Always begins with One; Is he the one?

I won't say much here. Former government employee wants to own a large dog. In fact, he owns two which are considered by the government of China to be owned illegally. Illegal because of their size. The court system has stopped his crusade this far, but as he tells it, he will continue according to the laws of China and take it to the Supreme Court.
This is a man determined to own his large dogs against a government who rules against ownership of not only large dogs but also more than one. This is not even going into the topic of internet censorship.
Good article. Good man.

For those who fought with the war cry "Freedom" President Lincoln was not one.

ORIGINALLY POSTED ON GMUECONSOCIETY.BLOGSPOT.COM
I am sure everyone has heard it by now since the outcry of
most Americans was an uproar at a statement by Ron Paul on President Lincoln.
Last year, the GMU Economics Society was fortunate to have a lecturer, Thomas DiLorenzo on this issue. Unfortunately we do not have any audio or video of the lecture, but I will link to support the argument as best as I can. I wish only to place some evidence to those looking to comprehend Ron Paul's statement. Not endorsing any politicians as the Econ Society, although the members may have full support for whomever they wish, but do wish to clarify a statement in which many Americans seem to be growing upset towards.

What is taught to children?

• That President Lincoln's nickname was Honest Abe, yet we understand that most politicians do lie. Why should we view him differently?
  The American Indians are led to believe so...
  
• Lincoln saved the Union therefore denying the South the right to secession, yet when Jefferson had installed an embargo on trade with the British the Northeastern states met in convention for secession led by U.S. Senator Timothy Pickering
• Note: Lincoln states he is against state secession in his first Inaugural Address:
  

  But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

  It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

• Lincoln had abolished slavery, yet in his first Inaugural Address he states:
  

  I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

I leave it to you to decide if Lincoln was as good as we were taught he was, or if he is just another politician that lies, cheats, and steals.
I end with a link to a blog by Mister Snitch! Who does a great job of linking to valid sources to go with his argument on the bad press for Lincoln.

Saving the Environment: No need for government

If you did not know, today the U.S. government had passed their energy bill. This is supposed to jumpstart the use from petroleum fuel to bio-friendly fuels. Thank you government for all your hard work in passing a bill that is useless except to halt the choices of your own citizens.

PETA's efforts have failed in halting the amount of middle class citizens from buying chicken from KFC; should the U.S. government get involved in order to promote the practice of fast food chicken services? If your answer is no, then what is the difference between the government passing a law with chickens to passing a law with fuels.

There have always been alternatives to oil. We may not use these alternatives, but the reason is that it is too costly. The same reason why PETA's effort fail with KFC. Their chicken is cheap and to go to PETA friendly substitute is more costly. If their celebrity friends such as Paul McCartney and Pamela Anderson would pay me the difference I would happily stop eating at KFC; THIS IS NOT A CALL FOR GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES IN ANY MANNER. Notice that Pam nor Paul HAVE NOT given money to me or anyone else to stop eating only raised their voice in a cheap protest that hardly costs them.

The new law makes it costlier to maintain of life that we have; the cheaper one and replaces it with the more costly. Is this the work of business lobbying allowing for government rules to go in favor? It appears so since we know through Ludwig von Mises that

[r]estrictive action on the other hand is always advantageous for the privileged group and disadvantageous for those whom it excludes from the market. It always raises the price per unit and therefore the total net proceeds of the privileged group. The losses of the excluded group are not taken into account by the privileged group.

From this we can judge that the government must be giving the blessing to one at the cost of the others. Thank you government.

Why do we have alternatives? Naturally, businesses want to make money and are always searching for the best method; at least, this is the popular stereotype. Thus there must have been alternatives although not cheap alternatives since no one was using them. This law allows for the more expensive alternatives to be cheaper only because their is a law made up by certain individuals to solve a problem that they define.
No, there is no need for such laws. This is just a disgrace and an abuse of power.

Note: this does not necessarily mean that the government is hurting one business at the cost of the others such as in oil giants. Rather, it may be the case that they all agreed to this law as it keeps each in line to searching for alternatives away from foreign oils. This would mean that the cost was transferred to the average citizen who must now PAY more for his fuel. Bio-friendly fuels were coming. It was inevitable, but the law is a disgrace. Atlas Shrugged could be rewritten with Hank Rearden as the bad guy, with his Rearden Steel benefiting from the government law that benefit the few at the cost of the Many.

Shame, Shame on you U.S. Government for increasing the costs to the many rather than having the product improved to be better suited for us all. Shame.

I did not discuss the issues with lightbulbs or most of the energy, but I think the broad case here makes its case in each argument.

Tyranny of the Majority in the New Testament

We saw it best on The Passion of the Christ. The masses cried out for crucifixion. "Crucify him" the answer shouted in unison when asked by Pilate on what they wanted him to do. It is the same words recited every Easter at a Roman Catholic mass and yet many Christians still believe in majority rule, at least it appears so through what I have seen.

The tyranny of the majority is not a new concept. John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville were only two of many who had spoken on the topic. Christians had read of this tyranny since the Church began. There it was written, spoken, even viewed (as in the Passion) for us to see, the Crucifixion of Christ. The masses had called for it. They threatened and Pilate to complete his duty as governor completed what the masses demanded in order to keep his own position. What else do we expect of a politician? To do the right thing and not kill an innocent man? It was either crucify an innocent man or have a mob on his hands which would cause him to lose face in Rome. Naturally, we would expect the politician to choose his own selfish needs and condemn an innocent man to his death.
Is the innocent's death the fault of the politician or the fault of the tyranny of the masses? Perhaps it is both, but the event has passed and the innocent man had died only to be born again. Thanks to the murderous mob that persuaded a Roman governor to crucify an innocent man. A man heralded by many today as the savior. Even through evil, Good arises.