Archive for August, 2008
Zogby has put out some new individual state polling numbers that show Bob Barr with strong support in several states. There are now two states where Bob pulls double-digits (Nevada and New Hampshire), two more are well within reach (Colorado and Ohio).
This is very, very good news. Now, we must build on this. A strong showing here will do so much to bring our ideas to the minds of Americans.
read more | digg story
First it was liquid bottles. Then laptops. And now they are seizing penis extensors and penis pumpers. The FDA is saying that they represent a real risk and Federal border agents have now a guideline to confiscate sexual gadgets at US territory entry points. The list would be hilarious if it wasn’t so surreal and stupid
Many of my objectivist friends are terrified of Obama, and are thus finding themselves willing to vote for McCain. They perceive him not as an ally on any issue, but as less bad than Obama. For some reason, they have decided that they are willing to give their sanction to the violation of their rights, so long as it occurs more slowly than it might.
Here is a fun little video about McCain. Take it heart. This joker isn’t fit to be president of his local VFW chapter.
I will be voting “Yes” on I-1000, an initiative to legalize Physician-assisted suicide in Washington State.
This is a very important issue to me, because I have seen and will continue to see many many individuals die horrible deaths. There is no reason for them to suffer in the way that they do.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Thank you for kindly communicating with Washington State Ron Paul supporters. I am pleased that you recognize and appreciate the tremendous efforts of so many individuals who have worked tirelessly to restore liberty to America. Those of us truly dedicated to liberty were united in this cause not by a man, nor a speech, nor political issues, but by one single fundamental issue: man’s right to his own life. Some believe that this right is derived from the will of God. Others understand that this right exists ontologically within the very concept of man, and is a direct correlate of his capacity to reason. The protection of man’s natural rights was, and is, the aim of this movement.
I am afraid, Mr. Rossi, that you do not understand the philosophical basis of freedom. Many, in fact most, of your positions are good ones. They are consistent with our political goals. Even some of your rhetoric sounds oddly familiar. I have no evidence to suggest that you are an insincere man, but I remain deeply troubled.
In your email to Ron Paul supporters on 2 August 2008, in response to a question about abortion, you state,
I also oppose assisted suicide. In my own life I have seen loved ones struggle with the infirmities that accompany age and illness. My mother battled and eventually succumbed to breast cancer, but both she and our family valued every moment that we were able to spend together until the end.
This is troubling for a number of reasons, all of which I will address. First is your conflation of abortion and physician assisted suicide, which indicates that you do not possess a deep philosophical understanding of either issue. Second is the implicit expression of your willingness to employ the force of the state for purposes which are unrelated to the protection of individual rights. Indeed, you express willingness to violate those very rights. Third is your implicit assumption that your personal preferences as informed by your life experiences ought to be held by everyone, and that it is acceptable to bludgeon with the coercive force of government those who choose what you would not. Finally, the profound obscenity of the natural conclusion of your position is viscerally disturbing.
You bring up the issue of assisted suicide in response to a question about abortion, as though these two issues are related. They are entirely separate issues with no common characteristics. While it is irrational to ascribe rights to a fetus, it is understandable, and opposition to abortion can be consistent with a political philosophy of individual liberty. If you believe that a fetus has a soul, and further believe that God has endowed said fetus with natural rights, you would be a traitor to your own beliefs if you did not consider abortion to be murder. The basis of your position, however, must be rights and the violation thereof. Physician-assisted suicide is not an issue of individual rights, nor is it an issue of their violation. If you cannot see that there is a profound difference between the aggressive termination of an innocent life and the administration of lethal pharmacological agents to a patient who has given informed consent, I would respectfully suggest that you seriously evaluate your philosophical premises and thought process.
Individuals who embrace the ideas of human liberty understand the rational purpose of government: the protection of individual rights against aggressors. To allow government to step beyond this very limited purpose is dangerous and reckless. Once the door is open, it can be (and experience has shown that it is) very difficult to close. If I gain control of the power of the state, and use it for an unintended purpose, no matter how noble I may consider that purpose, I am assured that he who gains control next will use it for his purposes, and so too will the next, ad nauseum, until all that is left is the deflowered and disgraced corpse of civilization. Government, Mr. Rossi, is dangerous. I am not sure that you fully appreciate that danger.
You cite your experience with your mother as justification for your position. This could be valid, at least somewhat, if you were discussing your own wishes for the end of your own life. This argument is rubbish when applied to other individuals. Your mother suffered from breast cancer; not everyone dies of breast cancer. There are more nasty ways to die than there are visible stars in the sky, and you cannot account for each of those circumstances. Moreover, you cannot account for individual differences, such as how a patient may tolerate pain or analgesics. You cannot form a valid universal value judgment from the evidence you present, let alone a law.
The obscene consequences of your statement are by far the most personally disturbing. In my 23 years, Mr. Rossi, I have seen more people suffer and die than you ever will. I volunteered in an African hospital where I held the hands of children as they died, abandoned by everyone else—even their parents. As a medical student, I regularly see terminal patients. While you may have some romantic view of heroic suffering, the reality is that dying is a horrible process. I have seen people slowly drown in their own blood, I’ve seen people suffocated by tumors, and I’ve seen people put through such intense agony that a lethal dose of morphine could not ease their pain. Speaking to these people, and those around them, I learned that the pain isn’t the worst part of dying; it’s the indignity. Patients lose urinary and fecal continence, they aspirate their own vomit and cannot even feed themselves. While you may not make an issue of your opposition to physician-assisted suicide, the very fact that, given the opportunity, you would deny these people—real people, with real families, real pain and real indignity—their only chance at escape from this agony is reprehensible.
Suppose, for a moment, that I were to obtain a patient’s informed consent, and assist them in the termination of their life. Would you put me in handcuffs and an orange jumpsuit, Mr. Rossi? This is a very real dilemma for me: do I end the suffering and indignity of a patient and spend ten years locked up like a beast? Or do I stand idly by while my patient begs for death, because there is nothing I can do to relieve their suffering? Which would you have me do, Mr. Rossi? Do you possess the moral certainty and expert knowledge necessary to make such a decision, or would you rather sit as a spectator and send coy emails to your supporters bragging about your religious beliefs?
There are only two possible conclusions: either you have not thoroughly considered your political positions, or you are a cruel and vicious ideologue whose perverted perception of reality leads him to force others to suffer in unimaginable ways. In either case, I cannot and will not support your bid for Governor of the State of Washington.
With Sincere Regards,
Kyle B. Varner
MD Candidate
American University of Antigua College of Medicine
It is shameful that Russia has invaded Georgia, especially in the way that they did. This story is a very nice one, and I think you’ll enjoy it.
Far from the death and destruction in Georgia, where cities lay in ruins from Russian bombings, two women wearing Georgian uniforms stepped onto a patch of sand Wednesday at the Olympic beach volleyball venue to play a Russian team, and took up an unlikely cause. The two women, Cristine Santanna and Andrezza Chagas, were born and live in Brazil…
I was wondering what he meant by that!
The regime in China is cruel and is underwritten by an explicit philosophy of collectivism. When China was announced as the host of the 2008 Olympics, I had my own radio show in Spokane, Washington, and I was enraged. I saw it as an embrace of their flawed ideology. I was, at the time, sixteen years old, and didn’t appreciate the nuances of political action in this world. For me, there was only right and wrong, good and evil. That is more or less still true, but I understand the world a bit more. It was probably the case some involved in the selection process were attracted by the collectivist ideology. Some probably also saw the opportunity to shine light on their atrocities. The former are most likely regretting their decision today. China’s cruel and collectivist regime has been exposed for what it is in a way that wouldn’t have been possible without the Olympics. Prior to the Olympics, oppression in China wasn’t very newsworthy (i.e. couldn’t sell papers) , so news organizations didn’t spend much time discussing it. The oppression became newsworthy because of the Olympics and now a lot more people understand it. For the cause of human liberty, this has been positive. Only time will tell how positive.
Tom Palmer of the cato institute (and also a fellow alumnus of St. John’s College) has a very interesting perspective on this subject. He proposes that when we examine liberty in China that we do so while being mindful of China’s history, so that we can more fully appreciate the context of their policies. He claims (correctly) that China has become more free and will most likely continue to do so, while the United States has become less free. This is both true and sad.
It is worth reading: http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/042611.php
Wow, this video is hilarious. I can’t say that I thoroughly endorse the points that it is making, as its defense of capitalism isn’t really a defense at all, and its conclusion is more or less “vote Republican” which is a very bad idea. Nonetheless, it does tear into the side of Obama, which is always something I like to see. The more the two sides (of the collectivist coin) fight each other, the better. If they spend their money fighting petty personal squabbles, great! That means they don’t spend it trying to convince people that their ideas are correct.
Carnival is an Antiguan tradition, and people here take it very, very seriously. They prepare for months, rehearsing dances and music, preparing costumes, and all manner of wonderful things.
I, unfortunately, cannot go to carnival because shelf exams are coming up (on the 12th!). However, I have come up with another way to celebrate.
Carnival is a celebration of the end of slavery in Antigua; I can think of few better reasons to celebrate. Human liberty is a splendid thing.
I am fond of brining up the notion of slavery when discussing government, because it is both vivid and accurate. Ayn Rand once characterized the future of the freedom movement as “setting man free from men.” We are in the midst of an ideological battle that is every bit as important as those of the past. One thousand years ago, it was accepted that individuals ought to be bound to their lords. Most people were serfs. This was a form of slavery. Several hundred years ago, it was commonly accepted that men derived their rights from the permission of the King. Only two hundred years ago, it was still accepted that men can own other men as possessions.
Reason prevailed in each of these cases. Ideologically, we are closer than ever before to men living as free individuals in a rational society. We have set man free from specific other men. Now, we must set man free from men. We must promulgate and advocate for the idea that men derive their rights from their very nature as rational beings, and not from membership in a group, culture or society. The natural conclusion of this is that men, i.e. society, i.e. Hobbes’ Commonwealth, must never presume to be the source of man’s rights, and must never violate them.
Collectivism was the ideological basis of slavery, and its abolition represented a tremendous step forward. Let us celebrate by working towards taking the next step forward in the grand ideological battle for freedom.
How? In honor of the end of slavery in Antigua, I’m going to make a contribution to Bob Barr. I can’t afford much, what with being a medical student, but I can afford something. Bob Barr may not be perfect, but his campaign is a vehicle through which we can reach millions of people with rational ideas. Let’s fund this vehicle so that it can reach as many minds as possible.