Thursday, September 28, 2006

A better idea....


The drug war is worse than a waste of money, it simply and obviously causes more problems than it solves.

Sunday, September 24, 2006

Three cheers for Axbridge carnival organizers!!

Hip Hip HOORAY!!!!

Decent folks making a caring decision. And cheers to the townfolk for being good about it.

We could use more friendly tolerance like this.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006



I think Bush is badly misreading this guy.

Friday, September 15, 2006

When Colin Powell speaks...

Colin Powell, in a letter to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), stated "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 [of the Geneva Convention]would add to those doubts. Furthermore it would put our own troops at risk."

Details here.

Bush had best pay attention. When it comes to military matters, it is Powell who has the experience and the expertise. Quite frankly, Powell is the only American political figure I really respect.

On one hand, the provision is somewhat vague, so there's an argument for making it more specific. There is no good argument for the United States to change the definition unilaterally. And for sure there is no good argument for the United States to act as if the definition has changed before it actually does change, in writing, agreed and witnessed by others in the world community.

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Have 5 minutes?

If you do, take some time out for this, from Google Video.

Nori Bucci w/Gamalon

There's more where this came from..

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

The Social Contract

Well, okay, so you're it isn't like you joined voluntarily, but the second you get here, there's a group of folks called "government" that hold a mortgage on your life--and they, and the folks who depend on it, call it (only if you ask) a Social Contract, and they remind you that it isn't a real contract you can look at and discuss; it's instead implied. "By what", you ask.

"By the fact you're here" it is answered.

Anyways, this fella decided to write it down, just to see what it might look like. It's not far off. And if you substitute Canada for the United States, it's the same situation here.

(Found on the Net)

From: (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Social contract?
Date: 14 May 92 08:53:22 GMT

We’ve all heard of the “Social Contract” — the unwritten agreement between individuals and “society” (i.e. the government.) The following is an attempt to write down, once and for all, just what the contract is that we’ve all supposedly agreed to.


Between an individual and the United States Government

WHEREAS I wish to reside on the North American continent, and WHEREAS the United States Government controls the area of the continent on which I wish to reside, and WHEREAS tacit or implied contracts are vague and therefore unenforceable,

I agree to the following terms:

SECTION 1: I will surrender a percentage of my property to the Government. The actual percentage will be determined by the Government and will be subject to change at any time. The amount to be surrendered may be based on my income, the value of my property, the value of my purchases or any other criteria the Government chooses. To aid the Government in determining the percentage, I will apply for a Government identification number that I will use in all my major financial transactions.

SECTION 2: Should the Government demand it, I will surrender my liberty for a period of time determined by the government and typically no shorter than two years. During that time, I will serve the Government in any way it chooses, including military service in which I may be called upon to sacrifice my life.

SECTION 3: I will limit my behavior as demanded by the government. I will consume only those drugs permitted by the Government. I will limit my sexual activities to those permitted by the Government. I will forsake religious beliefs that conflict with the Government’s determination of propriety. More limits may be imposed at any time.

SECTION 4: In consideration for the above, the Government will permit me to find employment, subject to limits that will be determined by the Government. These limits may restrict my choice of career or the wages I may accept.

SECTION 5: The Government will permit me to reside in the area of North America which it controls. Also, the Government will permit me to speak freely, subject to limits determined by the Government’s Congress and Supreme Court.

SECTION 6: The Government will attempt to protect my life and my claim to the property it has allowed me to keep. I agree not to hold the Government liable if it fails to protect me or my property.

SECTION 7: The Government will offer various services to me. The nature and extent of these services will be determined by the Government and are subject to change at any time.

SECTION 8: The Government will determine whether I may vote for certain Government officials. The influence of my vote will vary inversely with the number of voters, and I understand that it typically will be minuscule. I agree not to hold any elected Government officials liable for acting against my best interests or for breaking promises, even if those promises motivated me to vote for them.

SECTION 9: I agree that the Government may hold me fully liable if I fail to abide by the above terms. In that event, the Government may confiscate any property that I have not previously surrendered to it, and may imprison me for a period of time to be determined by the Government. I also agree that the Government may alter the terms of this contract at any time.

Copyright 1989 by Robert E. Alexander.

May be distributed freely.

Friday, September 08, 2006

Monday, September 04, 2006

Todays interesting read:

So I'm watching "Deadwood" and I start thinking about parallels between that fictional society and what some see as "how things would be" in an anarcho-capitalist world.

Turns out, I'm not the only one. Google Deadwood and libertarian or anarcho-capitalist to see more observations about the show relative to history, economics and all that.

But anyways, in my web meanderings I found this, An American Experiment in Anarho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West from two folks at the Department of Economics, Montana State University.

Which gets me to a quick "aside": On a couple of my favorite "left-leaning" blogs, some writers (usually as a sort of en passant move sidestepping a point of discourse) constantly make references to some supposed Libertarian Utopia that they claim anarcho-capitalists and libertarians (and, by extension, me) think possible. When I listen to the future claims of most politically-minded folks, it becomes clear to me that the only folks who don't envision some sort of "we'll all get along wonderfully" utopia are exactly the libertarians and anarcho-capitalists. Making no claim at all for a utopia; they just say things would be more rationally fair if and as we move in that direction. I agree.

In any case, as found here at Billy Beck's wonderful Two-Four blog:

"In your efforts to reduce government, aim for zero. If you ever get there and don't like what you see, I guarantee that it will be the easiest thing in the world to pick up the nearest telephone and have another one established on the very next day." Robert LeFevre (1970)

Friday, September 01, 2006

What the FUCK is this?!?!?!?!?

Read this.

Nice to know you don't even have to be charged, or convicted, or even have had a civil lawsuit, before this BS comes into play. But that's okay because if there aren't any further complaints after SIX freaking years, you can apply to have your name removed from the registry, as in: A civilly declared offender, however, could petition the court to have the person's name removed from the new list after six years if there have been no new problems and the judge believes the person is unlikely to abuse again. What is this again crap if you weren't charged and convicted in the first place??

Maybe it's time to call in and provide the names of everybody on that panel.

So much for the presumption of innocence...