Kingly News

The email list is back on after a site redesign. We’ll see whether we continue to have problem with redundant mailings. Watch soon for a brief article prompted by a question: how would a libertarian society deal with the problem of such environmental disasters as the destruction of Eastern forests by the woody adelgid, a “bug” accidentally imported from Japan.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

Greetings, readers!

Despite the tinkering we’ve already done, the Blog appears to continue to send out the last TWO posts to the email list, rather than just the LAST post. I don’t know why, but I suspect it is something I have buried in the code. Accordingly, we will redesign the site (probably easier than trying to troubleshoot every line of existing code), and will disconnect the Blog from the email list in the interim. You may not even notice it. We’ll still send copies of posts to the email list, but will have to do it manually instead of having the Blog send them out automatically, so the only practical difference may be that there is as much as 24 hours lag time between a Blog post going up and that post arriving in your mailbox.

Thanks!

Here’s why you don’t want to give government too much control over our daily lives. In politics there is a great pressure to act before you check your research.

Vote No Evil

by Adam Priest

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

At this point in history, it is crucial to remember this truth.

I hear two common sentiments that play right into the hands of the major parties.

1) “A vote for a third party is a wasted vote.” Ongoing discussions about Ralph Nader’s effect on the 2000 election (i.e., if Nader hadn’t run, his votes would have gone to Gore, who would have won) feed into this. This is pure speculation, of course. It is true that among those voting for Nader, twice as many say they would have voted for Gore than say they would have voted for Bush. On the other hand, if Nader had not been in the picture, it is also quite possible that more voters would have turned out, voters who may have favored Bush–or, more likely, the Nader voters would simply have not voted. It is not at all clear that the presence of a strong third candidate really changed the outcome.

In terms of changing the de facto single party system we have, though, I say more power to them if third-party candidates change an outcome. They’ll probably do that for at least a couple of elections (and, likely, many more) before they stand a chance of winning an election. Swaying voters enough to sway an outcome is the best way to convince people that third parties matter.

Given the current state of affairs, voting for a third-party candidate is the only way to effectively vote “None of the above.” Take a look at the next common statement for more discussion about NOTA.

2) “It’s like trying to decide who gets to mug me, so I’m not voting at all.” I really relate to this one. Why should you vote at all?

First, let’s do away with the usual argument. People who say that you have no right to gripe if you don’t vote simply betray their ignorance. That’s like saying you don’t have a right to gripe about Detroit automobiles unless you buy one. American auto makers actually tried that one. Americans simply voted with their wallets and bought Japanese and German cars.

American politicians try to pass this one because if they succeed ini getting lots of people to vote, they can claim validation of their own policies (can you say “mandate”?). If they don’t succeed, they can call us apathetic. They get away with it because so many of us buy into the mythology, and because our system doesn’t have a way of registering a NOTA vote.

If politicians had as much sense as auto makers, they’d figure out what they’d need to do to attract more “customers.” They either don’t have that much sense, or they have sense enough to realize they don’t have to attract “customers,” because they’re in control either way.

I’ll bet if they added NOTA to the ballot, the voter turnout would go way up. The fact that they won’t add NOTA shows that they’re not really interested in boosting voter turnout.

In the meantime, remember a bit of pop wisdom: if we keep doing the same thing we’ve been doing, we’ll keep getting what we’ve been getting. As much as 70 percent of the eligible population does not vote now. We don’t see anything worth going to the polls for.

The thing is, when you stay away from the polls the politicians say you’re apathetic, and they ignore you. Wouldn’t it be more fun to make them notice you?

So, go register to vote if you haven’t. And go to the polls for the election. Cast your vote where it will do the most good. Cast your vote for NOTA by casting it for ANYONE other than the two nominees for each wing of the single major party.

I would urge you, of course, to vote for whoever the Libertarian Party candidate turns out to be, simply because such a candidate is more likely to be close to your views if you’re reading this newsletter. If even half the people who show up as libertarian (little l) on the Advocates World’s Smallest Political Quiz (33% of those who take the quiz voted Libertarian), it would sway the election.

I say “half” because libertarians by their nature ain’t gonna do anything just because someone tells them to. They’ll make up their own minds. I should also note that 33% is probably skewed, because left-wingers are unlikely to visit the site to begin with. Still, 7 million copies of that quiz have been distributed, and over 2.5 million have taken it online. According to a Washington Post article, the quiz is considered to be a valid one. So there are enough Americans not being served by the major party to make a difference by voting NOTA.

So don’t waste your vote voting for evil. Stand up and be counted. Use your vote to show what you believe.

Here’s a great quote:

“A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away all you have.”—Barry Goldwater

Thanks to Rachel Mill’s Web site for that quote.

By the way, for those of you on the email list, I think I’ve noticed that the Blog occasionally sends out not only the just-published post, but at the same time the previous one also. (I’m not just an editor–I’m a subscriber too!) If that is, in fact, happening, I apologize, and I’ll do my best to figure out why it’s doing that and try to persuade it to stop.

Here’s a fair warning, folks. If, motivated by faith, you choose to serve other people, you’d better make sure you preach a little bit while you’re doing it. Otherwise, your actions may legally be non-religious.

At least, that’s the ruling of a California court, which today ruled that Catholic Charities “is not a religious employer because it offers such secular services as counseling, low-income housing and immigration services to people of all faiths, without directly preaching Catholic values” (quoted from a story on Yahoo News supplied by the Associated Press). I suppose that Catholics helping, say, Baptists without trying to convert them makes it secular.

For real, folks. One of the justices thought that Catholic Charities must not be a religious organization because a “significant majority” of the people served by the charity are not Catholic. The court also noted that the charity employs workers of differing religions. Therefore, it is not a religious organization. So make sure if you start a charity that you only employ people who are the same brand of religion you are, and don’t try to help anyone else, either–unless you stick a sermon in there too.

Also therefore, Catholic Charities will be forced to include coverage in their employees’ insurance packages for contraception. I think it ought to be in the coverage too, but you know what? It ain’t my business. That’s between the employer and the employees.

So we have an act of aggression by the government dictating compensation to an employer, and we have another one wherein the court takes it upon itself to define what is religious and what is not. Does that not seem a bit of a stretch in light of the First Amendment? Of course, it wouldn’t even be an issue of the government had not interfered in the contracts voluntarily entered into between an employer and an employee. That would be too much like liberty, though, wouldn’t it?