By Victor J. Ward
White. They are precious in his sight.
I had a friend that I will call Timothy. He was a white guy. We went to church together. We were students at Cal Berkeley: He was a senior when I was a freshman.
On one particular Sunday, we were both teaching in the Children’s Ministry/Sunday School. Part of the lesson involved singing, and we were singing one of the old standby songs, "Jesus Loves The Little Children."
The actual wording is:
Jesus loves the little children,
All the children of the world.
Red and Yellow,
Black and White,
They are precious in his sight.
Jesus loves the little children of the world.
Tim told me that when he was in high school, he and his privileged White friends had changed the wording to:
Jesus loves the little children,
All the children of the world.
Red and Yellow,
But especially White.
They are precious in his sight.
Jesus loves the little children of the world.
Tim also told me that one time, when he was leading the song in front of a group of parents, he sang the edited version rather than the traditional version.
He said that the parents were none to happy.
When I heard the story, I immediately called the minister of the church and complained about Tim’s White privilege and his racism. I asked for Tim to be banned from ever teaching Sunday School and I also said that the church leadership should consider excommunication.
The next thing I did was to tell every Black person I knew about Tim's Whiteness. Then, all of us Black folks formed a group: “Black Christians Matter.”
The next time we were at church, we brought signs that said, “Jesus Loves Us, Too;” “Jesus Was Probably A Black Man;” and “Keep Hope Alive.”
We started a chant:
"Hey Hey, Ho Ho,
Jesus loving White children more than Black children has got to go."
We prayed and fasted:
“Dear Almighty Black Jesus: Please curse this White devil and all his White demons."
Oh wait — no, I didn’t do any of that.
When Tim told me his story, I laughed and laughed.
Then, I immediately made my own song:
Jesus loves the little children,
All the children of the world.
Red and Yellow,
But especially Black,
He supplies the things they lack.
Jesus loves the little children of the world.
Granted, not the most original wording, but catchy nonetheless.
To the Black Lives Matter people and the Cry Bullies and all those offended by life: If you see everything in life as a slight or an offense, you cannot laugh. If you cannot laugh, there is no way for you to have joy. And, if you cannot have joy, you cannot have peace.
And peace is the thing that you really want.
If you are in college, maybe there is some physical threat confronting you. In that case, I would say to either get a gun or to call the police.
If, however, there is no physical threat, then a gun will not give you peace, but neither will the police nor your Ethnic Studies Professor, nor your House Master, nor your School President.
The safe space that you want your Dean to create for you is not the way to peace.
Trying to end all forms of racism won’t lead to peace, either.
In fact, even the removal of all forms of external violence from your life will not give you peace.
Peace is something that comes from the inside and flows out, never the other way around.
Instead of chanting and protesting to others, you need to start chanting and protesting to yourself.
Maybe, sing yourself a little song:
Jesus loves me,
This I know,
For my Black Religion Professor
Tells me so.
Victor J. Ward first came across libertarianism by reading Murray Rothbard's Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy and Walter Block's Defending the Undefendable. He holds a law degree from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law and an MBA from Santa Clara University.
Showing posts with label Victor J. Ward. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Victor J. Ward. Show all posts
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
The Blasphemy Of Freddy Gray
By Victor J. Ward
Freddy Gray is dead because of his irreverence.
Here is what I have read and heard: Gray made eye contact with a police officer. Gray started to run. The police gave chase and caught him. Gray did not resist arrest. Witnesses report that Gray's leg seemed to have been injured. The police handcuffed Gray and put him into the back of a police van. The police took Gray to a hospital. Gray's family said that Gray was treated for three broken vertebrae and a crushed voice box. Gray died from the injury to his spine. At least one doctor said that Gray's type of spinal injury usually occurred in severe car accidents.
After I heard a person reporting on the story, I had to rewind it and listen again.
Freddy Gray is dead because of his irreverence.
Here is what I have read and heard: Gray made eye contact with a police officer. Gray started to run. The police gave chase and caught him. Gray did not resist arrest. Witnesses report that Gray's leg seemed to have been injured. The police handcuffed Gray and put him into the back of a police van. The police took Gray to a hospital. Gray's family said that Gray was treated for three broken vertebrae and a crushed voice box. Gray died from the injury to his spine. At least one doctor said that Gray's type of spinal injury usually occurred in severe car accidents.
After I heard a person reporting on the story, I had to rewind it and listen again.
Thursday, April 2, 2015
Black Guys, Fat Guys, and Discrimination
By Victor J. Ward
I need to go on a diet.
Why? Because I need to start a YouTube channel where I speak-out on issues of discrimination, but I am hesitant to do so (read: vain) because I need to drop about 40 lbs.
Charles Barkley made a statement over the weekend, urging the NCAA to take the Final Four from the state of Indiana. He said that he was opposed to discrimination of all forms.
Barkley shows flashes of wisdom at times. This is not one of them. People listen to Barkley because he is outspoken and because he is Black. And, when you are Black and outspoken about an issue, and fairly entertaining, and you already have camera time, the media will showcase your opinion.
I'm not as fat as Charles Barkley, so I have that going for me. I am fairly well-spoken, and I am somewhat educated. And, there are just not that many Black Libertarians out there. (By definition, that, alone, makes me controversial.) Maybe I should just start the YouTube channel -- fat and all.
I need to go on a diet.
Why? Because I need to start a YouTube channel where I speak-out on issues of discrimination, but I am hesitant to do so (read: vain) because I need to drop about 40 lbs.
Charles Barkley made a statement over the weekend, urging the NCAA to take the Final Four from the state of Indiana. He said that he was opposed to discrimination of all forms.
Barkley shows flashes of wisdom at times. This is not one of them. People listen to Barkley because he is outspoken and because he is Black. And, when you are Black and outspoken about an issue, and fairly entertaining, and you already have camera time, the media will showcase your opinion.
I'm not as fat as Charles Barkley, so I have that going for me. I am fairly well-spoken, and I am somewhat educated. And, there are just not that many Black Libertarians out there. (By definition, that, alone, makes me controversial.) Maybe I should just start the YouTube channel -- fat and all.
Monday, March 30, 2015
Shower Thoughts About The Racist OU Chant
By Victor J. Ward
1. The students that were using the racist chant were probably drunk. Modifying Jesus' words a bit: "Let the person that never did something stupid while drunk cast the first stone."
2. The students chanted that there would never be a "Nigger at SAE." This is clearly wrong. I saw a Black SAE frat brother interviewed on CNN.
3. The Black SAE frat brother was shocked that there was racism at an overwhelmingly White fraternity. And, on a related note: There is gambling in Las Vegas.
4. Again, in reference to the Black SAE frat brother: I feel sorry for him. (Not really.) He was insulted by the current SAE frat brothers because of the word "Nigger." There is a good chance that he was also insulted by all Alphas, Omegas, and Kappas (traditional Black fraternities) when they called him an "Oreo."
5. The University is public and is supported by tax payer money. But, they suppressed free speech. This is a clear violation of the First Amendment. President Obama, who was supposedly a Constitutional Law Professor while at the University of Chicago, never mentioned anything about it.
6. The First Amendment is an interesting thing. In fact, aren't all the Amendments simply admissions that the Constitution and it's drafting and ratification were filled with errors?
7. I thought that the First Amendment was to protect vile speech.
8. Whatever happened to the old saying, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me?" (This is the child's version of the Non-Aggression Principle.)
9. I wonder how those White frat guys feel towards Black people now.
10. I knew a Black woman who was hardcore in her insistence on Black Power. She didn't want to only marry a Black man, she wanted to marry a Black man with dark skin. A really Black man. She eventually married a Japanese guy that could barely speak English. People grow a change. The government is not needed, and typically hurts rather than helps.
Victor J. Ward is a long-time EPJ reader, who first came across libertarianism by reading Murray Rothbard's Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy and Walter Block's Defending the Undefendable
.. At first the writings of Rothbard and Block shocked him, but after thinking about it, he realized that Rothbard and Block were right.
1. The students that were using the racist chant were probably drunk. Modifying Jesus' words a bit: "Let the person that never did something stupid while drunk cast the first stone."
2. The students chanted that there would never be a "Nigger at SAE." This is clearly wrong. I saw a Black SAE frat brother interviewed on CNN.
3. The Black SAE frat brother was shocked that there was racism at an overwhelmingly White fraternity. And, on a related note: There is gambling in Las Vegas.
4. Again, in reference to the Black SAE frat brother: I feel sorry for him. (Not really.) He was insulted by the current SAE frat brothers because of the word "Nigger." There is a good chance that he was also insulted by all Alphas, Omegas, and Kappas (traditional Black fraternities) when they called him an "Oreo."
5. The University is public and is supported by tax payer money. But, they suppressed free speech. This is a clear violation of the First Amendment. President Obama, who was supposedly a Constitutional Law Professor while at the University of Chicago, never mentioned anything about it.
6. The First Amendment is an interesting thing. In fact, aren't all the Amendments simply admissions that the Constitution and it's drafting and ratification were filled with errors?
7. I thought that the First Amendment was to protect vile speech.
8. Whatever happened to the old saying, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me?" (This is the child's version of the Non-Aggression Principle.)
9. I wonder how those White frat guys feel towards Black people now.
10. I knew a Black woman who was hardcore in her insistence on Black Power. She didn't want to only marry a Black man, she wanted to marry a Black man with dark skin. A really Black man. She eventually married a Japanese guy that could barely speak English. People grow a change. The government is not needed, and typically hurts rather than helps.
Victor J. Ward is a long-time EPJ reader, who first came across libertarianism by reading Murray Rothbard's Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy and Walter Block's Defending the Undefendable
.. At first the writings of Rothbard and Block shocked him, but after thinking about it, he realized that Rothbard and Block were right.
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Warriors . . . Come Out To Play
By Victor J. Ward
My wife asked me for advice about a speech she was going to give. I told her that once she got on stage, she should invoke the words of Cyrus from the movie The Warriors:
"Can you dig it?"
(https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bTUrWYv2vtU)
(She didn't take my advice.)
My wife asked me for advice about a speech she was going to give. I told her that once she got on stage, she should invoke the words of Cyrus from the movie The Warriors:
"Can you dig it?"
(https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bTUrWYv2vtU)
(She didn't take my advice.)
Saturday, March 21, 2015
How Libertarianism Has Negatively Affected My Life -- Plus, How To Study For State-Wide Testing
By Victor J. Ward
One of my current areas of interest is Real Estate Development. I have a couple of large projects -- large projects to me, not to your typical large-scale land developer. I am working with some great people who are very knowledgeable. Two of the people are Real Estate Brokers. I am considering using one or both of them to sell my homes.
But, I have also been considering selling the homes myself. That is: I would be my own Broker. But, before I become a Broker, I need to become an Agent.
One of my current areas of interest is Real Estate Development. I have a couple of large projects -- large projects to me, not to your typical large-scale land developer. I am working with some great people who are very knowledgeable. Two of the people are Real Estate Brokers. I am considering using one or both of them to sell my homes.
But, I have also been considering selling the homes myself. That is: I would be my own Broker. But, before I become a Broker, I need to become an Agent.
Sunday, January 11, 2015
Something About Dershowitz Doesn't Pass The Smell Test
By Victor J. Ward
Last year, I wrote a post entitled: "What Bill Cosby Should Have Done."
http://www.targetliberty.com/
In short, I argued that Cosby should have gone on the legal and verbal offensive if he wanted to show and prove his innocence.
Alan Dershowitz is providing a real-life example of that post: Dershowitz went on the verbal attack by doing interviews. He went on the legal attack by filing disbarment papers and by filing his own declaration. He even stated: "I waive the statute of limitations. Charge me with rape!" (More on this, below.)
As George Orwell once said, "If someone drops a bomb on your mother, you drop two bombs on their mother." Someone tried to drop a bomb on Dershowitz, and he has responded accordingly.
The two attorneys that Dershowitz is targeting, Paul Cassell and Bradley Edwards, are also being aggressive: They filed a Defamation claim against Dershowitz.
Cassell and Edwards filed their case in State court. Dershowitz will try and remove the case to Federal court. If Dershowitz is successful, then Cassell and Edwards lose their home-cooking advantage.
As an attorney and as someone who likes to eat popcorn and watch two sides fight to the bitter end, I applaud both the aggressive nature of Dershowitz and Cassell/Edwards.
What troubles me about the Dershowitz denials comes from the article in the NationalReview.Com that was linked to in a Target Liberty post (http://www.targetliberty.com/
1. Dershowitz claims that he never had sex with the lady on Epstein's Caribbean Island.
2. Dershowitz claims that he never had sex with the lady in Epstein's New Mexico home.
3. Dershowitz claims that he never had sex with the lady on Epstein's plane.
4. Dershowitz claims that he never had sex with the lady in Epstein's New York home or Epstein's Palm Beach home.
The problems with Dershowitz' denials are:
1. The lady never claimed to have sex with Dershowitz on a Caribbean Island; it was the US Virgin Islands.
2. The lady never claimed to have sex with Dershowitz in Epstein's New Mexico home. She claims that the sex happened somewhere in New Mexico.
3. The lady said that she had sex with Dershowitz on private planes. She did not specify that the planes were owned by Epstein.
4. The lady claims that she had sex with Dershowitz somewhere in New York and Florida, not specifically Epstein's homes.
Why is this a big deal? Lawyers are paid to parse words. That's why some in the legal profession applauded Bill Clinton's: "It depends on what the meaning of "is" is." There are millions of dollars that have been lost because someone used the wrong word in a contract. In a Canadian case, one comma cost one of the legal parties over $800k. Small things mean a lot in the legal arena, and there are huge battles about what a word actually means.
Not recognizing that there is a difference between "Epstein's plane" and "private plane" is a big deal.
Dershowitz went to Yale Law School and he now teaches at Harvard Law School. He has a team of crack attorneys that work for him and around him. There are only two reasons that he made the above-mentioned mistakes:
1. He was sloppy. If Dershowitz and Team are this bad, then this should forever affect his reputation/their reputations. (It won't, but it should.) These are some major mistakes. At the very least, he should fire several people for this kind of incompetence.
2. He intentionally erected a straw-man so that he could knock it down. If Dershowitz did this, then we must ask, "Why?" Why didn't he deny the specific allegations? Why did he feel the need to lie about what the woman said just so that he could deny something that he knew was not true?
Finally, let me say something about his statement: "I waive the statute of limitations. Charge me with rape!" At first blush, I thought that this was a statement that was bold and powerful. But, maybe not.
The statute of limitations (SOL) is viewed differently in different jurisdictions. In some places, the SOL is an affirmative defense. In other words, the Defendant, in this case Dershowitz, would have to use the SOL in his trial as part of his defense. In these instances, if Dershowitz waived the SOL, his waiver would mean something.
Other jurisdictions, however, view the SOL as a Court-ordained protection. In these states, Dershowitz can say, "I waive the SOL" all he wants. It's not his privilege to waive. The prosecution cannot bring a case against the defendant after the SOL runs, regardless of what the defendant says.
I don't know where a rape charge might be filed against Dershowitz, so I have no idea about how that state views the SOL. But, Dershowitz' bold proclamations, while at first seeming strong and powerful, appear to be cracking just a little bit.
Regardless of what happens, heed the advice of Target Liberty: Get your popcorn ready.
Victor J. Ward is a long-time EPJ reader, who first came across libertarianism by reading Murray Rothbard's Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy and Walter Block's Defending the Undefendable.. At first the writings of Rothbard and Block shocked him, but after thinking about it, he realized that Rothbard and Block were right.
Last year, I wrote a post entitled: "What Bill Cosby Should Have Done."
http://www.targetliberty.com/
In short, I argued that Cosby should have gone on the legal and verbal offensive if he wanted to show and prove his innocence.
Alan Dershowitz is providing a real-life example of that post: Dershowitz went on the verbal attack by doing interviews. He went on the legal attack by filing disbarment papers and by filing his own declaration. He even stated: "I waive the statute of limitations. Charge me with rape!" (More on this, below.)
As George Orwell once said, "If someone drops a bomb on your mother, you drop two bombs on their mother." Someone tried to drop a bomb on Dershowitz, and he has responded accordingly.
The two attorneys that Dershowitz is targeting, Paul Cassell and Bradley Edwards, are also being aggressive: They filed a Defamation claim against Dershowitz.
Cassell and Edwards filed their case in State court. Dershowitz will try and remove the case to Federal court. If Dershowitz is successful, then Cassell and Edwards lose their home-cooking advantage.
As an attorney and as someone who likes to eat popcorn and watch two sides fight to the bitter end, I applaud both the aggressive nature of Dershowitz and Cassell/Edwards.
What troubles me about the Dershowitz denials comes from the article in the NationalReview.Com that was linked to in a Target Liberty post (http://www.targetliberty.com/
1. Dershowitz claims that he never had sex with the lady on Epstein's Caribbean Island.
2. Dershowitz claims that he never had sex with the lady in Epstein's New Mexico home.
3. Dershowitz claims that he never had sex with the lady on Epstein's plane.
4. Dershowitz claims that he never had sex with the lady in Epstein's New York home or Epstein's Palm Beach home.
The problems with Dershowitz' denials are:
1. The lady never claimed to have sex with Dershowitz on a Caribbean Island; it was the US Virgin Islands.
2. The lady never claimed to have sex with Dershowitz in Epstein's New Mexico home. She claims that the sex happened somewhere in New Mexico.
3. The lady said that she had sex with Dershowitz on private planes. She did not specify that the planes were owned by Epstein.
4. The lady claims that she had sex with Dershowitz somewhere in New York and Florida, not specifically Epstein's homes.
Why is this a big deal? Lawyers are paid to parse words. That's why some in the legal profession applauded Bill Clinton's: "It depends on what the meaning of "is" is." There are millions of dollars that have been lost because someone used the wrong word in a contract. In a Canadian case, one comma cost one of the legal parties over $800k. Small things mean a lot in the legal arena, and there are huge battles about what a word actually means.
Not recognizing that there is a difference between "Epstein's plane" and "private plane" is a big deal.
Dershowitz went to Yale Law School and he now teaches at Harvard Law School. He has a team of crack attorneys that work for him and around him. There are only two reasons that he made the above-mentioned mistakes:
1. He was sloppy. If Dershowitz and Team are this bad, then this should forever affect his reputation/their reputations. (It won't, but it should.) These are some major mistakes. At the very least, he should fire several people for this kind of incompetence.
2. He intentionally erected a straw-man so that he could knock it down. If Dershowitz did this, then we must ask, "Why?" Why didn't he deny the specific allegations? Why did he feel the need to lie about what the woman said just so that he could deny something that he knew was not true?
Finally, let me say something about his statement: "I waive the statute of limitations. Charge me with rape!" At first blush, I thought that this was a statement that was bold and powerful. But, maybe not.
The statute of limitations (SOL) is viewed differently in different jurisdictions. In some places, the SOL is an affirmative defense. In other words, the Defendant, in this case Dershowitz, would have to use the SOL in his trial as part of his defense. In these instances, if Dershowitz waived the SOL, his waiver would mean something.
Other jurisdictions, however, view the SOL as a Court-ordained protection. In these states, Dershowitz can say, "I waive the SOL" all he wants. It's not his privilege to waive. The prosecution cannot bring a case against the defendant after the SOL runs, regardless of what the defendant says.
I don't know where a rape charge might be filed against Dershowitz, so I have no idea about how that state views the SOL. But, Dershowitz' bold proclamations, while at first seeming strong and powerful, appear to be cracking just a little bit.
Regardless of what happens, heed the advice of Target Liberty: Get your popcorn ready.
Victor J. Ward is a long-time EPJ reader, who first came across libertarianism by reading Murray Rothbard's Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy and Walter Block's Defending the Undefendable
.. At first the writings of Rothbard and Block shocked him, but after thinking about it, he realized that Rothbard and Block were right.
Monday, December 29, 2014
A Warning to the Innocent Black Man: Beware Blowback's Blowback
By Victor J. Ward
EPJ published an article that was spot-on:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/12/domestic-blowback-two-nypd-coppers-down.html?m=1
The death of the two officers has caused me sadness for two reasons. First, although I have serious disagreement with the state and its actors and actions, I feel for the two officers that were killed and their families.
I need to constantly remind myself that many of the state actors are simply ignorant -- just as I was until a few short years ago. I did not appreciate Libertarianism for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that I had never heard of it as a political philosophy.
Most police officers don't understand the non-aggression principle. Most police officers have bought the lie that they exist to protect and serve. Most police officers believe that drug possession and drug use and drug sale are malum in se, not malum prohibitum.
As someone once said, "If a person is sincerely wrong, when confronted with the truth, they will either stop being wrong, or they will stop being sincere."
These police officers were sincerely wrong. Most people are sincerely wrong about liberty and freedom and Libertarianism. I have to remind myself to be more "gentle" as I try to help those I most affectionately refer to as "soft-headed."
The reason that I find it difficult to be patient and gentle is that when I do confront the "sincerely wrong" with the truth, I have found that they choose the path of insincerity rather than the path of truth. But, I must still practice patience and gentleness, for, out there somewhere, are people who really want to know the truth and will respond to it.
The other reason that the police officers' deaths sadden me is that it will lead to the death of more innocent people.
Police officers are usually called when violence is afoot or has just occurred. (The very reason that the Eric Garner situation was a tragedy was because the officers were (initially) present, but violence was not. Moreover, it was the police that introduced the violence.)
Therefore, police officers approach most situations thinking that they may need to use one of their many weapons. Said another way, the police have an itchy-trigger finger. This is because they are scared. I would be, too.
Now, unfortunately, the police are going to look at every person that approaches them as someone who may kill them. They are going to recognize that the person most likely to shoot them is someone from the Land of Urban Primitivism, because it is the urban primitives that are most likely to engage in Blowback.
The police officers, in an attempt to counter this Blowback, will have a Blowback of their own.
All people should have already been hesitant to contact the police. But now, especially for the innocent Black man, be careful how you approach those people in government service who are armed with guns. They don't trust you; therefore, you cannot trust them. If at all possible, avoid them at all costs.
Victor J. Ward is a long-time EPJ reader, who first came across libertarianism by reading Murray Rothbard's Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy and Walter Block's Defending the Undefendable.. At first the writings of Rothbard and Block shocked him, but after thinking about it, he realized that Rothbard and Block were right.
EPJ published an article that was spot-on:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/12/domestic-blowback-two-nypd-coppers-down.html?m=1
The death of the two officers has caused me sadness for two reasons. First, although I have serious disagreement with the state and its actors and actions, I feel for the two officers that were killed and their families.
I need to constantly remind myself that many of the state actors are simply ignorant -- just as I was until a few short years ago. I did not appreciate Libertarianism for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that I had never heard of it as a political philosophy.
Most police officers don't understand the non-aggression principle. Most police officers have bought the lie that they exist to protect and serve. Most police officers believe that drug possession and drug use and drug sale are malum in se, not malum prohibitum.
As someone once said, "If a person is sincerely wrong, when confronted with the truth, they will either stop being wrong, or they will stop being sincere."
These police officers were sincerely wrong. Most people are sincerely wrong about liberty and freedom and Libertarianism. I have to remind myself to be more "gentle" as I try to help those I most affectionately refer to as "soft-headed."
The reason that I find it difficult to be patient and gentle is that when I do confront the "sincerely wrong" with the truth, I have found that they choose the path of insincerity rather than the path of truth. But, I must still practice patience and gentleness, for, out there somewhere, are people who really want to know the truth and will respond to it.
The other reason that the police officers' deaths sadden me is that it will lead to the death of more innocent people.
Police officers are usually called when violence is afoot or has just occurred. (The very reason that the Eric Garner situation was a tragedy was because the officers were (initially) present, but violence was not. Moreover, it was the police that introduced the violence.)
Therefore, police officers approach most situations thinking that they may need to use one of their many weapons. Said another way, the police have an itchy-trigger finger. This is because they are scared. I would be, too.
Now, unfortunately, the police are going to look at every person that approaches them as someone who may kill them. They are going to recognize that the person most likely to shoot them is someone from the Land of Urban Primitivism, because it is the urban primitives that are most likely to engage in Blowback.
The police officers, in an attempt to counter this Blowback, will have a Blowback of their own.
All people should have already been hesitant to contact the police. But now, especially for the innocent Black man, be careful how you approach those people in government service who are armed with guns. They don't trust you; therefore, you cannot trust them. If at all possible, avoid them at all costs.
Victor J. Ward is a long-time EPJ reader, who first came across libertarianism by reading Murray Rothbard's Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy and Walter Block's Defending the Undefendable
.. At first the writings of Rothbard and Block shocked him, but after thinking about it, he realized that Rothbard and Block were right.
Monday, November 17, 2014
The Gospel According To Gruber
By Victor J. Ward
The truth is a wonderful thing. As Jesus once said, "The truth will set you free."
That's why I don't know why people care so much about the comments from MIT Economist Jonathan Gruber.
He said two things that seem to have gotten him into trouble:
1. The lack of transparency is a political advantage.
2. The typical American voter is stupid.
Both statements are 100% true.
Politicians routinely play the "hide the real agenda" card. And, if the real agenda needs to get out, the administration that is in power will release the partial truth on a Friday evening or on Christmas Eve or during some other moment when people are mesmerized by a shiny object.
The Obama administration has been masterful at creating a lack of transparency. But, they have been even more successful than other administrations because Obama painted himself as the most transparent president ever. This made people think that they were going to be one step ahead of the administration, but in fact, they were one step behind because of the administrations' duplicity. This means that the media and voters were and are actually two steps behind really understanding what this administration is doing and has done.
The lack of transparency has been a huge political advantage.
Gruber also insulted the average American voter and called them stupid. Is there any doubt that this is true? Either the voter has to admit that they don't know anything, or the voter has to admit that they are only a partisan hack that simply wants his/her team to win as if they were pulling for the San Francisco 49ers or Los Angeles Lakers.
Most people don't understand how Congress works. Most people don't understand the Federal Reserve. Most people don't know anything about executive orders. Most people don't understand that the United States is not supposed to be a democracy. Most people don't understand how welfare works. Most people don't understand the abuse of federal agencies and federal regulations. Most people don't understand taxes. Most people don't understand the difference between federal, state, and local governments.
Most voters don't know the difference between democrats and republicans. Or, better said, most voters don't know that there is no difference between democrats and republicans.
Gruber was simply saying what all politicians feel. Why else would politicians call taxes "revenue?" Why else would politicians use the vapid argument: "It's better to fight them over there than over here?" Why else would politicians blatantly lie to our face day after day? Just Google "Nancy Pelosi lie" or "Harry Reid lie" or "Mitch McConnell lie" or "George Bush lie."
Why would politicians like Jerry Brown, the Governor of California, say that wealthy people have "by whatever skill, disproportionately subtracted from the the wealth of the nation" and get away with that tripe?
As the old saying goes, "If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yells is the one that got hit."
Gruber threw the rock and the American voter howled.
Victor J. Ward first came across libertarianism by reading Murray Rothbard's Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy and Walter Block's Defending the Undefendable. He holds a law degree from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law and an MBA from Santa Clara University.
The truth is a wonderful thing. As Jesus once said, "The truth will set you free."
That's why I don't know why people care so much about the comments from MIT Economist Jonathan Gruber.
He said two things that seem to have gotten him into trouble:
1. The lack of transparency is a political advantage.
2. The typical American voter is stupid.
Both statements are 100% true.
Politicians routinely play the "hide the real agenda" card. And, if the real agenda needs to get out, the administration that is in power will release the partial truth on a Friday evening or on Christmas Eve or during some other moment when people are mesmerized by a shiny object.
The Obama administration has been masterful at creating a lack of transparency. But, they have been even more successful than other administrations because Obama painted himself as the most transparent president ever. This made people think that they were going to be one step ahead of the administration, but in fact, they were one step behind because of the administrations' duplicity. This means that the media and voters were and are actually two steps behind really understanding what this administration is doing and has done.
The lack of transparency has been a huge political advantage.
Gruber also insulted the average American voter and called them stupid. Is there any doubt that this is true? Either the voter has to admit that they don't know anything, or the voter has to admit that they are only a partisan hack that simply wants his/her team to win as if they were pulling for the San Francisco 49ers or Los Angeles Lakers.
Most people don't understand how Congress works. Most people don't understand the Federal Reserve. Most people don't know anything about executive orders. Most people don't understand that the United States is not supposed to be a democracy. Most people don't understand how welfare works. Most people don't understand the abuse of federal agencies and federal regulations. Most people don't understand taxes. Most people don't understand the difference between federal, state, and local governments.
Most voters don't know the difference between democrats and republicans. Or, better said, most voters don't know that there is no difference between democrats and republicans.
Gruber was simply saying what all politicians feel. Why else would politicians call taxes "revenue?" Why else would politicians use the vapid argument: "It's better to fight them over there than over here?" Why else would politicians blatantly lie to our face day after day? Just Google "Nancy Pelosi lie" or "Harry Reid lie" or "Mitch McConnell lie" or "George Bush lie."
Why would politicians like Jerry Brown, the Governor of California, say that wealthy people have "by whatever skill, disproportionately subtracted from the the wealth of the nation" and get away with that tripe?
As the old saying goes, "If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yells is the one that got hit."
Gruber threw the rock and the American voter howled.
Victor J. Ward first came across libertarianism by reading Murray Rothbard's Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy and Walter Block's Defending the Undefendable. He holds a law degree from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law and an MBA from Santa Clara University.
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
If You Are A Voting Loser (Like Me), Here Is How You Should Vote
By Victor J. Ward
I admit it, I am a Voting Loser. Maybe it's my roots as a statist, but I will actually cast a ballot on election day. Yes, I realize that my vote doesn't really count. Yes, I realize that I am participating in a state run charade. But, I still do it.
If you are a Voting Loser like me, and you live in the banana republic that is California, here is a voting guide for you.
First, if you are trying to decide whom to vote for, here is the definitive way of doing that: If the person is an incumbent, do not vote for them. You can either write-in someone's name, or you can select someone that says they are a business person/entrepreneur.
If you select a person just because they say that they are a business person, you might get a statist. (In fact, you probably will get a statist.) But, you are still better off than one of the demicans or republicrats getting re-elected.
If you don't know of a name to write-in, feel free to use my name: Victor Ward. I'm considering running for office one day, so, it would be great to get a couple of votes. You can use my name for everything: Governor, State Superintendent, whatever.
There are several judges up for election. How should you vote?
I admit it, I am a Voting Loser. Maybe it's my roots as a statist, but I will actually cast a ballot on election day. Yes, I realize that my vote doesn't really count. Yes, I realize that I am participating in a state run charade. But, I still do it.
If you are a Voting Loser like me, and you live in the banana republic that is California, here is a voting guide for you.
First, if you are trying to decide whom to vote for, here is the definitive way of doing that: If the person is an incumbent, do not vote for them. You can either write-in someone's name, or you can select someone that says they are a business person/entrepreneur.
If you select a person just because they say that they are a business person, you might get a statist. (In fact, you probably will get a statist.) But, you are still better off than one of the demicans or republicrats getting re-elected.
If you don't know of a name to write-in, feel free to use my name: Victor Ward. I'm considering running for office one day, so, it would be great to get a couple of votes. You can use my name for everything: Governor, State Superintendent, whatever.
There are several judges up for election. How should you vote?
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Confessions Of A Wheel Chair Nazi: How To Respond To The Police
By Victor J. Ward
Yes, it's true. I used to be a Wheel Chair Nazi -- WCN, for short.
Please let me tell you about WCNs: I am sure that you have heard of the Americans With Disabilities Act. In short, this law is supposed to produce Nirvana for those who have had the misfortune to have a physical disability. The ADA is under the larger legal umbrella of the Civil Rights Act.
The ADA encourages something called "private attorney general" actions. Typically, the United States Attorney General is tasked with prosecuting ADA violations. But, the ADA wants Jack and Jane -- you and me -- to look for businesses that violate the ADA and then file suit against those businesses.
Here's how it works:
Yes, it's true. I used to be a Wheel Chair Nazi -- WCN, for short.
Please let me tell you about WCNs: I am sure that you have heard of the Americans With Disabilities Act. In short, this law is supposed to produce Nirvana for those who have had the misfortune to have a physical disability. The ADA is under the larger legal umbrella of the Civil Rights Act.
The ADA encourages something called "private attorney general" actions. Typically, the United States Attorney General is tasked with prosecuting ADA violations. But, the ADA wants Jack and Jane -- you and me -- to look for businesses that violate the ADA and then file suit against those businesses.
Here's how it works:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)