Time Travel

Okay, let's have a little imagination experiment.  We're going to go back in time... so far back that anything resembling a government does not yet exist.  Think: caveman.  By the way, regardless of how silly you think this is, this is an absolutely necessary starting point when thinking about the role of government.  Note:  There is no need for historical accuracy in this situation, simply a quick mental visit of what you think life would be like.

The situation is a tribal sort of situation, or even more simply a small family.  Now, as has been the case for 10,000 years or more, there exist individuals who are willing to use violence against you to take anything you have that they want.  Maybe it's a fish, maybe it's a deer, your tools, your house, your daughter.  So you band together with neighboring families and appoint young men to be night watches, and you arm them with the weapons -- and the authority -- to protect you.  This is the policing power and it is one of the few legitimate reasons for government to exist.  Scaling that back up to the tribal situation, protecting your tribe from an invading tribe requires a military.  It need not be a standing military that trains constantly, but certainly those who are capable of fighting must know their role and standard operating procedures for when a situation arises.

When I do this, police and military come to mind instantly.... then I draw a blank for what else this primitive group needs a government for.  Use this prehistoric scenario as you analyze the necessity of various government programs, initiatives and existing policies.  Healthcare for everyone?  Provided by whom?

A final note:  I can hear some of you crying, "This makes no sense.  Things are different now.  You can't act like what worked then will work now!"  Let me say that I know life has changed quite a bit since the first humans walked the earth.  Skyscrapers, airliners, cars, computers.....We even have clean water!  All sorts of scientific advancements have made this a far different, and far better world.  However, I would argue (and I'd be right) that human beings have not advanced AT ALL in the way that we deal with one another in the last 10,000 years.  The way we relate to each other is what all of this is based on.

What was the Question?

I feel like I should explain what the question is that "freedom" is the answer to.

Well, I guess it's obvious that I think it is the answer to a lot of things. Primarily I'm talking about how governments operate (although we can scale it down to businesses and households too). When faced with a crisis of some sort (and boy, can people dream up some crises!), our federal government usually feels the need to "do something" about it...to "fix" it. The problem with that is that governments are almost 100% incapable of fixing anything. The need can come from lobbyist's pressure, pressure from the voters in some way, or -- I would bet -- often times it comes from the need to feel like they're doing something useful and important. I mean, they feel like they have a job to do, and without some problem to solve, what exactly are they supposed to do? (I'll conveniently leave out any kind of kick-backs, bribes, pork, etc. as that is another discussion entirely -- let's just pretend we have angels representing us for now.)

The kind of question that "more freedom" is the answer to, is when you're trying to solve a problem -- a problem involving people -- and you ask "what's the BEST way to handle this?" Now, the way MOST people respond to problems is to restrict freedom in some way. This doesn't just go for governments, this is pretty much human nature. This is also the reason the progressive line of thinking persists after it is proven NOT to work time, and time again. People forget the lessons, or more often they think "oh this time/situation is different" or whatever and that all the lessons of history don't apply. The thing is is that the lessons of the past DO apply.

You see, because although we've evolved in many ways as a species (arguably), we're really the same people that our ancestors were. The human condition doesn't change. That's why ancient philosophy and The Bible are still relevant. They will always be relevant. Yes, we've learned a lot over the last 10,000 years, but we still have all the same desires and fears, etc. (generally speaking). Besides, you don't have to go back that far to look for the lessons; go back 100 years, maybe 200 if you're still not convinced. They get repeated over and over again because the truth is this: The right answer is not always the answer you want to hear.

Self-reliance

I'll borrow the title from Emerson's famous essay to address an issue that seems to be lost on a lot of Americans today. Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOamUwmtIoU

I'm sorry Chris Matthews fans, but this guy is a joke. You do not want to live in a country where you're taken care of from cradle to grave -- or really any stretch there in between. The social state that he thinks is so great has been one of the greatest causes of our steady demise. Social security, welfare, medicaid/medicare, etc. Every single one of these programs is nothing but a drain on society. Worst of all, they don't even serve those they aim to serve. The weirdest thing is that I bet most people -- the general public and politicians alike -- really do know this deep down. However, for some reason (it's called political correctness), it is seemingly impossible to get rid of these programs.

It's easy to see why: As soon as someone makes a serious attempt to do so, they would be attacked for not caring about the poor or the unemployed or whoever. It's not a good reputation no matter what side of the aisle you sit on.

I want to be brief so let me cut to the chase: The societies with the highest percentage of people living in poverty, are those with the most controlling governments. I'll even leave out the out-right totalitarian dictators from this discussion and just focus on the simply socialist leaders who at least APPEAR to care for those they govern. Look at Europe; they've introduced various socialist measures over the last several years (decades?) now and demonstrated for US how NONE OF IT WORKS! Most Western European countries (who left-wingers love to point at as examples we should follow) have been sliding down economically due to their grand government measures (can you say universal healthcare?) Of course we could just look at Russia, but that whole communist experiment might as well have happened during Fred Flintstone's time since it's only just a history story now, rather than something to learn from.

The reason this struggle of ideologies continues is because what the liberals set out to do DOES give the appearance of helping those who can't help themselves. It DOES seem that giving money to people to "help them get by" is a good thing, but that idea is proven wrong every day in slums and projects all over the country. Since the "right" answer "appears" to leave people hanging, it still remains as unpopular as ever with losers everywhere.

People really can (and should) take care of themselves. Not just so they aren't a burden to others (that's secondary), but so they can have some dignity and live a better life. When they can't -- really, really can't -- help themselves, family, friends and neighbors have a responsibility to help. No family? No friends? Charities have always been around...funded by people who willingly give out of their hearts (tax breaks came later).

Prohibition

This is going to be a fun one. Fun because I've seen the kinds of reactions most people have when I mention that drugs -- all drugs -- should be legal. I feel like I should have a few disclaimers to go along with this:

1. I am not a drug user and do not associate (knowingly) with drug users.

2. I do not want my kids using drugs or being around them.

3. I am not just some anti-establishment hack with no aim other than to "get rid of all the rules"

My aim is freedom, for reasons that should not need to be mentioned.

Now, onto business. Let me just address a few of the arguments people often offer:

"If drugs become legal, more people will start going out and trying drugs."

- This is not even believable. Ask yourself "Self...would you try heroine tomorrow if it was suddenly legal?" Most people will answer "No". This just goes back to "thinking". If you simply think about it, rather than just relying on emotions, this is obvious.

"You'll never change my mind. I've seen close friends/family overdose or otherwise had their lives ruined by drugs."

- Yes this is indeed unfortunate. So what you're telling me is that, while drugs were outlawed, your family member still ruined their life with them? Hmm... so legalizing drugs would do what? Cause MORE people to ruin their lives? It wouldn't happen. See example 1

"So you want to be able buy drugs at any drug store?"

- Sure. Now the thing is drugs have this picture of dirtiness associated with them, due almost entirely to the fact that it is an underground world. It's not as if there would be little baggies of marijuana or perfect cubes of crack rocks that you grab with tongs. I really don't know what people imagine when they think of illicit drugs for sale at a store, but this would be something to sort out later.

I've heard other arguments that just boggle my mind, but I'm going to end here for now. Let me make clear that while I imagine potheads, crack addicts, and other junkies might immediately take sides with me, I do not care what they (you?) think. I am aiming this more towards those of you who think this is crazy and stupid. Don't let your emotions or the pictures on TV (or the guy on your living room floor) stop you from THINKING. (Funny how it always comes back to that).

The point of everything I write about is to make a better world for all. Drug prohibition has made a worse world. The easiest (and almost perfect) correlation to make is alcohol prohibition in the 1920's. Prohibition did not stop people from drinking. It didn't even slow them down. What it did do was provide a black market which allowed organized crime to grow and become powerful. The same way illegal drugs today have facilitated the growth of the gangs in Mexico.

This is yet another example that fits perfectly with my post about "thinking". Decades ago, politicians noticed the harmful effects of drugs and declared them -- one at a time -- illegal. To be fair, there's almost no way they could have predicted all the violence they've caused.

Think

If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart; if you're not a conservative at 40, you have no brain. ~Winston Churchill

Now, we all know plenty of liberals who are well over 40: Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi... I can't name them all. I could spend all day speculating as to why these people retain their childish outlook, but for this post I want to address a different issue.

For those 20-somethings out there who have a heart and naturally tend toward the left, I ask: Have you ever put any real thought into your beliefs? Most YOUNG people who have a liberal bent only think that way because they want to end poverty, suffering, violence, etc., and who doesn't want that? However they are disillusioned when it comes to how to solve these problems. It's primarily due to thinking on a very superficial level, such as:

"People are poor? Solution: Give them money." (Welfare)
"People are killed by guns? Solution: Ban guns."

Please don't tell me you think these are reasonable....and don't try to tell me that these examples are over-simplifications either. There are people who call these things viable solutions. It's just not that simple though. It's not that complicated either, but solutions DO require SOME thought.

Laws

I shouldn't forget the main purpose for this blog: to convince people to think like I do. Right? What else do people have blogs for? In that light, let me lay out a simple test to decide whether or not any particular new law/regulation/whatever is something that should be supported or stomped out...

Ask yourself the question: "Does this give me more freedom or does it take a tiny bit of it away?"

That's the test. If the result will not be more freedom, it is almost certainly another stone laid down on the path to slavery.

Do you think I'm being melodramatic? Chances are you need to wake up...

Tax on Soda?

I just saw a link on Yahoo! saying the government is proposing a tax on SODA to help curb obesity. It's being talked about in Kansas and has officially been proposed in CA and PA.

Uhh... Are you kidding me?

The number one thing is: No tax is going to do anything about obesity -- except make the government more obese. (Seriously government, you're too big -- you should lose some weight!) This is an excuse!

All kinds of "studies" have been cited to indicate that this can work. However, people can setup studies to make them show virtually whatever they want them to show.

I have a question though: At what point did it become the government's job to solve problems?
Seriously. Now I'm pretty young, and that's been one of government's roles longer than I've been around, but why?

I would like to elect a representative who's platform mostly involves sitting on his hands. What would happen if they all just sat on their hands for a while instead of doing stuff? I mean, go play golf [more] or something. Just stop legislating.