Here’s an overview of their new open-source browser Chrome. The cartoons are hilarious and the ones depicting frustration are acutely appropriate. Chrome looks to be potential for tremendous advance for web based technology.

If only Google would integrate a sound philosophy into their business model; one that doesn’t condone the trampling of property rights and clearly understands the proper role of Government. Given their record of casually using GovCo. as a business tool, it’s only a matter of time until I’ll no longer be able to leverage their incredible ingenuity in good conscience.

The tragic reality is they don’t need to hire GovCo. thugs to be successful, or even to dominate. They’re brilliant, innovative and have the requisite assets to achieve whatever they can imagine.

This ties into my larger amazement with how philosophically lacking individuals can be successful businessmen. My first thought is that Capitalism, even the fumes of it, create such economic opportunity that virtually anyone can profit from thought and action, and despite other moral shortcomings. Even a wealthy individual that became such honestly might steal if lacking the proper view of existence. More later.

Update: GovCo. is a neologism coined by Keith Larson, a local reality-minded talk-radio personality. Essentially it represents government acting beyond its proper scope, especially in a self-perpetuating manner, i.e., a government concerned with expanding itself (the way a private company would operate). As used above, I refer to Google hiring Government (via lobbying, taxes, who knows what else) to abuse its monopoly of the use of force as a means to some business (private) concern. Anytime a private enterprise leverages illegitimate Government power to violate rights of others, as if it were merely commissioning the services of another private company, the term GovCo. is fitting.

Of course it’s blatantly ironic to refer to our Government as an entity bound by the just laws of economics (existence, identity, causality etc.) - but this only adds to the sarcastic charm of the term.

By Ayn Rand - From ARI

A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.

Do men need such an institution—and why?

Since man’s mind is his basic tool of survival, his means of gaining knowledge to guide his actions-the basic condition he requires is the freedom to think and to act according to his rational judgment. This does not mean that a man must live alone and that a desert island is the environment best suited to his needs. Men can derive enormous benefits from dealing with one another. A social environment is most conducive to their successful survival—but only on certain conditions.

“The two great values to be gained from social existence are: knowledge and trade. Man is the only species that can transmit and expand his store of knowledge from generation to generation; the knowledge potentially available to man is greater than any one man could begin to acquire in his own lifespan; every man gains an incalculable benefit from the knowledge discovered by others. The second great benefit is the division of labor: it enables a man to devote his effort to a particular field of work and to trade with others who specialize in other fields. This form of cooperation allows all men who take part in it to achieve a greater knowledge, skill and productive return on their effort than they could achieve if each had to produce everything he needs, on a desert island or on a self-sustaining farm.

“But these very benefits indicate, delimit and define what kind of men can be of value to one another and in what kind of society: only rational, productive, independent men in a rational, productive, free society.” (“The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness)

A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort, or enslaves him, or attempts to limit the freedom of his mind, or compels him to act against his own rational judgment-a society that sets up a conflict between its edicts and the requirements of man’s nature—is not, strictly speaking, a society, but a mob held together by institutionalized gang-rule. Such a society destroys all the values of human coexistence, has no possible justification and represents, not a source of benefits, but the deadliest threat to man’s survival. Life on a desert island is safer than and incomparably preferable to existence in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.

If men are to live together in a peaceful, productive, rational society and deal with one another to mutual benefit, they must accept the basic social principle without which no moral or civilized society is possible: the principle of individual rights.

To recognize individual rights means to recognize and accept the conditions required by man’s nature for his proper survival.

Man’s rights can be violated only by the use of physical force. It is only by means of physical force that one man can deprive another of his life, or enslave him, or rob him, or prevent him from pursuing his own goals, or compel him to act against his own rational judgment.

The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships—thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement.

The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.

If some “pacifist” society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it.

If a society provided no organized protection against force, it would compel every citizen to go about armed, to turn his home into a fortress, to shoot any strangers approaching his door—or to join a protective gang of citizens who would fight other gangs, formed for the same purpose, and thus bring about the degeneration of that society into the chaos of gang-rule, i.e., rule by brute force, into perpetual tribal warfare of prehistoric savages.

The use of physical force—even its retaliatory use—cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful coexistence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment. Whether his neighbors’ intentions are good or bad, whether their judgment is rational or irrational, whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or by malice-the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another.

Visualize, for example, what would happen if a man missed his wallet, concluded that he had been robbed, broke into every house in the neighborhood to search it, and shot the first man who gave him a dirty look, taking the look to be a proof of guilt.

The retaliatory use of force requires objective rules of evidence to establish that a crime has been committed and to prove who committed it, as well as objective rules to define punishments and enforcement procedures. Men who attempt to prosecute crimes, without such rules, are a lynch mob. If a society left the retaliatory use of force in the hands of individual citizens, it would degenerate into mob rule, lynch law and an endless series of bloody private feuds or vendettas.

If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.

This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.

A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.

Read the rest of this entry »

I recently got this email from a friend. I’ve not verified any of the numbers, but the figures are staggering, and would still make the point with even with a substantial margin of error. The mystical reference (item B) is harmless, as it only serves as a chronological metric. I also found it noteworthy to see most of our taxes listed together, although I’m sure there are many more.

How many zeros in a billion? This is too true to be funny.

The next time you hear a politician use the word ‘billion’ in a casual manner, think about whether you want the ‘politicians’ spending YOUR tax money. A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of it’s releases.

A. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.

B. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.

C. A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.

D. A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.

E. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate our government is spending it.

While this thought is still fresh in our brain, let’s take a look at New Orleans. It’s amazing what you can learn with some simple division.

Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (D), is presently asking Congress for 250 BILLION DOLLARS to rebuild New Orleans. Interesting number… what does it mean?

A. Well… if you are one of the 484,674 residents of New Orleans (every man, woman, and child), you each get $516,528.

B. Or… if you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787.

C. Or… if you are a family of four, your family gets $2,066,012.

Washington, D. C < HELLO! > Are all your calculators broken??

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Tax
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Tax
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago… and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt… We had the largest middle class in the world… and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What happened? Can you spell ‘politicians!’

And I still have to press “1″ for English.

I hope this goes around the USA at least 100 times

What the heck happened?????

Altruism is what happened. Government is merely an official embodiment of its citizens. When the dominant philosophical stew is a lack of reverence for individual rights, and a sense of duty to serve others - what else could we expect? This is exactly why explicit moral premises based on reason, and an unyielding loyalty to their adherence are the only way to reverse the established trend of this nation. Until our population learns to proudly assert the sovereignty of the individual instead of the collective, that man’s purpose is to maintain his own survival and happiness, and that reason, not faith is the only reliable means to build one’s moral code upon - the trend of destruction will continue.

Even if the altruistic tendencies remained, a sound respect for individual rights to life, liberty and property would garner massive rehabilitation. If our legal code were gutted of subjective laws - leaving only those which preclude or punish the violation of such fundamental rights - people’s altruistic tendencies would be left with only the potential to destroy the single entity of which they have to right to destroy - themselves. It’s the disrespect for individual rights in general, and a legal system built upon such in particular, that enables altruism to enhance from merely a self-mutilating fancy into a destroyer of nations.

In my experience, people are more easily persuaded to accept the sanctity of individual rights than they are to disavow the altruistic duty to serve others. Most people don’t have explicit premises regarding each, just the vague notions battered into their head by their upbringing and our culture. The notion of individual rights appeals to our nature as rational beings, and is hard to refuse or refute by even the most obnoxious altruist. Conversely, the notion of selfishness is so plagued by social stigma that most will shy away. Obviously, a total philosophical revolution spearheaded by reason and rational selfishness would change our course, but in the meantime, promoting and enforcing mans inalienable rights could serve to neuter the potency of altruism.

This is Gus Van Horn at his finest. He adeptly integrates the importance of rights, not compromising one’s principles, and the folly of animal rights proponents.

As illustrated here and here, I have always been one who develops deep attachment to pets. But, as irrational entities they have no rights, and therefore should be unquestionably subordinate to humans in every way. It is precisely their lack of rights which precludes any objective law pertaining to them other than those protecting domestic animals as property.

Socialist Paul Kanjorski [D-PA] further spearheads our descent into destruction with a gem of barbaric brilliance he’s named the “Consumer Reasonable Energy Price Protection Act of 2008″. H.R. 5800 would establish a “Reasonable Profits Board” that would serve to determine if oil companies are bringing in too much money.

Since we’ve, for all intents and purposes, abandoned the founding principles for this nation, and are no longer chained by constitutional justification, this measure is fair game.

Here’s uncle Sam’s claim - “You don’t have a right to your profits, we do. Therefore, it doesn’t matter how you might reinvest your profits, we’d rather confiscate them by force as a form of pandering and income redistribution.”

It escapes me how any human could claim the right to dictate the appropriate profitability of another. Unless he’s the consumer, by what right can he tell another how much the product of his labor and resources should be worth in barter? A producer and his voluntary consumers are the only entities with any justifiable means to determine price. Any man that claims such determination can rightfully be made by anyone other than the producer and consumer, and then imposed by force, is an advocate of slavery.

The proper response to this meddling is for the victim (big oil) to simply say “no, we quit”. It would only take once, as the crumbling economy would send a message to congress reminding them who’s rightfully in charge - the men of production, not crooks and cowards who scheme their way into office and pander to stay there. Kanjorski and all the other rodents would scurry in a desperate attempt to officially retract the 13th amendment in order to fix their boo boo. I long for the then day where men proudly assert their right to the product of their labor. When the victims realize their sanction is the only power Washington thugs maintain, the sick little game that is American politics will be nothing more than a footnote in history.

So, keep pushing Paul. The more you push, the sooner those of us who understand life, liberty and property can rebuild the nation you’re doing your best to obliterate.

by Jeffrey R. Snyder - (C) 1993 by The Public Interest.

OUR SOCIETY has reached a pinnacle of self-expression and respect for individuality rare or unmatched in history. Our entire popular culture — from fashion magazines to the cinema — positively screams the matchless worth of the individual, and glories in eccentricity, nonconformity, independent judgment, and self-determination. This enthusiasm is reflected in the prevalent notion that helping someone entails increasing that person’s “self-esteem”; that if a person properly values himself, he will naturally be a happy, productive, and, in some inexplicable fashion, responsible member of society.

And yet, while people are encouraged to revel in their individuality and incalculable self-worth, the media and the law enforcement establishment continually advise us that, when confronted with the threat of lethal violence, we should not resist, but simply give the attacker what he wants. If the crime under consideration is rape, there is some notable waffling on this point, and the discussion quickly moves to how the woman can change her behavior to minimize the risk of rape, and the various ridiculous, non-lethal weapons she may acceptably carry, such as whistles, keys, mace or, that weapon which really sends shivers down a rapist’s spine, the portable cellular phone.

Now how can this be? How can a person who values himself so highly calmly accept the indignity of a criminal assault? How can one who believes that the essence of his dignity lies in his self-determination passively accept the forcible deprivation of that self-determination? How can he, quietly, with great dignity and poise, simply hand over the goods?

The assumption, of course, is that there is no inconsistency. The advice not to resist a criminal assault and simply hand over the goods is founded on the notion that one’s life is of incalculable value, and that no amount of property is worth it. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of the suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social contract: “I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want.” For years, feminists have labored to educate people that rape is not about sex, but about domination, degradation, and control. Evidently, someone needs to inform the law enforcement establishment and the media that kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, and assault are not about property.

Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but also a commandeering of the victim’s person and liberty. If the individual’s dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime always violates the victim’s dignity. It is, in fact, an act of enslavement. Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it can hardly be said to exist.

Read the rest of this entry »

The NRA is clearly not who I thought they were. To the extent that they persist in their crusade for Florida’s HB503 bill - a bill that enables possession of firearms on another’s property, and regardless of the owners discretion - the association has revealed themselves as unprincipled and obtuse warriors for a cause at any price.

Per their public statements and my private conversations with NRA-ILA staff, their claim that an individuals right to life trumps property rights. Their error is failure to distinguish the right to life, and the right to defend one’s life by use of deadly force courtesy of the second amendment. The former inalienably stands alone, while the latter assumes a corollary right - the right to property.

In the Florida bill, they are opposing the sanctity of property rights as they pertain to a situation where all involved parties are voluntarily present, and most likely bound (also voluntarily) under contractual terms. If an individual’s right to property is subject to the whim of political consensus, then what’s the NRA’s wildcard for excluding a specific type of property (firearms) from such whim? Based on their logic, a homeowner also should have no right to allow others to possess firearms on his property. How can the NRA not see how detrimental such precedent will be? Maybe not until gun owners property rights are trumped by the same premise that the NRA now blindly ignores when a new state bill crosses a Governor’s desk that deems firearm owners have no right to their property (firearms) because such right encroaches another’s right to life.

The counter claim that an employee’s automobile is shielded by his property right fails to consider the overall context. An employees car is (typically) their property, but that car is parked on the employer’s property. There has to be an authoritative hierarchy of rights, otherwise the employer would have no legal basis to tow an employees car from their parking lot. If an employer’s rules specify no weapons on premises, it doesn’t matter where or how, or what justifications, none are allowed - period. If you can’t/don’t accept those terms, attempt to negotiate or find a new job.

Laws and legal enforcement thereof should be based on rights. If an action doesn’t forcefully encroach on another’s right to life, liberty or property, or doesn’t objectively convey intent to do so, it shouldn’t be illegal. The biggest destroyer of personal freedom and economic prosperity are subjective laws - ones that ignore the above prescription. In this case, the employees right to property isn’t forcefully encroached because their presence is voluntarily acceptive of a particular set of stipulations. They are agreeing to a stipulation regarding their property right while present on the employers premises. Therefore, any law overriding this hierarchy is irrational and a detriment to our nation. Neutering a business owners right to enforce his preference to ban weapons is no different than government telling a restaurant owner, who’d otherwise allow weapons, that he can’t. The underlying principle is identical. If you support the fist case, you are supporting the second - you can’t have it both ways.

Not only are the NRA wrong in their stance on this measure, but by throwing phrases like big business and corporate bullies, they’re now bordering on class-warfare, anti-business rhetoric that would feel at home in any DNC stump speech. Heston would be so proud.

The result of any political stance void of explicit premises is nothing more than a pragmatic and likely contradictory opinion. To compromise a fundamental principal for the sake of one that relies on such is irrational. This case is perfectly illustrative of a misguided and ignorant crusade that will serve to undermine the more important cause. The NRA is doing nothing more than arming the enemy (the anti-gun crowd) with yet another avenue of battle. What a tremendous mistake.

I recently received a response to my letter from Erik Eckberg of NRA-ILA, the lobbying function of the National Rifle Association.

Thank you for contacting the NRA-ILA. We appreciate your comments but must respectfully disagree. The ‘right to keep and bear arms’ is a fundamental right. In fact it is as important as any other right since it is a right that can defend all other rights.

Erik Eckberg
NRA-ILA

To which I responded:

Hi Erik, thanks for the response. Keep in mind, if the goals are freedom and justice, you and I are on the same page. I know the association has firmly decided its stance on this, so this conversation may be of no other use than constructive thought.

The NRA does not believe that that a business’s property rights supersede the property rights of the vehicle owner.

They must to some degree, for example, when an employer needed (for whatever reason) to tow an employees car off of their premises. Should they not be legally enabled to do so because the car is someone else’s property? Additionally, most employment contracts would contain a clause relating to their weapons policy. In this regard, the measure in Florida would also invalidate contractual law. An employee chooses to become so by agreeing to the terms set by an employer. If such terms indicate a ban on weapons, the employee can either accept the terms and comply (or risk the consequences of violation), or not.

In principle, this is no different than a government mandated smoking ban on a private establishment, where the rights of the owner to determine their own policies are clobbered. The owner of the establishment has the right to set the terms of patrons or employees.

We do have a right to life, and property. When we enter anther’s property on contractual terms, the terms may include a limitation to those rights. We can accept them or walk away.

For what it’s worth, my former employer bans weapons on premises, and I chose to carry (and left in my car) most every day. I worked in a rough area, and to me the security was worth the risk of any consequences I would’ve reaped if my violation of their terms were revealed.

For the government to tell them their opinion on the matter is irrelevant is a gross injustice, and goes against a fundamental premise of this country. Rights are violated when an entity initiates force against another. The role of government is to protect the rights of its citizens, not to violate them, regardless of the cause. Since employment is a contractual relationship of volition, there is no force. This measure is initiating force against an individual (the business owner) who is violating no other’s right to life, liberty or property - he’s only setting contractual terms with another individual, who’s free to choose to accept them or not. The only force being initiated here is by government - a complete inversion of of its purpose.

The reality is that the business owners who want to take away your Second Amendment rights are doing it because they have bought into the anti-gun argument that the mere presence of firearms is a danger and that law-abiding individuals who have access to firearms are a threat.

I agree their premises, as well as most all anti-gun arguments are illogical, emotion-driven nonsense. Regardless, by simply setting contractual terms which can be accepted or not, they’re not taking away anything from anyone. As long as individuals are free to choose their place of employment, no rights are in jeopardy.

Again, I appreciate the response and all that your organization does. In any war, there are battles that must be “picked and chosen”. I wish the NRA would’ve seen the potential damage from signing up for this one.

As a citizen and member, I must advise the association to not support the Florida “take-your-guns-to-work” measure. Our right to keep and bear arms is only derivative to our rights to life, liberty and *property*. Overriding a business owners discretion to allow firearms or not on their legal property is a clear encroachment of property rights.

I’m all for removing barriers to carry, but not at the sacrifice of our fundamental rights.

A more appropriate cause to support would be the similar encroachment on property rights by government overriding an establishments discretion to allow concealed carry (or not) based on alcohol sales or any other silly metric. Here again, the property owners are the only ones who should rightfully determine their preference with regards to weapons on their premises, not government.

Supporting this cause would advance the more fundamental right to property as well as those mandated by our 2nd amendment. Support of this measure discredits the purpose of the NRA. Lets not cut off our foot in order to paint our toenails.

Member #153435425