Do not spoil what you have
by desiring what you have not;
but remember that what you now have was once
among the things you only hoped for.
Epicurus
Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day
 |
| Via Learn Liberty |
I have not really commented on the BLM controversy; a decent overview is here from the Post, although its pro-federal bias is clear, e.g., "Hunters also prefer predator killing because of its effects on the deer population. Scientists counter that ecosystem preservation is a far better way to stop extinction than predator management. Gerald Lent, a former chairman of the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners called these findings, backed up by extensive research, “voodoo science.”" I have little patience for most special-interest environmentalist intervention which tramples on property rights and related fungible rights like grazing privileges. (This is clear from the early discussion of BLM purchases of these privileges on disputed territory.) How a government, $17.5T in debt, has any business laying claim to most property in any state or why some remote centralized bureaucracy is administering land which is better supervised by more local/state governance is beyond me.
Just because I empathize with Bundy's resistence to the government's obsession with the desert tortoise's "more equal" rights doesn't mean I agree with everything Bundy says or does. I have no idea how or why Bundy came to pontificate about blacks, but here is a relevant excerpt:
"I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro," Bundy said, "and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids - and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch - they didn't have nothing to do. They didn't have nothing for their kids to do. They didn't have nothing for their young girls to do.
"And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?" Bundy continued. "They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I've often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn't get no more freedom. They got less freedom."First of all, slavery was a morally unconscionable violation of people's unalienable right of freedom, self-ownership. Case closed. However bad government policy, speculating people were better off being slaves than people with unalienable rights is abominable. Second, don't stereotype an entire race over what some individuals do. There are also a number of white women whom abort their babies, white criminals in jail, a number of poor white families on public welfare: would they also have been better off as slaves on plantations picking cotton?
I think hidden in his repugnant rhetoric are traces of relevant observations: we've had "progressive" programs in inner-cities which have exacerbated family instability and have encouraged a cycle of government dependency. There's a culture of victimhood, an undermining of virtues like self-reliance, persistence, diligence, integrity, and industriousness. Nevertheless, a number of successful people have emerged from challenging circumstances. However, I don't blame poor people for these problems; it's more the morally hazardous "progressive" policies and/or sense of entitlement. But we also need leadership in the private sector: role models whom emphasize hard work and goal-setting, reject victimhood and promiscuous extramarital sex, promote the importance of marriage and family, etc.
Facebook Corner
(Cato Institute). This new Cato study outlines a federalist approach to immigration reform: http://j.mp/1f865FF
This thread is attracting the attention of the present-day "Know Nothings" whom worship a century of broken restrictive immigration laws, despite the indisputable economic evidence of immigration as a win-win proposition. I welcome any proposal which extends an individual or business's access to resources, including those on temporary work permits and relevant decentralization of federal authority.
However, I can predict that the usual labor protectionists, xenophobes, etc. will oppose this like prior attempts to reform temporary worker programs, I worry about the complexity of joint federal-state administration, and I see some equal protection issues (e.g., why should employers in other states be denied access to workers based on their states' protectionist policies?) I also don't like making immigration law more complex and convoluted than it already is... I would prefer to see a vast liberalization and simplification of immigration policy across the board, a restoration of the same policies and ideals that facilitated the most rapid economic growth in our nation's history.
Would that be the cheap labor that probably lines your pockets at the end of the month. Perhaps the thought of you paying a living wage to a legal citizen is too much to take? And the real unemployment rate in this country which is more like in the middle teens is not reason enough to control our borders? Shameful!
I believe in a free market system, not your morally bankrupt attempt to intervene in the voluntary contract between willing parties. As usual, you economically illiterate "progressive" trolls want to impose counterproductive conditions on other people's business, which is none of your business. Your market manipulations have failed for decades; we had decades of strong economic growth and a rising standard of living before your corrupt interventions slowed the economy. What is it you don't get about there being jobs for which most Americans, even unemployed ones, don't want or aren't qualified for? Your anti-growth policy preference is shameful, even anti-American.
(Reason). Does the recent success of religiously themed movies suggest a revival of Christianity in the United States? Or is the long-term decline in most markers of religious activity and belief pretty much irreversible, especially among younger Americans?
Well, it is clear from the market that these movies are tapping into consumer demand. So the question is, why hasn't that channeled into gains for organized religion? As a Catholic, I've seen Mass attendance slump by nearly half of what it was in the 1950's; ordinations into the priesthood have slowed to a trickle; many Catholics-in-Name-Only openly disregard the Church's teachings on moral issues. (Gillespie essentially points out the same thing.)
I think in part the Church has had a crisis in leadership, and I'm not referring to the notorious bungled responses to the rogue priest sexual abuse scandals. There has been too much accommodation to a sexually permissive culture, instant gratification, secular humanism, "progressive' ideology, not enough emphasis on spiritual development, a "back to the basics" Christianity, moral discipline, repentence. Second, they mismanaged post-Vatican II reforms; traditional rites, customs, and masses were all but abandoned by paternalistic "reforms" that seemed to generate more confusion and questions than solutions. "New Catholicism" seemed to be marketed with similar results to Coke's infamous "New Coke" marketing failure. Third, the Church has found itself floundering in the age of new media, letting her enemies define her, reacting more defensively than proactively.
(Independent Institute). "In yet another example of how government bureaucrats look out only for their own interests, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service is paying out over $1 million in bonuses to 1,150 of its employees who have failed to pay their tax bills in previous years."
We are over $17T in the hole and the government is handing out bonuses to hypocritical tax collectors?
Daddies and Their Daughters
Political Humor
At least Barry didn't show off his robot dance moves...
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Nate Beeler and Townhall |
Meat Loaf, "I'd Lie For You (and That's the Truth)"
