Tag Archives: Freedom

Santorum and Porn?

Posted by Tim on

NOTE: I’ve held onto this post and resisted publishing it. My home state of Wisconsin is voting soon, and I didn’t want to give any extra negative attention to Rick Santorum. BUT, I’ve decided that keeping posts private for the sole purpose of helping a candidate is something that would compromise my personal integrity. While this post may hurt Santorum, in the end, he hurt himself. Keep in mind, that while I’m ranting about Rick, I’m still voting for him on April 3rd, and I urge everyone else to do the same. 

I’ve been very open about this – I’m voting for Rick Santorum in the Wisconsin primary, and if he’s the nominee I’ll gladly vote for him against Barry Obama. I like where he stands on a lot of issues. He’s a strong supporter of Israel, he’s proposed a great tax plan to bring back manufacturing jobs to America, and he’s a hero among the Pro-Life crowd. All that being said, there are still a few things that make me shake my head about him. The most recent – “ban porn”.

So much for free markets, ey? Rick’s plan to crack down of “hardcore” pornography isn’t real far fetched. He’s a family-man. He’s a practicing Catholic, and is big on family values. I can understand Rick not liking porn and the porn industry. He has strong values, and I can see why he’s against porn. He’s also brought up the fact that porn can cause problems in relationships, and can negatively affect the brain. While I’m not sure these are really “facts”, I’ll give Rick and his researchers the benefit of the doubt.

All that being said – okay. Porn is bad. BUT… that’s his opinion. There are a lot of things that are “bad”. That doesn’t mean we ban them. Cigarettes are bad. They cause so many deaths that we can measure the deaths by the minute. Why aren’t we banning cigarettes? Come on, Rick. This isn’t a path you want to go down. Are you in favor of the free market, or not?

As I discussed HERE, banning a product, whether its drugs or porn, doesn’t eliminate it. It pushes it to a black market, where the dangers are far worse. Instead of a (relatively) clean porn enviroment, we’d have a completely unregulated “black market” of porn. Does this mean little kids getting involved? Doesn’t this mean people who are filmed without their permission? Keep it legal so we can monitor it and regulate it.

This is by no means a pro-porn post. I’m indifferent on the subject. What someone does in their free time is none of my business. Frankly, I don’t want to know. Some people may say that porn is ruining relationships, and that may be true. There might be cases where it actually helps relationships though. In the end, its each individual’s responsibility to make their own choices.

The thing that frightens me about Rick’s stance on this is that its very similar to a utopian mindset. “If only we could pass enough laws and control people’s behavior, we could create a utopia!” Banning things for “people’s own good” is what the left does. Banning porn is no different than banning guns, banning sugary foods, or banning light bulbs. Let the market work, let people make their own decisions. The government has no place censoring the internet, or magazines people get. Come on, Rick.

VIDEO: Milton Friedman on Legalizing Drugs

Posted by Tim on

I’ve had trouble dealing with the whole legalizing drugs issue because I’m torn in two directions. Part of me insists that drugs are by and large bad for the body, and I see most drug users as degenerates. I don’t like drugs, and I don’t like drug users. On the other hand – if my goal is to save lives, fight the drug cartels, and allow for economic freedom, wouldn’t legalizing drugs do all of those things? My heart says no, but my brain says yes.

Here’s a video of Milton Friedman, an iconic conservative mind, discussing the legalization of drugs.

Free Market = Free People: Debunking Socialism

Posted by Tim on

Compare and contrast. We were taught that when we were little kids. It’s important to compare things to one another, not necessarily to judge them, but to gain a better understanding of the ways the world works. It’s amazing how many people fail to use this basic test towards the biggest issues of today. Compare and contrast private schools with public schools, for instance. If we were honest with ourselves, we might be able to steal a few good ideas from private schools and use them to make public schools better. But no. Compare and contrast isn’t for real world issues, is it?

Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes

The big battle of the last century has been capitalism versus socialism. In the simplest terms – capitalism is businesses and trade being directed by private individuals, while socialism is businesses and trade directed by the state. The idea behind capitalism is that individuals know how to create wealth better than the government. Every person makes their own decisions which impact how much money they make. The “problem” with capitalism is that you end up with some people who have a LOT of money, and other people who have very little.

Socialism takes control of the market, and directs businesses to pay certain wages, provide certain benefits, and produce certain products. When the government takes control of all these things they are able to “spread the wealth” evenly. The chasm between rich and poor isn’t nearly as wide. The problem with socialism is that it completely does away with things like incentives, it limits political freedom, and it completely ignores the role of prices in the market.

And so the argument continues. It is, however, very easy to put an end to any argument that socialism is superior to capitalism. Compare and contrast. As Milton Friedman said, “The only relevant test of the validity of a hypothesis is comparison of prediction with experience.” So, with that in mind, let’s compare the prediction of socialism with our actual experience with socialism.

Greece. Like much of Europe, Greece is in an economic crisis. Much of this is due to it’s socialist policies. The young working class pay for and support the retirement of the seniors. Sounds fair right? People who make money give it to help those who aren’t working. The problem? Well, there are too many people collecting money and not enough people earning it. Greece’s unemployment rate is over 20%, and their retirement age is 50. Without incentives for people to earn more (and keep more), the working population continues to go in debt to support socialist retirement programs.

Cuba. Cuba actually has a number of things going for it. It has a very low unemployment rate, it has small debt (at least in comparison to Europe and the US), and only 1.5% of it’s population is “below the poverty line”. On the other hand, what exactly is the “poverty line” in a country where the average annual income is $9,900? And if the people of Cuba love it so much, why are basic freedoms (like expression, and the press) suppressed by the Cuban government? And why does Cuba have to keep it’s citizens captive? – That’s right. Emigration is pretty much outlawed in Cuba. No one gets to leave, because if they could – everyone would.

At night - one has lights, one doesn't.

At night - one has lights, one doesn't.

But, never mind all of that. I hear the same story from people all the time. “Those countries aren’t true socialist countries.” “True communism has never been tried. We’ve only seen this barbaric form of totalitarianism.” Funny how often communism and totalitarianism go hand in hand. Perhaps that’s because to control a market requires controlling the people who make up that market. One thing people often overlook it that “markets” are PEOPLE. Free market = free people, which is why political freedom and economic freedom are inseparable.

But again – let’s not only compare the predictions with the results. Let’s compare the results with the results of alternatives. The evidence is jaw dropping, and the list goes on and on. I’ll let you do your own research, but here are a few examples -

  • North Korea vs South Korea
  • East Germany vs West Germany
  • Soviet Union vs United States
  • California vs Texas
  • Illinois vs Wisconsin

Like Friedman said, the only relevant test to the validity of a hypothesis, (in this case, socialism) is comparing the predictions (everyone wins) with the actual experience (everyone loses). In the end, the actual evidence does not hold up. The only system to ever greatly increase the standard of living for a society has been the free market system. Unfortunately, the free market creates winners and losers. But even after all the wins and loses, the country as a whole continues to grow.

Adam Smith - Father of Capitalism

Adam Smith - Father of Capitalism

So why do people continue to flirt with the idea of socialism even if it’s failed miserably whenever it’s been tried, and even when there is a clear superior alternative? There are two things that make the modern day socialist tick. A misunderstanding of human nature, and a misunderstanding of economics. Things like money, prices, and incentives are very real and very important, and things like greed and envy are inseparable from humans.

There’s an idea out there that a utopia can be created. If only the economy were under the control of one centralized all-powerful government, everything would work out. Everyone would get what they need, and no one would want anything else. But that’s not the real world. People want more than they need, and they in fact have a right to go after it – the “pursuit of happiness”. The ideal socialist society is a fantasy. It’s been thought of for centuries, by Plato, by Thomas Hobbes, and by Karl Marx. It’s all the same, and it’s all unrealistic. Whenever it’s been tried it’s resulted in a controlled suppressed people, and a stagnant or dying economy.

Another big misconception is what Thomas Sowell calls the “Zero Sum Fallacy“. It’s the idea that wealth is not created, it’s distributed. The idea that there is a set amount of money in an economy, and one person can only get richer if someone else gets poorer. This is the backbone of why people are frustrated with capitalism. They simply don’t understand that even if one person earns millions, it doesn’t affect anyone else. His millions do not take away from what anyone else earns. Envy is understandable, it’s human nature, but envy in a free market is unfounded.

So, we have a group of people who believe that their fantasy can become reality. They disregard the laws of economics, and the laws of nature. Capitalism on the other hand doesn’t do away with human nature. It instead works with it. People are greedy – so why not let money be an incentive for them to invent, produce, think. Prices fluctuate for reasons, and disregarding those reasons in favor of price controls creates shortages and surplusses, neither of which serve anyone. The most people’s needs are met when a free market it truly free. Like I said earlier – free market = free people.

The Lunch Police

Posted by Tim on
Junk Food - It's okay for them, but not for you.

Junk Food - It's okay for them, but not for you.

All first ladies have their little causes. Nancy Reagan had her “war on drugs”. Linda Bush had her crusades against stupid kids (good luck with that one). And Michelle Obama has child obesity. How touching, right? While her hubby deals with important concerns like cutting our national debt (wait a minute), this valuable White House mommy strikes up wars against cultural issues. Oh… how cute!

Turns out, that every time someone pushes their nose into our lives, whether it be Barry or his ugly wife, Michelle, a little more of our freedom is trampled on. The latest news story – the lunch police. Here – read up:

RAEFORD – School and state officials say a misunderstanding resulted in a West Hoke Elementary School preschooler’s homemade lunch being replaced with chicken nuggets.

An agent from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Child Development and Early Education was at the school Jan. 30 assessing the pre-kindergarten program, said Bob Barnes, assistant superintendent of curriculum and instruction for Hoke County schools.

The agent examined the lunches for the six students in the class and believed one did not meet nutritional requirements spelled out by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Barnes said.

According to the USDA, schools are required to provide lunches that include one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

The 4-year-old, whose name was not released, brought a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, potato chips and apple juice.

The Department of Health and Human Services declined to say which requirement was not provided in the child’s lunch.

The girl thought she had to go through the lunch line for a new meal, Barnes said.

By the way – that clever little piece was taken from http://www.thetimesnews.com/articles/lunch-52587-barnes-child.html

Now, the article goes on to say “we aren’t trying to be the lunch police”, but if that’s not what they’re doing, what ARE they doing? Why are there federal agents in pre-schoolers’ lunch bags? I know, I know – to look out for the children. Well, apparently, the government knows best, and will step right in front of parents to lead the way. Michelle Obama and her obesity goons now have their hands all over your child’s lunch.

It’s the little things that make up life. Things like taking pride in making your child’s lunch in the morning. Well, parenting is no longer the job of parents. From cradle to grave – the government will take care of you. The government will tell you what to feed your child, what to teach your child, and how to discipline your child. You, as a parent, are being stripped of your rights. Ain’t it great? No responsibility! No concerns! The government will be here to hold your hand…

The Right to Life

Posted by Tim on

Let’s make some waves…

For a number of years we were in the political climate that pushed social issues to the backseat. We had loads of new hybrid ideologies. So called “fiscal conservatives” and “moderates” began to come out of the woodwork. Social issues like immigration and gay marriage were looked over. The important thing was our economy. Well, all that changed recently. Abortion, the Catholic church, and the federal government are all tangled up in a web of confusion.

My take on virtually everything is simplicity. Don’t make issues more complicated than they are. But abortion is an issue that seems to make everything more complicated. It gets people’s emotions going. Women’s “rights” protestors, pro “choice” advocates, and femi-nazis all make a lot of noise over the issue of abortion. To me it’s real simple though. Here’s a way I explain the issue to someone who is undecided.

Imagine for a moment, if you will, that you are married, and that both you and your spouse have decent jobs. You decide the time is right and you want to start a family. You plan everything out, get your budget in order, and read a few parenting books. Your wife is pregnant, and you’re super excited to be a dad. One night while your wife is walking to her car after a late night at work someone pushes her down, and attempts to steal her purse. While she’s on the ground, she attempts to stop him, and he in turn kicks her in the stomach. He actually kicks her so hard that he kills her unborn baby.

Now, what will happen to this man? Does he go to jail for assault and robbery, or assault, robbery AND murder? I imagine most moms would say murder had taken place. Her baby, though unborn, was still a life that he ended. I agree with moms who would take such a position. That man deserves to be charged with murder.

The other end of the spectrum is someone who doesn’t want their baby. This woman is single, still in school, and unemployed. She had a rough week, went out and drank too much, and wound up making a huge mistake. She slept with someone she doesn’t know, and is pregnant. She’s scared, and just wants an abortion so she can move on with her life and forget about her mistake. She goes to a doctor, and he uses some fancy vacuum cleaner to suck her baby out of her – ending the child’s life.

In both cases a child was killed, a life was lost. But only one was called murder, the other was called abortion. Sounds like a twisted double standard, right? What we are in turn saying is that a life is only a life if we say it is. We’re saying that one person can determine another person’s worth. A baby is only a baby only if it’s mother wants it.

Carry this kind of thinking to adults and we’re saying that one person should be allowed to kill another, if they think it’s right. Is that how justice works? No. The circumstances do not determine whether a life has value, whether a child has a soul, or whether God has a plan for a child. We are all God’s children, and to use our own standards to decide whether an innocent life is worth keeping is not only stepping out of bounds, it’s making decisions that only God can make.

You see, humans have certain unalienable rights, and among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Notice which one came first – life. And the reason we have the right to life is not because some person gave us that right, or because our government grants us that right. It’s a right that comes from God. If God knew us before we were in the womb, doesn’t it make sense that we were given the right to life before we were born? Yes. And to take away that right, the right to life, is without a doubt wrong.

Not a lot of people will come out and say that. It’s not always easy to say what you believe. Sometimes its not easy to know what you believe. But people talk, people ask questions, and people want to know. I’m a fiscal conservative, but where do I stand on abortion?  There you have it. You know where I stand, and more importantly I know where I stand. Where do you stand? Think about it.

Politics Matter

Posted by Tim on

Getting to know new people is awesome but sometimes you aren’t exactly sure where the person is coming from, so you have to test the waters and see exactly what their position on certain things is. I’m not politically correct (at all) so I need to be careful of my speech when I’m around new people. I’m not afraid to offend people, but I try not to. It’s just good manners. Some people are anti-gun femi-nazis waiting to jump down my throat for saying “I Stand With Walker”. (I know, I know – workers’ “rights”… yeah, yeah.) And while I don’t mind friendly discussions, I’m not a fan of straight-up confrontational debates on social policy.

Among the people I meet, there are a handful who don’t follow politics. They’re generally on my team when it comes to the issues at hand, but they don’t follow politics or the news, and they don’t really care to. It’s not a matter of free time, or access to great resources. (I talked about conservative self-education HERE) It’s that politics turns people off. I don’t blame them. I used to feel the same way.

For me everything changed when ObamaCare was passed. I had a few ties to the healthcare industry growing up, so I know exactly what “universal healthcare” means for the average citizen – higher costs, lower availability. It’s happened in Canada, in Britain, and virtually everywhere else government run healthcare is. Knowing this, I paid a lot of attention to the arguments. When the time to vote on ObamaCare came, I was against it. That’s fine. I disagree with 90% of what our rulers mandate. But the scary thing was that the vast majority of my fellow citizens did NOT want this bill passed. And yet, democratic majorities in the House and Senate, and a democratic president forced the bill through without listening to the people. “Governing against the will of the people”, so to speak.

It was at that time that I began reading, listening, and watching; trying to learn as much as I could. I came to the conclusion that humans are inherently flawed, and therefore, any institution (including government) we create will also be flawed. Because of this, it’s extremely important to limit the powers of those institutions, government in particular. Businesses in general are kept in line by the laws of economics, but government doesn’t play by those rules (to their own dismay) and is able to force it’s citizens to do whatever it wants. It begins with a soft-tyranny, (government regulations on food, energy, light bulbs, water faucets, you name it) and slowly builds to the point of no return.

This is what we’re up against. In the name of “fairness” and “equality”, people’s rights and freedoms are being eroded little by little. Under the guise of “safety” we give up our freedom to chose what’s best for us, as individuals. It’s hard to come up with anything that isn’t being touched by the hand of government. Look around your house – everything is regulated. Your computer, your phone, your electricity, your furniture, your pens and pencils, your silverware, your clothing, your car, your lawnmower, your television, and all the shows on it. There will soon come a time when you will no longer be allowed to eat what you want to eat, drive what you want to drive, and eventually, drive WHERE you want to drive.

Politics may seem like a waste of time. Democrats, republicans – what’s the difference, right? I agree. But liberals and conservatives are night and day. The utopian mindset of the left has consumed and destroyed societies for ages. It’s not just politics. It’s freedom. It’s morals. It’s life.