Enlightened ramblings of a minarchist libertarian with Objectivist tendencies

Friday, August 13, 2004

Proud New Papa

Thanks to the fine author of έχω ζωη, I am now the proud new papa of a baby GMail account.

I feel like one of the anointed ones now. When and if I get invites of my own to give away, I will give you guys the first shot at them.

Blog Partners

As it is becoming clear to me that as my current business endeavor expands it will take up increasing amounts of my time; I will not be able to post as much as I like. However, I want Fuki Blog to continue to expand and flourish.

Therefore, I would like to turn this into a group blog. Hopefully, there are others who share my same basic views that would like to contribute. If you are interested, shoot me an email and we can discuss it.

Girl Friday

Here is a nice pleasant way to start the weekend:

Wednesday, August 11, 2004

Another Blow for Freedom

Another "tool" manufacturer has succumed to the "blame illegal activity on the tool maker, not the tool user" crowd today. 321 Studios, makers of DVD copying software gave into the demands of the motion picture industry. Now don't get me wrong, I am a firm believer in intellectual property rights, but it is absolutely wrong to attack a software maker for the deeds of its customers.

With victim after victim falling prey to this movement, how long can it be until other "tools" are attacked? They have already began the war against fast-food and guns. What is next?

It is time for the American public to wake up to the assault and say enough is enough. We are fast becoming a society controlled by the thought police where possession of anything that can be used to commit a crime is fast becoming a crime itself.

Poletown Pilfering

As anyone who "owns" property here in the US knows, the property is not really yours, it is the governments. We simply pay rent on it. If we fail to pay that rent (ie. property taxes), they take the property away in order to rent it out to someone else. You would think that for that rent, you could do with the property as you like. Of course the government disagrees, after all, it is their property so why would they allow you to just do anything you wish with it. To prevent that, they institute zoning and land use laws.

Now, surely if you pay your rent and meet the zoning guideliness you can, after approval of the local building commission, use your land for whatever you wish. For the most part, this is true, that is until the government decides that it can make more money from another tenant. Then they will swoop in and take back the property in the name of the common good.

Tuesday, August 10, 2004

A Glimpse Into the Mind of a Madman

It has long been argued by Socialists that the moral reasoning behind the forced extraction of wealth from producers is the altruistic redistribution of that wealth for the greater good. Indeed, just over a month ago, Hillary Clinton was heard to utter the phrase "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." This has long been the mantra of those desiring control over members of society that are more talented and successful than themselves.

However, it seems that these old dogs are learning a new trick, or at least a variation on an old one. Apparently taking note of the fact that those producing wealth were not just readily emptying their pockets and dismayed that Socialists have been unable to convince the general public to join in their class jihad, Professor Barry Schwartz of Swarthmore College has put forth a new approach to enslaving those with wealth. He is telling them that reducing their wealth by 90% will make them happier.

OK...now that you have had a chance to stop laughing, let's take a look at just what he is proposing. It's not hard to guess, after all, he is a Socialist. You got it, he suggests that we should ignore the objective facts and instead rely on feelings:

In cases like these, increased choice often enables people to do better by some objective measure--say, better healthcare outcomes. But it also makes them feel worse, perhaps badly enough to overwhelm the initial improvement in welfare.


Now this is a new approach because rather than directly attacking the wealth itself as evil, he declares that the increased choice offered by the wealth leads to decreased satisfaction on the part of the wealth bearer. What is his justification for this statement?

Psychologists Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper have shown that as the number of flavors of jam or varieties of chocolate available to shoppers is increased, the likelihood that they will leave the store without buying any jam goes up.


People are apparently not mentally equipped to deal with excessive choice, therefore it is imperative that the government come to the rescue of those poor miserable rich bastards and relieve them of the burden of wealth in order to save them from the mental anguish of too many decisions. I guess we are required to just ignore the fact that it was precisely the ability to make decisions that was responsible for many of these people's wealth.

Unfortunately for Dr. Schwartz and his crack team, they have not yet been able to determine the exact income level at which excessive choice occurs and besides, it is just too much work to take away all the choices available to consumers. At least he can rest soundly on the moral absolute that he can help people by taking most of their money and choices away, even if he can't yet figure out how to implement his plans.

(via Anger Management)

Monday, August 09, 2004

Isn't This Sweet!

What in the hell is the matter with people? Who would want to attend a cuddle party?

Swinging is one thing, but why in the hell would you want to get in your PJs and spoon someone you don't know?

Carpet Bagging

I have a real distaste for the practice of moving to a state solely to run for office in that state. It is like bringing in a ringer to play in a game that he really has no business playing in. Sure, he meets the requirements, but only because they are so weak.

That being said, I am glad that media darling Barack Obama's bid for the Senate will not go unchallenged.

What in the Hell Are They Thinking?

Damn. I go away for a long weekend and get back to find out that our government has apparently lost the little bit of sensibility that it had remaining.

After the failure of the dumbest idea ever, the State Department is doing the same damn thing.

We do not want or need a bunch of European bureaucrats looking over our shoulders. I am sure that the State Department representative had barely gotten the words out of his mouth before those nitwits accepted the offer.

What an outstanding opportunity for them to smack America on the hand. Regardless of how well the elections go, expect reports of disenfranchisement to come from the OSCE, especially if Bush wins.

Sunday, August 08, 2004

Girl Sunday

Oops...I forgot to leave you guys this before I left for my trip. I am back and feel much better now.

-->