To raise new questions,
new possibilities,
to regard old problems from a new angle,
requires creative imagination
and marks real advance in science.
Albert Einstein
Guest Quotation of the Day
The conception that government should be guided by majority opinion makes sense only if that opinion is independent of government. - F.A. Hayek via Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek (of course)
The way I interpret this thought is consistent from the standpoint of my accounting minor background and traditional accounting professional standards, involving independence in fact and appearance from the client. I have also worked for management consulting affiliates of audit firms which required us to divest of any preexisting positions with respect to their affiliated audit client list, even though there was no contact between consultants and auditors. So we were prohibited from holding even minor stock positions in attractively-priced, well-run clients. This is to provide assurance to stockholders and other stakeholders (vendors, customers, employees, etc.) that we have no vested interest, that auditors inspect with due professional care and diligence management's assertions in financial statements for fair statement.
Now consider the legitimate bases of government, like guaranteeing the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and property; a limited but effective national defense and robust, independent judiciary are not reserved to a narrow constituency; we all are equal under the rule of law. When it comes to dishing out special privileges like union protection and other protectionist measures (anti-competitive tariffs, quotas, rules and regulations), individual handouts, various special interest subsidies, exemptions, deductions, etc., our current political system is replete with vested interests, where demagogues promise unsustainable "free" goodies, pass moral hazardous laws, and promote morally corrupt, divisive zero-sum policies. Any legitimate independence and/or professional ethics standards would require legislators to refrain from voting for, promoting or negotiating earmarks for their constituencies, for (for example) Democrats to refrain from nominating union cronies or negotiating public sector union collective bargaining agreements, etc. A political majority that votes to exploit a political minority (say, for instance, the upper 1% of income earners) is engaging in little more than legal plunder and is morally corrupt.
Philosopher of the Day: Plato
I'm sure that Plato would have had ObamaCare in mind.
 |
| Both Images via the Libertarian Republic |
 |
| From the Father of Austrian School Economists Courtesy of the Laissez Faire Capitalism Facebook Group |
Aren't we all sick and tired of the snake-oil-hyping, finger-pointing, scapegoating Demagogue-in-Chief?Obama needs to stop bitching and start leading. I can't believe that this guy is still playing politics versus addressing an all-but-bankrupt government, excessive international meddling, and a house-of-cards entitlement system. So he earns yet another JOTY nomination. Utterly pathetic: given the fact he essentially owns the mainstream media and the Internet accommodates any number of news stories and political views, this failed communicator and leader tries to blame a cable news source? Here's a flash to The Clueless One: the American people rejected further government intervention in health care in 1993-1994, aka HillaryCare, long before FNC became a cable news powerhouse. Anyone who follows this blog knows that I only rarely reference Fox News; in fact, I think I cite the Gray Lady more than Fox. Fox is hardly creating the opposition; the majority center-right clearly has not found a home among the national broadcast networks which all pander to a progressive political standpoint; Fox News saw an opportunity to address an underserved audience. Obama is defensive, thin-skinned, and constantly makes excuses. He's the one whom shoved a nationally unpopular odious piece of Senate corrupt partisan sausage making down the House's throat, losing dozens of fellow Democrat votes in the process. He, who campaigned for office on the theme of post-partisan politics and transparency, has done precisely the opposite.
Speaking of BOCare, I saw a great political cartoon on the Laissez Faire Capitalism FB page here--I won't embed it because I can't attribute the author, but the line is "We've heard that laughter is the best medicine so Monday we'll start regulating it." Uh-oh, Jay Leno: do you really want Rachel Maddow reviewing your monologue? You want to regulate humor? Have Obama tell a joke without serving as his own laugh track...
Image of the Day: We Are the Trend
 |
| Courtesty of Cato Institute |
Since I have found myself occasionally discussing Facebook exchanges, I have decided to create a new segment tag. This question is posed by The Libertarian Republic:
What if the phrase "In God We Trust" was replaced with "In Allah We Trust"? Would you still support it adorning our public buildings and currency?
I once posed a similar question. At a niece's graduation on Air Force Academy grounds, one of the female student speakers of the public high school graduating class decided to give testimony on Jesus Christ. I found this entirely inappropriate, although my folks and my niece's family strongly disagreed. One of the questions I asked was how they would have felt if a Muslim student was testifying about Muhammad.
This phrase, of course, was popularized with the Star Spangled Banner and its use in coinage stemming from the Civil War and its official adoption as a national motto and appearance on fiat currency since the Eisenhower Administration, motivated in part to the desire to distinguish the US from atheistic communism during the Cold War.
Now, for me as a libertarian, the motto has this particular significance in terms of the Lockean notion of our unalienable rights (life, liberty and property) underlying our Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. It is suggestive that our rights are not granted by mere men but some higher order, however you wish to conceptualize that. I also think the motto reflects the traditional significance of our distinctive, historical religious liberty, tolerance, and pluralism. I see "God" used not as religiously distinctive and reflective of some centralized nationalized belief system by fiat but in terms of a common experience, in the search for a higher purpose.
Now, personally, I would oppose putting the name of God on currency for religious reasons: the Gospel teaching on the imperial tax ("Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's..."); I want to separate religion from politics. I don't like 'God' being used as a political gimmick in the sense of an "I love Mommies, babies, and puppy dogs" act. I also think that it is unnecessary, hardly distinctive (there are a number of state religions, for instance) and unduly provocative and divisive to non-believers (freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion). So I would have voted like Justin Amash, in opposition to the related 2011 resolution.
At the same time, I do not believe in atheists or agnostics engaging in censorship of religious speech. We all have to respect and tolerate the rights of others with whom we disagree. I do not believe any display of a religiously generic motto is a material imposition on the rights of atheists or agnostics (the same holds true of things like a display of the Ten Commandments). Personally, for example, I don't like our coins to include the faces of mediocre Presidents I personally despise, like Lincoln and FDR. But I don't have to profess a positive belief in the presidents when I use a penny or dime; the decisions were made by a majority of other people, and my philosophy is "don't sweat the small stuff".
Do you agree with Ron Paul that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a bad president? If so, why?
Hell, yes. His domestic policies created regime uncertainty, his Court-packing scheme not only violated the balance of powers but pressured SCOTUS off defense of economic liberty and into almost unchecked federal expansion beyond enumerated powers, he was an aggressive international interventionist, and he put his political career (an unprecedented 4 terms) above tradition and the interests of the people.
Political Humor: Remy is Back!
Sebelius Is Pitching a Taxpayer-Paid Contest for Best ObamaCare Propaganda Song, So...
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Lisa Benson and Townhall |
The Supremes, "Baby Love"
