Prospects for Liberty

"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics" - Thomas Sowell

Location: North Dartmouth, Massachusetts, United States

I'm a sophomore at Umass Dartmouth, double majoring in Political Science and Economics.I'm a Roman Catholic and a Libertarian. Not much to say here really.

Thursday, July 05, 2007

Happy Fourth

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature; a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining, in the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasions from without, and convulsions within.

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Site News

After a long absence, the site is back online. Posts will be forthcoming.

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Site News

There won't be any updates here for a while. End of term papers and final exams are fast approaching.

Saturday, April 28, 2007


Original article from my most recent post can be found here

Hat Tip: Financial Sense

Friday, April 27, 2007

Don't Believe the Hype

Recent news on the economy is exuberant. The Dow, we are told, is reaching record highs, economic growth is unbelievable, we are skyrocketing. Don't believe it. It is true that this is the case, when the Dow is measured in dollars and euros. However, the dow, as measured in gold, silver, copper, industrial metals, crude oil, food, and stuff, is crashing. What does all this mean?

It means that the mad prophets of gold were proved correct. The US' fiat currency, not tied to any hard material whatsoever but instead simply set arbitrarily by the Federal Reserve, has become totally divorced from reality. The forces behind the economy have become almost entirely those of malinvestment, engineered by the puppeteers in the central bank. Expect a painful bust to follow this boom. Here is some data:

Site News

Sorry for the lack of posts lately. Final exams and end of term papers are keeping me away from the blog. More should be up soon.

Monday, April 23, 2007

Quote of the Day

"Saying people go on school shootings because they play video games is like saying people steal money because they use Quicken." -- A friend of mine.

Monday, April 16, 2007

Picture of the Week: Holocaust Remembrance

Traffic stops for two minutes in Tel Aviv, Israel, on April 16th, 2007. This is done in remembrance of the Holocaust.

Why its okay for South Park, and not for Don Imus

Recently, Don Imus was canned both from his radio show on CBS Radio and his televised simulcast on MSNBC. The motivation for this was that, when announcing a female college basketball game, he referred to the girls who played for Rutgers University as “nappy headed hoes”. The media uproar was epic in scale. Imus apologized to Al Sharpton on his radio show, apologized to the basketball team, apologized to just about anyone he could find who would listen. Clearly, it was no use. He was fired in short order and without ceremony. Over the course of this incident, many have begun to wonder: Why Imus? Certainly shows like South Park and films such as Borat get away with far, far, worse material, of both racial and non-racial types without censure.

The Catholic League of America protested an episode of South Park that featured a statue of the Virgin Mary shitting blood on Pope Benedict’s face. Nobody cared. The Catholic League was widely perceived as whining, not demanding social justice, and South Park produced another episode this season mocking them. The Anti-Defamation league was all over Mel Gibson for his anti-semitic drunken rant some months ago, but an event from the film Borat, the “Running of the Jews” received barely any major media attention. Is there any rhyme or reason to this? Are advocacy groups just picking victims at random and ruining their careers for kicks? I do not believe this is the case
It is my view that the difference between, on one hand, a South Park and a Borat, or a Don Imus and/or Mel Gibson on the other, goes as follows: Shows like South Park have raised their bigotry to such a level that it is an art form. No sane human being could seriously entertain the notion that South Park or Borat are to be taken seriously. Besides the fact that these people are all fictional characters, they also engage in majestic feats of bigotry that a mere mortal can only dream about. It then, becomes clear: The reason we love this stuff is because it makes no bones about its hatred, it makes clear that its content is meant not to mock those who are bigoted against, but the bigots themselves. Finally, when it is called out, it refuses to apologize. South Park’s normal reaction to outside criticism is to create an episode that truly annihilates the critic in question is the most horrifying possible ways. Don Imus, by contrast, clearly wants to be taken as a serious commentator. While he is also a comedian, he has made his career out of being taken seriously when he advances a view. His show has become a regular pit stop for politicians and presidential candidates, and a venue for some of the most popular talk on the issues of our day that currently exists in American media. So when Don Imus says something, Don Imus is usually gong to be taken seriously. For that reason, a racist statement made by him is not something that is simply laughed off, the way the antics of Eric Cartman or Borat are. Imus presents himself as a serious person, and serious people get taken seriously. He should have realized that that is a two way street before he opened his stupid honky mouth.