About This Blog

Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) was the greatest economist of my time. His greatest works can be accessed here at no charge.

Mises believed that property, freedom and peace are and should be the hallmarks of a satisfying and prosperous society. I agree. Mises proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the prospect for general and individual prosperity is maximized, indeed, is only possible, if the principle of private property reigns supreme. What's yours is yours. What's mine is mine. When the line between yours and mine is smudged, the door to conflict opens. Without freedom (individual liberty of action) the principle of private property is neutered and the free market, which is the child of property and freedom and the mother of prosperity and satisfaction, cannot exist. Peace is the goal of a prosperous and satisfying society of free individuals, not peace which is purchased by submission to the enemies of property and freedom, but peace which results from the unyielding defense of these principles against all who challenge them.

In this blog I measure American society against the metrics of property, freedom and peace.

Thursday, June 7, 2012

Odds And Ends

As a followup to my post "No Soup For You!" ...We've all heard of Mayor Bloomberg's outrageous attempt to ban "sugary" drinks larger than 16 ounces in New York City eateries. But have you heard that California "government health officials have begun tracking down the names and addresses of natural-foods customers and showing up at their homes, demanding to confiscate any raw milk they might have...?" The same article reminds us that in recent weeks a Wisconsin judge ruled that "owners of cows have no right to the milk their herds produce."

What motivates an individual to endorse politicians who engage in such lunacy? Why would anyone advocate ceding his individual liberty to the collective? My dairy farmer uncle, whose family was raised on raw milk, is rolling over in his grave!

Speaking of nonsense, as we all know, Maximum Leader Obama has just endorsed the concept of "same sex marriage," having been backed into a corner by Vice President's Biden's endorsement of the same concept.

For literally centuries marriage has been defined as a cultural institution or a contractual union between members of the opposite sex. Now, gays and lesbians want us to believe that the institution of marriage also refers to members of the same sex. This is a corruption of the language.

For the record, I believe the government should keep its slimy nose out of the marriage business entirely. Individuals should be free to be united with who or what they want. Society and culture can deal with the issue. Parasitic politicians should mind their own business.

That said, marriage should always and only refer to the union of a man and a woman in wedlock. Why? Because that's how the word is defined. That's what the word means. Any attempt to corrupt the meaning of the word by stretching its definition seems a blatant attempt to extort the historical cache of respectability and legitimacy the word marriage has always had. Moral confusion might also be a motive.

Words have meaning. The more we corrupt their meaning, the harder it becomes to communicate. For instance, we all know that a mule is a cross between a horse and a donkey. What purpose would it serve to begin referring to a mule as a cross between a horse and another horse? Or a donkey and another donkey?

Similarly, water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. Would it make sense to speak of "same element" water?

The new socialist Maximum Leader of France has decided to pull all French troops out of Afghanistan by the end of this year. ...Maximum Leader Obama has decided to pull American troops out of Afghanistan by 2014. Meanwhile, last month 36 US troops were killed in Afghanistan. Out of a total of 1,881 US troops killed in Afghanistan since the war began, 124 have been killed this year.

For what?

How does French President Hollande justify the death of a single French soldier killed between now and the end of the year? How will President Obama explain the deaths of American troops killed between now and 2014 to the families of these troops? They died for what? What exactly can be accomplished in the next year and a half that was impossible to accomplish in the last eleven years? Will the Afghan military be any more ready to defend itself? What are our good men dying for? Peace with honor?

What absolute nonsense! We've heard it all before...in Korea...in Vietnam...in Iraq...and now in Afghanistan. Bring our boys home now!

No comments: