A Noble Lie (#1): Giving with a Gun to Your Back

Plato wrote a most wonderful work that you can read with your children called, The Republic. That is of course complete hyperbole and purposefully placed sarcasm. Research The Republic and see for yourself some of the more adult themed topics discussed. This book is where the noble lie originated. The Republic is a Utopian-minded progressive's dream of a "perfect" society controlled by an "elect" of intellectuals. These "philosophers" control all facets of life including providing for each individual in the society. It's not voluntary but coerced. The Republic was anti-individual and pro-collective. Of course, what Utopian society upholds the individual? A socialist-Utopian style of government whether Fascist or Communist, strips the individual of his/her humanity and individual desires, and replaces it with a dehumanized collectivist body. The collective becomes more important than the individual. You become a number or object for use by the Central government. Coercion or force becomes the "necessary" and "noble" tool to force the individual to cooperate and help the collective whole.

In order to control the individual and coerce them to do what they want, the government tends to rely not only on force but also on a lie-not just any lie but a noble lie. In short, a noble lie is a myth manufactured by the ruling elite to convince the people that what they are being coerced to do is just. The myth is that the collective whole will be better off if everyone is forced to take care of the collective whole.

Rob Peter to pay Paul.

This article is the first in a series about various noble lies that our government have been manufacturing.

Welfare and other entitlement programs have been enforced by the barrel of a gun along with promoting them with a noble lie. This compassion that comes at the barrel of a gun is a complete contradiction that ends with undesirable unintended consequences. For a great article that goes into depth on this issue check out this link http://studentsforliberty.org/blog/when-compassion-comes-at-the-barrel-of-a-gun/.

Again, the lie is that if you don't subsidize activity for the collective whole then you are a selfish barbarian who contributes to the problem and creates success off the backs of the other less fortunate. As Bastiate explains in The Law:

When we oppose subsidies, we are charged with opposing the very thing that it was proposed to subsidize and of being the enemies of all kinds of activity, because we want these activities to be voluntary and to seek their proper reward in themselves. Thus, if we ask that the state not intervene, by taxation, in religious matters, we are atheists. If we ask that the state not intervene, by taxation, in education, then we hate enlightenment. If we say that the state should not give, by taxation, an artificial value to land or to some branch of industry, then we are the enemies of property and of labor. If we think that the state should not subsidize artists, we are barbarians who judge the arts useless.

 This is also the logic fallacy of "zero sum." If someone is creating success on their own, then someone else is losing. If you create wealth then it is being taken away from someone else. This is wrong and an utter fallacy of reason. Milton Friedman, one of the greatest economists of the 20th century, spoke and wrote dispelling this myth of zero sum. Here is a short clip of him discussing this fallacy, Milton Friedman on Slavery and Colonization . Thomas Sowell, another brilliant economist, wrote Economic Facts and Fallacies and began with the "four core fallacies;" which, zero sum is one of the them. He pointed to the opposite and correct logical conclusion that "voluntary economic arrangements are 'positive-sum.'" Let me give you an example. And I will use the Ipod, since most people today know and can relate. Apple may spend $50 for the parts (just an estimate for the example, not an accurate one). The Ipod is then available for purchase at $200. You the consumer or purchaser voluntarily enters into a transaction for the Ipod. Now, you estimate the total value of the Ipod based on your entertainment and overall time and enjoyment of the product at $500. This involves all the time you are going to spend on it with downloading music, apps, and other entertaining things. You purchase the product for $200 while profiting $300. Simultaneously, Apple profited $150 off the purchase. Apple did not increase wealth while someone decreased and made a loss. It was a positive-sum. 

The noble lie in regards to force used to facilitate compassion and giving is a perfect example of the anti-liberty and anti-reason activities of Big Government. Basic economics proof that there is no zero sum and in fact there is a positive sum with voluntary transactions. No wealth is gained while someone else loses. Hence, the noble lie of forcing people to give money to redistribute to others that are losing while those whose money is taken have made their wealth off their backs is just that, a lie. This lie does not accomplish anything good. The premise is flawed and also the conclusion that compassion is created through force is equally flawed. Compassion and giving is true and better when voluntary through individual choice. The poor will always be with us as the Bible, economics, and common reason tells us. Furthermore, the poor are not created by those who create wealth. And you can't force compassion with the barrel of a gun. The end result is more poverty, resentment, less liberty, bigger government, and dehumanization of the individual to form the collective whole. 


Watch this ten minute clip of the Robber Baron Myth by Milton Friedman and you will be enlightened. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmzZ8lCLhlk&feature=relmfu

Promising Heaven and Delivering Hell

Promising A but delivering X.

Have you ever wondered why so many Americans joke about Politicians being nothing more than lying charlatans? What is a charlatan? Well, they were deceptive salesman who promised that their products, commonly medicines, would cure ailments or do something good for the body. You guessed it, they usually were lying. Not just usually, charlatans always lied. When you think of politics, think that politicians need to sell themselves to get elected and will promise many things. They will promise the voters that their ideas and policies will cure all the aliments of society. As Thomas Sowell so wittily put it in his article "Random Thoughts: On the passing scene", "How long do politicians have to keep on promising heaven and delivering hell before people catch on, and stop getting swept away by rhetoric?"

Well, I'll be plain with you. It's because they tend to lie. In fact, PolitiFact lists all the "promises broken" by Obama; which being interpreted from nice words, means lies. It's not one page, just keep clicking on each "next page" to see all 4 pages of lies...oops, I mean..."promises broken."

How about the two Bushes. Daddy Bush Sr. once said during the election of 1988, "Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES!" Well, he raised taxes. How about his son, Dubya Bush. He alarmingly said back during the 2000 election, "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'" He went on to use Somalia as an example that turned into "Nation building." Ya I know, he actually spoke out against military intervention in other countries and nation building. The same guy who bombed Iraq and sent in troops back in 2003. Furthermore, the nation building has been going on since then. The nation building is occurring in Afghanistan. 

Former President Lyndon Johnson ran an ad invoking that if you voted for Barry Goldwater then little girls picking daises would get nuked. What is more, if you voted for Goldwater then America would be drawn into a war that would endanger American lives. However, history proved that Johnson was lying because he lead America into the devastating Vietnam War. 

There are so many examples of politicians in history promising things like not going to war, not raising taxes, not-this-or-that, but delivering the opposite and at times more harmful alternatives. Approval percentage for Congress is at 13%. Maybe that's because when they promise and then act more harm is done. Thomas Sowell elaborates in his article:

Have you noticed that what modest economic improvements we have seen occurred during the much-lamented "gridlock" in Washington? Nor is this unusual. If you check back through history, doing nothing has a far better track record than that of politicians intervening in the economy.

Yes, I love that idea, Mr. Sowell. Doing nothing is what should be done. Because either they lie and never do it or when they "accomplish" their policies the harm is too great. Entitlements and Welfare are perfect examples of doing more harm. You see the title of this article? It is promising heaven and delivering hell. Lies of politicians are not just harmful. What is even more harmful, is their policies that have hurt this economy, further impoverished the poor, reduced liberty; and have brought into question now more than ever with the Tea Parties and the Occupy movements, "What has the Government created?"

Thomas Sowell rightfully philosophizes, "People who believe in evolution in biology often believe in creationism in government. In other words, they believe that the universe and all the creatures in it could have evolved spontaneously, but that the economy is too complicated to operate without being directed by politicians." He continues, "With all the talk about people paying their "fair share" of income taxes, why do nearly half the people in this country pay no income taxes at all? Is that their "fair share"? Or is creating more recipients of government handouts, at no cost to themselves, simply a strategy to gain more votes?" They promise to "spread the wealth" to create more "freedom." However, Sowell explains the following:

When politicians say, "spread the wealth," translate that as "concentrate the power," because that is the only way they can spread the wealth. And once they get the power concentrated, they can do anything else they want to, as people have discovered -- often to their horror -- in countries around the world.

 " They create more dependents, they create more concentration of power to the government which further restricts liberty, they create more debt, they create more inflation, and they create more problems rather than solutions.    Not only do we keep getting hell when heaven was promised because of fallacious ideas of government, but also the "Appearances, rhetoric and emotions are what get them elected." Sowell then reminds us that "Reality is what the voters and taxpayers are left to deal with, as a result of electing them." 

The "Reality is what the voters and taxpayers are left to deal with, as a result of electing them" is the sad truth of it all. If politics keep producing failed policies and harm, then what does it "reward?" Sowell teaches us the following:

In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensations for injustices -- leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.

 This man that writes these words was at the forefront of when Welfare and the anti-Liberty "Entitlement Society" was at the beginning and being debated about. It is the supreme example of harm done by good intentions, promises, and lies. Watch this four minute video of clip of Thomas Sowell debating on the destructive affects of the program and also the fallacies of these promises based on false rationale.

You may be thinking, "Well, there is no difference between the Parties and each politician will do more harm than good, so why even vote or do anything?" I would counter with the mere fact that we must stand up and fight for Liberty, limited government, fiscal responsibility, and a more reasonable foreign policy. One way to fight is to vote. Furthermore, write, speak, debate, and continue to read to educate yourself to fight the good fight. We can change things. We are the government, well, we are supposed to be. Let's start showing that we are. I encourage you to read Sowell's articles, check out his videos on Youtube, and check out his website and affiliated websites.

I wonder what Lucifer promised the other angels to support him to challenge the omniscient, omnipotent incumbent, God. Well, whatever he promised, he most certainly delivered hell, literally. We may never get "heaven" on earth but we sure as hell can resist "hell," no pun intended...well, it was intended. 

Top Three Myths about Immigration | LearnLiberty

Top Three Myths about Immigration | LearnLiberty

This video is very intriguing. Libertarians tend to not all agree on every issue, just like Conservatives and Liberals. Open borders is an issue that I disagree with that is held by both Libertarians and Liberals.

However, it doesn't mean that there are myths on the side of arguments whether for or against the affects of immigration. You have those on the extreme right below, as parodied by the creators of South Park. You also have those on the extreme Left who believe its our fault, as the white Americans who stole the land from Mexico; and we are this rich, imperial, greedy, heartless, people that have caused all this illegality chaotic affect of illegal immigration. They are those on the extreme Left that align themselves with the militant La Raza, being translated, "The Race." I am very certain that if white Americans created a group called, "The Race," they wouldn't be around for too long.

Of course, there are those who intentionally create a myth that those who want a stop to illegal immigration and to enforce current immigration laws somehow want to "prevent" all immigration through. You can't say that illegal  immigrants are "stealing" our jobs but you could say that they are not only a security risk but also help in the economic downturn with their flooding the "welfare state."

You see, it is disigenuous to not bring in the debate the entitlement society and how Welfare is increased with illegal immigration. See reports here, here, here, here.

It could be possible for open borders to work if we didn't have such a behemoth, welfare state. But I also tend to believe in secure borders and a nation of laws, even as a Classical Liberal. Because, I believe that our liberties such as individual, property, and life must be protected by a government limited in power but not limited in enforcing laws that protect Americans. A protection that includes financial burden.

Being an advocate for liberty doesn't mean complete anarchism, no laws, and no defined border that is protected. I don't put my country behind and say that our Constitutional "liberties" must stretch to those who illegally enter and take advantage of the entitlement society, further weighing down the costs on every American. The Constitution does not allow or include non-citizens that break the law to live in the country illegally. This may seem rigid, but a free society is rigid. It takes rigid individualism that requires hard work and a principled devotion to law, family, and to other individuals.

I want to know what you think. Please comment and debate. Tweet your comments or questions. Comment on Facebook under this posting. Immigration is an important topic and all people of ideology need to come together to fix the problem and help speed up the legal immigration process.

The Worst Pro-Choice Argument: A Critical Analysis

The Worst Pro-Choice Argument

I read the article above written by Anthony Gregory of the Independent Institute. Gregory is a "pro-choice" Libertarian.

I am pro-life Libertarian; which means, I believe that every human being has the natural right to life including the unborn child. The human baby develops through conception by the choices of the mother and not of its own choice. However, there is the situation of rape when the mother does not have a choice. Notwithstanding, the child again, did not have a choice to develop in the womb and is protected by his/her right to life.

Gregory writes that the worst pro-choice argument is that the baby is "not human" from conception up to birth. Pro-choice advocates have contended that babies can't be labeled human and thus do not have rights to life or liberty. Gregory explains with the following:

Some pro-choicers, who argue that abortion must be permitted exactly because the fetus carries no moral significance compared to the interests of the mother, have taken that premise to a logical conclusion, now explicitly arguing that a baby born has no rights that its mother is bound to respect, assuming the inconvenience and burden of caring for the baby are great enough to warrant killing the infant.

Gregory postulates that the "logical conclusion" of the belief that unborn children are not human and thus have no rights leads to infanticide. Infanticide is the killing of babies after birth. A form of infanticide is the despicable murderous "partial-birth" abortions.

Gregory confirms that he believes the unborn child is human with rights when he says, "Babies are human beings, even before they are born. They have rights even before they can assert them."


However, Gregory oddly argues, "The state should butt out of all abortions and the moral issues should be handled by civil society and within the context of families and individual choice—the only way decisions can be made morally is if they are made voluntarily."


As a pro-choice Libertarian, Gregory believes that the State should stay out intervening between a woman's choice and the life of the unborn child who has rights. He used the example of the theory that children are the "property" of the parents. He disagrees with this and believes they have rights and even have the right to runaway. But the point of contention is when the child can "assert" those rights. Gregory explains:

Babies have a right not to be killed, tortured, abused, beaten, and so forth—and children in general are self-owners whose limited capacity to vindicate their own rights temporarily delegates authority to their parents, but does not mean they cannot ultimately vindicate their rights when they have the capacity to assert them.

I guess that the unborn child can't "assert" his/her right to life, so the mother can exercise authority over the baby and have the baby killed? What is more, he contradicts himself by criticizing the theory that the child is the property of parents but simultaneously insinuating the unborn child is the property of the child whom the mother can dispose of. But if you read the passage, it appears that he is arguing against the "worst pro-choice argument" with the child property theory. So, it is somewhat confusing.

The following was my reply to Mr. Gregory:

I agree that the argument becomes erroneous and despicable when it claims the baby is not human up to third trimester and eventual birth. Especially once after delivery and is murdered. It is disturbing that there are heartless humans like President Obama who support infanticide. I am a Libertarian who believes that individual right to life and liberty extends to human life in the womb. One of government’s role is to protect life and liberty.Mr. Gregory, I do find a big contradiction with your opposition to the theory that children are the “property” of the parents; however, you argue in essence that the baby, who you agree is human and has rights, is the property of the mother and that she can dispose of him/her without State intervention. It seems that you agree that the State can intervene to protect children from their parents and if they run away. However, the State can’t intervene to protect the unborn baby? I agree with the Liberal argument that counters your’s with, “How can the State intervene with after birth abortions if they can’t before birth?” Your argument becomes invalid.It is the easier route to say that the State must stay out of everything and allow the Individual to make his/her moral decisions about everything. As a Libertarian, I am passionate about Individual Liberty but also about the Natural Right to Life. Your Liberty ends when you want to trample on other peoples liberties and to harm others. Harm includes killing life. The State has a moral obligation to step in and protect life, even in the mother’s womb.

This article is proof that there are Libertarian pro-choice people. However, I am a Classical Liberal or Libertarian who believes Liberty and life are Natural Rights that must be protected by the State. Protection of life and liberty is a duty and purpose of government. I know that Gregory thinks that moral choices like killing your unborn child should be left solely to the individual. Well, he's wrong. Libertarianism believes that individual liberty should free from government intervention as much as possible until you use your liberty to deny others their liberty and to harm others. When a mother chooses to kill life inside them, it is harm to a human and the unadulterated denial of the right to life for the unborn child.

Untitled (Comment and give me a title)

After staring at my title bar for about 5 minutes, I decided on no title. I know. It is pretty hipster of me and non-conformist. Actually, I am going to post a hilarious comic strip my wife, Alex, sent me today.

Well played, hipster dude.

So, try to read this blog entry while trying not to look at the comic strip. Did it work? Dang it! I'll continue below.




















I went for a run after work, although my foot has been bothering me. A pain develops on the side of my foot and spreads to the ball of the foot, up to the ankle. It was bothering me since Saturday, however, it wasn't hurting me today.

So, I put on my totally rad red shorts and my Litigation Assistants softball t-shirt from my work at Levin Papantonio Law Firm. I swiftly made my way to the track but the thought of my hurt foot put some doubt in my mind.

Almost instantly, the pain entered into my mind. Now, this isn't just a bruise type of pain. It feels like a stress fracture with pain shooting through my foot when my foot makes contact with the ground. It causes me to hop on one foot to a place to sit.

Why am I talking about my hurt foot and running? Well, it is not for health advice, however, do run if you are able to. I guess, since this is my blog; I am writing to myself. In turn, of course, you, the reader can learn from it. I learned tonight that real pain and real tribulation awaits me when I am attempting to complete a goal. It can slow you down and even keep you from attaining your highest potential.

One of my favorite poets, Alfred Lord Tennyson, said this, "I must lose myself in action, lest I wither in despair." So, before me are two roads. Robert Frost wrote those famous lines about two roads and how he chose the one "less traveled." One side is fear along with pain, trouble, and failure that accompanies accomplishing goals. Even to run, is a daily goal. And of course, you have the bigger goals like becoming a Senator, which is one of mine. On the other side, you have the road that leads us to "wither and despair." This road has heavy traffic and has the many footsteps of those who choose the easy way in life. The easy way for me would be not to accomplish my goals of becoming an attorney, businessman, politician, non-profit owner, and so on. The easy way would be me to ponder on the pain that I will endure on that run through life. Furthermore, I could go sit down watch my favorite TV show and get up in the morning working the "safe" job from 9 to 5 and never rising, only staying stagnant.

Wow, this is turning out to be quite the journal entry. More quotes, you say? Here you go. The great Mark Twain said,

“There are basically two types of people. People who accomplish things, and people who claim to have accomplished things. The first group is less crowded.”

The second group also travels down the other road that Frost bravely chose not to traverse down. He also warned us not to either. Twain in his genius and sharp wit with a sense of appropriate humor really left a treasure map for us to follow with quotes such as these. You want to experience life? And I am proposing this question to myself. Then accomplish things, don't just claim.

My favorite Novelist is Eric Arthur Blair, aka, George Orwell. He wrote a wonderful novel that I have in my book collection, Homage to Catalonia. This is a true account of the Spanish Civil War and his involvement in it. He puts forth a wonderful example of accepting inevitable pain, hardship, and failure and to just accomplish your goal. He traveled to Spain during the Spanish Civil War as a journalist. It was dangerous and definitely not very profitable. However, it was a goal of his to get in the midst of this unique and important conflict in history that was the matinee to the theater of World War II.

This book served as one of the most valuable historical works on the Spanish Civil War. He accomplished to write a book that greatly informs us of the inner workings and the true meaning behind the war. His accomplishment does not end there, however. He also wrote a blue print for you the reader and me. A blue print that we must follow to go reach your goal and take it head on.

This is my actual copy. 

I am holding the book and have turned to page four. Orwell said,

"I had come to Spain with some notion of writing newspaper articles, but I had joined the militia almost immediately, because at that time and in that atmosphere it seemed the only conceivable thing to do." 

The conceivable thing to do, is what is in your heart in relations to your goal. Just like the boy who wanted to be a soldier. Just like the little girl that wanted to be a veterinarian.  Those two goals were my brother's and sister's. Correction, my brother wanted to be a Marine and did. My sister did enter the medical field, however only for humans not animals.

Orwell amazingly got involved in the war not just with a pen and paper but with a gun and a belief in joining a fight. Did he know that pain was coming? Did he know that he could just leave and go somewhere else, maybe to his home country of England? The answers are yes. I know that pain and the overall fear wraps, as my wife says in her poem, its "slimy hands" around me every day. But I and you must accomplish our goals in despite of, in order to not, as Tennyson put it, "wither in despair."