The Quiver of Reason

Eros on The Warped Tour, 2005

2010-09-08T09:55:00.000-07:00

WHO IS EROS?

by Captain Dan

7-24-05

Minneapolis, MN

Not everyone on the Vans Warped Tour gets to ride on a bus, eat at catering, or even receive a paycheck. In fact, the tour is over-run with people who are somehow trying to bum their way onto the tour. And just like college freshman, the first half of the tour usually weeds out all of the leeches, stowaways, and "band-aids" as they either get fired, kicked off, run out of funding, or simply lose interest. The tour is now past the halfway point. Those who remain have showed enough dedication and professionalism to prove they are following the tour with heartfelt motivation and will most definitely make it the rest of the way. Last night I had the chance find out what drives some of these people...

Eros worked as Atmosphere's merch guy during last year's Vans Warped Tour but returned this year to perform himself. Literally living off of the money he makes day to day by selling his own merchandise, the 25 year-old, 6'4" emcee has been following the 2005 Vans Warped Tour since the first day. By joining forces with the Denver-based band Dr. Neptune, he helped support the establishment of an extra stage on the tour called the E.I.Y. (Earn It Yourself) Stage. This stage hosts 3-4 bands per tour date in the parking lot of each venue in front of the ticket line (usually from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.) and sometimes again at night as the concert attendees are departing. Dr. Neptune provides the stage set-up while Eros manages the stage's merch tent. In order to experience the true lifestyle of an "earn-it-yourself" artist, I abandoned the commodities of traveling on my bus and decided to join Eros for the drive from Chicago to the next tour date of Minneapolis, MN (and the last place Eros lived before permanently moving into his van one month earlier).

During Chicago's post-show parking lot party, I walked with Eros as we passed laughter and sweet perfume. "Say goodbye to the good life," he warned, as we made the trek to the far parking lot where all the tour vans were parked. Reflecting the dull, street-light luster was Eros' large, blue Ford van complete with Selfcore Records (deejay Mr. Dibbs' record label) decals. Eros travels this tour by himself, but will sometimes give people a ride if needed and payment is provided. Tonight's stowaway (besides myself) was James, also known as "Chim Chim."

When we arrived at Eros' van, we watched the buses gradually fall into formation like a gigantic military caravan. We soon followed in line. At night, the tour buses form a magnificent sight like a long colorful snake sprinkled with lights. We slowly passed bus after bus as the van's speedometer twitched.

With cases of Monster Energy Drink on hand, Eros never manages to fall asleep at the wheel. He always drives the entire time to every tour date. So far his largest driving record is 14 hours. Due to traveling alone, Eros claims he averages around two and a half hours of sleep per day (by taking a nap between setting up his merch tent and the time doors open.) He has thus earned himself the title of "The Man Who Never Sleeps" by the Vans Warped Tour staff. "You have to be like a shark," explained Eros. "You have to keep moving to stay alive. Sometimes I wonder what my body would feel like if I got some normal sleep, but it seems the only way I know how to live is by pushing myself through fire."

We took our first break at a truck stop along with the rest of the buses. Inside at the plaza center, Chim Chim politely asked the manager of the restaurant for some free food. To my surprise, they gave the three of us free drinks and bowls of vegetable soup (which Eros politely refused, as an ethical choice). Apparently, Chim Chim occasionally pulls this off with success. Once we returned to the van, Chim Chim returned to his state of intermissive dozing; a feat made remarkable by his ability to sleep while sitting straight up.

While traveling in the van, I had the chance to witness, for the first time while on tour, the beauty of the evolving landscape. While riding in a bus at night, all of the blinds on the windows are typically closed and everyone is either sleeping or watching TV/DVDs.

While bus riders watch The Family Guy, Eros prefers to listen to books on tape. His selection includes The Complete Works of Aristotle and Atlas Shrugged (an E.I.Y. inspiring book). "Listening to books on tape makes me tired sometimes," admitted Eros. "So I usually turn up the music and start to sing along. Though my present collection is starting to wear thin, since I can't afford to buy new CDs." I attempted to stay awake as long as Eros did in order to experience everything he sustains, but around 4 a.m. I started to feel my eye lids become too heavy, as Eros yelped along to the chorus of Something Corporate's "Punk Rock Princess." I later had dreams which included The Postal Service as the soundtrack.

We soon passed the leaders of the caravan: the set-up crew trucks. Sinatra played over the speakers. I dozed off again...

Once in the city limits of Minneapolis, we stopped by the local Kinko's to create some new tags on the flyers that Eros hangs up to promote his stage and set time at every date. His new tags included:

"He may not sleep. But damn that boy can sing."

"One man. 20,000 miles. No cruise control."

"Saving the world one rhyme at a time."

With load-in only an hour away, Eros began his daily E.I.Y. artist routine (occasionally interrupted with sporadic intervention).

Before I left Eros, I asked him to tell me what drove his desire to live the lifestyle he chose. He replied with the most heartfelt monologue I have ever personally heard:

"The end of a long day is the beginning of a long drive. While most sit with a satisfied or relieved feeling after hours of hard work, I sit mixed with anticipation and a longing for rest. I know that if I close my eyes, I might not ever open them again. Yet, my will is as strong as ever. At this moment and at all others like it, nothing is more important than making this next drive. I have to keep up with the tour. I have to make it to the next city. I can, so I must.

"In classical mythology, Eros was condemned by Zeus to live a life without love. His power and purpose was to spread and inspire love in others, while never being allowed to have a love of his own. One day Eros laid eyes upon a woman who appeared as beauty incarnate, and he knew he had to have her. The woman was Psyche, and Eros began a secret romance with her so that they might live together in bliss for eternity. Eventually, the romance became known, but the power and immensity of their love for each other made Eros and Psyche inseparable as they withstood any test or force; the perfection of their union overwhelmed any who opposed it.

"As long as I keep up with this tour, there is a chance that my Psyche will recognize me. Any moment might be the one, so I must be ready at all times.

"In the meantime, for 20 minutes everyday, I get to live completely on my terms and tell what it means to do so in the 'real world.' On average, there are probably only two or three people who 'hear' what I'm saying and realize what I'm trying to do. But if those few people find something in my performance that helps them enjoy life more, I will have done what I set out to do. Eros, the god of love, would rather end his own existence than live in a world of men who hate theirs.

"I find it interesting that everyone who finds out what I'm doing immediately asks: 'How?' but never thinks to ask: 'Why?' But the 'How?' would not be possible without the 'Why?' Without reason, no action is possible to man.

"So why push myself to, and through, exhaustion, driving all night to perform and promote in the blazing sun all day? Because I believe I can do it, and everyone else thinks it's impossible. Because it's an exceptional achievement, and I'd rather be dead than mundane. Because I have no heroes, and I want one."

"So, why Warped Tour? I'll let Psyche answer that one."

As I returned to my bus exhausted, a small part of me wished I was driving that van. With such dedication and heartfelt motivation, everyone should envy and respect the man who goes by the name Eros.*

Proclamation of Self

2010-05-28T00:20:00.000-07:00

I am uncommon. That is my choice.

I choose liberty over security. Life is opportunity, which I exploit fully. My independence is primary, reliance on the state, or other men, can only humble and dull me – extinguish my fire.

I choose to risk – success is not a right, but no failure is ever complete.

I choose incentive and reward over a dole. I profit from challenge because I am able and self-disciplined. To exert, to earn, to fulfill and excel - these are thrills far too great to trade for guarantees.

I choose freedom over beneficence. My dignity and integrity are worth more than any handout. I refuse the unearned – in matter and in spirit. I am my only master – I do not cower, I bend to no threat.

I am man. I stand proud, erect, and fearless. My vision is power – and a challenge to the whole of existence – my mind is its source.

I think, I speak, I act – for myself. I exist at the disposal of no one, I live at the expense of no other. It is my right – and mine alone – to enjoy the benefits, and suffer the consequences, of my creations.

I choose the means, I choose the ends – I alone am responsible for my life. I am proud, I am noble, I am great.

I made this.

Human? Or Haitian?

2010-05-06T01:19:00.000-07:00

by Joe Herrington

The idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that's wrong with the world. – Dr. Paul Farmer (Kidder 4940).

Why does the life of a Haitian matter less? Why, since the beginning of recorded history, has this always been so? Though the answer to these questions may not be obvious, their asking names the reason why most Haitians find themselves impoverished to the point of desperation. There has been a cadre of extra-national (non-Haitian) forces controlling the economic and political realities of the people of Haiti for the last 500 years, imposing various wills by force, and violating the sovereignty of individuals by all means, from slavery and expropriation, to currency manipulation – a vicious mixture of politics and economics. Economics is the study of the movement of human values, and values are a matter of subjective judgment – individual choice, while politics is the application of ideas by force to increase human activity toward some proscribed end – the elimination of individual choice. Economics is not a normative science – it will not tell a person what to value – it will merely describe the natural laws, principles and relevant processes which comprise the ways and means of achieving human values (Mises 4-8). Politics is just the opposite, it will attempt to mandate goals, values, and other ends, though it is wholly unable to tell, explain, nor identify how to accomplish these mandates. It is through the perspective of this relationship between politics and economics that a clear understanding of the situation in Haiti can be attained, and it shall become clear that the actions of those who have wielded political force in the direction of Haiti over the last 500 years have all been driven by the belief that the life of a Haitian matters less: Haitian < Human.

Haiti was once known as the "Pearl of the Antilles," the producer of most of the wealth of France. Most achievements recognized as those of 17th and 18th century France were subsidized by the slave labor found on what was then called Hispaniola, with the island surpassing all other European colonies in terms of wealth produced. Now, after 200 years, and including one of the only successful slave rebellions ever, Haiti is the poorest nation in the Western hemisphere (Goodwin; “The Sad Bicentennial”). An estimated 75% of Haiti’s population of 7 million people lives in abject, miserable poverty, and the average Haitian has an income of $440 per year, if they're working – Haiti has a 70% unemployment rate (Jordan; Djankov 149). This income value, however, does not reflect the purchasing power of the amount, its "real wealth," and so does not explain much. Perhaps Dr. Farmer (co-founder of Partners In Health) can explain a bit more, since he knows that his average patient in Haiti needs medical attention, "...and a roof and a floor" (Kidder 4860). In the wake of the recent earthquake, what little some Haitians might have had has been reduced still further (for vivid examples, please see recent reports on this disaster), and even in our modern age, the sentiments and actions of many, even those who are (ostensibly) trying to help, are driven by the ugly Haitian < Human idea (Willentz).

What we know as Haiti began with the discovery of an island Columbus called Hispaniola, in 1492. It took the Spanish (and French) less than 90 years to completely destroy the indigenous Arawak population (the Taino branch) of over 1 million people, mostly through slave labor and infectious disease (Goodwin; Willentz; Aristide; Werleigh). This is the second violent and malicious example of indigenous Haitian lives meaning less to those who established dominion through the use of force. The first was the assumption of occupation of the island at all, establishing a colony by usurping the land of those already living there, what today’s governments and politicos blithely call “eminent domain." Effectively, this means that the possessor of the superior destructive weaponry is, ultimately, the possessor of everything else as well, if he should choose to claim it. A blatant violation of property rights such as this, as well as slavery (which is merely an extension of eminent domain), are only possible when the victim is viewed by the usurper as something other than the sovereign of his own life and property, and therefore something less than human. At various times, both France and Spain exerted dominion over the island and fought for control, but both imported slaves to replace the (now extinct) Arawak slave labor force.

By 1790, there were approximately 500,000 slave laborers and 30,000 plantation owners and other elites. By 1804, a slave rebellion had resulted in a successful revolution, and the (recently) indigenous people of Haiti ousted the French, declaring an independent republic (Hayti, an Arawak term for “Mountainous terrain”), the second in the western hemisphere (Werleigh; Goodwin). No nation in the world recognized Haiti's sovereignty at the time, refusing trade and alliance, with some enacting embargoes (Werleigh). In 1821, France surrounded the major ports of the island with gunboats, and held the fledgling nation for ransom. They demanded 90 million gold francs, in "exchange" for which, they would recognize the independence of the Haitian Republic, and not demolish their ports (Aristide; Goodwin). 90 million gold francs might seem like a large amount, until one considers that the purchasing power of gold has not diminished throughout most of history - 1 oz. of gold will buy today much the same that it bought in 1821 (e.g. a nice suit, shoes, and possibly a hat to match), and each gold franc was made of 290.3g (about 10 oz.) of gold - it might now seem like much more. Moreover, all currency (including gold) is representative of real human values (e.g. life, time, energy, etc.), whether past, present, or future, so an extortion of this kind robs the dead, living, and unborn, with costs totaling incalculable sums, even if the calculations are attempted in a purely mechanistic fashion.

Compared to the American Revolution, the Haitian Revolution won a very short-lived victory. In most of America, residents were able to enjoy true independence until the war of secession, and some until the early 20th century. A primary reason for this is geography. Both the American Revolution and the Haitian Revolution were won, not because of superior armaments and strength, but because the prospect of victory became too costly to the Imperial progenitor the revolutionaries were fighting against. After the American Revolution, the open frontier was so vast, and the difficulties of military deployment so great, that it took almost 100 years for the central government to build up an infrastructure and amass the force and resources necessary to make nationwide control a feasible goal. In other words, American people, to be free of external (i.e. governmental) controls, had somewhere to go; this is commonly referred to as “voting with your feet.” This option was not available for the Haitians, and it took only 20 years for France to amass the force and resources necessary to again subjugate the Haitian people. So with nowhere to go, and staring down the barrel of massively destructive firepower, the fledgling Haitian government agreed, under intense duress, to the demands of the French government, effectively enslaving the Haitian people to a massive debt for the next 122 years (Werleigh). As described above, this episode of imperial thuggery marked a crucial turning point in the movement of values for people of Haiti. From 1821 on, the movement of human values in Haiti would be almost entirely in directions away from the majority of the people living there, the root causes of all such movement being political, as they always had been.

The Republic of Haiti had lost their independence after 20 short years. From that point on, it was subject to the terms of foreign creditors (including governments besides France, as well as private/central banks, as the government of Haiti had to take out loans to pay the debt to the French government) , who would use military might to “protect investments” as necessary . It was in 1915 that the US government, acting under the auspices of the Monroe doctrine, took such action, with the military occupation of Haiti, which “officially” lasted until 1934 (Schmidt, ch. 7; “Chomsky”). Major General Smedley Butler was a commanding officer during the occupation, and later described his activities this way, "I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism" (Butler).

It might seem obvious that a debt would hamper any economy, especially one compounded by loans to pay it back, but to fully understand the extent of the destructive political power wielded against Haiti under these conditions, some consideration of monetary theory is necessary.

The current money (currency) of any locale is the means by which the inhabitants trade value for value. It is a symbolic representative of past, present, and future (claims to) real values (real wealth). It is also a commodity like anything else. As such, it is subject to the laws of supply and demand (pricing), which are themselves the observable manifestations of individual subjective valuations on a large scale (meaning that “demand” of a product increases because individuals decide that they value the product more than the dollars in their pocket, and more than potential expected future exchanges those particular dollars might enable. Conversely, individuals may decide to value the dollars or what they might buy in the future, more than the product). This also means that currency is subject to the laws of scarcity and marginal utility. Indeed, scarcity of money is necessary for the price (normally referred to as its purchasing power) of money to go up. As more and more individuals tend to value money for its usefulness in future exchange, “demand” for money increases, and the price of money goes up. Since currency is usually the standard of measure, this means that the observable effect is that prices for other things go down. Put another way, the more ubiquitous a given thing is, and the more easily accessible it is, the less valuable it becomes in terms of trade, despite any “objective value”. For instance, air is one of the most ubiquitous substances on the planet, and even though it is absolutely essential to human life, it has little value in terms of trade, except to the person who has little or no access to it.

The currency of the US was once based on a relatively finite amount of gold, which kept the ubiquity of the dollar somewhat constant, until 1971, when then-US-president Nixon severed the tie completely. Since then, the Federal Reserve (a private bank with no transparency) has had complete control over the amount of currency in circulation, by means (primarily, but among many) of manipulating interest rates on borrowing. When the US treasury wants to create more dollars (when the US congress wants more money to spend), it takes out a loan from the Federal Reserve. It then has to pay back the principal, plus interest. This means that every dollar in circulation, and then some, is “owed back,” and is therefore a debt. Further, this means that US currency, and all currencies linked to it, represent not real human values (as described above), but a claim that the US government, and therefore the private bankers of the Federal Reserve, et al, have against any who hold it. The validity of this claim should be clear in its absurdity, but the claim is backed by the jails and guns comprising leviathan, and it is the source of the equally absurd claims that “each US citizen” owes such-and-such portion of the “national debt”. Here again, we see the effects and error of attempting to influence the movement of human values by use of political force, instead of the science of economics.

Regardless, this is the manner in which the US Congress, charged with “balancing the federal budget” pays for all federal programs, domestic, international, imperial, etc. (Paul; Rothbard). This activity increases the ubiquity of the currency, which is where the term inflation comes from; it literally refers to “inflating” the currency by increasing the number of dollars in circulation, the real-world manifestation of which is an increase in prices generally (though not uniformly) over time. This is because of the representative nature of money – even though the number of dollars in circulation increases, the real value (real wealth) that the total amount of currency represents stays the same. Therefore, the value represented by each individual dollar (its purchasing power) lessens in direct proportion to the amount of currency (including credit) “inflation” (Mises; Bernstein; Paul).

What does all this mean to Haiti? Haiti (like the rest of the world since WWII) has used the US dollar as its “reserve” currency since the US occupation mentioned above (Dorsainvil). This means that the value of a Haitian dollar is directly tied to the value of a US dollar and decreases in value (i.e. purchasing power) as the ubiquity of the US dollar increases. This also means that Haiti makes payments on its debt with money that it owes more money (plus interest) on, according to its creditors and “benefactors.” Overall, this means that Haiti owes money to those who determine the value of the money they pay their debts with.

This reprehensible and untenable situation led to, and continues to drive, economic downturns for the average Haitian, as well as political unrest. While the rest of the world was experiencing the benefits of the industrial revolution – something Haiti, to this day, has yet to experience – the average Haitian was still, and is still, struggling in feudal conditions. In addition to the economic data offered at the outset, even a cursory review of the conditions of the shantytowns and lean-tos that used to be the ghettos of Port-Au-Prince reveals the abhorrent conditions prevailing in Haiti; conditions that most (in the “developed” world) might consider to have been eradicated by the Industrial Revolution, as they should have been. Clean water, regular and comprehensive hygiene, and nutritive food (providing nutrients enough to prevent the body’s reversion to self-consumption of lean muscle tissue), are unheard of for many Haitians, as is adequate shelter (Kidder; Djankov; Werleigh; Dorsainvil; “Haiti’s Latest”). These conditions are similar to or worse than that of peasants living under feudal and mercantilist systems prior to the Industrial Revolution. It is estimated that peasants under the aforementioned systems subsisted on the equivalent of $215/day in 1500 and $265/day in 1700 (Bernstein ch. 2).

…in the 17th century, poverty was reached when daily income was less than the daily cost of minimum bread requirement – in other words, when a person could not make enough money to buy a crust of bread. A quarter to half the population of 17th century England subsisted near or below this line of destitution (Bernstein 59).

The ostensible reasons for Haiti’s exclusion from the humanizing effects of the Industrial Revolution are essentially the same as those for the short-lived-ness of the period of independence discussed above. This is extremely significant, as the industrial revolution solved the problem of feeding (creating material wealth for) millions of people on limited resources (Mises, 14; Bernstein, 108). It also proved that prosperity is a function of freedom, independence, and respect for the property (i.e. boundaries) of individuals, including one’s primary property – oneself. In many ways, these are synonymous terms, but if we understand freedom to mean a state of being free from coercion, free of restraint imposed by external agency through the use of force (especially in economics, as described herein), and we understand independence to refer to one’s ability to choose and act as one sees fit, to exercise judgment and pursue values without being beholden to a creditor or dependent upon an external agency to provide basic life requirements, a very clear picture can begin to coalesce of what has been wrong in Haiti (among other places) for the last 500 years. It is also instructive to consider that as economics is the study of the movement of human values, it is necessarily then, about the movement (handling) of property, as any value can also be the property of an individual, once it is defined as being within the boundaries of the individual in question. “Boundaries”, in this case, refers to one’s “sphere of ownership,” akin to the common idea of a “sphere of influence.” Both abstract ideas, the former refers to all things one has exclusive control over, by right.

A respect for property and boundaries incentivizes productive activity. If one knows one will be able to keep the efforts of one’s labor, the labor will invariably be more fruitful.

‘Property’ is not simply some social invention, like Emily Post’s guide to etiquette, but a way of describing conditions that are essential to all living things. Every living thing must occupy space and consume energy from outside itself if it is to survive, and it must do so to the exclusion of all other living things on the planet. I didn’t dream this up. My thinking was not consulted before the life system developed. The world was operating on the property principle when I arrived and, like the rest of us, I had to work out my answers to that most fundamental, pragmatic of all social questions: who gets to make decisions about what? The essence of "ownership" is to be found in control: who gets to be the ultimate decision maker about people and "things" in the world?

Observe the rest of nature: trees, birds, fish, plants, other mammals, bacteria, all stake out claims to space and sources of energy in the world, and will defend such claims against intruders, particularly members of their own species. This is not because they are mean-spirited or uncooperative: quite the contrary, many of us have discovered that cooperation is a great way of increasing the availability of the energy we need to live well. We have found out that, if we will respect the property claims of one another and work together, each of us can enjoy more property in our lives than if we try to function independently of one another. Such a discovery has permitted us to create economic systems (Shaffer).

The recognition of the property principle is essential to economic development, whether viewed at the level of the individual, or viewed at the level of the community or society, comprised of individuals; it can be stated thusly: just as one has the right to one’s own life, that is complete and exclusive ownership of oneself, one also has the right to those extensions of self (e.g. values, property) created or acquired in acts of self-sufficiency and/or free exchange with others. This applies to all individual human beings and is a deductive truth, an extension of the fact that values are required in order to live, and can be proven to oneself by imagining what happens when one has no rights to the products and results of one’s efforts and exchanges. Unfortunately, however, no thought experiments need be conducted, as numerous examples of what happens when the property principle is defied occur throughout history, and especially in the 20th century, including (but not limited to) the former Soviet Union, whose defiance of the property principle led to the deaths of nearly 62,000,000 of its own citizens, the People’s Republic of China, under Mao Tse-tung, where 35,000,000 Chinese residents perished due to refusal to recognize the property principle, and of course, Nazi Germany, where denial of the property principle resulted in the deaths of 21,000,000 individuals (Rummel 8). Examples continue to this day, though the effects are relatively subtle by comparison.

Haiti is no exception to this cause and effect relationship; property rights, and the protection thereof, have been almost non-existent since the founding of Hispaniola, non-existent, that is, for Haitians. Wealthy slave-owners during the colonial period had protection. Subsequently, “Sugar Island” was a wonder of riches for those who were recognized as the property owners, though not for those producing the riches. This does not implicate property-holding as an evil, however. The wrong, in this case, followed from a misapplication of the property principle, because it did not begin with self-ownership. Tragically, modern Haitians still live under conditions where the property principle is denied them (even while it is granted to the politically-connected elite), partly from a cultural inheritance of slave history, a unique and powerful mixture of religious beliefs, partly from the fact that their so-called extra-national “benefactors” do nothing to defend individual rights, namely, the property principle, often doing more to expropriate and exploit (“Haiti’s Latest”), and partly from the internal policies of the Haitian national government which, while the confluence of extra-national forces is relatively overwhelming, operates in such a fashion that Haiti has one of the most heavily regulated economies in the world (Doing Business 4; Miller 220). This creates a situation where Haitians live among an abundance of natural resources, but have not means, nor incentive, to do anything with them. Effectively, then, it would seem that the “peculiar institution” has been developed into something more sophisticated.

In Haiti . . . the total assets of the poor are more than one hundred fifty times greater than all the foreign investment received since Haiti’s independence from France in 1804. If the United States were to hike its foreign aid budget to the level recommended by the UnitedNations—0.7 percent of national income—it would take the richest country on earth more than 150 years to transfer to the world’s poor resources equal to those they already possess.

…If they could operate in an environment of secure property rights, the world’s poor would have the solution to their own plight. Indeed with their already accumulated property secured, the world’s poor would be much less so (O’Driscoll 12).

In understanding economics as the movement of human values, and in light of all that has been discussed above, it is no surprise that the most heavily regulated (both internally and externally) economies in the world are also the worst performing, especially in terms of avg. wealth and income, and living conditions. This has been true throughout history, and continues to be true to this day, according to even the most casual observations, as well as two separate reports published by the World Bank in 2004 (Djankov) and 2010 (Doing Business), and the Index of Economic Freedom (Miller), published by the Heritage Foundation. Currently, Haiti consistently ranks in the bottom three to five nations (Djankov; Doing Business) and has historically been well below the world average in terms of economic freedom (Miller 219), with a 203 day waiting-period and start-up & capital costs exceeding 4 times the average income for opening a business (“Poverty’s Chains”; Miller 219). All of the worst performing economies of the world are also the least free, least conducive to independence, and least respecting of property (Djankov; Miller; Doing Business).

For 15 years, The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal have been measuring economic freedom in countries worldwide. Our historical evidence and volumes of supportive social science research demonstrate that economic freedom is good not only for individual economic advancement, but for the progressive values and public goods that people seek for society as a whole.

It's simply better to live in a free society. Higher levels of economic freedom lead to higher living standards and healthier human development. Greater economic freedom provides more choices and improves the quality of life by opening opportunities and promoting innovation (Miller).

These higher levels of economic freedom are synonymous with the previously mentioned principles, and incentivize production and industriousness on an individual level, which translates to massive increases in real wealth on a macroscopic scale over time. To begin with, a free monetary system, one not shackled to the inflationary practices of the US and the Federal Reserve (or any private and/or central bank, for that matter), has an immense effect on every aspect of economic life, since, as discussed, all money is representative of the real wealth and values existing, and economics is the movement of those values. When the inhabitants of a given area have recognized and begin interfacing with their state of freedom, and are assured that the property principle will be recognized as applying equally to all, real increases in material wealth, and the values required to maintain a higher standard of living in a self-sufficient manner, will follow from the choices and actions previously unavailable to the individuals under consideration. Ultimately, economic, and therefore human, development cannot occur except under certain conditions. Concerning Haiti, what is needed right now is material abundance, and the protection of Haitian individual rights to own and use that abundance, real human values to sustain and motivate a population that has been under the thumb of mercantilist, corporate-imperialism for 500 years, which has created conditions that are the exact opposite of what is needed.

The level of economic freedom was exceedingly high (in relative historical terms) in the era and areas that birthed the Industrial Revolution, and a similar birthing needs to occur in Haiti. Economic growth requires economic and political freedom. For anyone genuinely concerned with the welfare of the inhabitants of Haiti, this is a relationship that deserves understanding, as most of the relevant parties (including Haitians themselves) would say that what Haiti needs most right now is the production of material values and increases in local self-sufficient industry (“Not Quite Normal”). In other words, development and production by Haitians, leading to community re-investment as the process prospers. The conditions advocated here did obtain in Great Britain, Scotland, and the American colonies (all inheritors of centuries old British common law, which was a major factor in them enjoying the greatest economic freedom of the period), and that is why the major advances, innovations, and indeed the epicenter of the Industrial Revolution were to be found in those places. France, on the other hand, seemed peculiarly bereft of major advances and innovations during that time period, by comparison (Bernstein 103; Mises 14). This is because French common law was not conducive to the freedoms discussed so far, and the conditions never existed in proportion enough to incentivize the activities of economic growth and industrialization, at least not until some time after the irresistible humanizing effects of the Industrial Revolution had been felt. Not surprisingly then, it is mostly nations that began as French colonies, and therefore inherited French common law that now languish among the worst economies of the world (Djankov 116), and continue to perpetuate these negative economic conditions, including Haiti.

As a result of the recent disaster in Haiti, the G7, which is comprised of the finance ministers from the US, the UK, France, Italy, Canada, Japan, and Germany, have agreed to nullify the debt that Haiti “owes” to them and central banks around the world, such as the IMF (Coday). Given what we know about Haiti’s history, it might seem that no amount of money could make amends for what some of these countries have done to the people of Haiti, and it should be Haiti in the position of creditor, not debtor (Klein). Moreover, given what we know about monetary theory and economics, it might seem ironic and presumptuous that the so-called “leaders” of the “free world” would deliver this decision as an offering of “charity” or “generosity,” since the G7 is, literally, the organized body which determines and executes all policy concerning how the world’s reserve currency (the US dollar) is used and manipulated at the international level, and especially since most of the current debt was amassed by the murderous, kleptocratic dictatorships of the Duvaliers, from 1957-1984 – regimes which were supported by most of the G7 nations as a bulwark against Communism (Klein). To this day, military considerations like this take precedence over the lives of Haitians (Lindsay). Ultimately, this is very telling of the ubiquity of the idea that the Haitian people “can’t govern themselves” (“Haiti’s Latest”), and that the idea of Haitian < Human still motivates the top of the political-institutional hierarchy.

To hear the Haitian people tell it (something not considered relevant by the current political force wielders) the only hope that most Haitians have had in recent years has been the elections of the massively popular Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

"Under Aristide, the times were good," says Bazile, who is in her 30s, a mother of nine, and a member of Bel-Air's women's association. "We had jobs, income and food, our children went to school and we were able to support our families. Today, we have nothing but misery, misery, misery. The children haven't been to school for two years and they eat a plate of rice a day--at the best (Granqvist).

Aristide entered office as something of a radical populist. A minister by trade, his sermons often advocated the redistribution of wealth, “balancing” the economic disparity between the wealthy elite living in Haiti, and the miserable poor. “Poverty with dignity,” is an exemplary quote of his, and one he often employed in defining his political ambitions as they related to the 70% of the voting population that elected him.

We’re asking that you acknowledge that you’ve stolen, your countrymen have stolen, during colonization. If you truly want to call yourselves “developed” countries, you need to acknowledge what you’ve done to us. We have a right to recompense. – Jean Bertrand Aristide (Aristide)

It is clear that Aristide understood that Haitian suffering was a product of the activities relegated to history, he also understood the connection between development and economics, to a degree at least; that a “developed” nation is one that can produce wealth, real human values, toward the end of increasing economic growth, and how could these countries truly claim to be developed when those values came at the expense of human lives, Haitian human lives? Aristide implemented many humanizing policies and reforms, such as increasing access to healthcare and education, increasing access to programs that improved adult literacy, and aiding agricultural development, but these values came at the expense of those who were in control of the wealth of the Haitian land, especially those who had been benefitting from the long exploitation of the average Haitian individual; many of whom had the means to forcefully re-reform when the expense became too high. Aristide’s policies were not a cure for the ills described here, as we have seen repeatedly that the politicization of economics always results in a return, as evidenced by subsequent events in the case of Aristide. The reason for this truth is to be found in Newton’s laws. Specifically, that for every action, there is an equal and opposing reaction. Human nature, however it may be defined, is still a natural phenomenon, and is subject to all the same natural laws as the rest of the universe. This means that for every act of political force-wielding, a similar act will be returned in response, though specific factors (e.g. time and implementation) may be unpredictable. In the case of Aristide, his policies (those acts of political force-wielding) may be seen as serving a kind of retribution to the average Haitian individual, and one might be tempted to assess this as “justice,” but that would make justice merely the redistribution of violence, instead of the redistribution of values according to desserts, which is what concerns us here. Reality, in any case, is the ultimate arbiter of cases such as these, and the end result in this instance, as well similar examples throughout history only support this proposition. Ultimately, if using political force to direct the movement of human values is wrong, then using political force to direct the movement of human values is wrong.

Aristide did provide, one of the most important human values of all, however, and that was a very powerful spark of motivation and pride in most Haitians, who suddenly saw the future as a place and time in which they would be much better off, perhaps even prosper, and at least as somewhere they want to be. This is a massively significant aspect of economic growth, as no human being will work to create value if they do not feel worthy of value (pride), and see no hope or reality of enjoying those values in the future, immediate or otherwise (motivation).

Regardless, Aristide, operating under the conditions already described, had little chance to effect much change in Haiti, as the military overthrew his presidency only 6 months after his first election in 1991 (Aristide). He was not re-instated until after agreeing to implement policies outlined by the IMF and World Bank, the very policies advocated by Mark Bazin, the US-backed opponent Aristide had defeated in the election of 1991, which would only exacerbate most of the problems in Haiti (Aristide; “Haiti’s Latest”). Among these were agreements to import US-subsidized corporate agriculture products, like rice. Rice production, however, was one of the few things many Haitians had, with which to generate economic good for themselves and their communities. Having to compete with US-subsidized imports meant these limited productive enterprises were no longer tenable, and many Haitians entered a new level of poverty thereby (“Chomsky”). Subsequently, many also decided to go to Port-Au-Prince to find work. This influx of inland peasantry greatly increased the human cost of the recent earthquake. Aristide’s time in office expired shortly after his re-instatement. He was re-elected in 2001, again on a platform of better lives for the poor through redistribution, and again overwhelmingly. It was during this presidency that he demanded restitution from France, of the 90 million gold francs once stolen at gun-boat point. He was “removed” from power in 2004, when then-US-vice-president Dick Cheney decided that Aristide had, “Worn out his welcome,” (Granqvist).

The question being asked around the world now is, “How can we help Haiti?” Motivations for, and implications of the question notwithstanding, a good first step would be international recognition of all of that which is described above, plus the rest of story. Perhaps reparations and recompense could be attempt by the so-called “creditor” nations, but where would they come from, and what kind of precedent would that set? Perhaps it would set the same kind that George Washington wanted to avoid when he committed resources to help put down the Haitian slave rebellion in 1779 (Goodwin). It seems unlikely that any substantial steps toward real healing will be undertaken soon, especially when the average citizen of the world’s “super powers” do not hold the members of their governments accountable for the atrocities committed on a daily basis around the world, including Haiti and many others. Many of the causes of Haiti’s problems exist in every nation on earth. All governments use elastic currency, the property principle is often denied, and freedom is an increasingly rare state of existence; and it is all made possible by the belief that some lives matter less. The solutions are implied by the explanation of the problems, and can only occur spontaneously, as more and more individuals understand the nature of the systems at work.

Economics is the study of the movement of human values, it cannot tell us what to value, but it is telling us that values can only move toward the betterment of all humans if certain conditions obtain. That is, if freedom and independence are increased, and the property principle is respected and secure. For these reasons, political influence on economics will always be destructive, except insofar as it is absent. The point is clear in the case of Haiti, but for the real cure to occur, individuals the world over must understand these principles and defend them. All human beings are different in some ways, but all human beings are individuals, even Haitians. Recognition of this fundamental truth must form the basis for all social and economic enterprise, including solutions to current problems, that is, if the desire is economic growth, human well-being, and increased standards of living for all humans; the tragedy of Haiti has brought this to the attention of the world. Haitians are human. Human life matters.

Works Cited

Aristide and the Endless Revolution. Dir. Nicolas Rossier. First Run Features, 2005. DVD.

Bernstein, Andrew. The Capitalist Manifesto: The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case For Laissez-Faire. Lanham, MD: University of America, 2005. Print.

Butler, Smedley D., and Adam Parfrey. War Is a Racket: the Antiwar Classic by America's Most Decorated General, Two Other Anti-interventionist Tracts and Photographs from 'The Horror of It' Los Angeles, Calif.: Feral House, 2003. Print.

"Chomsky on Haiti: Aid Should Go to Haitian Popular Organizations, Not to Contractors or NGOs." Interview by Keane Bhatt. Counterpunch 9 Mar. 2010. Print.

Coday, Dennis. "Forgiving Haiti's Debt." National Catholic Reporter 19 Feb. 2010: 1+. Academic Search Premier. Web. 1 Apr. 2010.

Djankov, Simeon, Caralee McLiesh, and Michael Klein. Doing Business in 2004: Understanding Regulation. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2004. Print.

Doing Business in 2010: Reforming In Difficult Times. Houndsmills [u.a.]: Palgrave Macmillan [u.a.], 2009. Print.

Dorsainvil, Kathleen. "Welfare Effects of Exchange Controls: An Application to the Haitian Economy." International Advances in Economic Research 6.3 (2000): 427-37. Academic OneFile. Web. 1 Apr. 2010. .

Goodwin, Clayton. "Why Haiti Is Poor." New African Feb. 2010: 38-41. Print.

Granqvist, Manne. "Haiti: the Suffering Continues under UN Noses." New African Feb. 2006: 62-63. Academic OneFile. Web. 1 Apr. 2010. a0142575272>.

"Haiti's Latest Coup: Structural Adjustment and the Struggle for Democracy An Interview with Camille Chalmers." Multinational Monitor 18.5 (1997): 20-23. Academic Search Premier. Web. 1 Apr. 2010. .

Jordan, Patrick. "The State of Haiti. (social and Political Conditions)." Commonweal 123.9 (1996):10-11. Academic OneFile. Web. 13 Apr. 2010.

Kidder, Tracy. Mountains beyond Mountains. New York: Random House, 2003. Kindle.

Klein, Naomi. "Haiti: A Creditor, Not a Debtor." The Nation 11 Feb. 2010. The Nation. Web. 13 Apr. 2010.

Lindsay, Reed. "Haiti's Excluded." The Nation 11 Mar. 2010. Academic Search Premier. Web. 1 Apr. 2010. .

Miller, Terry, and Anthony Kim. "To Save the Earth, Encourage Economic Freedom." Research and Analysis | The Heritage Foundation. 31 Dec. 2009. Web. 14 Apr. 2010. To-Save-the-Earth-Encourage-Economic-Freedom>.

Miller, Terry. 2010 Index of Economic Freedom. New York: Wall Street Journal, 2010. Print.

Mises, Ludwig Von. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. 4th ed. San Francisco: Fox & Wilkes, 1996. Print.

"Not quite normal: Haiti." The Economist [US] 27 July 1996: 38+. Academic OneFile. Web. 14 Apr. 2010.

O'Driscoll, Gerald P., and Lee Hoskins. Policy Analysis 482 (2003). Web. 25 Apr. 2010. .

Paul, Ron, and Lewis E. Lehrman. The Case for Gold: a Minority Report of the U.S. Gold Commission. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 1982. Print.

"Poverty's Chains." Economist 11 Oct. 2003: 77. Print.

Rothbard, Murray Newton. What Has Government Done to Our Money? Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 1990. Print.

Rummel, Rudolph J. Death By Government. New Brunswick [etc.: Transaction, 2008. Print.

Schmidt, Hans. Maverick Marine: General Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History. Lexington, Ky.: University of Kentucky, 1987. Print.

Shaffer, Butler. "Wizards of Ozymandias: Do You Own Yourself." LewRockwell.com. 2002. Web. 08 Apr. 2010. .

"The sad bicentennial of a once fabulous sugar colony; Haiti." The Economist [US] 20 Dec. 2003:

Werleigh, Claudette A. "Haiti and the Halfhearted." Journal of the Atomic Scientists 49.9 (1993): 20-23. Academic Search Premier. Web. 1 Apr. 2010. gbs_toc_r&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=false>.

Wilentz, Amy. "The Haiti Haters." Nation 21 Jan 2010: 5-6. Print. 48US. Academic OneFile. Web. 14 Apr. 2010. .

RevCo Lubricatour

2009-09-02T00:18:00.000-07:00

I'll be on this tour. Listen to the music here: RevCo

September 10 - El Paso - TX - Club 101*
September 12 - Albuquerque - NM - Sunshine Theater
September 13 - Denver - CO - Gothic Theater
September 14 - Ft Collins - CO - Aggie Theater
September 15 - Salt Lake - UT - Club Vegas
September 17 - Coeur d'Alene - ID - The Grail
September 18 - Seattle - WA - Studio Seven
September 19 - Vancouver - BC - Rickshaw Theatre
September 20 - Portland - OR - Dante's
September 23 - San Francisco - CA - The Fillmore
September 24 - Orangevale - CA - The Boardwalk
September 25 - San Diego - CA - Brick By Brick
September 26 - Tempe - AZ - The Clubhouse
September 27 - Los Angeles - CA - House of Blues*
October 1 - San Antonio - TX - White Rabbit
October 2 - Okalahoma City - OK - Diamond Ballroom
October 3 - Kansas City - MO - The Beaumont
October 4 - St. Louis - MO - The Firebird
October 6 - Chicago - IL - House of Blues*
October 7 - Detroit - MI - Blondie's
October 8 - Cleveland - OH - Peabody's
October 9 - St. Thomas - ON - Coolz Warehouse
October 10 - Ottawa - ON - Babylon
October 11 - Montreal - QC - Foufounes Electriques
October 12 - Toronto - ON - Reverb
October 14 - Pittsburgh - PA - Chess Arena
October 15 - Allentown - PA - Croc Rock
October 16 - Worcester - MA - The Palladium
October 17 - New York - NY - Irving Plaza*
October 18 - Baltimore - MD - Ram's Head Live
October 20 - Jacksonville - FL - Jackrabbits
October 21 - Orlando - FL - Firestone
October 22 - Fort Lauderdale - FL - Revolution
October 23 - St. Petersburg - FL - The State Theatre
October 24 - Charlotte - NC - Tremont Music Hall
October 25 - New Orleans - LA - House of Blues
October 27 - Houston - TX - Warehouse Live Studio
October 29 - Fort Worth - TX - Ridglea Theater
October 30 - Austin - TX - Emo's

* = with special guest Al Jourgensen

Free-Market Monetary System

2008-11-21T23:44:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow is a big day for those who understand the evils of the Federal Reserve, and if success comes to the good, then it is a big day for everyone. In light of the protests scheduled to commence at Fed locations all over the country (http://www.endthefed.us/), I offer this excerpt from an essay by Friedrich A. Hayek, and a link to read more:

"I think it is very urgent that it become rapidly understood that there is no justification in history for the existing position of a government monopoly of issuing money. It has never been proposed on the ground that government will give us better money than anybody else could. It has always, since the privilege of issuing money was first explicitly represented as a Royal prerogative, been advocated because the power to issue money was essential for the finance of the government-not in order to give us good money, but in order to give to government access to the tap where it can draw the money it needs by manufacturing it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is not a method by which we can hope ever to get good money. To put it into the hands of an institution which is protected against competition, which can force us to accept the money, which is subject to incessant political pressure, such an authority will not ever again give us good money."

...read more: http://mises.org/story/3204

Sow, sow socialism

2008-10-06T16:12:00.000-07:00

I despise all politicians equally.

That is the context from which I write, I think it's important, because I want to be clear that I don't take "sides" on political issues, as I've removed myself from the arena completely.

That being said, even if 1848 had marked the beginning of recorded history, I am of a mind that the social, political, and otherwise anthropological data available should be enough to convince anyone that there are ZERO good ideas in Marxist doctrine.

Clearly, my mind is a minority.

R.J. Rummel is a scholar out of the University of Hawaii who has compiled massive amounts of data about 20th century government, to the end of writing an excellent book, "Death By Government." In this book, Rummel calculates that more than 250 million people died in the 20th century at the hands of (as a result of the policies of) their own governments - not including casualties of war (he calls it "Democide").

And before you say anything: the U.S. is not exempt from this tally.

There's an interesting relationship discovered when compiling this data and reading the work: the more socialist (i.e. marxist) policies adopted by a given government, the higher the body count. Naturally, communist countries are the bloodiest - even though their greater secrecy obfuscates most of the data (until, that is, the regime topples, and information finally gets out).

And now we have the U.S. in 2008. Major financial institutions are being nationalized, with talk of other industries being brought fully into the government fold by and by (note: once the government starts financing your business, you're nationalized), the most popular U.S. presidential candidate proposes mandatory universal health-care, high-school students are being required to "volunteer" for community service, and people all over the country are eating it up. Meanwhile, Halliburton has been building internment camps for at least the last 6 years (as part of the Patriot and Military Commissions acts): http://www.libertyforlife.com/jail-police/us_concentration_camps.htm

Worried yet?

The good news is, all it takes to end this nonsense is a spine.

Or:

Sow, sow socialism.

You will reap it.

You will reap it.

The End Is Nigh

2008-10-04T00:51:00.000-07:00

The "Bailout Bill" has officially passed both houses of congress, and been signed by the executive tyrant.

Get out while you can.

I don't mean physically leave the country, necessarily. For most people, there is no better option than the U.S., but this 800 billion dollar boondoggle is certain to have some far-reaching, terribly devastating effects.

Did anyone else notice that every "expert economist" allowed to voice an opinion in the mainstream media had no answer to the so-called "economic crisis?" They held either one of two opinions: a) the bailout won't work, b) i don't know if the bailout will work, but we can't do nothing.

Irony, anyone?

It's this "we must do something, whether or not we know the likely effects" attitude that has created every socio-econo-political mess in history. I have a suggestion for anyone holding a government office:

Don't do anything.

Try it, it feels good sometimes.

As for the rest of you, disappear. Do it as soon, and as discreetly as you can. Your self-appointed masters in Washington, and in the various state capitols, are dragging you as deep into the throes of depression and domination as you will let them. They are creating new currency out of thin air and giving it to corporations whose practices and decisions led them to financial ruin, and it will lead you there too.

This is not about saving Main St., it's not even about "saving" Wall St. (fun fact: Wall Street has been around a lot longer than the Federal Reserve, legal tender laws, and even the U.S. Congress). This is about buying time. Period.

"Buying time for what?" I pretend to hear you ask.

The easy answer is: the election. Beyond that, I wish I could say exactly - rest assured, it's not good - but I doubt that most politicians have any vision beyond the end of this year. They just wanted to be able to stop sweating about this for now. When that bailout money finally gets spent and starts to be distributed throughout the rest of the plebeian economic sectors, we will see a massive devaluation of the dollar, loss of purchasing power, and sudden drop in standard of living, for everyone except Secretary Paulson's friends.

To clarify: 1) government governs. Period. There is no other purpose for such an institution, so of course there is no surprise about what has transpired concerning the bailout, and there will be no surprise when more power to whoever stands at the helm of the next "crisis." 2) Politicians seek power. Period. And I'm not talking about your "divine-inner-self-mind-over-matter-power-of-now-eckhart-tolle" power (though, as far as mind-over-matter goes, a favorite Washington slogan is, "Reality is negotiable"), I'm talking about raw, naked, force - coercive power over the lives of other people: their subjects, namely: you.

Disappear.

Don't get caught in their web of destruction. Get out of all intangible investments - put what money you still have to work for you. A bank can't "save" your money when they can't even save themselves. So take it out of there, and trade those worthless pieces of paper for some real, tangible assets (e.g. gold, silver, oil, productive equipment, etc.), think of things people will need when the system starts to fall apart, then trade with real people. Find others who hold a healthy distrust of the current situation and agree on your own "currency." Move away from the big cities if you can, find communities that rely on character and productive work, rather than credit and slick sales pitches.

When you've discovered that your values, those things that you work to achieve and protect, are being destroyed by the puppeteers and minions of the state apparatus, and that your ability to protect them depends only on your ability to hold on to one word (one simple, little word - my first, perhaps yours, too), you will never have to worry about any government "crisis" ever again.

What's the word?

No.

Letter to the IRS

2007-07-06T14:23:00.000-07:00

July 6, 2007
Memphis Internal Revenue Service
Center COIC Unit
PO Box 30804, AMC
Memphis, TN 38130-0804

To Whom It May Concern:

I have enclosed a copy of my most recent paycheck, upon which I have cited the amount of money forcefully taken from me, by you.

I hereby request to have the total amount returned to me immediately. It is mine - it represents my time, my effort, my life. For the time being, I choose to forego all previous amounts taken from me, as I have not kept an adequate record of these amounts.

It is not often that one has the opportunity to confront those who have perpetrated armed robbery against him, so I thank you for committing this act so openly and making yourselves so easily available.

Please contact me at your earliest convenience to arrange the return of my stolen property (money).

Sincerely,

Joseph William Herrington III
joeyrose@gmail.com
310-961-0167

Just Here To Work

2007-07-06T13:34:00.000-07:00

I am thinking of a particular day this past April.

It was while I was still working as a bartender at The Melting Pot in Pasadena, CA. Before each shift, and just prior to the restaurant being open for dinner, a meeting would be held. During the meeting, important new developments would be discussed, concerns would be addressed, and (very often) time would be wasted - I generally attended these meetings in silence. As I was excusing myself from this particular meeting, the Vice President of Operations asked, "Any words of wisdom for us before you go?"

I replied, "I'm just here to work."

I think of that line often, as of late. Each time I'm being interviewed by a prospective employer and am asked, "What makes you a good employee?" or "What would you bring to our organization?" my own words echo in my mind as a cry of exultant pride and futility at once.

I was able to remain an employee of The Melting Pot for another month following that meeting, before my work ethic became my undoing. It was in the second week of May that new labor laws from the state legislature of California went into effect. According to California Labor Code section 512(a) "An employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more than five hours per day without providing the employee with a meal period of not less than 30 minutes..." and as if explicitly dictating how any private business owner will run his operation (which is nothing new, I know) is not bad enough, the code goes on, "...except that if the total work period per day of the employee is no more than six hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of both the employer and employee," implying that the breaks must not only be provided by the employer, but actually taken by the employee - if one works for any period of time longer than six hours (indeed, the state website even has a diagrammed breakdown, showing 6:01 as necessitating a mandatory 30 minute break).

If this seems absurd to you, I recommend looking it up. Nevertheless, after more than a century of the cancerous spread of the malevolence known as "labor laws," the members of state see nothing wrong with outright dictatorial legislation, and probably expect no opposition. I, however, will not be fooled into thinking that my rights exist at the say-so of lawmakers. I still consider it my right to choose when and if I will take a break, or when and if I will do anything else job-related. In this case, though, I anticipated (and was quickly assured) that I would be lonely in my stand, and I am now a broken egg in the state's latest omelet. I refused to take any breaks during the first weekend of the new law's enforcement, and for that I was fired. I have been unemployed and, as a corollary, homeless, for over a month now. I live in my van in Pasadena (where I am a student at Pasadena City College), and I search for a parking space each night that is somewhat level and will not bring me a ticket by morning, as the city of Pasadena requires a special permit for overnight parking, and attainment of the permit requires a residence in Pasadena.

I no longer wonder what makes this kind of thing possible - and I make no pleas of any kind, I understand that my situation is a result of my own choices - but this is really happening. We live in a world where the threat of force is supposed to be the motive power behind an individual's decision on how to do his job. "Take your break or face legal action," now has a place in the minds of all. I do not blame the owners of The Melting Pot, they are weak, this is a fight they haven't the stomach for. Nor do I intend to villify them, I did what I did with full knowledge of the possible consequences - I do not claim ignorance, only integrity.

I do not choose to sacrifice my best efforts, the possibility of a job well done, or any other part of self to any man (or body of men), whether or not they are irresponsible and vicious enough to think it proper to dictate what shall be done (and when) with my life, time, and effort. What I wanted was the freedom to do my job well, but this is merely one facet of a much bigger issue: that the use of force is never an appropriate way to deal with those who do not initiate its use. Unfortunately, the layers of vicious and misguided philosophy and law that must be peeled away before we reach a point where men accept, and the state operates, on a principle such as this are far too numerous for my incident to create any impact, in and of itself. Which means that until a significant number of self-respecting individuals protest these laws in their own way - as they should - the laws will get worse, the violations of individual rights more severe, and my own disobedience will continue until I wind up in court, or in jail, or in both - I've always considered the judicial branch of our government to be a more effective means of change than "letters to the senator."

In the meantime, in the name of the public good, and for the sake of the workers of the state of California, I live in a van in Pasadena, without employment. I have half a tank of gas left, some items in a storage space requiring a $166 rent payment by the end of the month, and about $11. I would like to remain a student at PCC - I consider my experience there (and the possibilities) to be a great value - we shall see.

If I do obtain employment again, I hope it is with someone who understands me when I say, "I'm just here to work."

iLiberty 2006 Spring Essay Contest Winners

2007-06-11T20:35:00.000-07:00

Third Place:

"You've come a long way, baby."

In 1968, Philip Morris used this slogan to introduce a new brand of cigarettes, marketed specifically toward young, professional women: Virginia Slims. Those six words, now immortalized in the catalog of American idiom, were a very clever nod to their target group, recognizing the great strides that had been made, as women were finally taking their rightful place in the world, on a level field of intellectual equality with men.

In the context of this essay, however, those six words are intended to convey a very different meaning.

On December 16, 1773, Samuel Adams led a group of 50 men, known as The Sons of Liberty, to Griffin's Wharf in Boston, MA, whereupon they seized and destroyed 342 crates of tea owned by the British East India Tea Company. This was in protest to the enactment of a law that exempted the East India Company from all duties and taxes, in order to help them establish a government-enforced monopoly on tea trade with the colonies.

Many Americans today would view this as trivial and largely insignificant. Moreover, tea consumption is not as popular as it once was in America, but this one night in Boston helped to start a revolution.

Individual rights (in this case, rights to a fair, unregulated marketplace) were so important to Americans, that a war was fought to preserve them; a war in which roughly 130,000 people were killed. This is a far cry from the general apathy affecting most Americans' view of government regulations today.

"You've come a long way, baby."

I came up with that while sitting on the hood of my car, which was parked on the street in front of my apartment, as I was smoking a cigarette. Is that particularly relevant? Yes, because I chose to do it, and that's the point. It is my right, my inalienable right to sit on the hood of my car and smoke a cigarette if that's what I choose to do. The attacks on "vices", such as the public smoking bans, and other attempts to legislate provisions for personal behavior as such, are attacks on human beings as such, on the ability of the sovereign individual to run his own life.

So, what is a right? A right is an action that is guaranteed, as an option, to a rational individual, in a social context. All rights are guaranteed to all rational individuals, which means that, to be a right, an action may not infringe upon the rights of others. Therefore, in order to preserve rights, one must accept and, in fact, revel in, responsibility for one's own actions.

Unfortunately, irresponsibility has spread like an unstoppable virus. As evidence, I submit that the following question would never have been considered by The Sons of Liberty, to whom personal responsibility was an unquestioned ethos.

Should government intervene in our lives to prevent us from making choices that make us sick, injure us, or even kill us?

No.

It's that simple. To even consider the notion, one has to accept the premise that the individual is a ward of the state and is, therefore, incapable of making responsible choices and any deviation from predetermined courses of action are inadmissible.

In order to determine the value, the "good," of any choice or action, there must first be a standard; "to whom" and "for what." As a fully functioning, rational adult human being, I take pride in understanding the consequences of my actions, and what's "good" for me is determined by continual reference to a very long list of hierarchical values comprised of long and short-range goals. When the government acts as a nanny state and begins to prescribe actions by fiat, my power of volition, my most precious ability as a human being, is effectively taken away. I am no longer allowed to make choices against a "very long list of hierarchical values," therefore, why should I have any?

How do we strike a balance between public health and individual liberty?

We don't.

It's that simple. There is no balance to be struck. Only death awaits where food and poison meet halfway. In the first place, there is no such thing as "the public health," it is a myth. There is only individual health: my health, your health, his health, her health. If the goal is to enable individual Americans to achieve a greater level of health and well-being, the only way possible is through education and the preservation of individual liberty, allowing individuals to make all manner of choices, good and bad, so that, bit by bit, each of us can learn from the mistakes and successes of ourselves and each other.

The rise of statist policies (in particular, government controls enacted to affect individual behavior) such as public smoking bans, lead us down a slippery slope to all manner of disastrous consequences, intended and not. The grotesquely brilliant example of this can be seen in recent history with Prohibition; where there is no choice, evil fills the void.

The American system of government and law is one that works off of established precedent. Meaning: whatever implications are made in a particular legal decision will be carried further (as an extension of necessary, logical consequences) the next time a similar issue is addressed. In other words, if Americans are willing to give up the right to smoke in public now, on the premise that it's "bad for the public health," who will be able to stop legislation down the road that makes eating red meat in public illegal because it's "bad for the public health?" What about coffee?

Some say that the public smoking bans are necessary to protect the "rights of non-smokers." In the first place, there is no such thing as "rights" of a non-anything. Secondly, there are only individual rights; there can be no specialized rights for select groups. Not only does that reek of aristocracy and feudalism, it is morally wrong; all rights apply equally to all human beings. The issue then, is to precisely define whose rights are being violated. And in fact, it is the private business owners who are primarily violated. It is unconstitutional, as well as morally wrong, for state and federal government to determine for private citizens how to run their business.

When an individual decides to go into business for himself, his entire livelihood is stake. He has every right to make whatever decisions he deems necessary in order to run his business the way he sees fit. Only a totalitarian mentality would think it okay for the government to step in and tell him to do otherwise.

If the owner of a local pub wants people to be able to smoke in his establishment, so be it. If a non-smoker does not want to be subjected to the smoke, then he should not patronize the establishment.

When policy-makers begin to think that they "know what's best" and ought to make decisions for Americans, and Americans start believing them, the road to despotism is a short one. The "public health" has a very familiar ring to it. Does the "public interest" or the "will of the people" sound familiar? These have always been the favorite justifications of statist regimes and proponents, from Nazi Germany to the former Soviet Union, where individual rights are abrogated in the name of some nebulous, undefined (and undefinable) "greater good."

The answer is to allow individuals to make their own choices regarding how to live their lives and seek their happiness, the way our founding fathers intended. Thomas Jefferson once said, "I have sworn eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." I look out at the world and see very few of his brothers-in-spirit, and that is sad.

Somewhere along the way, the men at the helm steered America away from the values that made her great. But, reality is the great arbiter of justice, and rights will survive because they are right. However, if you and I want to enjoy them, we must recognize when they are being attacked, and take responsibility for ourselves.

In the words of Dean Alfange:

I do not choose to be a common man or woman. It is my right to be uncommon, if I can.

I seek opportunity - not security. I do not wish to a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me.

I want to take the calculated risk - to dream and build - to fail and succeed.

I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence - the thrill of fulfillment to the calm state of Utopia.

I will not trade freedom for beneficence - nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any master - nor bend to any threat.

It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid - to think and act for myself - enjoy the benefits of my creations and to face the world boldly and say -

This I have done.

The overall tone of this poem is one of accepting and cherishing personal responsibility, a sentiment I know our founding fathers understood, but I doubt many Americans currently do. The proof lies in the lack of outrage over government controls like the public smoking ban. It seems as though many Americans today actually believe that they are incapable of making proper choices, while many others simply refuse to accept responsibility for their own lives, clearing the road for the nanny state.

"You've come a long way, baby."

How long before we've gone too far?

2007-04-01T08:51:00.000-07:00

"...Extrospectively, the sense of life of another person strikes one as an immediate, yet undefinable, impression - on very short acquaintance - an impression which often feels like certainty, yet is exasperatingly elusive, if one attempts to verify it.

"This leads many people to regard a sense of life as the province of some sort of special intuition, as a matter perceivable only by some special, non-rational insight. The exact opposite is true: a sense of life is not an irreducible primary, but a very complex sum; it can be felt - but it cannot be understood - by an automatic reaction, it has to be analyzed, identified and verified conceptually. That automatic impression - of oneself or of others - is only a lead. But if and when that intangible impression is supported by and unites with the conscious judgment of one's mind, the result is the most exultant form of certainty one can ever experience: it is the integration of mind and values.

"...One falls in love with the embodiment of the values that form a person's character, which are reflected in his widest goals or smallest gestures, which create the style of his soul - the individual style of a unique, unrepeatable, irreplacable consciousness. It is one's own sense of life that acts as the selector, and responds to what it recognizes as one's own basic values in the person of another. It is not (simply) a matter of professed convictions; it is a matter of much more profound, conscious and subconscious harmony."

- Ayn Rand, The Romantic Manifesto

This is the mind on strike

2007-02-05T17:25:00.000-08:00

"Through all the ages, the mind has been regarded as evil, and every form of insult: from heretic to materialist to exploiter - every form of iniquity: from exile to disenfranchisement to expropriation - every form of torture: from sneers to rack to firing squad - have been brought down upon those who assumed the responsibility of looking at the world through the eyes of a living consciousness and performing the crucial act of rational connection. Yet only to the extent to which - in chains, in dungeons, in hidden corners, in the cells of philosophers, in the shops of traders - some men continued to think, only to that extent was humanity able to survive. Through all the centuries of the worship of the mindless, whatever stagnation humanity chose to endure, whatever brutality to practice - it was only by the grace of men who perceived that wheat must have water in order to grow, that stones laid in a curve will form an arch, that two and two makes four, that love is not served by torture and life is not fed by destruction - only by the grace of those men did the rest of them learn to experience moments when they caught the spark of being human, and only the sum of such moments permitted them to continue to exist. It was the man of the mind who taught them to bake their bread, to heal their wounds, to forge their weapons and to build the jails into which they threw him. He was the man of extravagant energy, and reckless generosity - who knew that stagnation is not man's fate, that impotence is not his nature, that the ingenuity of his mind is his noblest and most joyous power - and in service to that love of existence he was alone to feel, he went on working, working at any price, working for his despoilers, for his jailers, for his torturers, paying with his life for the privilege of saving theirs. This was his glory and his guilt - that he let them teach him to feel guilty of his glory, to accept the part of a sacrificial animal and, in punishment for the sin of intelligence, to perish on the altars of the brutes. The tragic joke of human history is that on any of the altars men erected, it was always man whom they immolated and the animal whom they enshrined. It was always the animal's attributes, not man's, that humanity worshipped: the idol of instinct and the idol of force - the mystics and the kings - the mystics, who longed for an irresponsible consciousness and ruled by means of the claim that their dark emotions were superior to reason, that knowledge came in blind, causeless fits, blindly to be followed, not doubted - and the kings, who ruled by means of claws and muscles, with conquest as their method and looting as their aim, with a club or a gun as sole sanction of their power. The defenders of man's soul were concerned with his feelings, and the defenders of man's body were concerned with his stomach - but both were united against his mind. Yet no one, not the lowest of humans is ever able fully to renounce his brain. No one has ever believed in the irrational; what they do believe in is the unjust. Whenever a man denounces the mind, it is because his goal is of a nature the mind would not permit him to confess. When he preaches contradictions, he does so in the knowledge that someone will accept the burden of the impossible, someone will make it work for him at the price of his own suffering or life; destruction is the price of any contradiction. It is the victims who made injustice possible. It is the men of reason who made it possible for the rule of the brute to work. The despoiling of reason has been the motive of every anti-reason creed on earth. The despoiling of ability has been the motive of every creed that preached self-sacrifice. The despoilers have always known it. We haven't. The time has come for us to see. What we are now asked to worship, what had once been dressed as God or king, is the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent. This is the new ideal, the goal to aim at, the purpose to live for, and all men are to be rewarded according to how close they approach it. This is the age of the common man, they tell us - a title to which any man may claim to the extent of such distinction as he has not managed to achieve. He will rise to a rank of nobility by means of the effort he has failed to make, he will be honored for such virtue as he has not displayed, and he will be paid for the goods which he did not produce. But we, we who must atone for the guilt of ability - we will work to support him as he orders, with his pleasure as our only reward. Since we have the most to contribute, we will have the least to say. Since we have the better capacity to think, we will not be permitted a thought of our own. Since we have the judgment to act, we will not be permitted an action of our choice. We will work under directives and controls, issued by those who are incapable of working. They will dispose of our energy, because they have none to offer, and of our product, because they can't produce. Do you say that this is impossible, that it cannot be made to work? They know it, but it is you who don't - and they are counting on you not to know it. They are counting on you not to go on, to work to the limit of the inhuman and to feed them while you last - and when you collapse, there will be another victim starting out and feeding them, while struggling to survive - and the span of each succeeding victim will be shorter, and while you'll die to leave them a railroad, your last descendant-in-spirit will die to leave them a loaf of bread. This does not worry the looters of the moment. Their plan - like all the plans of all the royal looters of the past - is only that the loot shall last their lifetime. It has always lasted before, because in one generation they could not run out of victims. But this time - it will not last. The victims are on strike. We are on strike against martyrdom - and the moral code that demands it. We are on strike against those who believe that one man must live for the sake of another. We are on strike against the morality of cannibals, be it practiced in body or in spirit. We will not deal with men on any terms but ours - and our terms are a moral code which holds that man is an end in himself and not the means to any end of others. We do not seek to force our code upon them. They are free to believe what they please. But, for once, they will have to believe it and to exist - without our help. And, once and for all, they will learn the meaning of their creed. That creed has lasted for centuries solely by the sanction of the victims - by means of the victims acceptance of punishment for breaking a code impossible to practice. But that code was intended to be broken. It is a code that thrives not on those who observe it, but on those who don't, a morality kept in existence not by virtue of its saints, but by the grace of its sinners. We have decided not to be sinners any longer. We have ceased breaking that moral code. We shall blast it out of existence forever by the one method that it can't withstand: by obeying it. We are obeying it. We are complying. In dealing with our fellow men, we are observing their code of values to the letter and sparing them all the evils they denounce. The mind is evil? We have withdrawn the works of our minds from society, and not a single idea of ours is to be used or known by men. Ability is a selfish evil that leaves no chance to those who are less able? We have withdrawn from the competition and left all chances open to incompetents. The pursuit of wealth is greed, the root of all evil? We do not seek to make fortunes any longer. It is evil to earn more than one's bare sustenance? We take nothing but the lowliest jobs and we produce, by the effort of our muscles, no more than we consume for our immediate needs - with not a penny nor an inventive thought left over to harm the world. It is evil to succeed, since success is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? We have ceased to burden the weak with our ambition and have left them free to prosper without us. It is evil to be an employer? We have no employment to offer. It is evil to own property? We own nothing. It is evil to enjoy one's existence in this world? Their is no form of enjoyment we seek from their world, and - this was the hardest for us to attain - what we now feel for their world is that emotion which they preach as an ideal: indifference - the blank - the zero - the mark of death... We are giving men everything they've professed to want and to seek as virtue for centuries. Now let them see whether they want it.

"We've heard so much about strikes, and about the dependence of the uncommon man upon the common. We've heard it shouted that the industrialist is a parasite, that his workers support him, create his wealth, make his luxury possible - and what would happen to him if they walked out? Very well. I propose to show the world who depends on whom, who supports whom, who is the source of wealth, who makes whose livelihood possible and what happens to whom when who walks out."

- John Galt

In the Time of Your Life

2007-01-15T11:52:00.001-08:00

In the time of your life, live – so that in that good time, there shall be no ugliness or death for yourself or for any life that your life touches.

Seek goodness everywhere and, when it is found, bring it out of its hiding-place and let it be free and unashamed.

Discover in all things that which shines and is beyond corruption.

Encourage virtue in every heart where it may have been driven into secrecy and sorrow by the shame and terror of the world.

Ignore the unimportant, for it is unworthy of the clear eye and the rational mind.

Be not the inferior of any man, nor aspire to superiority over men. Remember that every man is a variation on the same theme, but let no man’s guilt be yours, nor allow yourself claim to another man’s innocence.

Despise evil and wickedness, and fight it by the power of your own virtue – with every fiber of your being. For the men who turn to evil will prey upon your understanding, your generosity, and your love of life.

Have no shame in being gentle, but if the time comes in the time of your life to kill, kill. And have no regret.

In the time of your life, live – so that in that wondrous time, you shall not add to the sorrow and misery of the world, but experience the infinite delight of achieving the happiness possible only to you while in it.

-- William Saroyan (1939) / revised by Eros (2005)

Every story has a beginning

2007-01-14T19:13:00.000-08:00

...but does every story have an end? The continuing saga of the human race might seem to suggest that an ending is not only unnecessary, but nigh impossible. As I gaze back through time, into the annals of scientific discovery, upon the lives and work of the numerous intrepid individuals whose commitment to reason, truth and reality have paved the way for civilization as we know it and as it might be someday, I am not humbled by their achievements or their genius, I am inspired.

Men like Aristotle, who identified the fact that A is A, that identity is a metaphysical necessity, and that a thing does what it does because it is what it is, who then applied this principle to human consciousness and developed Logic, the method of proper human thought, which is the ability to identify facts and develop ideas which correspond to, and assist in maintaining a proper relationship with, reality (i.e. truth).

Men like Archimedes, who integrated the above mentioned principles into his own modus operandi, who believed that the world is not only intelligible, but that the highest possible to man is to understand nature and make use of it for the betterment of one's existence. Archimedes was a man of such strict and purposeful rationality, that he was able to independently develop analytic geometry and discover the formula (among others) for the area of a circle, inductively. He is the ultimate example of man as a being far beyond the reaches of jungle law and savage animality: when Rome laid siege to Syracuse, he used his mind and inventions to defend his city, and held off the far more numerous Roman army for 18 months, single-handedly. Proving that brute strength has no place in determining the future of the rational being.

Men like Galileo, who developed the first astronomical telescope, and refused to betray the evidence of his senses. Being able to observe so much evidence of the truth about our solar system only strengthened his intellectual conviction, his devotion to truth and reality, and his moral integrity - a profoundly selfish character, he refused to subordinate the judgment of his own mind, even under threat of death by the Inquisition of the Catholic Church.

Men like Isaac Newton, who proved that induction is not only a valid process of acquiring knowledge, but also a necessary one. He was not afraid of reality, of formulating universal, all-encompassing principles which would apply equally to all things and all men. He showed that there is nothing in existence above or below the laws of nature, whether an apple, a shipping clerk, the planet jupiter, or an immaterial concept created and clung to by men out of a desperate longing for that seemingly unattainable spirit - the highest - which they have either given up or could never find in themselves.

Archimedes knew that spirit. So did the other men on this list, and they all practiced it. There have been others throughout the centuries, too many name here, and yet so few that the shame and guilt one sees in the faces moving down the sidewalks of any city in this country is palpable, undeniable, and sad. Those who have betrayed the greatness possible to man, and only man, know it somewhere in their souls, and show it somewhere on their face.

So this is the beginning of a story, the end of a mythos, and the continuation of a saga.

Someone asked me once, "If you could be anyone in all of history, who would you be?"

"Me."

"You? Come on, you can be anyone."

"Me. No question. I have an advantage no other great man in history ever had."

"What's that?"

"I don't have to spend time doing the great things he already did. I can push the envelope farther than ever. I can reach heights possible only because those men came before, and here I am now."