Bottom Line Folks: Sarah Palin is a Man...

Stephen Colbert sets us straight on the official Palin position with the National Organization For Women (read: huge feminist organization). In classic manner, Colbert quickly punches NOW's argument out: All feminists are interested in equal rights for women. Discrimination against Palin is acceptable since she supports positions against women's rights. However, NOW clearly supports equal rights for ALL women (not just SOME women). But Palin's not interested in women's rights, she's not a feminist, and not interested in women. Thus, NOW is not interested in Palin. She is a woman though, but obviously she can't be interested in her own rights.

Colbert then brings his point to the fore, "Is Palin actually a woman then?"

Huh. Probably not.

NOW is probably just an organization for SOME women anyway. Okay... so it's not a clearly defined position for NOW, but hey, it's humorous. Sorry gals. Roll with it.

Wendy McElroy on "Financial Frugality"

Any time is a good time to learn to live more efficiently. Right now, in fact, is a perfect time. In a recent post by Wendy McElroy, she outlines the personal significance added to her through engaging in daily yoga practice. On the one hand, the time it takes to practice yoga is negligible considering the outweighing increase in health. It also provides an enjoyable way to occupy time, leaving less time for doing other things that take time and money, like purchases or other activities.

Bottom line then...follow Wendy's point: find something inexpensively and enjoyably healthy to do while learning to spend less!

I cite her article partially below:

"Perhaps I should return to the theme of frugality. For me frugality is a choice and a tool through which to gain control of my time and life. Simply stated: if I do not waste time making money to purchase things/activities I don't value as much as the time they represent, then I am better able to pursue what I do value -- e.g. writing, the people for whom I care, my health. I think frugality is fun; I find cooking from scratch to be relaxing; I'm proud of owning a car that's old enough to have its own driver's license; and, home-grown tomatoes just taste better. (One reason I embrace frugality, however, is that it is a choice for me and not a driving necessity. )

One of the most frugal things I do is yoga because it helps to preserve a key aspect of my life -- one that makes all other aspects possible: health. It is not merely that medical care is ruinously high. Putting my life in the hands of a "medical system" that is notorious for getting even simple things wrong -- like the proper dose of a drug -- does not appeal one whit to me. Moreover, yoga (or any health regime) has the same goal as other forms of frugality...it deepens the quality of my life. If it extends my life, as I believe it will, then it also gives me more time."

Read the full article here.

McCain's Miracle!

Recently an adviser of McCain's declared him as "having helped" create what we all know today as the Blackberry (or, as my husband has resentfully at times called my little device, and rightly so, a Crackberry). But c'mon folks. Clearly McCain has done no such "miracle" creation. Rather, the adviser was making a reference to McCain's prior voting stances on the telecom industry. In the article cited below, when confronted, the adviser ambiguously qualifies the Blackberry remark as true since McCain both facilitated in "regulating" and "deregulating" the tele-com industry. Real shocker here! Of course this makes complete sense!

Ah, politics is great, isn't it?

Check the full article out here.

First Time Homebuyer Credit – Will It Really Work?

Here is an interesting article from AccountantsWorld.com by Michael E. Mares, CPA/ABV, JD, on the new "first-time home buyer credit" that Congress recently passed. It is not your typical "credit," albeit first glance lends that impression. It is, in fact, an interest free loan that must be re-paid to the IRS ratably over a period of fifteen years.

If you know of anyone or perhaps fall under the eligibility requirements for this credit, please keep in mind this new so-called "credit" implemented to "jump-start" the economy will essentially prove complicated for good faith attempts at compliance later on with said law.


"Leave it to Congress to take a good idea and complicate it beyond all hope of salvation. That's pretty much what happened with the mis-named first-time homebuyer credit passed as part of the Housing Assistance Act of 2008.



The credit was supposedly designed to help jump start the housing market again, but whether it will be effective remains to be seen. While the credit applies to acquisitions of principal residences, some acquisitions are excluded – those acquired by gift, inheritance or a purchase from a related party.



Let's start with the basics. The credit is the lesser of $7,500 or 10% of the purchase price of the home ($3,750 for married taxpayers filing separately) and applies to home purchases after 4-8-08 and before 7-1-09.



For joint filers, each is deemed to receive 50% of the credit for recapture purposes. The credit is phased-out for taxpayers with modified AGI between $75,000 and $95,000 ($150,000 and $170,000 for joint filers). For unmarried taxpayers buying a house together, the maximum credit is $7,500. A bit of good news is that the credit is refundable and applicable against both the regular tax and alternative minimum tax.



That doesn't sound so complicated does it? Unfortunately, the credit is recaptured over a 15 year period. That's right, this "credit" is really just an interest free loan from the government to help middle-income taxpayers purchase a home. The "credit" must be repaid ratably over 15 years, and no interest is charged on the unpaid balance.



The recapture period begins in the second year following the purchase. Thus, the credit recipient's tax for each of the following 15 years is increased by $500, or 1/15th of the maximum credit claimed). If the home is sold before the end of the 15 year recapture period, the remainder of the credit is recaptured in the year of sale. However, any recapture is limited to the amount of gain on the sale. Thus, for example, a seller who has claimed the credit and subsequently sells at a loss, won't have any recapture in the year of sale, but will still have the credit recapture in years before the sale.



Recapture is also accelerated if the home ceases to be the principal residence of the taxpayer or spouse. Fortunately, the new law provides some exceptions to the accelerated recapture rules. For example:



1. There is no acceleration of recapture on death or because of an involuntary conversion.



2. There's no acceleration of recapture where the transfer is incidental to divorce. However, the transferee will be liable for any further recapture. The transferor will have no recapture liability.



The new law also contains an interesting twist. If a taxpayer purchases a residence after 12-31-08 and before 7-1-09, the taxpayer can elect to treat the purchase as if it were made on 12-31-08, thus claiming the credit in 2008. If the 2008 return has been filed, an amended return can be filed to claim the credit. It appears that if the other requirements are met, but the 2009 income exceeds the threshold, an election to treat the property as acquired in 2008 (assuming that modified AGI is less than the threshold in 2008) will permit use of the credit.



Since the new rules apply to a first-time homebuyer, defining that term is important. A first-time homebuyer is one who has not had an ownership interest in a principal residence during the three-year period ending on the date of the purchase of the residence for which the credit is to be claimed. If married, neither spouse can have had an ownership interest in a principal residence during the three-year period, which will create some problems in divorce-remarriage situations.



How is all of this ever going to be tracked? The law gives the IRS the authority to require increased reporting of home sales (there's currently an exception for principal residence sales of $250,000 or less ($500,000 where the seller is married) to make sure the recapture is made.



Is it worthwhile to claim the credit? It depends on the client's circumstances. However, the client should clearly understand that this "credit" is really just a loan that must be repaid to the government over 15 years. This credit is no free lunch."

Third Time's A Charm

Lately, I've been reading quite a bit on individualist anarchism and feminism, specifically focusing on the works of Wendy McElroy.

These readings have led me into the historical events behind third-wave feminism, which is essentially a cumulative critique of all the events and circumstances arising after 1848, or when the Seneca Falls Convention (SFC) took place. If you have some time, please amuse yourself with the "declaration of sentiments" pertaining to the SFC or wade casually through Eleanor Roosevelt's Presidential Commission on The Status of Women. They are both well worth the read - and created for the sole purpose of igniting thought. I'm delving into this stuff rigorously as I concurrently prepare to attend a week-long Austrian economics conference next summer. Yes, I said economics. Before giving me a weird look, know that I can tie the two topics together --and actually quite harmoniously.

This evening, however, I was more in the mood for prose. So after reading some McElroy, I decided to springboard off a few of her provocations. So here it is, I landed on this lovely little piece by early political activist and feminist Olive Schreiner (a favorite of Sara Elizabeth Holmes, also a notable feminist writer). Wow. Quite a discovery, I might add. It's quite lengthy for a blog post, however anything worthwhile I've ever read has been lengthy, so I won't apologize for that. Simply put, investments take time. In any case, I have posted it in its entirety since it is available freely online and without copyright restriction.

Be forewarned, those sensitive to the analysis of gender issues and embittered by the ill-too-often confused and highly unwarranted connotation associated with feminism should stop treading here immediately.

Um, can you handle it?

V.  THREE DREAMS IN A DESERT.

Under a Mimosa-Tree.

As I travelled across an African plain the sun shone down hotly.  Then I
drew my horse up under a mimosa-tree, and I took the saddle from him and
left him to feed among the parched bushes.  And all to right and to left
stretched the brown earth.  And I sat down under the tree, because the heat
beat fiercely, and all along the horizon the air throbbed.  And after a
while a heavy drowsiness came over me, and I laid my head down against my
saddle, and I fell asleep there.  And, in my sleep, I had a curious dream.

I thought I stood on the border of a great desert, and the sand blew about
everywhere.  And I thought I saw two great figures like beasts of burden of
the desert, and one lay upon the sand with its neck stretched out, and one
stood by it.  And I looked curiously at the one that lay upon the ground,
for it had a great burden on its back, and the sand was thick about it, so
that it seemed to have piled over it for centuries.

And I looked very curiously at it.  And there stood one beside me watching.
And I said to him, "What is this huge creature who lies here on the sand?"

And he said, "This is woman; she that bears men in her body."

And I said, "Why does she lie here motionless with the sand piled round
her?"

And he answered, "Listen, I will tell you!  Ages and ages long she has lain
here, and the wind has blown over her.  The oldest, oldest, oldest man
living has never seen her move:  the oldest, oldest book records that she
lay here then, as she lies here now, with the sand about her.  But listen!
Older than the oldest book, older than the oldest recorded memory of man,
on the Rocks of Language, on the hard-baked clay of Ancient Customs, now
crumbling to decay, are found the marks of her footsteps!  Side by side
with his who stands beside her you may trace them; and you know that she
who now lies there once wandered free over the rocks with him."

And I said, "Why does she lie there now?"

And he said, "I take it, ages ago the Age-of-dominion-of-muscular-force
found her, and when she stooped low to give suck to her young, and her back
was broad, he put his burden of subjection on to it, and tied it on with
the broad band of Inevitable Necessity.  Then she looked at the earth and
the sky, and knew there was no hope for her; and she lay down on the sand
with the burden she could not loosen.  Ever since she has lain here.  And
the ages have come, and the ages have gone, but the band of Inevitable
Necessity has not been cut."

And I looked and saw in her eyes the terrible patience of the centuries;
the ground was wet with her tears, and her nostrils blew up the sand.

And I said, "Has she ever tried to move?"

And he said, "Sometimes a limb has quivered.  But she is wise; she knows
she cannot rise with the burden on her."

And I said, "Why does not he who stands by her leave her and go on?"

And he said, "He cannot.  Look--"

And I saw a broad band passing along the ground from one to the other, and
it bound them together.

He said, "While she lies there he must stand and look across the desert."

And I said, "Does he know why he cannot move?"

And he said, "No."

And I heard a sound of something cracking, and I looked, and I saw the band
that bound the burden on to her back broken asunder; and the burden rolled
on to the ground.

And I said, "What is this?"

And he said, "The Age-of-muscular-force is dead.  The Age-of-nervous-force
has killed him with the knife he holds in his hand; and silently and
invisibly he has crept up to the woman, and with that knife of Mechanical
Invention he has cut the band that bound the burden to her back.  The
Inevitable Necessity it broken.  She might rise now."

And I saw that she still lay motionless on the sand, with her eyes open and
her neck stretched out.  And she seemed to look for something on the far-
off border of the desert that never came.  And I wondered if she were awake
or asleep.  And as I looked her body quivered, and a light came into her
eyes, like when a sunbeam breaks into a dark room.

I said, "What is it?"

He whispered "Hush! the thought has come to her, 'Might I not rise?'"

And I looked.  And she raised her head from the sand, and I saw the dent
where her neck had lain so long.  And she looked at the earth, and she
looked at the sky, and she looked at him who stood by her:  but he looked
out across the desert.

And I saw her body quiver; and she pressed her front knees to the earth,
and veins stood out; and I cried; "She is going to rise!"

But only her sides heaved, and she lay still where she was.

But her head she held up; she did not lay it down again.  And he beside me
said, "She is very weak.  See, her legs have been crushed under her so
long."

And I saw the creature struggle:  and the drops stood out on her.

And I said, "Surely he who stands beside her will help her?"

And he beside me answered, "He cannot help her:  she must help herself.
Let her struggle till she is strong."

And I cried, "At least he will not hinder her!  See, he moves farther from
her, and tightens the cord between them, and he drags her down."

And he answered, "He does not understand.  When she moves she draws the
band that binds them, and hurts him, and he moves farther from her.  The
day will come when he will understand, and will know what she is doing.
Let her once stagger on to her knees.  In that day he will stand close to
her, and look into her eyes with sympathy."

And she stretched her neck, and the drops fell from her.  And the creature
rose an inch from the earth and sank back.

And I cried, "Oh, she is too weak! she cannot walk!  The long years have
taken all her strength from her.  Can she never move?"

And he answered me, "See the light in her eyes!"

And slowly the creature staggered on to its knees.

And I awoke:  and all to the east and to the west stretched the barren
earth, with the dry bushes on it.  The ants ran up and down in the red
sand, and the heat beat fiercely.  I looked up through the thin branches of
the tree at the blue sky overhead.  I stretched myself, and I mused over
the dream I had had.  And I fell asleep again, with my head on my saddle.
And in the fierce heat I had another dream.

I saw a desert and I saw a woman coming out of it.  And she came to the
bank of a dark river; and the bank was steep and high.  (The banks of an
African river are sometimes a hundred feet high, and consist of deep
shifting sands, through which in the course of ages the river has worn its
gigantic bed.)  And on it an old man met her, who had a long white beard;
and a stick that curled was in his hand, and on it was written Reason.  And
he asked her what she wanted; and she said "I am woman; and I am seeking
for the land of Freedom."

And he said, "It is before you."

And she said, "I see nothing before me but a dark flowing river, and a bank
steep and high, and cuttings here and there with heavy sand in them."

And he said, "And beyond that?"

She said, "I see nothing, but sometimes, when I shade my eyes with my hand,
I think I see on the further bank trees and hills, and the sun shining on
them!"

He said, "That is the Land of Freedom."

She said, "How am I to get there?"

He said, "There is one way, and one only.  Down the banks of Labour,
through the water of Suffering.  There is no other."

She said, "Is there no bridge?"

He answered.  "None."

She said, "Is the water deep?"

He said, "Deep."

She said, "Is the floor worn?"

He said, "It is.  Your foot may slip at any time, and you may be lost."

She said, "Have any crossed already?"

He said, "Some have tried!"

She said, "Is there a track to show where the best fording is?"

He said, "It has to be made."

She shaded her eyes with her hand; and she said, "I will go."

And he said, "You must take off the clothes you wore in the desert:  they
are dragged down by them who go into the water so clothed."

And she threw from her gladly the mantle of Ancient-received-opinions she
wore, for it was worn full of holes.  And she took the girdle from her
waist that she had treasured so long, and the moths flew out of it in a
cloud.  And he said, "Take the shoes of dependence off your feet."

And she stood there naked, but for one white garment that clung close to
her.

And he said, "That you may keep.  So they wear clothes in the Land of
Freedom.  In the water it buoys; it always swims."

And I saw on its breast was written Truth; and it was white; the sun had
not often shone on it; the other clothes had covered it up.  And he said,
"Take this stick; hold it fast.  In that day when it slips from your hand
you are lost.  Put it down before you; feel your way:  where it cannot find
a bottom do not set your foot."

And she said, "I am ready; let me go."

And he said, "No--but stay; what is that--in your breast?"

She was silent.

He said, "Open it, and let me see."

And she opened it.  And against her breast was a tiny thing, who drank from
it, and the yellow curls above his forehead pressed against it; and his
knees were drawn up to her, and he held her breast fast with his hands.

And Reason said, "Who is he, and what is he doing here?"

And she said, "See his little wings--"

And Reason said, "Put him down."

And she said, "He is asleep, and he is drinking!  I will carry him to the
Land of Freedom.  He has been a child so long, so long, I have carried him.
In the Land of Freedom he will be a man.  We will walk together there, and
his great white wings will overshadow me.  He has lisped one word only to
me in the desert--'Passion!'  I have dreamed he might learn to say
'Friendship' in that land."

And Reason said, "Put him down!"

And she said, "I will carry him so--with one arm, and with the other I will
fight the water."

He said, "Lay him down on the ground.  When you are in the water you will
forget to fight, you will think only of him.  Lay him down."  He said, "He
will not die.  When he finds you have left him alone he will open his wings
and fly.  He will be in the Land of Freedom before you.  Those who reach
the Land of Freedom, the first hand they see stretching down the bank to
help them shall be Love's.  He will be a man then, not a child.  In your
breast he cannot thrive; put him down that he may grow."

And she took her bosom from his mouth, and he bit her, so that the blood
ran down on to the ground.  And she laid him down on the earth; and she
covered her wound.  And she bent and stroked his wings.  And I saw the hair
on her forehead turned white as snow, and she had changed from youth to
age.

And she stood far off on the bank of the river.  And she said, "For what do
I go to this far land which no one has ever reached?  Oh, I am alone!  I am
utterly alone!"

And Reason, that old man, said to her, "Silence!  What do you hear?"

And she listened intently, and she said, "I hear a sound of feet, a
thousand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands, and they beat this
way!"

He said, "They are the feet of those that shall follow you.  Lead on! make
a track to the water's edge!  Where you stand now, the ground will be
beaten flat by ten thousand times ten thousand feet."  And he said, "Have
you seen the locusts how they cross a stream?  First one comes down to the
water-edge, and it is swept away, and then another comes and then another,
and then another, and at last with their bodies piled up a bridge is built
and the rest pass over."

She said, "And, of those that come first, some are swept away, and are
heard of no more; their bodies do not even build the bridge?"

"And are swept away, and are heard of no more--and what of that?" he said.

"And what of that--" she said.

"They make a track to the water's edge."

"They make a track to the water's edge--."  And she said, "Over that bridge
which shall be built with our bodies, who will pass?"

He said, "The entire human race."

And the woman grasped her staff.

And I saw her turn down that dark path to the river.

And I awoke; and all about me was the yellow afternoon light:  the sinking
sun lit up the fingers of the milk bushes; and my horse stood by me quietly
feeding.  And I turned on my side, and I watched the ants run by thousands
in the red sand.  I thought I would go on my way now--the afternoon was
cooler.  Then a drowsiness crept over me again, and I laid back my head and
fell asleep.

And I dreamed a dream.

I dreamed I saw a land.  And on the hills walked brave women and brave men,
hand in hand.  And they looked into each other's eyes, and they were not
afraid.

And I saw the women also hold each other's hands.

And I said to him beside me, "What place is this?"

And he said, "This is heaven."

And I said, "Where is it?"

And he answered, "On earth."

And I said, "When shall these things be?"

And he answered, "IN THE FUTURE."

And I awoke, and all about me was the sunset light; and on the low hills
the sun lay, and a delicious coolness had crept over everything; and the
ants were going slowly home.  And I walked towards my horse, who stood
quietly feeding.  Then the sun passed down behind the hills; but I knew
that the next day he would arise again.

Ah, what an enjoyable piece of prose!!!

Ron Paul Doesn't Need A Nanny

In a recent interview with Ron Paul, he answers the question as to why his supporters show such fervor for his candidacy -- it's essentially because his ideas are based on a solid foundation in Austrian Economics. Here's what he says about these supporters (and rightly so) :

"I think they're sick and tired of what they're getting. They've lost all trust and faith in the government. They believe in the American Dream, and they're getting a nightmare. And they're rallying behind the program I've been working on for 30 years—defending the Constitution, limited government, free markets, sound money, and self-reliance; believing people can take care of themselves better than government can. The nanny state doesn't work, the police state doesn't work, and neither does the warfare. And they know it. "

Read the entire article from BusinessWeek here.

Mark Your Calendars: Tax Freedom Day Is Coming Up!

Check this out:

April 30 is the day that Americans can stop working to pay the taxman and start working for themselves, according to the Tax Foundation's annual estimate dubbed "Tax freedom day."

Tax freedom day is theoretical because it assumes we've been working 7 days a week since the start of the year, and that we don't spend anything we make. The 120 days from Jan. 1 through April 30 represents the time it will take the nation as a whole to earn enough to pay off all of the taxes that will be levied against us this year.

Breaking that 120 days down, the Tax Foundation estimates it will take:

• 43 days of work to pay off federal, state and local income taxes
• 30 days to pay off payroll taxes (for Social Security and Medicare)
• 16 days to pay off sales and excise taxes
• 14 days to pay off corporate income taxes (This assumes that a tax on a business is passed on to its customers, employees and shareholders in terms of higher prices, lower paychecks and less shareholder value.)
• 12 days to pay off property taxes
• 4 days to pay off other taxes (e.g., customs duties)
• 1 day to pay off estate and gift taxes

Based on an 8-hour workday, the research group estimates that Americans as a whole work:

• 1 hour 43 minutes to pay all federal taxes (income, sales, etc.)
• 1 hour 22 minutes to pay for housing and household operations
• 1 hour 8 minutes to pay for health and medical care
• 52 minutes to pay all state and local taxes (income, sales, etc.)
• 51 minutes to pay "other" taxes
• 40 minutes to pay for food
• 39 minutes to pay for transportation
• 28 minutes to pay for recreation
• 17 minutes to pay for clothing

Way to go Tax Foundation, filling our heads with POSITIVE info for our work ethic. Get the whole article here (although I pretty much just quoted it all, word-for-word ;-)

Some "Big Sister" Ideas...

Celebrate Today's Day, Time, and Government Regulation!

Don't let it bother you that Arizona, Hawaii, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, among others, are left out of the fuss. It's only good we are prodded to awake an hour earlier-- required to change our schedules accordingly OR ELSE-- all for the sake of light shifting!

A bright concept really, because we enjoy light.

Don't be confused, our leaders know what's best. Obviously, Bush's Energy Policy Act of 2005 knows what we want SO WELL that it requires us to enjoy this "loss of hour" phenomenon in 2007 almost a WHOLE MONTH earlier than previous years. But it's OKAY this change will be open to being CHANGED again at whim once the policy's studies are complete.

Don't blink twice, the government isn't rubbing their eyes. After all, their snooze button isn't funded with OUR money. In fact, they know we're not really saving anything...it's modifying and they will gladly tell us how to do it. In case you didn't know, precisely, last night time didn't fleet away on the strike of Monday morning. No, no, it was only at 2am that time really became what it is NOW in all its brightness. Oh, and don't forget each of the five time zones must change their time at different times because that's "practical and minimizes disruption." The 2am rule also means we know our day will never suddenly become yesterday since that would be SO CLEAR in our minds. Nevermind the European Union thinks it's cool in contrast to change all time at THE SAME TIME.

Lastly, get your terminology straight. When it comes to "Daylight Saving Time" don't be caught on the streets saying "savings" with an 'S'. It's widely known that Daylight Saving's Time with an 'S' is politically inferior even though it kind of flows better than what we should be calling it.

Finally, remember this: there is nothing less exciting than knowing it's all up to the government anyway.

subtle, yet explicit enough for my tastes ;-)

Make sure to check out those tiny faces of Iraqi soldiers in the pic!

On Liberalism & Tolerance

In asserting a pluralism of existing viewpoints, it seems that unavoidable conflicting possibilities may arise without some sort of check and balance.

Consider this idea: Should the tolerant tolerate the intolerant? Better yet, if the idea of freedom is threatened for all on the basis of someone or some group’s “hard principles” (i.e., individuals that represent those who are intolerant or unwilling to compromise on some issue, whether it be politics, religion, morality, etc..etc..) shouldn’t those committed to freedom step in and defend this notion (to maintain liberty for all)? But wouldn’t this make the “freedom-fighters” intolerant in a sort of round-about way as well (i.e., that nothing less should be accepted than their notion of liberty)?

I am tending to lean on a pragmatist humanist response that the only way to prevent such atrocities would be through a type of persuasive “coercion” – that is, my viewpoint is that only through successful reasoning and argumentation will the most plausible conclusion be arrived at. One can rest assured, if this method is in place, a solid conclusion will be arrived at. Any other method inevitably leaves the possibility of authoritarianism, or otherwise unverifiable claims which are, I believe, grounded in nothing less than fear and insecurity.

“So step up, and argue” – nothing less should be tolerated. Getting everyone to this point, however, calls for an argument in its own right.

Methodological Individualism

Assert individualism as correct. That society is a mere label applied in social situations to account for an entity that has no rights in itself. Rather, the individuals carry the rights and responsibilities in their actions. They alone are the arbiters of their productive and worthwhile futures based on the choices they make. How then are members of the family unit treated? Are children treated as property until a certain age? Or are they immediately treated as individuals capable of their own decisions? Or does this only happen at a certain period (varying from individual from individual) when that person learns to think for him or herself?

If children are viewed as property until a certain age before they become rationally acting beings, wouldn’t abortion be permissible up until that point? How would libertarian justify this either way? If a pro-life advocate wanted to defend abortion, wouldn’t they merely say that they had self-ownership of her own body and that any violation of this would be aggression against her freedoms of self, assuming that the fetus within her is merely property until becoming a rational being in itself with the rights of self-ownership. If that is not the case and both beings are entities with self-ownership abilities how would one even attempt to make a case for or against abortion?

Public Space

Assume that one has the right to ownership of him or herself—that one’s thoughts, beliefs, and actions belong to oneself. Then, if one has ownership of his or her thoughts actions and beliefs, and the application of these things also consist in the labor of one’s thoughts and actions into a product that can be economically exchanged in the market. Further, that this created product is also owned by the person that acted to create it. If all things are construed in this way in the market, and products may be applied also to intangible things (i.e., as described in property law) such as land, how is it that there may be public space at all if we needed one? When would we ever venture outside of our property—wouldn’t we get bored if there weren’t things to enjoy publicly? Wouldn’t there be the possibility that we’d be confined to our own space and that there wouldn’t be any thing at all such as a public space (i.e., parks, unclaimed oceans, resources). But if we decided there were such things we needed as the maintenance of public space, who would take care of it?

On Non-Coercion

If anything within the scope of non-coercion is permissible, under what circumstances are social relations established and maintained? That is, what would motivate one to engage in a social contract? Or is it merely assumed (i.e., through competitive advantage) that one would benefit more through engaging in forms of exchange? Also, when a contract is broken wouldn’t this be considered a violation to the violated party’s liberty? How would the justice be served in a libertarian society (i.e., would it be confined to methods such as arbitration, or would there be other options available)?

State of Nature

Assume humans in a “state of nature” naturally commit bad acts because this would be the worst case scenario (i.e., violence runs rampant, forceful action, sexual violence, and theft are common). We then emerge from this “state of nature” with the knowledge that we have a right to self-ownership, and ownership of our labor or property (assume this is as we are today, although these values have become somewhat convoluted). And the “state” was eventually created in order to keep us from anarchy. However, in a “perfect libertarian” society, the state does not exist at all.

If the government or the “state” is problematic (even in the limited sense), how are we to prevent another state of anarchy? Shouldn’t we assume the worst case scenario that it’s possible this could happen? And, wouldn’t this also be awful if it happened? That is, how do we “know” that in a “perfect libertarian society” that human nature will assume a rational/cooperative stance (i.e., adhere to the axiom implied with non-aggression, and a rational belief in natural rights)?

Ambient Chaos

Where are all of my bats (i.e., chiropterans) when I need them?

Echolocation capabilities would be nice right about now.

Edit: This clearly has to do with how much I'd rather be contending with Rothbard's "For a New Liberty" than studying for mid-terms right now. Fleghhh.... oppression of the ivory tower consumes me!!! Let freedom be had!

Aiming For Consistency?

Probably not.

That's why Pelosi thinks global warming prevention has something to do with requesting a larger VIP aircraft.

I'm confused.

V for Vendetta: Revisited

"Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V."


*Sigh.* Oh the Verbiage!!!

Peter Brookes