Yaron Brook at his best

Republican Party of Virginia 2009 State Convention—Keynote Address — ARCTV

FT.com- Judge defends US code of commerce

130-megapixel monster

Bouncing Red Ball » "Japanese camera buff builds 130-megapixel scanner camera for next to nothing. The images are huge: 13,068 x 10,173 pixels. (The standard resolution of an average sized computer monitor is about 1024 x 768 pixels.)"
(via Popular Science)

Check this image on Flickr. He's got me thinking about doing something with my old scanner. Now I just have to find a serial port cable.

Bullion and Bandits

Bullion and Bandits: The Improbable Rise and Fall of E-Gold
E-Gold founder Doug Jackson wanted to solve the world's economic woes, but got an electronic ankle bracelet for his troubles. That's what you get for trying to “advance the material welfare of mankind.” Highly recommended.

Conservatives and liberals- Are they any different?

In my last post "Conservatism- Intellectual backbone wanted" I wrongly assumed that Conservatism could be backed by an intellectual backbone. In his comment on the same post Burgess Laughlin said:

Conservatism, by definition, opposes capitalism. Conservat-ISM is an ideology, the ideology that holds four values as its guide: God (or religion generally), Tradition, Nation, and Family (as in "family values"). Philosophically these values mean supernaturalism, mysticism, and altruism. The step from those to statism is very short -- and it usually involves the nationalistic sort of statism.

Today I read an article "Are you a conservative or a liberal? by Linn and Ari Armstrong which addresses the issue of what exactly do conservative and liberal tags actually mean. They define both as:

What does it mean to be a conservative? Many of the same conservatives who claim to support free markets and liberty also endorse economic protectionism, censorship, welfare spending, corporate welfare, immigration restrictions, prohibitions of various substances and activities that violate nobody's rights, abortion bans, and so on.

Liberalism, one might think, has something to do with liberty. Yet today's liberals endorse political economic planning on a vast scale. They typically want to forcibly redistribute more wealth, impose controls on private property, and impose more “enlightened” forms of censorship.

Many of today's conservatives and liberals find common cause in the belief that politicians should largely control your life.

The above description renders the tags meaningless as they both lead to the same thing- a mixed Government. Armstrong's also mention Thomas Paine's discussions with Edmund Burke in his "Rights of Man" where Paine defines mixed government as:

A mixed government is an imperfect everything, cementing and soldering the discordant parts together by corruption, to act as a whole. In the mixed Government there is no responsibility: the parts cover each other till responsibility is lost; and the corruption then moves the machine, contrives at the same time its own escape.

Paine goes on to offer the alternative.

But in a well-constituted republic, nothing of this soldering, praising, and pitying, can take place; the representation being equal throughout the country, and complete in itself, however it maybe into legislative ans executive, they all have one and the same natural source. The parts are not foreigners to each other, like democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. As there are no discordant distinctions, there is nothing to corrupt by compromise, nor confound by contrivance.

In the end nobody says it better than Ayn Rand who is quoted by the authors as saying:

“The basic and crucial political issue of our age is: capitalism versus socialism, or freedom versus statism. For decades, this issue has been silenced, suppressed, evaded, and hidden under the foggy, undefined rubber-terms of ‘conservatism' and ‘liberalism' which had lost their original meaning and could be stretched to mean all things to all men.”

Conservatism- Intellectual backbone wanted

This article on American Chronicle "William F. Buckley vs. Ayn Rand: Ayn Rand's Revenge" highlights the reasons for demise of conservatives in last 50 years. It shows William F. Buckley Jr.´s antipathy towards Rand and her idea's.

"The important point here involves Buckley, but it involves a lot more. The issue with Buckley is that he truly had nothing to contribute intellectually. And when faced with a true intellectual like Rand, all he could do was guttersnipe. Yet the wider point pertains to conservatism today. Until it begins to intellectually justify itself in a logical way, conservatism will remain lost, and statism will continue its march. Rand provided the intellectual justification for capitalism and liberty and she did so by reference to the fundamental metaphysical facts of reality and human existence. She did not appeal to tradition or the supernatural. She appealed to the rational. And the public has been responding to her ever since."

I think the above argument is equally applicable to a lot of conservative parties around the world. Here in India the BJP which tasted heavy defeat is floundering after a second consecutive defeat by the leftist Congress party. It's vacillation in defining itself as a religious right or a more forward looking free-market one has cost it dear. Although BJP did well during it's tenure, it is this failure to define it's identity in clear and precise terms which today has left it virtually rudderless.

Immigration and Individual Rights

One of the best articles I have read on TOS is "Immigration and Individual Rights" by Craig Biddle. I have a special interest in this issue as I plan to immigrate to America one day. Craig says in this article:

Every year, millions of people seek to immigrate to the United States, and with good reason: Opportunities to improve their lives abound here. Immigrants and would-be immigrants want to pursue the American dream. Whether or not they would put it in these terms, they want to be free to think and act on their best judgment; they want to produce wealth and keep and use it as they see fit; they want to make better lives for themselves and their families. In other words, foreigners want to come to America for the same reason the Founding Fathers established this republic: They want lives of liberty and happiness.

Immigration is the act of moving to a country with the intention of remaining there. Morally speaking, if a person rationally judges that immigrating to America would be good for his life, he should immigrate; a rational morality holds that one should always act on one’s best judgment. But does a foreigner have a right to move to America? And should America welcome him? Yes, he does—and yes, she should. Recognition of these facts was part and parcel of this country’s founding.

The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations And Religions; whom we shall wellcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.

Unfortunately this pro-immigration attitude, expressed by George Washington in 1783, has all but vanished from American politics. Indeed, the policies of America—the republic built by and for immigrants—have become hostile to immigrants.

People today in most countries who even want to visit are interrogated at the embassies during the interview with suspicion. When they ask if you intend to settle in U.S. and if you hesitate even for a second, you can wave your tourist visa goodbye. Craig goes on to mention some brilliant American immigrants like Ayn rand, Issac Asimov and a lot others who would have been denied entry under today's laws and how immigration to the land of liberty is now largely prohibited by American law. He goes on to say:

This prohibition, however, is un-American and immoral. The basic principle of America—the principle of individual rights—demands a policy of open immigration.
Open immigration does not mean that anyone may enter the country at any location or in any manner he chooses; it is not unchecked or unmonitored immigration. Nor does it mean that anyone who immigrates to America should be eligible for U.S. citizenship—the proper requirements of which are a separate matter. Open immigration means that anyone is free to enter and reside in America—providing that he enters at a designated checkpoint and passes an objective screening process, the purpose of which is to keep out criminals, enemies of America, and people with certain kinds of contagious diseases.2 Such a policy is not only politically right; it is morally right.

He further explains at length why it is moral and that to prohibit a person from immigrating to the U.S. is to violate his right to act on his judgment; it is to retard his ability to live a life proper to man; it is to commit a moral crime. I almost got up and applauded when I read this. He then explains the invalidity of the arguments against open immigration one point at a time. They include protection of culture, crime, jobs, welfare, terrorism, and more. One of the more controversial issue's he discusses is the solution to the problem of the estimated 12 million “illegal” immigrants currently residing in the America. His solution is:

In light of the immoral and illegitimate law they “broke” by moving to (or remaining in) America—and in light of the suffering they have endured by being labeled “illegal” (e.g., having to live in the shadows, not being able to market their goods or services openly, not being able to use banks or credit cards, etc.)—the solution to the problem of so-called “illegals” is to grant them unconditional amnesty and a presidential apology. Just as the principle of individual rights mandates open immigration, so too it mandates amnesty for those whose moral actions were made “criminal” by immoral laws. (“Amnesty” is really the wrong word, as one logically should not have to be “pardoned” for having acted morally, but there is no accurate word for what has been necessitated by our irrational immigration policy.)

Some argue that granting amnesty to “illegal” immigrants would make a mockery of the rule of law and that “illegals” broke our laws and should be held accountable for having done so. On the contrary, what mocks the rule of law is the existence and attempted enforcement of anti-immigration laws...

Upholding the rule of law does not mean upholding whatever laws happen to be on the books. Should the citizens of Nazi Germany have turned Jews over to the Gestapo? Nazi law dictated that they must. Would the refusal to obey that law have been a mockery of the rule of law?

Upholding the rule of law does not mean enforcing illegitimate laws; it means establishing and maintaining a government and legal system based on the objective social requirements of human life—namely: the recognition and protection of individual rights. Laws that violate individual rights are illegitimate laws, and such laws morally must be repealed.

He ends this article by offering a five-point plan to achieve a rights-respecting and thus moral immigration policy for the U.S. which as he says," will require substantial time, effort, and intellectual activism, but there is no shortcut; these are the actions necessary to solve the misnamed “immigration problem,” which is, in fact, a problem of too few Americans recognizing, embracing, and upholding the basic principle on which America was founded."

Bailing out a generation

I was reading a popsci article about Dean Kamen who till now I knew as the inventor of the two-wheeled Segway human-transportation device, the much hyped transporter. It was codenamed Ginger and the founder of 3Com, the high-tech wireless company, said, quote, "It'll be bigger than the Internet." Well! it wasn't, but Kamen is still one of the most prolific inventors around and this is what he had to say about the bailouts back in January:

"You can bail out the banks by printing money, but you can't bail out a generation of dumb people by printing diplomas. Although I personally think printing more money is about as dumb as printing diplomas."

He has even been quoted by the greatest living advocate of printing money, the Keynesian economist Thomas Freidman in NYT.

D-Day Tech

Archive Gallery: D-Day Tech Popular Science: "On the 65th anniversary of the invasion of Normandy, a look at the military tech of D-Day, as covered in our pages"

(via Instapundit)

A Few Words From the Supreme Commander

The Dougout: "Reading history makes me nostalgic for a "better, vanished time" when America was led by men. That is men and women who did not evade facts. Who did not denigrate America, and its people, at every opportunity, including D-Day speeches on Omaha Beach. Who did not chronically apologize for the nation's existence. Who did not give the benefit of the every doubt (and laptop computers) to the nation's sworn enemies."

Sotomayor and Thomas- will reason win the race?

The Malaysian Insider highlights the difference between the two judges Judge Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Clarence Thomas. If Sotomayor wins the nomination she will be only second minority judge. This is where the similarity ends. Sotomayor reveled in her racial identity and used it to describe why she would be better then a white man in coming to a better decision. Thomas regretted mentioning his race on his Yale application and tried to escape the stigmatising effects of racial preference as he describes it in his autobiography.

Supreme Court is the ultimate yardstick of justice and how badly will it be damaged by Sotomayors blatant racism is yet to be seen. However it is a foregone conclusion that by the end of Obama's term the damage caused to America as a nation will take a long time to repair.

Drive thru truth

I'll just post the picture of this Memphis-area Burger King franchisee’s. For the reactions around the world to the fur our this sacrilege (global warming is the new religion you know) has caused read about it on Tim Blair Blog.


(Pic via the Memphis Flyer)

I'll just quote J.J. McNelis, marketing president of the company running the Burger King franchise, who said:
"If someone wants to stand up and say “Global Warming is Baloney”, then I’m all for it. It doesn’t matter to me, whether I believe in it or not. They have first amendment rights to say whatever’s on their mind. And nobody dictates otherwise."

Taser, With Love

Simple Justice: Taser, With Love From Niagara Falls (Update)
"When the Niagara Falls police put their heads together and decided that tasing a guy was the best idea for collecting a DNA sample, I "tsked". That, apparently, is why I'm not sitting on the big bench, like Niagara County Judge Sara Sheldon Sperrazza. I lack her imagination. From the Buffalo News:

It is legally permissible for police to zap a suspect with a Taser to obtain a DNA sample, as long as it’s not done “maliciously, or to an excessive extent, or with resulting injury,” a county judge has ruled in the first case of its kind in New York State, and possibly the nation.

Not to nitpick, but does that mean the intentional infliction of pain in order to obtain compliance with an ex parte order is fine as long as it's done lovingly? Must they cradle the taser in their warm and caring hands before they fire? Just asking."
(via The Volokh Conspiracy )

Spreading the piracy

Are we going to hear the old pirate song (Yo-ho-ho and a bottle of rum!) in many different languages? It's possible if the problem spreads. Strategypage makes an interesting point that the wildly reported success (more than $50 million ransom) has the potential to encourage piracy and outright thefts from the ships worldwide. It is already costing shipping industry (besides costing the affected countries-see graphic) more in hiring specializes security firms, in training their people, and proving non-lethal equipment to fend-off pirates. For now it is limited to the select routes which bypass Somalia but if the problem spreads then the costs could rapidly escalate.

Read ARI's solution for ending the pirate crisis. I quote from the article:

“When America has once again earned a reputation as a power that none dare cross,” Mr. Journo concluded, “we won’t have to worry about pirates.”

Well! if America earns that reputation then we won't have to worry about a lot of other villains (Islamic terrorists, Iran, North Korea) as well.

Erosophia: Objectivist Blog Carnival

The Strange History of Shorts - WSJ Magazine

Beyond modern nation states - The China Post

Sometimes you find interesting stuff in the unlikeliest of places. Taiwan's leading English-language newspaper The China Post has this nice editorial extolling the virtues of constitutional republicanism. The article "Beyond modern nation states" states:

The modern nation state is the instigator and perpetuator of the war of all against all because it is a perpetrator of injustice. It is a perpetrator of injustice because it “robs Peter to pay Paul.” It robs Peter to pay Paul because it is endeavoring to re-engineer society. It is endeavoring to re-engineer society because it has exceeded its original charter, which was merely to defend against aggression.

Does this sound familiar in times of Obamanomics? In fact it is true of almost all countries today and with our Obama the Robin Hood the long crumbling bastion of Republicanism seems to have fallen. The Post goes on to blast the "free and fair elections" as an excuse for all excesses.

Champions of democracy believe the modern nation state is well within its rights to coerce individuals, as long as it performs certain rituals as “free and fair” elections, plebiscites, and referenda.

It advocates repudiating democracy and reaffirming constitutional republicanism to counter the power that makes the modern nation state a constant threat to all its citizens.

The Top 8 ‘Oh Shit!’ Moments from Mixed Martial Arts

I actually said ‘Oh Shit!’ while simultaneously laughing at the hilarious and most entertaining writing (warning-colorful language). This one is a must read even if you are not a fight fan.

Michael Bay: Making Movies, Enemies and Money - Forbes.com

Tiananmen - Remembering China's monstrous deed

Struggle Against Forgetting June 4 - Forbes.com:
"Tiananmen, 20 Years Later

Hong Kong's Tiananmen Square vigil drew a record crowd."

On Obama's Cairo speech

If you are as outraged as I am after reading his speech then read what The Charlotte Capitalist had to say in "The United States Of America And Islam Have Nothing Fundamental In Common". Here's an excerpt:

There are few greater scams or sins ever committed by an American president than the one committed by President Barack Obama today. The United States of America is at war. At war, not just on the battlefield, but in the realm of ideas. We are in the ongoing war between reason and faith. An American president has just yielded to the enemy.

A Quick History of The Laser : COED Magazine

George Reisman on demise of GM

Reisman in this post discusses the demise General Motors. He talks about it's glorious history.

It was once not only the world’s greatest and most prosperous automobile company but the world’s greatest and most prosperous manufacturing company. Its success, wealth, and economic power, were symbolic of the success, wealth, and economic power of the United States.

He mentions the reasons for this devastating and depressing loss. He talks about the unfortunate election of the wealth redistributive Obama. Isn't it ironic that the politicians who talk about redistributing wealth are the ones who ultimately cause it's destruction and in the end there is nothing left to distribute. They are like leaches whose bellies are never full and they never drop off. They are the parasites who destroy their host. That's why the countries who choose this path of anti-capitalism have a dark future. We have seen this time and again but it's the ignorance and denial which makes sure that history will keep repeating itself.

I suggest reading George Reisman's Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics. A free pdf replica is available for download. I am reading this book and I can tell you that reading economics with an Objectivist angle (Reisman knew Ayn Rand) is quite unique and illuminating.

Reismans blog is back on blogger. Read about Google's stupid handling of the whole affair.

Right to bear arms

A. C. KLEINHEIDER:

Guns have been so fetishized and derided in our politically correct and increasingly suburbanized culture that they have transformed into this huge monster that clouds what firearms really are and always have been
To rural folks who grew up with guns in their house, firearms are just a way of life. You learn what they are, how to use them safely, and what not to use them — for ever.
They are, in fact, a tool. A dangerous tool to be sure but no more than a circular saw or a chainsaw.

Most Americans don't appreciate the right to bear arms. The increasing tendency to look at the nanny state to do everything for them has become a bad habit. While it is the job of government to protect a citizen from violence, it would be foolish to give up your own right to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your property. Increasing dilution of the gun-right laws should be a concern for all Americans.

I live in a virtual police state where owning a gun is almost impossible unless you happen to have an old license. Freedom is most appreciated in places where it is missing. Owning a gun in India is only possible for the privileged few who are politicians , have connections with them, or can afford to dole out huge bribes for the license.

Abhijeet Singh whose web-site is an excellent resource on gun ownership laws in India talks about the history of Indian law.

India became independent in 1947, but it still took 12 years before this act was finally repealed. In 1959 the British era Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878.) was finally consigned to history and a new act, the Arms Act, 1959 was enacted. This was later supplemented by the Arms Rules, 1962. Unfortunately this new legislation was also formulated based on the Indian Government's innate distrust its own citizens. Though somewhat better than the British act, this legislation gave vast arbitrary powers to the "Licensing Authorities", in effect ensuring that it is often difficult and sometimes impossible for an ordinary law abiding Indian citizen to procure an arms license.

He goes on and describes the current scenario.

This changed towards the mid to late 1980s, when the Government, citing domestic insurgency as the reason, put a complete stop to all small arms imports. The fact that there is no documented evidence of any terrorists ever having used licensed weapons to commit an act of terror on Indian soil seems to be of no consequence to our Government. The prices of (legal & licensed) imported weapons have been on an upward spiral ever since - beating the share market and gold in terms of pure return on investment.

Abhijeet's blog also mentions a news report where people used rocks to fight the terrorists during the Mumbai terror attack . Can you imagine that? They actually threw rocks to protect the Jewish center which was the terrorist's target. The terrorists shot back with AK-47's and threw grenades at them. The police which is good only for extortion was missing. Finally 195 people were killed and many more seriously injured.

Image courtesy Oleg Volk - http://www.olegvolk.net/

I believe in what Ayn Rand said:

The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.

If some “pacifist” society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it.

“The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness.

The kick-ass rifle

I read this article in Strategypage some time back about afghans rediscovering The Lee-Enfield rifle. It really amused me, since in India it has been in constant use since it was invented in 1885. More then 17 million have been made since then and the Ishapore factory in India still makes it. This rifle has seen a lot of history and I have seen this rifle at very close quarters. In fact, hind quarters is the right term since I got hit in the butt by the Lee-Enfield rifle stock. I wince every time I hear the term rifle-butt.

It was for a noble cause and very long time back (no pun-too painful). As mentioned in my post "Definition of Excessive force" it was 1991 and I was protesting with a lot of students against reservations in educational institutions based on a persons caste. I was waving a black flag and right on the front lines. We were moving towards the parliament when the Indian Gestapo (police) started shooting tear-gas at the crowd. I used the flag to pick up the tear-gas shells and threw it right back and suddenly everybody started doing that. I was single-handedly responsible for demise of that metal canister tear-gas (or so I would like to believe) since the next time they started using the ones which burst on contact.

So to make the long story short I was in the front, waving the flag when the police on horses charged. I stood my ground for a while and when I looked back the others were long gone. I said," bloody cowards " and ran like a gazelle. Too late, one of the policemen on side-lines ran swinging his rifle with full force and hit me hard on my rear-end. I thankfully didn't fall and kept running. I managed to crawl into a building and avoided going to the jail. I couldn't walk for a few days and needless to say standing was preferable to sitting. So the moral of the story is that never be at the rear-end (pun intented-pain fades with time) of a retreating protesting crowd when the police charge.

I had a friend with me that day. He had promised his family that he would not join the protest. We lost contact when the chaos started. The next day his father called him and asked him how was yesterday. He started with his story which was cut short when his father showed him the newspaper. It had a big picture of him running with a big Sikh policeman on a big horse chasing him with a raised baton. We had a good laugh over the whole episode.

After a week my local magazine vendor showed me the cover of the a magazine and guess what? I was there in full color with a bunch of other people. It was an interesting picture because it had something else; one of the guys caught in a naughty act (to put it mildly). I have that magazine with me somewhere so I will try to upload the cover soon.