Kyle Varner’s Blog

posted by Kyle on Sep 3

Ron Paul just finished his speech–one of the best political speeches that I have ever seen.  He has inspired and ignited the freedom movement in way so few ever thought possible.

The biggest lesson I took from this:  we are in the midst of an ideological battle.  No army, government or political party is capable of blocking our ideas.  We will prevail, because our ideas are consistent with reason.

Whenever our ideas come head to head with the ideas of tyranny and statism, we win.  They have nothing on us.  We have reason and truth, they have empty rhetoric and lies.  I am very inspired today, and very hopeful for the future prospects of this movement.  It is a movement to which I am thoroughly committed, and for which I will fight tirelessly for the rest of my life.

We live in exciting times.  I am very grateful to Dr. Paul for putting so much passion into  this movement.  Freedom is on the horizon for America.  Yes, things will get worse before they get better…but they will get better.

Thank you, Dr. Paul.  You have assumed your place among the most important American heroes ever.

posted by Kyle on Aug 16

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.

posted by Kyle on Aug 14

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. 

Check out Yes! on I-1000

posted by Kyle on Aug 13

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

posted by Kyle on Aug 13

I was wondering what he meant by that!

posted by Kyle on Aug 9

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 

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 2

As someone who travels internationally with great frequency, I was disturbed (but not surprised) to learn of an official policy at the Department of Homeland Security that allows this wretched entity to conduct electronic searches with no evidence of suspicion. They may seize laptops, cell phones, PDAs and the like, without evidence, and keep them for months or even longer, until they see fit to return them.

The Washington Post Reports:

Federal agents may take a traveler’s laptop or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrongdoing, as part of border search policies the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed.

Also, officials may share copies of the laptop’s contents with other agencies and private entities for language translation, data decryption or other reasons, according to the policies, dated July 16 and issued by two DHS agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Other reasons? What other reasons? As written, the policy is a blank check to allow these thugs to do anything they want. It is downright creepy.

Even creepier is the fact that the higher-ups defend their practices as necessary to keep us safe.  I don’t know if they actually believe that, but I sure as hell don’t.  The US Government is far more dangerous than Al-Qaeda!

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.