other side of the aisle you have a party that embraces economic freedom and sees private property as an individual's sacred right. However, they don't see personal behavior on the same plane. They believe that morality and "family values" are of the utmost importance for societal health, which necessitates the use of government power to impose their moral will on the population. While they would never acknoledge it or agree, they are essentially seeking to create a Christian Caliphate inside the United States.
So where are their principles? I wish I could say that I cannot understand how people can compartmentalize their views and operate as though principles apply to one viewpoint and not another. 3 or 4 years ago I would have been counted amongst that latter party. So often I talk to people who apply sound reason in every other aspect of their life, whether its their businesses, their relationships, or a sporting activity, but as soon as politics or religion enters the equation they absolutely lose their minds. I think what happens when we stop the groupthink, we discover our principles. It is my assertion that if you stop the groupthink and discover your principles then you will never be happy with our current two party system. In my view the political spectrum is divided into three segments:
Classical Liberals-
A political philosophy that places high value on individual freedom based on a belief in natural rights that exist independent of government. In its pure form, for example in contemporary libertarian thought, it holds that the best government is minimal in scope, providing security, but promoting laissez-faire policies towards morality, religion, the economy, and the rest of social life.
http://www.laits.utexas.edu/gov310/DC/glossary.html
Pragmatists-
A movement consisting of varying but associated theories, originally developed by Charles S. Peirce and William James and distinguished by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences.
http://www.answers.com/topic/pragmatism
Statists-
The theory or practice of concentrating economic and political power in the state, resulting in a weak position for the individual or community with respect to the government.
www.thefreedictionary.com/statism
When you break it down both of our parties are pragmatists, due to their irresistable urge for government action if anything undesirable happens. The problem with this is time and time again throughout history this has led to statism and tyranny in one form or another. So where do you stand? What are your principles?
In a nation as vast and diverse as the United States of America I have a hard time understanding that nearly 100% of the votes cast in the last presidential election were cast for one of the two major parties. Do these parties really represent our country? To the outside observer I think the two party platforms would seem to contradict themselves and appear to be bit contrived. So why do we tend to fall into line? Are we intellectually lazy? Do we like the comfort of being part of a larger group and were simply born into a two party system?
On one side of the aisle we have a party that embraces individual or "social" freedoms they don't extend that same tolerance to people of faith who are open about their opposition or disagreement with elements of their platform. When it comes to economic freedom they believe its the government's right and obligation to bend the will of the individual to achieve any stated goal that they deem necessary or beneficial to the collective. They often fuse their interests with large corporations and organizations in a fascistic attempt to achieve their goals.
On the other side of the aisle you have a party that embraces economic freedom and sees private property as an individual's sacred right. However, they don't see personal behavior on the same plane. They believe that morality and "family values" are of the utmost importance for societal health, which necessitates the use of government power to impose their moral will on the population. While they would never acknoledge it or agree, they are essentially seeking to create a Christian Caliphate inside the United States.
So where are their principles? I wish I could say that I cannot understand how people can compartmentalize their views and operate as though principles apply to one viewpoint and not another. 3 or 4 years ago I would have been counted amongst that latter party. So often I talk to people who apply sound reason in every other aspect of their life, whether its their businesses, their relationships, or a sporting activity, but as soon as politics or religion enters the equation they absolutely lose their minds. I think what happens when we stop the groupthink, we discover our principles. It is my assertion that if you stop the groupthink and discover your principles then you will never be happy with our current two party system. In my view the political spectrum is divided into three segments:
Classical Liberals-
A political philosophy that places high value on individual freedom based on a belief in natural rights that exist independent of government. In its pure form, for example in contemporary libertarian thought, it holds that the best government is minimal in scope, providing security, but promoting laissez-faire policies towards morality, religion, the economy, and the rest of social life.
http://www.laits.utexas.edu/gov310/DC/glossary.html
Pragmatists-
A movement consisting of varying but associated theories, originally developed by Charles S. Peirce and William James and distinguished by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences.
http://www.answers.com/topic/pragmatism
Statists-
The theory or practice of concentrating economic and political power in the state, resulting in a weak position for the individual or community with respect to the government.
www.thefreedictionary.com/statism
When you break it down both of our parties are pragmatists, due to their irresistable urge for government action if anything undesirable happens. The problem with this is time and time again throughout history this has led to statism and tyranny in one form or another. So where do you stand? What are your principles?
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Article: 20 Ways Obamacare Will Take Away Your Freedoms
Here is an article that itemizes and cites the specific sections where this bill takes away our freedom. Have a gander below:
http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/1563-20-ways-obamacare-will-take-away-our-freedoms
Joshua McKee
http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/1563-20-ways-obamacare-will-take-away-our-freedoms
Joshua McKee
Sunday, March 21, 2010
On Healthcare and Natural Rights
Its been awhile since my first post, but I felt the need to at least write down my thoughts even if nobody cares to read them. Healthcare has been successfully passed now in the House and the Senate and the president will sign the bill very soon.
My view is that this whole debate has been skewed toward the idea that government must do anything to "fix" something that has been working quite well for a long time. In fact it is my view that the things that hold back our current health care system are in areas where government has failed to live up to its obligations. For instance, buying health insurance accross state lines is impossible right now, but if that restriction were lifted, it is my opinion that this would increase competition and the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith would be allowed to do its work and drive down premiums. The commerce clause in the U.S. constitution states that Congress shall have the power, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Now the term "regulate" means to "make regular" commerce with nations, states and tribes. It doesn't however, mean that they can or should straddle citizens and businesses with restrictive and burdensome legislation. This is exactly what this new health care bill accomplishes.
For the first time in American history to be a citizen of the United States of America in good standing you will be required to purchase something. This is an iggregious violation of human natural rights and any liberty loving American should work to change this law by voting for candidates and joining organizations whose loyalties lie with the U.S. Constitution and who work for the proliferation of liberty.
"Freedom, in a political context, means freedom from government coercion. It does not mean freedom from the landlord, or freedom from the employer, or freedom from the laws of nature which do not provide men with automatic prosperity. It means freedom from the coercive power of the state--and nothing else."
-Ayn Rand-
Health care is not a right. A right cannot be material or financial in nature. A right is something that exists in the natural world in the absence of the state or any form of government. Health care obviously does not fall under this category and its absurd on its face to assert that it should. Anything that requires another individual to provide for the person receiving the benefit cannot be a right. That is the looting of one class of society to benefit another class and its wrong. We are heading down a path and there is a cliff at the end, we need to turn back now!
Another post is coming soon on the Federal Reserve, but for now I leave you with this quote:
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”
-Samuel Adams-
As always I love to hear you thoughts and look forward to discussing this further.
Regards,
Joshua McKee
My view is that this whole debate has been skewed toward the idea that government must do anything to "fix" something that has been working quite well for a long time. In fact it is my view that the things that hold back our current health care system are in areas where government has failed to live up to its obligations. For instance, buying health insurance accross state lines is impossible right now, but if that restriction were lifted, it is my opinion that this would increase competition and the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith would be allowed to do its work and drive down premiums. The commerce clause in the U.S. constitution states that Congress shall have the power, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Now the term "regulate" means to "make regular" commerce with nations, states and tribes. It doesn't however, mean that they can or should straddle citizens and businesses with restrictive and burdensome legislation. This is exactly what this new health care bill accomplishes.
For the first time in American history to be a citizen of the United States of America in good standing you will be required to purchase something. This is an iggregious violation of human natural rights and any liberty loving American should work to change this law by voting for candidates and joining organizations whose loyalties lie with the U.S. Constitution and who work for the proliferation of liberty.
"Freedom, in a political context, means freedom from government coercion. It does not mean freedom from the landlord, or freedom from the employer, or freedom from the laws of nature which do not provide men with automatic prosperity. It means freedom from the coercive power of the state--and nothing else."
-Ayn Rand-
Health care is not a right. A right cannot be material or financial in nature. A right is something that exists in the natural world in the absence of the state or any form of government. Health care obviously does not fall under this category and its absurd on its face to assert that it should. Anything that requires another individual to provide for the person receiving the benefit cannot be a right. That is the looting of one class of society to benefit another class and its wrong. We are heading down a path and there is a cliff at the end, we need to turn back now!
Another post is coming soon on the Federal Reserve, but for now I leave you with this quote:
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”
-Samuel Adams-
As always I love to hear you thoughts and look forward to discussing this further.
Regards,
Joshua McKee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)