Evolution and Genetic Engineering

I'm reading a book called The Biotech Century.  In one portion, Jeremy Rifkin posits that the coming eugenics-type movement of germ-line gene therapy to "perfect" the human species could lead to less diversity of the species.  Also that our current spate of mutations and what some people call “disorders” are good for the species to help us in unknown ways. What he is saying is that nature should take its course and we’ll eventually evolve to better beings without manipulating our genetic code.  

That works in the animal kingdom, except that as modern humans, we’ve added money and empathy to nature’s mix.  With those two concepts, Darwinism is curtailed.  Think about it:  Money provides the well-financed class with advantages that completely ignore evolution and make our bodies lazy, forgetting the work our bodies and mind do to evolve naturally.  Empathy sets us up to help the weak and even mate with people that are less than the highest order possible.  As a modern human myself, I personally think there is nothing wrong with these higher concepts, but they just don’t occur in the rest of the animal kingdom.  For our animal counterparts, you either survive or you don’t and the best possible mates are pursued; always.  So, my thought is that when our intelligence about genetic therapy is perfected, we should go for it to make the species better, just because we’re not like the rest of the animals.  It will happen in the near future and our evolution will change forever for the better.

Big Brother Picks Your Mate

According to the US Government Accountability Office, there are 1,138 provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. These statistics don't even include the provisions in non-government matters, such as insurance agencies.

I once thought of homosexuality as a sin. I have since seen the issue through the eyes of reason, rather than what the church says. Bigotry is wrong, no matter what the Bible teaches. However, this rant isn’t about gay marriage. This rant is fundamentally about government intrusions into American lives. How many of you are really concerned about the gay couple down the street having sex? Is it something that truly affects YOUR marriage or relationship? I can think of many, many other extremely important issues that the President and Congress should put in front of the American people. Can anybody say FairTax? During this election year, the President has decided to put an issue at the forefront that he PERCEIVES will mobilize his conservative base. Who gives a shit about gay marriage? I have a wonderful relationship with a women of my own choosing, doing the things we enjoy doing, all without worrying about other couples down the street. I live in a multi-unit apartment complex. I know for a fact it is going on down the hall (Oh no!).

Why are we not focusing on more important issues? What about fundamental tax replacement, privatizing Social Security or education, or ending the internal war on our people, also known as the "War on Drugs"?

Why does the government have to be in the business of regulating families, or marriage at all? Societal history has shown us that marriage has been a decision of individual and religious sects throughout the world. Christianity, which is prominent in the United States, has always accepted marriage as love between a man and a woman, which culminates in a committed, lifelong relationship. For me, I prefer to commit to a woman and so that is what my marriage will be. Although, There are many different opinions about marriage and not every American will make the same decision. Therefore, why should the government decide? It should not. Marriage is based upon love and trust. Funny, I didn’t say that it is based upon a marriage license. Think about it. When people talk about why they got married, they talk about their love, common goals, and their commitment to one another. They do not talk about the act of getting a piece of paper the government issued to them, as if they were animals being vaccinated and licensed. A marriage license is not what matters. Since marriage is based upon the mutual interests of only two people, why should the government be involved in my marriage or yours?

If we first allow the government to decide who can marry, what is next? Who can get divorced, who can live or even dine together? Divorce is a last resort and should minimally be used, but that doesn’t mean the government needs to regulate it.

It's always assumed that Democrats are the only big-government politicians. Republicans are equally statist, perhaps in a more socially-evident manner, rather than fiscally. I say that the government need not license marriages. Leave us alone. Many people might ask how the government could control tax deductions and benefits for spouses if we don’t have marriage licenses. Why does the government need to control who is a beneficiary for insurance claims, Social Security survivor benefits, or certain government worker’s pensions? People should be able to choose their beneficiaries, no matter if they are a spouse, or not. In addition, privatizing Social Security would take the government out of the equation for survivor’s benefits. Private insurance companies typically use marriage designations for beneficiary classifications and risk analysis. However, these companies could easily make their own decisions, without government designations. Married couples have certain tax advantages over singles. Alas, no group should have loopholes or advantages over another group (gay, straight, or bisexual). Social engineering through our tax code is not desirable.

If there is any legitimate need to track marriages, why not register marriages in a database? Why in the world do we need permission from overbearing politicians and the intrusive government to get married? Please sit down and tell your Congressional representatives to get out of your private family matters and start focusing on important topics rather than pandering and playing election-year politics.

Libertarianism as a Way of Life

There is definitely something to be said about growing up and knowing who you are and what you stand for. As a child of Generation X, I grew up with knowledge of only what my parents, my teachers, the TV, and the newspaper told me. It wasn’t until the mid-90s came along and blasted us all with the internet. In addition, talk radio has become commonplace, outside of Gospel radio. I have really started to get a lot of information outside of traditional sources, which is great for everyone, because learning is a great tool for life, even outside of school. I have formed some very strong bonds to what I believe in the last few years for a variety of reasons. In addition to that, I have recently read (of course in the new-tech way, known as an audiobook on the iPod) a book that I really believe could help a lot of people.

We all need to read a book called Libertarianism: A Primer, by David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute. I have excerpted some very key concepts of the idea and the book, here.

The key concepts of libertarianism have developed over many centuries. The first inklings of them can be found in ancient China, Greece, and Israel; they began to be developed into something resembling modern libertarian philosophy in the work of such seventeenth- and eighteenth-century thinkers as John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine.

Individualism. Libertarians see the individual as the basic unit of social analysis. Only individuals make choices and are responsible for their actions. Libertarian (ideology) emphasizes the dignity of each individual, which entails both rights and responsibility(ies). The progressive extension of dignity to more people -- to women, to people of different religions and different races -- is one of the great libertarian triumphs of the Western world.

Individual Rights. Because individuals are moral agents, they have a right to be secure in their life, liberty, and property. These rights are not granted by government or by society; they are inherent in the nature of human beings. It is intuitively right that individuals enjoy the security of such rights; the burden of explanation should lie with those who would take rights away.

Spontaneous Order. A great degree of order in society is necessary for individuals to survive and flourish. It is easy to assume that order must be imposed by a central authority, the way we impose order on a stamp collection or a football team. The great insight of libertarian social analysis is that order in society arises spontaneously, out of the actions of thousands or millions of individuals who coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes. Over human history, we have gradually opted for more freedom and yet managed to develop a complex society with intricate organization. The most important institutions in human society -- language, law, money, and markets -- all developed spontaneously, without central direction. Civil society -- the complex network of associations and connections among people -- is another example of spontaneous order; the associations within civil society are formed for a purpose, but civil society itself is not an organization and does not have a purpose of its own.

The Rule of Law. Libertarianism is not libertinism or hedonism. It is not a claim that "people can do anything they want to, and nobody else can say anything." Rather, libertarianism proposes a society of liberty under law, in which individuals are free to pursue their own lives so long as they respect the equal rights of others. The rule of law means that individuals are governed by generally applicable and spontaneously developed legal rules, not by arbitrary commands; and that those rules should protect the freedom of individuals to pursue happiness in their own ways, not aim at any particular result or outcome.

Limited Government. To protect rights, individuals form governments. But government is a dangerous institution. Libertarians have a great antipathy to concentrated power, for as Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Thus they want to divide and limit power, and that means especially to limit government, generally through a written constitution enumerating and limiting the powers that the people delegate to government. Limited government is the basic political implication of libertarianism, and libertarians point to the historical fact that it was the dispersion of power in Europe -- more than other parts of the world -- that led to individual liberty and sustained economic growth.

Free Markets. To survive and to flourish, individuals need to engage in economic activity. The right to property entails the right to exchange property by mutual agreement. Free markets are the economic system of free individuals, and they are necessary to create wealth. Libertarians believe that people will be both freer and more prosperous if government intervention in people's economic choices is minimized.

The Virtue of Production. Much of the impetus for libertarianism in the seventeenth century was a reaction against monarchs and aristocrats who lived off the productive labor of other people. Libertarians defended the right of people to keep the fruits of their labor. This effort developed into a respect for the dignity of work and production and especially for the growing middle class, who were looked down upon by aristocrats. Libertarians developed a pre-Marxist class analysis that divided society into two basic classes: those who produced wealth and those who took it by force from others. Thomas Paine, for instance, wrote, "There are two distinct classes of men in the nation, those who pay taxes, and those who receive and live upon the taxes." Similarly, Jefferson wrote in 1824, "We have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." Modern libertarians defend the right of productive people to keep what they earn, against a new class of politicians and bureaucrats who would seize their earnings to transfer them to nonproducers.

Natural Harmony of Interests. Libertarians believe that there is a natural harmony of interests among peaceful, productive people in a just society. One person's individual plans -- which may involve getting a job, starting a business, buying a house, and so on -- may conflict with the plans of others, so the market makes many of us change our plans. But we all prosper from the operation of the free market, and there are no necessary conflicts between farmers and merchants, manufacturers and importers. Only when government begins to hand out rewards on the basis of political pressure do we find ourselves involved in group conflict, pushed to organize and contend with other groups for a piece of political power.

Peace. Libertarians have always battled the age-old scourge of war. They understood that war brought death and destruction on a grand scale, disrupted family and economic life, and put more power in the hands of the ruling class -- which might explain why the rulers did not always share the popular sentiment for peace. Free men and women, of course, have often had to defend their own societies against foreign threats; but throughout history, war has usually been the common enemy of peaceful, productive people on all sides of the conflict.

That was from Chapter 1, "The Coming Libertarian Age," Libertarianism: A Primer, by David Boaz (New York: The Free Press, 1998). See also www.libertarianism.org.

With this in mind, I have gained staunch opinions about the government and how they interact with the people. As a Libertarian, I believe in capitalism, individualism, private property rights, very low taxes, very low government spending, and a basic belief that we need much less government in our lives. This would include the privatization of education, social security, transportation, and marriage. In addition, because of the rule of law, illegal immigration should be more strictly enforced for the well-being of legal citizens. We also need fewer regulations for businesses and outlaw mandatory worker’s unions, a minimum wage, affirmative action, and mandatory health insurance benefits. Businesses need to be free to make the most of their money and time, including efficiently hiring the most effective people and firing the weak links on a team. Furthermore, the legalization of private drug use would help solve many problems, including lower crime. I’ll explain it later, but don’t jump to conclusions about that unless you do your own research.

As the late Benjamin Franklin once said: "[T]he more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

As you might discover by reading this, neither Republicans nor Democrats do it for me. The Democrats like to tax the hell out of you, and then spend it on social welfare, all with much force from an organization known as the IRS. But, the Republicans like to spend all your money on different issues, but equally damaging, and borrow it all, with an organization known as the Federal Reserve. However, with that borrowing, not only are we digging a hole that we will eventually need to get out of, we are digging into the pockets of potentially enemy nations.

For most of my writing from now on, I will be shouting my views from the mountaintop, about basic Libertarian principles. Sit back and enjoy.

Changing the Law to Make Stealing Legal

I am not sure if it is the fault of the moronic politicians, or the economically stupid sheep of this country. Have you seen the Congressional hearings about the oil profits lately? I think that most elected officials in the Senate know how stupid all of this is, but they are massive demagogues to their constituents. There is currently a bill in the House and Senate called the Windfall Profits Rebate Act of 2005. The bill basically states that all excess profits, above a certain amount, will be seized from the oil companies. Those seized profits will then be used to give tax credits to other individuals (tax reduction). How brilliant, right? INCOME REDISTRIBUTION! I recently wrote a letter to my representatives in the Senate and House. You should do the same, and I’ll tell you why.

This bill moves us closer to a Fascist State. The United States Government should not control any more of the country’s private sector- it already controls too much! The Federal Government controls entirely too many facets of our society already. This bill jeopardizes capitalistic principles on which our country was founded.

As any private company, oil companies have an immense responsibility to its shareholders to maximize profits. At such a low average profit margin of around 9%, owners already have little incentive to continue operations. However, if the government redistributes private income, it directly discourages these companies to exist. This equates to fewer oil companies investing in more efficient and newer alternatives to fossil fuels. As a private individual, any tax imposed upon a particular industry or economic sector would discourage me from investing in that type of business, or in companies involved in those business sectors. If a corporation’s ability to control how its earnings are distributed is taken away, or further restricted, owners and investors will exit the business, leaving fewer companies in the marketplace and essentially no competition. As you know, our country was founded on capitalism, and any effort to redistribute a corporation or an individual’s wealth, is communism- something this country once feverishly opposed!

So, what makes a job so essential that the government forces you to give them the money that you make? An appraiser, a retailer, a banker, a doctor; are these essential functions? If you perform these functions, how would you like it if some half-baked politician told you that your money is not really your own, and that it will be redistributed to less fortunate people? Don’t forget, they do that already with higher taxes, but that is a discussion for another time. How will this country sustain greatness if we continue to take profits and reward out of the hands of those people who create it? If oil companies are “making too much money” who’s to say that your doctor or your auto mechanic isn’t making too much? Where do we draw the line? This is nonsense, and our country was founded and made great by people who wanted to succeed and make money! The goal of every for-profit business is the bottom line. If these companies are burdened by more taxes and more complex regulations- they will close shop and move outside the USA. Then comes the debate of “how to keep more jobs in America,” but again, I digress.

Many people use Marxist principles to justify this crap, because in our society gasoline is a considered a need for existence. However, what is the driving force behind the implementation of fuel cells or hybrid cars? There would be no demand for better alternatives if it weren’t for higher and higher oil prices. The higher price for oil drives demand for cheaper and more efficient energy sources, independence from foreign oil, and ultimately higher national security.

What’s really sad (but people don’t see it) is that the higher oil prices are really of no cause of the oil company executives. They are driven by several other important factors. Most importantly, the federal and state governments have imposed higher taxes on the oil companies that have been passed on to each of us. In addition, the EPA has imposed costly regulations on the American oil companies, putting even more tax burden on them and on us. Lastly, but certainly not least, the population and manufacturing sectors of two countries, India and China, are skyrocketing, which has significantly driven up global demand for oil. Subsequently, prices have risen exponentially in the past several years. As if that weren’t enough reason for oil (and thus, gasoline) prices to have increased, the recent hurricanes drove up prices even more (temporarily) because of the decreased refining capacity in the Gulf of Mexico. I would argue that higher oil prices are not consequences of the “greedy” oil companies or the war in Iraq, but rather the simple economic principle of supply and demand. Maybe our elected officials should have an introductory lesson in Macroeconomics. Then they might see what they are really doing to us all.

REPUBLICAN REVOLUTION?

From: The Federalist Patriot (FederalistPatriot.US)

What on earth has happened to Republicans in Washington? Twenty years ago, we conservatives could only dream of an opportunity like the one our elected representatives are now squandering: a Republican President with majorities in both houses of Congress, and two chances to nominate constitutionalists to the Supreme Court. For reasons we can't begin to explain, the Republican Party is in the midst of an identity crisis. Indeed, with each passing week, they behave more like the Democrats we elected them to displace. From education to prescription drugs to transportation to hurricane indemnity, today's Beltway Republicans can't seem to stop redistributing our money. Nor can they seem to embrace the idea that elections have consequences; that we elected them not only to protect the homeland, but to reign in spending and restore the primacy of our Constitution. Republican Revolution? What revolution? If this is our party in power, we'd be better off as a principled minority.

To be fair, we regularly applaud the President and the GOP for their staunch stand against Jihadistan, their timely tax cuts, their support of faith-based social services and traditional values, and their attempts to reform Social Security, among other things.

But there are far too many offsets. Under President Bush, non-defense (and non-homeland security) spending has soared by $303 billion.

Since 2001, spending on regulation has grown at over twice the rate of the economy, rising by 41 percent. Agency personnel increases have grown by 46 percent. Homeland Security accounts for some of these figures, but the SEC and EPA, not traditional Republican favorites, have benefited most. Regulatory spending per year saw 2.2- and 3.2-percent jumps under Presidents Reagan and Clinton, respectively, but during Mr. Bush's tenure, increases have averaged a whopping 6.5 percent. At this rate, conservatives will soon be longing for those laissez-faire Clinton years.

Note to the American small businessman: Of the 4,083 regulations now in the legislative pipeline, 789 target you.

The recent $286.5-billion highway bill contained no fewer than 6,371 "earmarks" ---literally, gifts of taxpayer money to voters back home. More than anything else, its passage was a profile in collective cowardice: Only eight members of the House and 11 senators voted against this legislative abomination.

Modest proposals to cut the rate of Medicare and Medicaid growth were dropped. Even promised cuts to wasteful federal education "programs," to Amtrak and to public broadcasting, quietly disappeared. In all, discretionary, entitlement and interest spending for FY2006 will exceed $2.5 trillion.

Last month, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher displayed that there's still a conservative movement on Capitol Hill. "Some of us came here to reduce the size of government after the model of Ronald Reagan," he said. To which then-Majority Leader Tom DeLay replied, "[A]fter 11 years of Republican majority, we've pared it down pretty good." Congressman DeLay, if an increase of more than a trillion dollars is "pretty good," how would you define "bad"?

But as egregious as pork barrel spending is, it isn't responsible for the fiscal crisis we face. The ever-expanding largesse of federal entitlement programs---government do-gooding ad nauseam---actually threatens the solvency of the Republic.

Social Security faces collapse in just a few decades. According to the 2005 report of the Social Security actuaries, the entitlement's unfunded liability is $11.1 trillion in perpetuity. That's "trillion" with a "T." To his credit, President Bush has sought to reform the big-government enrichment scheme known as Social Security, though without success to date or much hope in the near future.

When compared to Medicare, however, Social Security's liabilities are a mere pittance. Medicare's total unfunded liability is $68.1 trillion in perpetuity. (If you're not appalled by this number, you're not alone; precious few humans can comprehend the immensity of one billion, much less sixty-eight thousand billions.) And the program could go belly up in just a few years. To lend further perspective to our misplaced Social Security angst, the total indebtedness of the recently enacted (but unfunded) prescription drug benefit accounts for $18.2 trillion---more than one and a half times the entire Social Security liability. Summing up, never let anyone tell you that you're getting free drugs from Uncle Sam. Your grandchildren will most certainly be paying for them.

The President's historic refusal to veto any legislation is further evidence of the low priority he places on fiscal discipline and constitutional limits on government. One has to go back 37 presidents and 180 years to find the last chief executive---John Quincy Adams, 1825 to 1829---who served a full term without a single veto. Even George H.W. Bush---a moderate---vetoed 29 bills during his single term in office.

Of course, the White House's excuse is that it's difficult to veto one's own party's bills. But this just doesn't wash. Franklin D. Roosevelt vetoed 372 bills from Democrat-controlled Congresses; John F. Kennedy, 12 bills; Lyndon Johnson, 16 bills; and Jimmy Carter, 13 bills. The sad and maddening truth is that party loyalty, political "considerations" and quid pro quos are far more pressing priorities than is constitutional government in Washington today.

The President's "compassionate conservatism" certainly seems to come with a stiff price tag. We're still waiting to hear how enacting ever more unconstitutional laws and untenable entitlements constitutes either compassion or conservatism.

When President Bush recently spoke in New Orleans, he resolved, "We'll not just rebuild, we'll build higher and better." Of course, "higher and better" would be under the mind-numbing and expensive bureaucracy that is federal control. "Americans have never left our destiny to the whims of nature," he continued, "and we will not start now."

While we applaud our President for his heartfelt and moving rhetoric, we would remind our fellow Patriots that there is a just God who presides not only over the destiny of nations, but over the wind, the waves and the whims of nature as well. For the time being, then, let us focus on rebuilding constitutional fealty, and let us insist that our nation's destiny not be left to the whims of a wasteful federal government.

From: The Federalist Patriot (FederalistPatriot.US)

Hurricane Katrina

It is amazing to me how tragic this debacle is, especially in our Country. One person put it like this: "Jesus will be here before the National Guard will." You know what is really sad (possibly great, though) is that he just may be correct. Things are changing. People are willing to help, but nothing is being done. I just wish I could get in a helicopter myself and drop off a few thousand tons of water and food to the people in New Orleans and Mississippi. But, I'm only one man.

There is something that we can do, even if you don't have any money to give. Not that I have seen the Red Cross using the money that they are getting, anyway. There are several websites that offer a way to offer your guest bedroom, your house, or even a couch to people that need a place to stay. Do you realize that many people are spread out throughout the Southeast that only planned to stay for a a day or two? How long could you survive? The websites are www.shareyourhome.org; www.hurricanehousing.org (unfortunately a subsidiary of MoveOn.org); www.craigslist.org; and www.katrinahousing.org.

Please help these people if you can. God Bless You.

VALUES?

By: Neal Boortz, Liberterian Talk Show Host

Rock the Vote is an MTV promotion. Yesterday Rock the Vote gave an award to Bill Clinton. A "lifetime achievement" award. The award was meant to "honor an individual who has always made reaching out to people and appealing to their values a primary part of his efforts to make the world a better place." Clinton appealed to the values of young people! So, there you go! If you want to know just what MTV and Rock the Vote thinks are the values of our young people, just look at Bill Clinton! Let's make a list!

• Repeated episodes of oral sex with a corpulent intern in the Oval Office.
• Lying to your wife and the nation about your sexual relationship with the aforesaid corpulent intern.
• Declaring that oral sex isn't sex at all!
• Rape
• Leaving your rape victim bleeding on the bed in her hotel room.
• Grabbing the breasts of a woman looking for a job shortly after the death of her husband.
• Lying under oath to deny a citizen their day in court on a lawsuit filed under a law that you signed with great fanfare.
• Selling technology secrets to our enemies to make them stronger and us more vulnerable.
• Setting up scam real estate deals to glom a little cash while nailing the taxpayers.
• Sending the IRS out to make miserable the lives of your detractors.
• Virtually ignoring the growing terrorist threat against the country you swore an oath to protect.

What the hell, you only swore an oath.

So .. there you go. Straight from the experts at MTV and Rock the Vote! A nice concise list of the values of young America! Actually, an argument could be made that items 7 through 12 might not belong on this list. These aren't issues that are generally on the minds of the types of young Americans who would be paying attention to MTV or Rock the Vote. At any rate, Clinton should display that award with pride!