By Inspector · January 3rd, 2013 2:18 pm · Comments Off
Before the blood had even dried from the Sandy Hook mass murder, the control-freaks in the media and Washington were already screeching for new laws to infringe and destroy our right to keep and bear arms, and with it, our right to self defense. Others have already detailed the ways in which their proposed laws are immoral – stripping the innocent of their right to defend themselves, without trial or conviction – and impractical – because criminals and the insane simply do not listen to such laws (i.e. Sandy Hook was already legally declared a “gun free zone.” And we see how well that worked.).
But I’d like to take a moment to examine the fact that the gun control-freaks’ laws are not only immoral and impractical, but also stupid.
By Inspector · December 23rd, 2012 10:25 am · 2 Comments
I’m not going to talk about guns right now. I’m sure someone is going to call for some law at some point, and drag me into that. But, right now, I want to highlight that sick, murderous freaks are a product of a sick society.
Ours is a sick society. One that does not value reason. One that does not value control over one’s faculties. One that does not have a proper concept of a healthy self, and therefore no concept of healthy self-esteem – genuine, real self-esteem, not the fake imitation they make with gold stars.
By Inspector · November 21st, 2012 7:36 am · 9 Comments
People don’t learn from economic disasters alone. History has shown again and again that no matter how stark a disaster proves that a policy has failed, people can be convinced that the failure was due to not enough of it.
Every stimulus in history didn’t fail… they just weren’t big enough. We need a bigger stimulus and this time… will be different!
In case it wasn’t clear, I’m talking about Obama. He’s been an unmitigated disaster for the country, and people elected him again, convinced that what we need is more of the same, but harder.
I’d say good luck with that, but I’m stuck on this boat and going down with it.
Don’t get me wrong – Wet Noodles wasn’t going to ride in on a white horse and save the day. We’d be screwed under him, too, because he is too much of a wimp to do anything but more of the same. It’s just… jeez. People had a choice between a guy who was maybe, weakly, limply going to make some kind of effort – any effort whatsoever – to not bankrupt us and a guy whose plan was: FULL SPEED AHEAD TO BANKRUPTCY. And the American people made their choice.
By Inspector · July 31st, 2012 2:49 pm · 9 Comments
Health care, like all goods and services, is a limited resource. Once it is removed from market forces by turning it over to the government and giving it away for “free*,” rationing is the inevitable consequence.
Do you know what “rationing” means in the context of health care?
This. This is what it means.
By Inspector · May 4th, 2012 8:12 am · 21 Comments
I find it very interesting that the Left likes to complain about the members of the Right – specifically those called Social Conservatives – who are out to be “The Morality Police.”
Not because the Left is wrong here. They’re right to complain about this. It’s just ironic that they, of all people, do.
What do I mean?
By Inspector · April 9th, 2012 1:25 pm · 5 Comments
If your actions are indistinguishable from a Jim Crow era lynching except for which color of skin is on which side of the mob, then you’re doing the whole anti-racism thing wrong.
Dr. King said that he had a dream where, “they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” He didn’t say that his dream was that they WOULD be judged by their skin, only the other way around because revenge.
(Same goes for just about anything that would be indistinguishable from the Jim Crow era except with the colors switched… which is just about everything that comes out of a certain camp…)
By Inspector · December 14th, 2011 5:15 pm · 6 Comments
Some more passing thoughts on OWS:
Their primary impetus seems to be that someone read Marx and told them that the rich are taking their wealth from the rest of us. This was untrue in the 19th century when it was written (excepting government-backed monopolies which were anti-capitalist, anyway). And it was a baffling confusion of capitalism and the feudal system. But, more to the point, it is patently ridiculous in this day and age. The problem is, the writings that these people are ultimately basing their complaints on predate the modern age of the welfare state and its progressive tax systems.
Don’t get me wrong – we need to abolish both as the immoral and impractical monsters that they are. But, since they are here, they do make the cookie-cutter Marxist complaints of OWS a bit of a poor fit. Not only don’t the rich steal their wealth from the rest of us, but they pay the largest share of the taxes in this country, by a wide margin. Both in terms of percentage of their income, and in absolute terms. Even accounting for people like Warren Buffet.
But let’s back up for a minute. Theirs is, on a much more fundamental level, a silly idea.
By Inspector · November 27th, 2011 11:09 am · 9 Comments
Lately, there have been some proposals in the political mainstream for a flat tax system. Such proposals are very much worth considering. The current tax code, with its system of deductions and penalties is grossly immoral – the government has no right to reward or penalize our non-criminal behaviors.
By Inspector · November 11th, 2011 6:20 am · 1 Comment
The “Occupiers” are shamefully ignorant. Ignorant of the other 99%: the 99% of corporations that do nothing wrong.
And another point of their ignorance is: what is the distinguishing attribute of the 1% who aren’t innocent? That 1% isn’t the biggest 1%. It isn’t the richest. It’s the group that are in bed with the government; that use government power rather than free market acumen to gain their wealth.
This, then, leads to the third question they are blind to: who is ultimately to blame for this? When a man with a gun and a man with money make a deal, who is wearing the pants?
And, then, one last question I’d like to highlight, that goes unasked by OWS: Who put that man with the gun in power? They won’t ask this because it is them. THEY put a government in power that meddles in the free market. They got exactly what they asked for; they’re just ignorant of the implications of what they’d asked for. And now they’re screaming for more. MORE! MORE OF THE SAME!
By Inspector · July 27th, 2010 11:21 am · 31 Comments
I will start out by saying that I agree in principle with the Standard Objectivist Position On Immigration. The central solution to most current problems is to reform immigration law and abolish quotas so that the black market is removed, much like the whole war on drugs mess.
I think that the way I most often see this position presented is, at best inaccurate or oversimplified and at worst naive or suicidal. I will call this presentation, “Open Immigration” because that is what its presenters call it and also because that name highlights the key point of what is wrong with it. (more…)
By Inspector · July 4th, 2009 8:52 am · 2 Comments
Chrysler has filed for bankruptcy.
The only good thing about the prospect of automakers going into bankruptcy was that it was a chance for the government to un-do the damage it did by coercing them to meet the unsustainable terms of the auto unions. They could have removed the debts to the unions and called it a day.
Instead, they pretty much did the opposite, which neatly sums up what this administration is all about. Everyone but the unions was left holding the ball, and the government took over with their fascist “car czars.”
As you can see, with Chrylser it is going down in exactly the same way. (more…)
By Inspector · April 5th, 2009 2:27 am · 11 Comments
Congress and the media’s continual criticism of the domestic auto industry is that they lost out because they weren’t being enough like Toyota. (No, I don’t mean using non-union labor. Of course they didn’t mean that.) The repeated cry is that Detroit failed because they were “living in the past” by building large and powerful vehicles rather than making smaller, “more-efficient” cars and – especially – hybrids.
But was Toyota’s success because they produced small cars and hybrids like the Prius, or was it in spite of that fact?
By Bill Brown · March 2nd, 2009 6:54 am · 7 Comments
President Barack Obama delivered a speech before both houses of Congress last Tuesday and Lousiana governor Bobby Jindal gave the Republican response shortly afterwards.
Given the gravity of the moment, we at TNC decided to collect our thoughts on the speeches as a panel discussion.
By Inspector · February 18th, 2009 11:51 pm · 6 Comments
I don’t normally watch The Daily Show, but I caught part of an episode by accident today. In it, Jon Stewart was grilling a former Republican congressman about his opposition to Obama’s massive “bailout.”
Stewart had this Republican on the ropes because he was able to control the language of their discussion and this hapless Republican didn’t recognize what was going on. Stewart criticized him for being “pro-free market” while at the same time being in favor of “regulation” of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Showing how much we can trust Republicans, the man’s only response was that he was in fact in favor of “regulation.”
Peeling back this dishonest language, the plain fact is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government entities. (The former congressman even said as much earlier in the discussion!) They are most emphatically NOT representative of “the free market,” and a desire to reign in the government’s entities – Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae – is absolutely not in any way a “regulation of the free market.” It is entirely the opposite.
But this utterly despicable Orwellian switcheroo of terms went completely unopposed. Therefore, “regulation of the free market” was allowed to be framed as the agreed solution to the crisis, and concurrently, the problem was implicitly allowed to be blamed on an “unregulated free market.” This is, again, a complete and utter lie, as both men knew that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were the government and not the free market.
Jon Stewart is far from alone in his use of this deception. I’ve heard it used by congressmen, newsmen, and even ordinary people since the beginning of this latest mortgage brouhaha. But it is incorrect, backwards, and, for those who know better, dishonest.
The truth is the exact opposite of what the “regulation” cheerleaders would have us believe: the crisis was caused by overbearing government entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which distorted the markets and went wild dumping billions into foolishness. The failure was of these government entities and not in any way a “free market.” What the government failed to “regulate” was not “free markets,” but rather, itself. But because the term “regulate” is traditionally used to refer to government controls, these shysters are playing a shell game of words in which they “solve” a failure of government entities by calling for more government controls on private business.
So if you ever hear anyone use the term “regulation” in this way, be sure to set them straight. Because with it, they can control – and completely reverse – the entire meaning of recent events.
By Inspector · December 25th, 2008 5:12 am · 11 Comments
It struck me, the other day, just how much time I have to spend making a case that so-called “moderate” wings of the dreadful movements that America faces are effectively indistinguishable from the so-called “radical” or “extreme” wings. That it is not just, to give a few (by no means exhaustive) examples, “radical” Environmentalism, “radical” Marxism, or “radical” Islam which require steadfast opposition, but Environmentalism as such, Marxism as such, and Islam as such which must be opposed.
This shouldn’t be as hard as it is. The central ideas of all these movements are essentially disastrous and in complete opposition to the individual rights that formed the basis of what America was founded on. It isn’t just that respect for individual rights is fading from our culture in the face of the onslaught of the aforementioned movements and their kin. Granted, this is a factor, but it doesn’t account for the systematic dismissal I’ve observed of any attempt at opposition. People have been disarmed against judgment of any movement by its fundamental meaning. The unspoken yet widely pernicious cultural view I’ve seen is that differences of simple degree and consistency should be allowed to excuse things which are fundamentally alike.
I’ve come to understand that this failure represents a form of systematic denial – one that has far-reaching consequences to any effort to save our country from the disintegration of individual rights that these movements are foisting upon us.