Francisco Ferrer

As everyone knows, America is inward-looking, slow to make the first move, scared of ruffling some other country's feathers, and pays little attention to the rest of the world. President Scott Walker would change all that. Under his administration American would awake from its sheepishness and take on its manifest destiny: to invade the entire planet. Leading in Iowa, Walker says U.S. needs aggressive foreign policy MADISON — Gov. Scott Walker said Sunday that the United States must “be prepared to put boots on the ground” anywhere in the world. “I think anywhere and everywhere, we have to go beyond just aggressive air strikes,” Walker said during a live interview on ABC’s This Week. “We need to have an aggressive strategy anywhere around the world.” (Continued here.)

Then the American people today must be perfect. How else can we have a government that you call a “perfect moral instrument” unless everyone is Little Lord Jesus asleep on the hay? Perhaps the way those at the Constitutional Convention lived their lives in the 1780’s determined what kind of government they created. But there is no evidence that the way people live their lives today “is what created” the U.S. government. To establish your absurd and astonishing claim, you can start by discussing the feasibility of time travel or precognition. That must mean that if one has spent his life feeding off government, he deserves a government that feeds him. Conversely, if he has been made to subsidize those who collect dole, he deserves a government that feeds off him. It is quite easy to prove that something is perfect when perfection is reflexively defined to mean whatever the status quo happens to be. First of all, there have been quite a few people who wanted to be left alone by the federal government to govern themselves and they have often paid dearly. Moreover, to follow your logic, one would have to eschew any advocacy of laissez-faire capitalism. Reducing government to its size at the time of, say, the Founding would be a reprehensible idea. To do so would not allow the feds to match their programs to what the people today deserve. In fact, expanding Leviathan to provide Obama’s “free” high-speed internet, “free” child care, and “free” college might make government just the right size. Thus Ayn Rand, free market economists and most of the contributors on this forum would have to be viewed as enemies of your "perfect justice." By your theory there can be no moral objection even to a government of Stalinist or Orwellian proportions. Every government is exactly the right size and dishes out precisely the right amount of misery and torture and murder for the people it serves. Barack Obama spent his early adult years attempting to expand the welfare state. Obviously, the government he deserves is one that would make him president. Steve Jobs spent his early adult years building products that people love and creating a multi-billion dollar company. He deserved a government that would suck his wealth for all it could get. "Perfect moral instrument." If slavery can be called “self-imposed,” why not say the same thing about rape, child molestation, and death by acts of terrorism? Why not sneer at the recipients of those actions and say they too had it coming? Why should you admit any discrepancies in your “magical pink pony ride” world? (Thanks for the bon mot, William Scherk.) In order to escape tax slavery, you say all one has to do is raise his prices? Tell anyone serving in the military, the police department or the fire department that the solution to high taxes is to charge more from the "customer." And let me know how that conversation goes. The notion is preposterous not only because millions of wage earners haven't the ability to set their income at will, but also because the prices of services and goods are not infinitely elastic. If automakers see their taxes doubled, they cannot dramatically raise the price of cars without also experiencing a steep decline in sales and thus revenues. The advice is shot through with economic ignorance. Furthermore, there is a stultifying web of regulations centered in DC that can never be passed on to any customer. The FDA's refusal to permit a life-saving drug, the BATF's refusal to allow the sale of an automatic rifle, the FCC's regulations over information technology, the Anti-Trust Division's regulations of business, the EPA's regulations over private property--none of these can simply be transferred to another citizen. And even if they could, the fact that someone else is paying a price for government tyranny is itself proof that there is nothing perfect or just about American government. Naturally--and perfectly--you miss the point. A predator is a person who takes what is not his to take. The predator acts unjustly no matter how foolishly or dangerously the victim acts. A bank guard, for example, is necessary to the security of a financial institution, but his job entails the possibility of injury of death. If a guard is shot in the head by a robber, the appropriate conclusion is not that his head wound was "self-imposed" or that his wound perfectly matches "the failure of the people to govern themselves" or that how he lived determined how he died. No, the appropriate response is that the thug who did it needs to be put in a cold, dark prison. And such a fate is the same one that the criminal gang in Washington deserves. Yes, in this case, "deserve" is the right word.

The government constantly grows in direct response to people's failure to properly live their lives. It's size is directly proportional to parasitism. It takes a lot of losers to make a government this large. Getting bigger and bigger must be part of the Divine Plan for the gang that rules us--oops, I mean "the American People." After all, you have described the institution that now regulates every aspect of American life as "an instrument of perfect justice." Marvelous thing that government. It expands in response to failure, parasitism and the growing number of losers. And yet it still remains perfect. And if the current size of government is perfect, then anything smaller (say, as Rand recommended, scaling down to providing only for "the protection of individual rights") would be less than perfect. The Founding Fathers were wise enough and pious enough to create something of a higher order than their own personal failings. They were wise and pious enough to include in the Constitution of their Instrument of Perfect Justice the Fugitive Slave Clause, which forced non-slaveholders to return runaway African men, women and children to their masters. That way those wise, pious men could have their "personal failings" continue to pick cotton for them. If a family operates a market in a high crime neighborhood and the store is continually victimized by holdups and shoplifting, it is understandable if the owners raise the price of the goods in the store. However, the owners are not so stupid as to refer to their predators as Instruments of Perfect Justice. In my view, people who don't overcome their evil nature are evil. Those who do are good. You're welcome to your own view. If there is no evidence that a man has stolen or killed or committed some other transgression, why should we suppose that he has an evil nature in need of overcoming? That's because it is an instrument of perfect moral justice.It's perfect moral justice that the government is as unjust as the people who created it in their own unjust image. It's perfect moral justice that people deserve to get what they created... and they are getting it right now. As we speak, both you and I are experiencing exactly the government we each deserve, because it is how each of us lives that determines each of our totally different experiences of getting the government we each deserve. Greg Then surely America should return to the practice of one human being holding property title in another human being. Since it is "perfect moral justice" that the slaveholders created the U.S. government in their own unjust image, it must follow that injustice would be in undoing that perfect form of government. And certainly no one would want to repeal Obamacare. How can people get what they "deserve" if government-forced health insurance purchases are abolished? How dare you use the queenly "we" on me, you crypto-feminist!

If there's no link, tell it to the federal officials who said there was a link in one case between receiving a vaccine and autism symptoms. Do you own property? Then put up a barrier that forbids unvaccinated humans from entering. But neither you nor Obama has any business telling me what chemicals must be injected into my child's bloodstream.

You need to watch the whole video. Rand Paul did not say that vaccines cause mental illness in all cases--or even in most cases. He repeatedly emphasized that vaccines should be voluntary. It is the same position Chris Christie has taken. And, for the record, I am not a Rand Paul supporter.

Since the U.S. government has already been created (some 225 years ago), you must be referring to another government being created in someone's "own image today." Given that many of the creators of the U.S. government were slaveholders, it is only fitting that today 57% of the population is forced to pay for the government benefits of the other 43%: in other words, tax slavery. 1. If people do not commit theft or murder or other crimes, there is no justification for referring to their natures (that they are supposed to rise above) as "evil." This is a conclusion that you have sneaked in without supporting evidence. 2. Men "who don't steal and murder" are not the ones in command of the U.S. government, an institution you described a day ago as "an instrument of perfect justice." Then you are misinformed about logic. From Wikipedia: If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise) The streets are wet. (premise) Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion) The first premise is false, but the conclusion may in fact be true. To support your point that people are naturally evil, you wrote yesterday, "Take a look at the world's nations, Jules. The vast majority are evil parasite infested big government dispensing shitholes, or evil violent dictatorial shitholes." But only a minority of the world's population makes decisions about government policy. The idea that conclusions about man's nature can be derived from focusing on governments, which are nothing more than criminal gangs operating on a national scale, is flawed methodology. In logic, your argument is called the Fallacy of the Hasty Generalization. If you want to argue that man's nature is evil, offer better, more inclusive evidence.

Thank you. The designer of the architectural plans for the 1949 film (an excellent work, in my opinion) also picked up on Fallingwater's "slashing vertical projection" and cantilevered terrace:

The men who created the U.S. government are dead. The parasitic majority simply voted for their own benefits. This is bound to happen when a republic degenerates into a democracy. All governments, republic, democracy or autocracy, are parasitic because they all exist by theft and coercive monopoly. The best conclusions about human nature can be arrived at by first examining ourselves. Then we would have to conclude man is not necessarily evil by nature because, unlike governments, not all men engage in mass theft and murder. In America the government is less a dispenser, but more of an instrument of perfect moral justice. It's giving you exactly what you deserve for how you live, just as it is giving me exactly what I deserve for how I live. And this is because the government is subject to exactly the same moral law that everyone is. Then Obama, like Jesus, is an instrument of God's will. Praise the federal government from which all blessings flow! Obama is proof that men are not evil but good, because Obama, God bless him, gives us the things we deserve. Let us also praise David Cameron, the head of state of our close ally, the United Kingdom, where there is also perfect moral justice along with perfect socialized medicine. The flaw in your assumption is ignoring the exceptional quality of America. Greg The French flag is red, white and blue. So is the U.S. flag. Politicians in France buy votes with stolen goods. So do U.S. politicians.

Governments are evil for the same reason that the Mafia and other crime syndicates are evil. The "service" that the state performs is to confiscate wealth from one part of the population and and bestow it upon another. This is a universal feature of the institution. To derive a conclusion about human nature by examining only the organized predators of the world is as foolish as forming an opinion of human athletic ability by focusing on patients in a assisted living facility. Let me add that there is an arcane school of thought that argues that a citizen gets from government only what he deserves. If that is the case, government must not be seen as a predator but as a dispenser of perfect justice. By this theory, a survey of world governments (provided that it takes in only present examples and none from the dead past) would reveal not evil but wisdom and fair dealing.

Wright's residential masterpiece in 3D animation: Fallingwater from Cristóbal Vila on Vimeo.

You Should Watch the Super Bowl, You’re Paying for ItBy Jared Meyer | 01/29/2015 Before the Super Bowl this Sunday, one winner is already determined—local New England Patriots fans. NFL owners are professionals at extracting taxpayer money from local fans to fund generous subsidies for their lavish stadiums, and the NFL is tax-exempt. But Patriots owner Robert Kraft took a different, more taxpayer-friendly, approach and arranged 100 percent private funding for the construction and maintenance of Gillette Stadium, located outside Boston. In contrast, the public’s share of financing for the Seattle Seahawks’ CenturyLink Field was 64 percent ($300 million). In this competition, the Patriots won by an even larger margin than they did against the Indianapolis Colts. Local Seahawks fans are not just paying for CenturyLink Field—they are still paying for the team’s last home field as well. The Seattle Kingdome was occupied for just 24 years before the city agreed to build the Seahawks a new stadium. Even though the Kingdome was demolished in 2000, taxpayers were still responsible for nearly $180 million to cover its outstanding debts. The last of the debt will finally be paid off this year. Continued here

But not the Anti-Federalists.

I didn't say he was the father and mother of statism.

The glaring inaccuracies or outright lies in "The Son's [sic] of Liberty" are detailed here. I've never seen a History Channel treatment of a U.S. war that was not false on one or more critical points, so why should this movie be any different? I stopped watching after episode one.

Hamilton proposed life terms for both the president and senators, which would have made the first U.S. government a dictatorship. Hamilton is the father of U.S. public debt, and thus of deficit spending. Hamilton is the father of central banking in America, opposed by Madison and Jefferson, and thus of government manipulation of the currency. Hamilton argued against Adam Smith's theory that a nation's interests could be advanced by government staying out of the economy. Hamilton advocated protectionism. It was Hamilton who put the choke hold on American free traders by creating the U.S. Revenue Cutter Service. It was Hamilton who helped create the inglorious history of U.S. government snooping of citizens through the Whiskey Tax, which would require inspections of private warehouses. Hamilton is the father of "implied constitutional powers" which gives the government the right to do virtually anything it perceives to be in its interest. Hamilton, despite the fact that he bought slaves, is the spiritual godfather of Barack Obama and every other power grabber that has ruled America.

Chris Kyle and the Marine platoons he served with performed house-to-house invasions and weapons snatching. All arms--not just those aimed at the invaders--were verboten. And the weapons owners could expect swift justice in one of the "less than perfect" detention facilities in "liberated" Iraq. We need not concern ourselves too much about those placed under arrest. The idea that any one of them couid have been libertarian is "disgusting." Can you imagine a solid American citizen refusing a polite request from a member of an invading army to turn over his guns? Or trying to hide them under the floorboards? "Absurd." Chris Kyle fought in Iraq to defend American citizens. It is a well known fact that between 2003 and 2014 Iraqis killed over 4,491 U.S. citizens. To mention that these individuals were on Iraqi soil in a war zone created by the 43rd President of the United States is the height of cynicism and glass-half-emptyism. Fortunately, there is not one ounce of cynicism in Eastwood's movie about our "noble hero." The plot is simple and straight-forward. U.S. embassies in East Africa are bombed in 1998. Patriotic cowboy Kyle joins the SEALs. The next thing you know Kyle and the gun grabbers are fighting Muslims in Iraq. Fortunately, Eastwood does not bother telling the audience that Saddam had no connection with the bombings. That would spoil the fun for all the dumbasses in the theatre.

In addition to helping to establish a new government in Iraq with Islam as the state religion, the United States military implemented a nation-wide gun-confiscation program in Iraq. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" meant liberating rifles from their owners. "Noble Hero" Chris Kyle was there to shoot down anyone who objected to that confiscation.

What about the fossil fuel plants that generate the electricity that runs the compressor that fills the air tank? That counts. Read the first sentence in what you quoted.

Encyclopedia Britannica defines "instinct" as "an inborn impulse or motivation to action typically performed in response to specific external stimuli." Furthermore, "instinct can refer to reflexive or stereotyped behaviour," Thus the distinction between "instinct" and "reflex" is arbitrary. There are in fact a variety of behaviors which are biological, not learned, as documented in the responses of infants to certain stimuli,

Yes, compressed air has to be created by another power source, in most cases fossil fuels. Likewise true for electric car batteries. Yet, the enviro-lobby likes the little tin cans because, unlike traditional cars, they don't give off many hydrocarbons. But is there a net hydrocarbon saving?

If "the right to bear arms is only an extension of the right to self defense," then no less is true of the right of secession, or, as Jefferson put it, "Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [certain unalienable Rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." Suppose that in a federation, states H, I and J cannot get the "consent of the governed" among states A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, to secure "their moral and existential validation." Then the dissident states may rightfully go their own way, i.e. "institute new Government." "If a province wants to secede from a dictatorship, or even from a mixed economy, in order to establish a free country—it has the right to do so." --Ayn Rand, “Global Balkanization,” The Voice of Reason, p. 128.

So when you wrote, "Rights are yours insofar as you can and do exercise them," you meant something other than rights being contingent on the individual's ability to perform them?

"Rights are yours insofar as you can and do exercise them." This clears things up nicely. There is no right to keep and bear arms unless you can persuade or force the rest of society to let you exercise that right. Similarly there are no rights to tax-paid daycare, college education, and high speed internet unless you can persuade or force the rest of society to let you have those rights. The Swiss have the right to keep fully automatic firearms in the home and the right to tax-subsidized healthcare. They "can and do exercise them." Fortunately, we can take comfort in knowing that rights are "biologically inevitable," and if our favorite right--say, "free" video games--has not yet arrived, we have only ourselves to blame for not being patient enough.

Whether by stroke of sword or pen, the rights are gone and with them the power to restrain government.