I write letters to the ditors of newspapers ranting and raving over a variety of topics while remaining consistent with my libertarian beliefs. Some get published while others don't The advantage of having a blog is that all get published on the internet.
Here are some recent letters I wrote:
1. To The State newspaper on capping property tax:
On Nov. 6, The State published a breathtakingly stupid
editorial calling for "fairness" in terms of property
tax that car owners pay.
All property taxes are inherently unjust. To make the
injustice more uniform does little to remedy the
problem which is the fact that all taxes levied on the
populace are essentially state sanctioned theft. The
State's call for fairness is akin to combatting
burglary by insisting that the thieves spend more time
and effort in affluent neighborhoods.
The only truly fair solution is to abolish all
property taxes. This will end the poor getting soaked.
This will end the rich getting soaked (or getting off
without paying a thing while the poor pay it all.) And
it will end the ultimate unfairness--paying for
government services you don't enjoy or watching
taxpayer funds go down the toilet of wasteful
government spending.
The State has simply fallen for the politicos'
favorite strategy for increasing their power and
tyranny--divide and conquer.
editorial calling for "fairness" in terms of property
tax that car owners pay.
All property taxes are inherently unjust. To make the
injustice more uniform does little to remedy the
problem which is the fact that all taxes levied on the
populace are essentially state sanctioned theft. The
State's call for fairness is akin to combatting
burglary by insisting that the thieves spend more time
and effort in affluent neighborhoods.
The only truly fair solution is to abolish all
property taxes. This will end the poor getting soaked.
This will end the rich getting soaked (or getting off
without paying a thing while the poor pay it all.) And
it will end the ultimate unfairness--paying for
government services you don't enjoy or watching
taxpayer funds go down the toilet of wasteful
government spending.
The State has simply fallen for the politicos'
favorite strategy for increasing their power and
tyranny--divide and conquer.
2. To the Chronicle-Independent on the issue of noise pollution:
I couldn't help noticing that the Celebrate Freedom
Festival has created a bit of controversy over the
noise it brings to the county. It got me thinking
about the whole issue of noise.
People tolerate a lot of noise in day-to-day life. We
tolerate the sounds of cars and trucks and
construction. We even tolerate other people's
entertainment to a certain extent. In addition, we
tolerate the sound of military aircraft from places
like Shaw AFB or the sound of booming artillery from
Fort Jackson. But when is enough enough?
Noise pollution is essentially a property rights
issue. In other words, I don't care that people like
to listen to gangsta rap since I believe in freedom
and my right to listen to Tim McGraw. But I certainly
don't go around blasting "I Like It, I Love It" for
everyone else's entertainment as I roll through town
or neighborhoods. Yet, for some reason, hip hop
aficionados seem intent on violating the peace and
quiet I enjoy with their exceedingly loud stereos and
booming bass. This violates people's property rights.
In other words, you can enjoy your music, but you need
to keep it on your property.
Like it or not, all noise is a violation of property
rights. But the public tolerates these intrusions as a
courtesy. For instance, the sound of electric saws and
hammers as contractors construct a home is accepted
because one day you or I will probably want to do
construction on our own property. Planes take off each
and every day from airports, and we tolerate this
because we enjoy air travel and want to fly on those
airplanes. And we even put up with the noise of
fireworks on holidays though I could certainly do
without it.
But why is that we do not tolerate the booms of
supersonic aircraft? The reason is simple. It is an
annoyance we are not willing to bear even if it was to
benefit us at some future time. This is why the
Concorde was doomed as an aircraft. People just aren't
going to put up with that kind of noise.
With the Celebrate Freedom Festival, a lot of people
find the aircraft annoying. I know I do. To vilify the
critics of the airshow as cranks or "unpatriotic" or
needing to get a life is a bit much when you consider
how courteous people are when it comes to tolerating
the other activities at the airport. The fact is that
people have a reasonable expectation to live in peace
on their own property free from such disturbances.
This is why we have mufflers on our motor vehicles.
Mufflers are not for the sake of vehicle performance
but purely to preserve the hearing and sanity of other
people who don't want to hear your noisy vehicle. Like
it or not, noisy operations don't have a right to
violate the property rights of other people. We
tolerate the noise we do as a courtesy because we
expect the same treatment in return.
Like it or not, the Celebrate Freedom Festival bothers
people with the noisy aircraft. My recommendation is
that instead of vilifying people who are already
gracious enough to tolerate so much noise to begin
with, organizers and supporters of this event make
efforts to reduce the noise for an event that amounts
to entertainment. People shouldn't be expected to
sacrifice their peace and quiet on their own property
just so other people can have a good time. If you
disagree with this, let me know, and I'll be sure to
turn up Tim McGraw or some Lynyrd Skynyrd when I ride
by your house.
Festival has created a bit of controversy over the
noise it brings to the county. It got me thinking
about the whole issue of noise.
People tolerate a lot of noise in day-to-day life. We
tolerate the sounds of cars and trucks and
construction. We even tolerate other people's
entertainment to a certain extent. In addition, we
tolerate the sound of military aircraft from places
like Shaw AFB or the sound of booming artillery from
Fort Jackson. But when is enough enough?
Noise pollution is essentially a property rights
issue. In other words, I don't care that people like
to listen to gangsta rap since I believe in freedom
and my right to listen to Tim McGraw. But I certainly
don't go around blasting "I Like It, I Love It" for
everyone else's entertainment as I roll through town
or neighborhoods. Yet, for some reason, hip hop
aficionados seem intent on violating the peace and
quiet I enjoy with their exceedingly loud stereos and
booming bass. This violates people's property rights.
In other words, you can enjoy your music, but you need
to keep it on your property.
Like it or not, all noise is a violation of property
rights. But the public tolerates these intrusions as a
courtesy. For instance, the sound of electric saws and
hammers as contractors construct a home is accepted
because one day you or I will probably want to do
construction on our own property. Planes take off each
and every day from airports, and we tolerate this
because we enjoy air travel and want to fly on those
airplanes. And we even put up with the noise of
fireworks on holidays though I could certainly do
without it.
But why is that we do not tolerate the booms of
supersonic aircraft? The reason is simple. It is an
annoyance we are not willing to bear even if it was to
benefit us at some future time. This is why the
Concorde was doomed as an aircraft. People just aren't
going to put up with that kind of noise.
With the Celebrate Freedom Festival, a lot of people
find the aircraft annoying. I know I do. To vilify the
critics of the airshow as cranks or "unpatriotic" or
needing to get a life is a bit much when you consider
how courteous people are when it comes to tolerating
the other activities at the airport. The fact is that
people have a reasonable expectation to live in peace
on their own property free from such disturbances.
This is why we have mufflers on our motor vehicles.
Mufflers are not for the sake of vehicle performance
but purely to preserve the hearing and sanity of other
people who don't want to hear your noisy vehicle. Like
it or not, noisy operations don't have a right to
violate the property rights of other people. We
tolerate the noise we do as a courtesy because we
expect the same treatment in return.
Like it or not, the Celebrate Freedom Festival bothers
people with the noisy aircraft. My recommendation is
that instead of vilifying people who are already
gracious enough to tolerate so much noise to begin
with, organizers and supporters of this event make
efforts to reduce the noise for an event that amounts
to entertainment. People shouldn't be expected to
sacrifice their peace and quiet on their own property
just so other people can have a good time. If you
disagree with this, let me know, and I'll be sure to
turn up Tim McGraw or some Lynyrd Skynyrd when I ride
by your house.
3. To The State on cuts to the Department of Mental Health:
There is a bit of controversy swirling around cuts to
the Department of Mental Health and people decrying
the "cruelty" of such moves. Personally, I don't think
the cutbacks go far enough.
The State of South Carolina needs to abolish the
Department of Mental Health completely for a variety
of reasons.
The mental hospitals in this state effectively serve
as an alternative prison system to lock up people who
are no threat to anyone else but fail to conform to
society's standards for strictly personal behavior. In
other words, they are odd people who make us feel
uncomfortable. The difference between these nuthouses
and the Department of Corrections is that prison
inmates are told what they've been charged with, and
they have some idea when they will be released. Mental
patients incarcerated against their wills do not enjoy
the same luxury. They are at the mercy of doctors,
nurses, and a legal system that will judge whether or
not they are "normal." The sad reality is that none of
these professionals can define what "normal" is. A
person who believes in government conspiracies is a
crackpot, but a person who believes in appearances by
angels or the Virgin Mary is left alone. What is the
difference? One pathology is socially acceptable while
the other isn't. That's the difference.
Many people in the state's mental health system have
problems with drugs and alcohol. So, what does the
state do? They incarcerate them and put them on other
drugs. If these patients get out of line, they perform
the equivalent of chemical lobotomy. In order to save
people from frying their brains on crystal meth, the
State of SC fries their brains with thorazine. This is
compassion?
The reality is that these people are a threat to no
one, but they are simply weird and make us feel
uncomfortable. So, we lock them up and call it
"compassion." We are doing this "for their own good."
And since these people are deemed unfit to know what
is in their own best interests, they have no say in
what will be done to them. In addition, family members
can use the system against other family members to
lock them up when they merely want to get rid of them
or enact revenge or whatever their fevered brains can
come up with.
The final justification for this system of tyranny is
that many of these people are suicidal and need our
help. Yet, after being helped by the Department of
Mental Health, they are turned loose with a social
stigma and some with a whopping hospital bill that
many of them can't pay. Naturally, this is depressing.
Yet, why not let these people decide for themselves
whether or not they want help? And if they don't want
to live any longer, why should we stop them? And why
would they even seek help when they would end up being
incarcerated for speaking about their feelings?
The Department of Mental Health is simply a prison for
weird but harmless people cloaked as therapy. And what
is this therapy they get? Drugs and coloring books.
I'm not making this up.
As for the mentally ill being homeless, the vast
majority of them would rather live free on the streets
rather than locked up in an institution, and I can't
blame them. Remember, they aren't hurting anyone. They
just bother people simply by existing and being
visible. What people want is for these people to
disappear. There's no compassion to this at all.
As for those mentally ill people who are a threat to
others, we already have a place for them. It is called
prison. And if you think prison is cruel, it is no
worse than a mental hospital. The only difference is
that prisoners have rights while mental patients
don't. I also see no cruelty in locking up people who
hurt other people. This is the proper role for our
government. Yet, we have violent criminals paroled
each year while odd people languish for years in a
mental hospital with no hope of release.
It's time for the system to end. If families want
treatment for relatives, there are private facilities
available for them. And if substance abusers and the
depressed want to hurt themselves, then let them. We
let smokers, fast food eaters, and bikers without
helmets run considerable risk to themselves without a
trace of guilt to show for it. Why should drug users
and the suicidal be any different? Their lives belong
to them to do with or dispose of as they please.
Finally, what is the success rate of these
institutions? What kind of report card do they have? If
it is anything like the Department of Corrections or
the Education Department, that should be enough right
there to end these programs. If a government program
yields virtually the same results as doing nothing, it
makes sense to do nothing simply because it is
cheaper. But as I've pointed out, the goal of the DMH
is not mental health. It is incarceration much like
the Education Department's mission is not education
but indoctrination. At least the Department of
Corrections succeeds in its mission though I don't see
where they've corrected anything. But as long as they
keep murderers and rapists off the street, that's
success to me. The only thing the DOC needs is a name
change.
the Department of Mental Health and people decrying
the "cruelty" of such moves. Personally, I don't think
the cutbacks go far enough.
The State of South Carolina needs to abolish the
Department of Mental Health completely for a variety
of reasons.
The mental hospitals in this state effectively serve
as an alternative prison system to lock up people who
are no threat to anyone else but fail to conform to
society's standards for strictly personal behavior. In
other words, they are odd people who make us feel
uncomfortable. The difference between these nuthouses
and the Department of Corrections is that prison
inmates are told what they've been charged with, and
they have some idea when they will be released. Mental
patients incarcerated against their wills do not enjoy
the same luxury. They are at the mercy of doctors,
nurses, and a legal system that will judge whether or
not they are "normal." The sad reality is that none of
these professionals can define what "normal" is. A
person who believes in government conspiracies is a
crackpot, but a person who believes in appearances by
angels or the Virgin Mary is left alone. What is the
difference? One pathology is socially acceptable while
the other isn't. That's the difference.
Many people in the state's mental health system have
problems with drugs and alcohol. So, what does the
state do? They incarcerate them and put them on other
drugs. If these patients get out of line, they perform
the equivalent of chemical lobotomy. In order to save
people from frying their brains on crystal meth, the
State of SC fries their brains with thorazine. This is
compassion?
The reality is that these people are a threat to no
one, but they are simply weird and make us feel
uncomfortable. So, we lock them up and call it
"compassion." We are doing this "for their own good."
And since these people are deemed unfit to know what
is in their own best interests, they have no say in
what will be done to them. In addition, family members
can use the system against other family members to
lock them up when they merely want to get rid of them
or enact revenge or whatever their fevered brains can
come up with.
The final justification for this system of tyranny is
that many of these people are suicidal and need our
help. Yet, after being helped by the Department of
Mental Health, they are turned loose with a social
stigma and some with a whopping hospital bill that
many of them can't pay. Naturally, this is depressing.
Yet, why not let these people decide for themselves
whether or not they want help? And if they don't want
to live any longer, why should we stop them? And why
would they even seek help when they would end up being
incarcerated for speaking about their feelings?
The Department of Mental Health is simply a prison for
weird but harmless people cloaked as therapy. And what
is this therapy they get? Drugs and coloring books.
I'm not making this up.
As for the mentally ill being homeless, the vast
majority of them would rather live free on the streets
rather than locked up in an institution, and I can't
blame them. Remember, they aren't hurting anyone. They
just bother people simply by existing and being
visible. What people want is for these people to
disappear. There's no compassion to this at all.
As for those mentally ill people who are a threat to
others, we already have a place for them. It is called
prison. And if you think prison is cruel, it is no
worse than a mental hospital. The only difference is
that prisoners have rights while mental patients
don't. I also see no cruelty in locking up people who
hurt other people. This is the proper role for our
government. Yet, we have violent criminals paroled
each year while odd people languish for years in a
mental hospital with no hope of release.
It's time for the system to end. If families want
treatment for relatives, there are private facilities
available for them. And if substance abusers and the
depressed want to hurt themselves, then let them. We
let smokers, fast food eaters, and bikers without
helmets run considerable risk to themselves without a
trace of guilt to show for it. Why should drug users
and the suicidal be any different? Their lives belong
to them to do with or dispose of as they please.
Finally, what is the success rate of these
institutions? What kind of report card do they have? If
it is anything like the Department of Corrections or
the Education Department, that should be enough right
there to end these programs. If a government program
yields virtually the same results as doing nothing, it
makes sense to do nothing simply because it is
cheaper. But as I've pointed out, the goal of the DMH
is not mental health. It is incarceration much like
the Education Department's mission is not education
but indoctrination. At least the Department of
Corrections succeeds in its mission though I don't see
where they've corrected anything. But as long as they
keep murderers and rapists off the street, that's
success to me. The only thing the DOC needs is a name
change.
0 comments:
Post a Comment