Kingly News

When I heard the news about Cat Stevens being detained and deported, I thought it was odd. Mansoor Ijaz does an excellent job of showing why it is more than odd in “One way to alienate moderate Muslims: deport Cat” published in the Christian Science News Monitor.

We haven’t posted anything in a long time. Oddly enough, the last post we posted said something like “we haven’t posted anything in a long time.” I’d rather not go into the details, other than to say the family medical challenges have continued. However, we don’t intend to stop publishing–we just took another break.

Here is a post that appears on “The Rude Pundit” that makes some interesting points about 9/11. Warning that the language is at least R-rated, but where it is used the bad language seems to fit. The basic idea: by declaring “war” on terrorism our administration gave Bin Laden a legitimacy he could never otherwise have achieved, and thus gave him far more aid than he could ever have demanded. Check it out–it’s an interesting read.

Greetings!

I’ve been out of touch for awhile, with family medical emergencies. I’ve seen lots of interesting stuff and just didn’t have time to write about it or even post.

Still. We haven’t gone away. I’ve heard different viewpoints on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, and I tend to agree with those who say the strategy of “at least we ain’t as bad as Saddam” is not a very good one. Our standards should be much higher. Still, Mark Steyn brings an interesting viewpoint directly from the Middle East, as nearly as I can tell. Agree or not, check out the article at http://www.libertarian.to/NewsDta/templates/news1.php?art=art825.

Here’s a thought-provoking article that bears reading whether you agree with the surface premise or not. “As Usual, the Wrong Question Is Being Asked” seems frighteningly true whether you support the war in Iraq or not. It strikes me that whatever party is in power, we keep being asked to sacrifice to fix the problems that the government caused in the name of solving some previous crisis.

I was just reading an article by L. Neil Smith that got me to thinking.

He was illustrating his main point, but I want to focus on the factual illustration for a moment. It had never occurred to me to juxtapose these two well-known facts.

1) As we all know, the FAA will not let passengers carry guns on airplanes, because if a passenger were to shoot at a hijacker and miss, the bullet could puncture the fuselage and cause the plane to crash.

2) If a passenger plane is hijacked, Air Force planes may shoot it down to keep it from being used the way the planes were on Sept. 11.

Huh?

Does it occur to anyone that our government is more concerned about its citizens being armed than it is about protecting citizens from foreign threats? Or that individuals in this country are, in general, more at risk of losing their liberty to their own government than to foreign invaders?

Number 1 hasn’t been true for a long time. Ammunition that will do harm to an attacker but not puncture the side of an airplane has been available for ages. But even if it were true, wouldn’t it be better for someone in the passenger area to have a gun and chance crashing the plane than to shoot the plane down? But it would seem the government prefers the latter scenario.

I realize that if a federal air marshal is onboard, a different scenario is possible. Likely, though? Who knows?

Consider a parallel situation: Morton Grove, Ill., introduced strict gun control in their city, and the crime rate increased 500%. Kenesaw, Ga., went the other direction, requiring that all heads of household be armed and trained in the use of such arms, and their crime rate went to a statistical zero. If we had continued to develop our tradition and culture of respect for the right of self-defense, Sept. 11 could never have happened. The hijackers wouldn’t have even tried, in the first place, for the same reason that crooks generally bypass Kenesaw now. And had they been stupid enough to try anyway, the incidents would have been over in minutes.

I’m not concerned, frankly, with whether George Bush knew about the Sept. 11 attack ahead of time, because I just don’t think they knew that much. The information may have been available, but it was lost in bureaucracy. What concerns me far, far more is that any fool, including George Bush, could predict that eventually something like this had to happen, because it doesn’t take thugs long to figure out how easy it is to terrorize a nation that has allowed its own government to take away their ability to defend themselves. Not only that, but we didn’t learn anything from the experience. We have become worse. We have turned to the government and asked them to defend us, when they’ve already shown they can’t.

Face it, folks. No one will defend you the way that you can defend yourself when you take responsibility for yourself. If we each take that responsibility, we won’t have to worry about the terrorists. I read a few years ago about a robber on the run who didn’t know where he was and tried to rob a bank in Kenesaw. Six customers pulled out handguns and suggested to the frightened man that he just quietly put his piece down and wait for the cops. Lots of things about Sept. 11 make me angry, but one that makes me angriest is that our political correctness and our government put those people in a position where they were not allowed to defend themselves. And what have we done as a result? We have authorized our Air Force to shoot them down if it ever happens again. My, my, ain’t progress wonderful?

(Mr. Smith’s stuff always provokes thought. Read the actual article called Pure Poison, and then check out the rest of his site.)

The venerable Tibor Machan has some thoughts about The Feudal and Socialist Nature of Taxation that is well worth considering. In a way, it’s good to hear someone of his stature say that he does pay income tax, but only for the same reason he might pay off the Mafia. I’m in the same cage.

Ever wonder how we got in this position? Here’s an article that provides a good bit of insight into it all. How Our Government Evolved by Brad Edmonds

Jerome Tuccille once wrote a book entitled It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand. For me, it began with Robert J. Ringer. It was during a summer selling books door-to-door. I had consumed several positive thinking books trying to find ways to sell expensive books to mostly illiterate customers, when I happened across the best-selling Winning Through Intimidation. I thought I would learn how to manipulate people into doing what I wanted. To my initial disappointment and later delight, the book really showed how not to be intimidated by other people–equally useful for a young salemen, and far more moral in hindsight.

Over 20 years later, Bob Burg wrote what seems from the title to be the antithesis of Ringer’s book, Winning Without Intimidation : How to Master the Art of Positive Persuasion in Today’s Real World in Order to Get What You Want, When You Want It. The thing I find interesting about this juxtaposition is that both are libertarians!

I will be getting Bob’s book this month (I’ve been meaning to for a couple of years, and, well, you know, just haven’t yet). While I haven’t read it yet, I have been reading his newsletter for a couple of years, and I can tell you his ideas fit right in with practical human relationships, good communication skills, and respect for individuals. (Check Bob’s newsletter at http://www.burg.com/newsletter.html.) I think these books would make great companions: the first to show you how not to be intimidated by other people (taken with a grain of salt), and the second to show you how to get what you want by working with other people instead of manipulating them.

I recommend these mainly because intimidated or intimidating people generally are not free people. Operating out of fear, they cannot help but seek ways to control other people. Anything that goes beyond persuasion winds up being coercion, which violates the most basis tenet of libertarian philosophy and is the first step down the Road to Serfdom. You might think you become free when you rid yourself of fear; in my experience it’s the other way around. These books should help accomplish that.

Even USA Today recognizes government is overstepping its bounds in its use of eminent domain. This article favorably mentions the Institute for Justice, too.

Politicians are spending a lot of time trying to convince you that the other one is responsible for high gasoline prices. They’re right, but not in the way they want you to think! They also spend a lot of time pointing at the oil companies and accusing them of gouging.

Let’s consider some facts, however (something politicans really hate for you to do).

As Neal Boortz pointed out today (go to the link and check March 31, 2004, “Nealz Nuze archive”), gas prices are higher because of a combination of natural market forces and the interference of politicians–and, by the way, prices aren’t really higher! Here are just some of the factors he mentions:

• There is a higher demand for gas in the U.S. this year. [Market effect]
• Environmental regulations cause artificial shortages. Shortages drive prices up. [Government meddling]
• There is an unexpected high demand for oil in China. [Market effect]
• In the early 1980s a gallon of gasoline cost about $2.90 in today’s dollars. The politicians know perfectly well about the effects of inflation and how to figure it in–they just only do so when it suits their purpose. Inflation itself is mostly caused by [Government meddling].

Consider also that about 40 cents out of the cost of a gallon of gasoline in Tennessee (in our area, a gallon of gas is costing on average $1.63) comes from taxes. If they really want to lower our gasoline costs, that’s something the politicians could actually affect.

Wait, there’s more! Walter Williams points out that government colludes with organized business to artificially boost the price–and the “organized business” in this case isn’t “Big Oil”! So much for their much-vaunted claim of concern for the “average consumer”! Did we really believe them to begin with?

Once again, it doesn’t really make much difference whether we’re talking about a Democrat or a Republican. In either case, we’re talking about socialists in disguise. In either case, they want to put government in charge of all the details of our lives, and they want to blame the market and greedy businessmen for our problems, when they are the ones who really cause the problem. Don’t be fooled.