Also, wondering if you have heard of FreedomFest, the world’s largest gathering of free minds on liberty, in Las Vegas, July 9-11? It is the most dynamic conference, covering a myriad of topics, and brings together a great group of people. There’s even a bloggers’ row this year. I think you would love it!

Check out www.freedomfest.com for more info.

Meanwhile, keep up the great work for freedom!

Best,
Valerie Durham

I fully respect your position on this issue, but I must point out some of your rhetoric for its uniquely Western bias. As an initial matter, I object to the offhand reference to animal life as “another” living being and “disregard for life” to the extent it implies animals have some fractional human value or that all “life” exists on an equal plane.

I consider point #6 (the idea that you cannot legislate moral behavior into someone who does not hold an emotional bond with a species of animal) pivotal to the discussion of animal abuse laws. You mention that a person is not expected to cause harm to another living being for no reason, which calls into question what constitutes “no reason.” After all, you yourself pointed out that Vick had a reason for fighting dogs: entertainment. Is nuisance an adequate reason? Is sport? These are adequate reasons for killing cockroaches, rats, ducks, deer, etc. - for no particular useful purpose other than to ensure that the animal dies. Yet no killer of these animals would find themselves prosecuted for their actions. It is acceptable in at least the United States to kill these creatures because it is not culturally typical to form emotional bonds with them. Different cultures, different creatures.

As such, Vick did nothing that our animal abuse laws are intended to combat because he was not violating an emotional bond with the animals (ergo, not a threat to society).

What does the law accomplish when simple moral outrage would do the trick?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hale-stewart/freddie-and-fannie-bail-o_b_124713.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH6_i8zuffs

(You may need to watch all 12 episodes to get the full story.)

The transfer of the banks’ bad debts onto the public was the most crucial step in this process, in my opinion. I think the events in Argentina show us that any notion of such a transfer being in the best interests of the public at large is entirely misguided. If such a transfer in the US is not effectively opposed by us now, it will be much more difficult, next to impossible, to oppose it later.

As for being orchestrated over the last fifteen years, I agree, and this statement has powerful implications. We are in an economic situation that is the deliberate result of central planning in at least the form of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. Indeed, the political nucleus of our economic system is so strong, Bernanke cannot sneeze without the Dow swinging 250 points.

As such our problems are twofold: not only has there been (A) poor orchestration, there is also (B) the power to orchestrate. Whenever A occurs, we get more of B. Whenever B occurs, we get more of A.

How does the endgame play out?

What I wish could be called for would be massive protest, something like a “conversatives’ general strike,” which would mean your average businessman, your average professional, your average hardworking man on the street, would put their foot down and not go on as if nothing had changed.

I absolutely love how you countered that reply. You are eloquent and well informed, and our world need people like you who understands the basic principles of personal liberty and responsibility. I admire your way of getting your point across, with a very good analysis of your opponents rhetoric, and extremely well formulated answers.

Thumbs up from Norway

I sometimes wonder what the government’s ultimate goal is each time it intervenes to prop up a bubble. People were living easy with the values of their houses far outstripping inflation . . . what is the result of perpetuating this trend indefinitely? We would live in a world where houses cost billions in today’s dollars, and the only people who can afford them already have them! Obviously the market will never allow such a thing, no matter how much the government wants it to.

I believe, given the current trends, that the term “Educational-Industrial Complex” will soon be coined, and it will cost more than ever to attend college (given that tuition will come from the government and not from the marketplace). But at some point one of 3 things will happen at the hands of the market. Either the government won’t be able to afford it, students won’t be able to afford the debt even with the government paying the interest, or people will just start entering the workplace out of high school because the quality of education will be so low and the costs so high, . . . or even a fourth option where students go out of country to attend college. India perhaps?