Kyle Varner’s Blog

posted by Kyle on Nov 5

Here is a brief synopsis of how I voted:

Bob Barr/Wayne Allen Root

Yes on Physician Assisted Suicide

Yes on Eyman’s Initiation

No on the stupid bullshit about raising the cost of long term care for elderly folks.

None of the above.

None of the above.

etc etc etc.

Plus, I voted for two county commissioners who have been really great at keeping the county government from fucking with us.

Just fyi:  I am totally paralytic tonight.  What better way to watch the USA fall deeper into a hell hole????

Today I was assailed more than any other day in my life.  The gas station attendant told me to vote for Obama.  Random people from the side of the road yelled at me to vote for Obama.  Insanity, I tell you.

For the record:  Obama and McCain are two pieces of shit from the same toilet.  Obama is going to win, and he’s going to take away in more of our freedoms, and screw more things up, and that is just the way it is going to be.  Meanwhile, I will continue my education, become successful, and insulate myself as much as possible from the damage that he and his predecessors do.  I will never participate in his socialist programs.

For the record:  this is the only time I have posted to this blog while drunk and I don’t intend to do so in the future.  My mother reads this blog, and while I curse a lot while talking to her, she dislikes it when I use profanity in public.  So, for those of you who get off on profanity:  enjoy this post.

posted by Kyle on Oct 3

I just switched off the vice-presidential debate.  What garbage.  I really love theatre; the kind where actors memorize lines and entertain.  The two actors on stage tonight are reciting lines that they’ve memorized, and they’re doing a really bad job of it.

They aren’t addressing real issues, neither of them has said one thing about the economy or healthcare, and I doubt they’re going to say anything substantial about anything else.

When will we have a wildcard in these debates?  When will we have someone who actually brings up real issues and makes real arguments?  Not any time soon…

It is my personal mission to  become wealthy enough to fund a Libertarian campaign for president that is large enough to become a part of the debate.  I can only imagine how those two would squirm on stage against someone like me.  Make no mistakes:  in four years, they will recast this play.  The actors will be different (half of them anyway) but the lines will be the same, the stage will be the same and America’s problems will be worse.  Nothing will change until a rational individual comes along and gets ahold of one of those microphones.

I’m still going to vote for Bob Barr.  Ten minutes of their bullshit was enough.  Now I’ll go bury my head in a biochemistry textbook.  I think there are some real correlates there:  these actors obvious both have trisomies, and their arguments suffer from osteogenesis imperfecta!

posted by Kyle on Sep 15

It is no secret that Bob Barr used to be one of the most vile, cruel and insidious drug warriors in America.  Thankfully, he is no longer such a man.  He has realized the error of his ways, and has publicly called for an end to this policy.

He has written an op-ed at the Huffington Post titled “Federal Drug War Rethought.”  He makes all the right arguments, and does so in a dispassionate and intellectually honest way.  This is think kind of communication we need in the libertarian movement.  Take a principled stand and thoroughly explain it in a persuasive manner.

There are a lot of individuals who remain leery of Barr for his past support of the drug war.  They are right to have their reservations, but let us reflect upon the utility of permanently branding an individual as a drug warrior.

Almost everyone in power today is a drug warrior.  Sure, we’d like to throw the rascals out, tar and feather them and drive them into exile.  However, this will impede our ultimate goal:  to win minds and achieve lasting changes in policy.  When drug warriors realize the error of their ways and display the courage necessary to openly condemn this hideous violation of our most basic right to our own lives, we ought to welcome them with open arms.  They can become our allies, and with their alliegance we can more quickly effect the changes that are so necessary.

I’ll be the first to say:  I have reservations about Barr.  However, he is saying what needs to be said.  He is making both the moral and practical argument for freedom.  These arguments need to be heard, and Barr has been and will continue to attract an audience for these views.  That is why I continue to support him.

posted by Kyle on Sep 12

Acting like a couple of monkeys!

Dr. Paul’s intentions are obviously good, but in this case are terribly misguided.  They are misguided because he is placing the value of democracy above the value of individual liberty (the one does not necessarily imply the other).

Here is the problem with Nader:  he may agree with Paul on four issues, but he agrees for all the wrong reasons and would have people adopt his explicit philosophy of altruism.  Nader has, and will continue to endorse human sacrifice.  So long as he continues to believe that we may sacrifice the interests and rights of an individual, his agreement with us on a topic is only a matter of chance.  His political philosophy is that of a mystic; he is a devout member of the cult of the omnipotent state.  We cannot predict how he would violate our rights, we con only predict that if ever he were convinced of some good that he might accomplish, he would walk all over us to accomplish it.

Nader’s candidacy works to spread these ideas.  While I have no problem with debating him (I  have no doubt that our ideas will prevail), I am deeply disturbed by the fact that Dr. Paul would make public appearances with him and refuse to staunchly criticize his ideas.  He had plenty of opportunity to do so.  He could have said, “No, I won’t be voting for him because his political philosophy holds that the state may violate individual rights so long as it deems the greater good to served.  I do not believe in using human beings as sacrifical beasts.”  He did nothing of the sort.  He gave his tacit endorsment of Nader’s ideas.

This is harmful precisely because Dr. Paul has become a figurehead of the freedom movement.  He has earned a lot of people’s trust, even though they don’t understand his explicity political philosophy.  If this movement is to last, the political philosophy associated with his campaign must be promulgated.  That is why I continue to support the Barr campaign.  Barr is far from perfect, but he is promulgating a political philosophy of individual liberty.  So far as I can tell this is the only way that we’ll ever win our freedom.  Associating with Ralph Nader will do nothing of the sort.

Let us not lose sight of our mission:  spread libertarian ideas far and wide.  It is only by doing this that we can have any hope of lasting political success.

posted by Kyle on Sep 12

I’ll begin by saying that I am thoroughly disgusted with Ron Paul and the Campaign for Liberty.  I don’t regret supporting them; a great deal has been accomplished.  Now, they are, for lack of better words, pissing it away.  For the first time I can recall, Dr. Paul has publicly endorsed statists.  Vote for a statist, he says, so that we may…defeat statism?

There is a great deal of controversy today surrounding Ron Paul’s press conference, which was attended by Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and Chuck Baldwin.  Bob Barr had been scheduled to attend, and then decided not to, about thirty minutes before the event.  Instead, he held his own press conference.

The whole event has been chronicled over and over throughout the blogosphere, so I won’t go into any details about the personal spitting matches that have been going on for the last few days.  But, I’m willing to say what almost everyone in the know knows but none of them want to say:  Ron Paul broke his promise to Bob Barr.

Don Rasmussen, in a dishonest and quite frankly absurd statement distributed across the internet today claims, “I look forward to hearing him explain how breaking a promise to Congressman Paul constitutes a wise campaign strategy. ” Invoking the morality of a promise over the course of events started by a broken promise.  This, ladies and gentlemen, is political rhetoric at its finest.

Here’s the truth:

Back in March of this year, Bob Barr and Ron Paul met.  There were no press reports about it, but those of us who were deeply involved heard about it through the grapevine.  Eric Garris, in a post at LewRockwell.com gave us a one sentence heads up.

What took place at this meeting?  That was another open secret:  Ron Paul offered his endorsement to Bob Barr if he would run for president.  Barr launched his exploratory committee in April.  While Barr was interested in running for president before that, he had more or less written the idea off (hence the draft Bob Barr effort) because he didn’t think a serious campaign was possible.  This all changed when Paul offered his support in that meeting.

(Obviously, all of this is hearsay–unless Paul himself admits it, it will remain hearsay forever, but I trust my sources and what they told me is backed up by the LewRockwell.com report, today’s events, and a little bit of information about what has been going on in congress.)

On May 28th, David Weigel or Reason Magazine, mentioned Ron Paul’s current troubles in congress:

He’s worried, and rightfully so, about losing his precious banking committee seat if he hands over too much support to third party candidates who are trying to bleed the GOP.

I suspect that this sort of pressure is why Dr. Paul decided not to endorse Bob Barr.

On July 25th, the Campaign for Liberty sent out an email announcing the Rally for the Republic.  In it, they said,

And the evening will afford a legendary speech by Dr. Ron Paul. This will be the most courageous moment of Dr. Paul’s career. You won’t want to miss it.

The question that was on my mind during that speech was, “when is he going to endorse Bob Barr?”  I suspect that amidst all of the pre-rally/convention wrangling with the McCain camp (as reported by the Washington Post), Dr. Paul got cold feet.  Or, he was made an offer he just couldn’t refuse (i.e. wanna keep your seat on the house banking committee?)

Those in the know from the Barr camp tell me that Paul kept putting off the endorsement.  A huge, high-stakes game of political chess was going on behind the scenes.

I am glad that I supported the Ron Paul campaign.  We made more progress in one year than I thought we would make in fifteen.  Now, Ron Paul is done.  He has quit.  By telling his supporters that not voting, or, even worse, voting for statists, constitutes even semi-effective advocacy of liberty, he has essentially thrown away his chance to educate his numerous casual supporters who are receptive to libertarianism but are drawn, like moths to the flame, to theocratic statists like Chuck Baldwin.

Dr. Paul, you had so much going, and you’ve thrown it all away.  Shame on you.

To Bob Barr:  I hope that what you did proves to be prudent.  You got more attention this way than you would have ever gotten standing on stage with those statists.

(By the way, Bob Barr isn’t perfect, but he is saying the right things, and introducing people to libertarianism, and that’s what needs to happen right now.)

To Don Rassmussen, who wrote that nasty hit piece:  Shame on you, too!  Remember the conversation you and I had at the Iowa Straw Poll?  I didn’t realize how much you really meant it when you said that you are a moderate libertarian.  Moderate enough to support statism!  Wait…you did that in Costa Rica too, didn’t you?  Why are my words so harsh?  Because you know better!  You are well acquainted with libertarian philosophy, and as such ought to display moral courage.  Grow a pair and stand up to Dr. Paul!

One more open secret (since I’m no longer interested in keeping my mouth shut about it):  Remember the racist newsletters?  They were written by Lew Rockwell…one of Dr. Paul’s closest confidants.  Ah, the honest Doctor!

posted by Kyle on Aug 8

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.

posted by Kyle on Aug 2

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.

posted by Kyle on Aug 1

Introducing…the newest topic of my blog: The Top 5. There are a lot of great bloggers out there, and I always find a number of their posts very interesting. So, I’m going to start linking to the most interesting ones! I’m going to try to do this every week, but I make absolutely no guarantees that it will happen every week. I am a busy man, but I’ll do what I can. I’m hoping to have two Top 5 posts per week: One on medicine and one on politics and philosophy.

So, here is my inaugural Top 5 political and/or philosophical blog posts for this week! Keep in mind that the order in which they appear is not an attempt to rank them. This is just an attempt to share with my readers what I have found most interesting this week.

“Voters’ Preferences are Not One-Dimensional”

From: Cafe Hayek

Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek posts a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal discussing voter preferences. He argues that simple votes do not indicate the so-called “will of the people” because they do not take into account the intensity of voter’s preferences. Boudreaux goes on to explain (outside of his letter) that the number of people who decide to show up and vote does something to indicate what the will of the people is. I think that this is a very valid point. Boudreaux goes on to suggest that this may be a valid argument against the notion that voting is a civic duty.

I must wholeheartedly agree with Boudreaux: most voters should excuse themselves from politics, because they do not understand what they are doing. They don’t understand the nuances of the candidates’ plans, nor do they understand the primary principles upon which our Republic is based. This is, of course, especially true of the vast majority of Obama’s supporters who are being led about by his oratory prowess and empty rhetoric.

Social Welfare is a Red Herring: The Return of Feudalism

From: The Last Psychiatrist

The Last Psychiatrist has a fascinating take on social welfare, where the author dissects the motives of those who advocate socialism, specifically in health care. He is right on the money with regards to their motives—they are more interested in punishing capitalists than in improving the well-being of individuals.

He begins by stating, “The policies sound good, and perhaps they would be, if not for the malignant intentions that motivate them.” He is right: their intentions are malignant. I, however, don’t think their policies sound good, and they would most definitely not be good. Nonetheless, this piece is well worth reading.

Swimming in Government Waste

From: The Mises Institute

The Mises Institute (one of the most important modern intellectual defenders of liberty) discusses government pollution in Ohio. They point out that while a for-profit business could never get away with pumping sewage runoff into rivers, but somehow its OK if a government entity does it. I am always fond of such examples. It is a wonderful illustration of why the government is the last entity to which we ought to look if we are in search of a healthy environment.

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them—Anti Biotech Edition

From: Reason Hit and Run

I love it when the anti-genetic engineering crow gets called out on its lies. These people are not interested in safety, or in human welfare, they are interested in recasting man in Rousseau’s image of the Noble Savage. While this article makes use of data provided by government agencies, which is notoriously suspect, the data is the best we have available, and the data sources are known for exaggeratin, not downplaying, the dangers of technology. Almost fifty years with no reports of adverse effects is pretty damn good in my book.

Penn Jillette on Bloomberg

This came to my attention on the Bob Barr for President Blog. I am a huge fan of Penn Jillette and the Penn and Teller show. Penn is an outspoken advocate of reason, and I think he has reached a large number of people with his unique style of humor and serious intellectual argument. I couldn’t embed the video here because bloomber has it disabled on their youtube channel, but just click on the link above.

By the way: I will be casting my vote for Bob Barr.