brandonrobison.net

I heard today that President Obama is proposing to create (or already created?) a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Ha. What a joke.

Why not just past Directive 10-289? It reads:

In the name of the general welfare to protect the people’s security, to achieve full equality and total stability, it is decreed for the duration of the national emergency that-

Point One: All workers, wage earners, and employees of any kind whatsoever shall henceforth be attached to their jobs and shall not leave nor be dismissed nor change employment, under penalty of a term in jail. The penalty shall be determined by the Unification Board, such board to be appointed by the Bureau Of Economic Planning and National Resources. All person reaching the age of twenty-one shall report to the Unification Board, which shall assign them to where, in its opinion, their services will best serve the interests of the nation.

Point Two: All industrial, commercial, manufacturing, and business establishments of any nature whatsoever shall henceforth remain in operation, and the owners of such establishments shall not quit, nor leave, nor retire, nor close, sell or transfer their business, under penalty of the nationalization of their establishment and of any or all their property.

Point Three: All patents and copyrights, pertaining to any devices, inventions, formulas, processes, and works of any nature whatsoever, shall be turned over to the nation as a patriotic emergency gift by means of Gift Certificates to be signed voluntarily by the owners of all such patents and copyrights. The Unification Board shall then license the use of such patents and copyrights to all applicants, equally and without discrimination, for the purpose of elimination monopolistic practices, discarding obsolete products and making the best available to the whole nation. No trademarks, brand names, or copyrighted titles shall be used. Every formerly patented product shall be known by a new name and sold by all manufacturers under the same name, such name to be selected by the Unification Board. All private trademarks and brand names are hereby abolished.

Point Four: No new devices, inventions, products, or goods of any nature whatsoever, not now on the market, shall be produced, invented, manufactured or sold after the date of this directive, The Office of patents and Copyrights is hereby suspended. (Added later in chapter: All “research departments, experimental laboratories, scientific foundations” will be closed except for government-operated facilities.)

Point Five: Every establishment, concern, corporation or person engaged in production of any nature whatsoever shall henceforth produce the same amount of goods per year as is, they or he produced during the Basic Year, no more or no less. The year is to known as the Basic or Yardstick Year is to be the year ending on the date of this directive. Over or under production shall be fined, such fines to be determined by the Unification board.

Point Six: Every person of any age, sex, class or income, shall henceforth spend the same amount of money on the purchase of goods per year as he or she spent during the Basic Year, no more and no less. Over or under purchasing shall be fined, such fines to be determined by the Unification Board.

Point Seven: All wages, prices, salaries, dividends, profits, interest rates and forms of income of any nature whatsoever, shall be frozen at their present figures, as of the date of this directive. (But taxes will be allowed to increase as needed for the public good)

Point Eight: All cases arising from and rules not specifically provided for in this directive, shall be settled and determined by the Unification Board, whose decisions shall be final.

Logic dictates my rationale. I feel strongly about most of my premises and conclusions, as I have arrived at them after much careful thought and consideration. In the realm of political philosophy, I essentially have a single, simple dictum to which I subscribe.

I believe that an individual has the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcefully interfere in any other’s right to live in whatever manner they choose.

It logically follows that a person who has the right to live in whatever manner they choose has 1) the right to life — the right to decide how to live it, what to do with it, who they wish to associate with or not associate with, what to put into it, and even when to end it; 2) the right to liberty — the right to perform any action they desire (excepting, of course, the coercion of others); and 3) the right to property — the right to acquire and use objects for whatever purpose they so desire. If you’re having a hard time with this concept, especially with the logical connection, please read The Law by Frederic Bastiat. It is a 100 page treatise covering what I just mentioned in the last two paragraphs.

And applying this guiding principle, a logical being could very likely deduce any political view or opinion I might have. For example, to some, it may inconsistent of me to be a huge gun rights activist while at the same time wanting to downsize/eliminate the army. This seeming inconsistency is merely because you don’t follow where I am coming from. Try to understand the premise. Then you will understand the conclusion.

I’ve had several people ask me who I’m going to vote for in the upcoming presidential election. Usually, I just say, “Nobody…” and prattle off something about all of the choices sucking. I don’t want to get into a long discussion on political philosophy with them, because unfortunately, most people don’t get it. Logic is a dying, lost art form. Sadly, I’m guessing most of the people reading this blog post won’t understand, either.

The real truth of why I am not voting is that I am an “uninformed voter.”

I haven’t watched any of the presidential or vice-presidential “debates,” nor have I studied the candidates’ positions on the issues. If the remote control is near me, I’ll try to change the channel if an ad comes on. I don’t listen to the radio. I don’t talk to the student groups on campus vying for their respective candidates. I just don’t really care. And why should I?

I know, from the little bit I have seen, read, or heard, that none of the candidates believe in the same political philosophy as me. They all wish to use force and coercion to some extent or another. They all wish to engineer society for some purpose other than freedom. Yes, some may wish to use force to a greater extent than others. But a vote for one would still be an endorsement, and I value my principles too highly to sanction any form of evil.

I heard on the radio today that, with a “few minor changes” added by the Senate, the House passed the bailout bill that they rejected just four days ago. What are these minor changes? I honestly don’t know, nor do I really care. What I do know is that it went from a three page bill on Monday to a 451-page bill today.

So… wait, what? Did they say “a few minor changes”?

Ugh. I bet all the morons who voted in favor of the bill today are the same types of morons who voted yes on the PATRIOT Act, ie. they probably didn’t even read the freaking thing.

It’s stories like this that make me want to be one.

Here’s the gist of it, though, in case you don’t want to read a lot about it:

Troy Davis was sentenced to death for the murder of Police Officer Mark Allen MacPhail at a Burger King in Savannah, Georgia; a murder he maintains he did not commit. There was no physical evidence against him and the weapon used in the crime was never found. The case against him consisted entirely of witness testimony which contained inconsistencies even at the time of the trial. Since then, all but two of the state’s non-police witnesses from the trial have recanted or contradicted their testimony. Many of these witnesses have stated in sworn affidavits that they were pressured or coerced by police into testifying or signing statements against Troy Davis. [note from Brandon: Police pressuring or coercing statements? No waaaay...]

One of the two witnesses who has not recanted his testimony is Sylvester “Red” Coles – the principle alternative suspect, according to the defense, against whom there is new evidence implicating him as the gunman. Nine individuals have signed affidavits implicating Sylvester Coles.

Liberty and justice for all, America.