I finally registered for my

I finally registered for my first classes of graduate school today on my way to a masters in MIS. I will be taking VB.net and Database Design the first summer semester and taking off the second to go to California. Getting into grad school turned out to be a big fiasco becuase my recomendation letters were somehow lost by the admissions office, and my application nearly got lost in the "incomplete" pile. Apparently the address given on the application downloaded from the website was old or inaccurate. Well either way, I should be out of here in a year if everything goes well and I take a full load.

By the way, I saw The Pianist last night, and the movie really sucked, despite by best expectations. Growing up Jewish, I saw dozens of movies about the Holocaust and grew terribly sick of them when I realized that nobody had a clue of what caused it or even attempted to answer why. More often than not, it was portrayed as a natural disaster, not to be understood and learned from, but merely blindly countered with "never again" without knowing what was the evil thing that should not be repeated. I know now of course, which is why I was all the more angered when I saw the same attitude towards 9/11.

Anyway, I thought the movie would have much more piano playing and less drawn out and impresonal history of the Warsaw ghetto and several scenes which reminded me of how I sometimes scrounge around my apartment looking for leftoover food. The only part I liked was the smuggling of the guns, which reminded me of a flier I saw some time ago (shown below). The Nazis, Chinese and Soviets never banned all guns -- they just made sure that they were controlled tightly enough so that no "subversives" could get their hands on them. By this standard, gun laws in England and parts of the US (like NYC) are already equal to or worse than those under the Nazi's and Soviets.

If you're wondering why all the interest in guns all of a sudden, it's becuase I decided to get one a while back and started doing research on both the legal and psychological aspects of gun control. I found that the gun-control movement exists as a natural extension of the collectrivist-liberal philosophy -- in this case, intrincisim (guns are inherently evil becuase men are unevitably unstable and amoral), determinism (violence is inevitable, we can only choose to take away the weapons), Statism (the State owns the people) and malevolence (a desire for criminals to have an advantage over honest citizens). The last seemed shocking to me too, but it is easy to see in explicit terms when one looks at the pacifist's foreign policy agenda in areas like terrorism, the UN, and Israel.

Some psychologists have looked at the anti-gun mentality as a passsive-agressive mental disorder, but I see it as a typically irrational reflection of the subjectivist's own mentality. Lacking values themselves, the liberals/subjectivists/posmodernists seek to destroy value out of pure envy. Their tolerance is actually an intolerance of principle, and they seek to riducule and destroy the concept of value itself (hence subjectivism disquised as "tolerance" and "diversity"). A principled and moral man flies in the face of the degrading collectivist view of human nature and cannot be taken on directly, so they seek to eat away at his principles by deterministic nanny-state policies such as welfare and gun control. For the great majority of liberals, the connection between their philosophy and its political outcome is subconscious, which means that rational challenges to their views can be that much more powerful by contrast. Unfortunately, the philosophy of rights, reason, and reality is so lacking these days that both sides muddle on without really knowing what issues they are debating. Liberty is lost in the end because the bureaucracy is inherently unstable and politicians always power hungry, so that one side is always pushing for slavery while the other can only respond "not so fast!" as they give up their lives one regulation at a time.

Guns and Abortions: Two Sides of the Same Coin

After going shooting this weekend, I was inspired to write an essay titled Guns and Abortions: Two Sides of the Same Coin. I just finished the first draft, and I'm looking for comments and suggestions. If you were inspired by the essay and want to learn more from groups and individuals that that support the Constitution and don't compromise on principles, I suggest going here and here for gun rights, and here and here for abortion rights. Update: an interesting article on Hitler's disarming of the Jews.

On a related note, Michael Moore's website was hacked yesterday. Here is all the hacked page said:

This message is meant to be apolitical. Mr. Moore, your documentary "Bowling for Columbine" is fictitious, not factual. David Hardy's Truth About Bowling is simply damning. You deliberately deceive your viewers, who are only expecting a slightly biased factual report. Mr. Moore, my personal hope is that you publicly apologize, not for your ideas, but for dubbing your lies the truth. Please see revoketheoscar.com Love always, NHA Crew.

I normally disaprove of hacking, but for I'll make an exception for blatant frauds and liars. According to my sources, this lazy liberal hasn't updated his server software in at least a year.

! Wanted ! (part 1 of 2)

Thanks to Laurel for finding this liberal version of the infamous "playing cards." I'm going to rant about it, but before I start, let me say that this is not just another liberal bashing or space-filler for my blog. (well, maybe) My point is not that liberals suck (which they do) or that conservatives rock (they also suck) or that we should all become libertarians (they're plain losers.) In fact, the only people that don't suck are those who agree with me, which is why you better pay attention.

My message today brethren, is that politicians today stand for just one thing: nothing. They are nihilists whose guiding rule is pragmatism, based on primitive emotionalism and collectivism. The old saying went like this: liberals want to take your money, and conservatives want your freedoms. Lately however, I've found that neither side knows what they want, so they take away both while proudly waving American flags (as long as there aren't any foreigners around) and claiming to support liberty and "hardworking Americans." On the balance however, I support conservatives: they usually betray their principles, but at least they have principles to betray. To make my point, let's look at offenses that conservatives have committed to earn a spot on the playing cards:

§ Looting Social Security trust funds

§ Taking the country to war under false pretenses

§ Ripping up the safety net

§ Eviscerating democracy

§ Strangling civil rights

§ Assaulting the New Deal

§ Being a partisan hack

§ Peddling economic snake oil

§ Perverting the Fourth Estate

Let's reduce the accusations down to the essentials:

§ Going to war for selfish reasons

§ Supporting capitalism and individual rights

§ Having principles (i.e. being "extremists" and "partisan hacks")

The so-called evils of the conservatives are actually their virtues, but sadly, the accusations are entirely underserved. I must run off to my weekend exploits now, but stay tuned for the exciting conclusion where I ponder about how great it would be if conservatives actually lived up to the liberals' accusations.

PETA Madness

OK, first PETA compared the murder of the Jews in the Holocaust to the killing of cows and chickens. If that weren't crazy enough, the're now on a campaign against IAMS (the pet food company) for get this, conducting nutrition trials on pets. Apparently unlike humans, who frequently experiment with different diets, animals aren't able to consent to nutrition testing! The irony of course is that animas don't have rights for the precise reason that as non-rational beings, they don't have the ability to engage in consensual/transactional interactions with humans. Meanwhile PETA is essentially a terrorist group bent on wiping out humanity - or at least everything that differentiates us from animals.

World News Update, Photo Edition

In today's obligatory Islamic fundamentalism section, here is a protest attended by up to 2000 "peace loving" Palestinians. Can't you just feel all the love and goodwill for his Israeli neighbors the little boy in the center is learning from his big brothers? Awww, almost makes you wanna puke.

Next we have the predictable result of shoddy construction leading to mass casualties whenever even the slightest natural disaster hits oppressive third world regimes. Citizens of developed countries who have spent their hard-earned money not to live in buildings made out of cards suddenly find their incomes being confiscated to clean up after the failures of one or another socialist regime. Meanwhile, their populace votes for the same Statist regulations that keep the evil capitalists from building any buildings that can stand up to the slightest tremor, flood, or hurricane.

Lessons from the Matrix

I saw the Matrix sequel recently and found it to be about what I expected: a combination of mediocre philosophy thrown in at random and kick-ass digitized kung-fu (aka wire-fu) scenes. While the original was more interesting in terms of "deep thoughts," both movies raise a great number of interesting philosophical questions that can serve as a good introduction to philosophy to those fazed by the empty void of postmodernism. To help with the process, the Matrix website has a handy philosophy section featuring over a dozen different essays with all sorts of perspectives. Some of them are quite interesting and thought provoking, while others are hopelessly muddled in their own subjectivism. (Ex: "I think that even if I am in a matrix, my world is perfectly real.") I suggest reading the introduction to skip to the most interesting essays.

Anyway, there are several interesting points raised the essays that echo some things I've been arguing for years. One is that morality is as applicable to entities living in the matrix as it is to the flesh and blood variant. Because morality is based on the practical necessities of a rational entity's life, it applies equally to all rational entities, including the vat-enclosed, artificial, and virtual kinds. Check out the essay "Artificial Ethics" on the site for more.

Another interesting issue is brought up by Kevin Warwick in the essay "The Matrix - Our Future?" who ponders the plausibility of humanity ending up in a real-life Matrix. (Dr. Warwick is actually the first ever cyborg, implemented not once, but twice with silicon chips. The second was a neural implant that allowed him to remotely interface with a robot arm over the net, record and play back sensory perceptions, and even communicate emotions to a similar chip implanted in his wife. He is actively working on developing the technology to make telepathy a reality, and at this rate, it may well become a reality in his or my lifetime.) Anyway, I have long shared Dr Warwick's hypothesis, only I take it one step further: I believe that in the long run, the biological human race is doomed. The status quo is inherently unstable, and there are only three possible outcomes in the long run: (a) humanity is destroyed by internal or external factors (b) humanity evolves into non-biological entities or (c) artificially created (but not necessarily intelligent) entities wipe out humanity. This is a philosophical conclusion rather than simply a technological one because it is based on the basic relationship between humanity and technology rather than any particular trend or development. It requires a lengthy explanation, so if you're up to it, go on to read my theory.

Judging Science Fiction

Due to my recent graduation, I have had time to do read several books that I have been putting off, and it got me thinking about the plot elements that a good fiction novel must have. In general, I would list them in this order: adventure, social commentary, and sex.

By "adventure," I mean the excitement that drives the story, whether it is a mystery story, a western, or a sci-fi novel. By "social commentary" I mean the way the author chooses to present reality, whether he chooses to create a new one or recreate past or present history. Because art is necessarily a selective representation of reality, the world the author shapes is always a reflection of his views of human nature. Furthermore, I think that good writers consciously make an effort to present a particular view of man's existence. Think of existentialist writers like Dostoyevsky and Camus versus individualists like Heinlein, L. Neil Smith, and Ayn Rand. (Who else would you add?) This is the "social commentary" element, and while all novels have it, I think that science fiction offers some of the best opportunities to pass judgment on the status quo and propose improvements.

While the average sci-fi reader may like mind controlling/eating aliens and sexy androids, the main virtue of science fiction lies in its power as social commentary -- and the relation of technology to man is just one of the issues it can consider. Great science fiction should explore philosophical issues explicitly by putting characters in situations where they must discuss and make tough choices with outcomes that reflect the author's particular worldview. Examples of such writing (which is not to say that I agree with their particular philosophies) can be found in the writing sci-fi masters such as Isaac Asimov, and Arthur C. Clark. Perhaps this is why I have never liked fantasy - it can certainly be a form of social commentary, but it presents a world that operates by very different rules than our own -- limiting the scope of its conclusions.

Most recently, I just finished reading Friday by Robert A. Heinlein - a book that expertly balances all three elements and presents a philosophy similar to my own. (Not recommended for children -- but a book that proposes to re-create reality can hardly leave out the sexual aspects of human nature.) Here is an interesting question about another book that masters the three elements - is Atlas Shrugged science fiction? As this review points out, according to Rand, "science fiction is valid only if the scientific aspect is integral and necessary to tell the story." Clearly, the motor is both a fictional invention and integral to the story, but does that make the book science fiction?

What do you think?

Have you seen the cool

Have you seen the cool new Honda commercial? It may be originally inspired by Rube Goldberg, who designed many such contraptions. In any case, the most suprising thing about it is that the entire 2-minute sequence is 100% live and unedited. If there is a Guinness record for patience, I think these guys should win it. (See the original at the Honda website)

Comments on "Liquidising goldfish 'not

Comments on "Liquidising goldfish 'not a crime'":

A. Animals don't have rights.
B. Fish are not capable of neither suffering nor caring whether their death is "cruel" or "humane."
C. Putting goldfish in a blender does not constitute art.
D. Neither does it "force people to do battle with their conscience" or "protest against what is going on in the world, against this cynicism, this brutality that impregnates the world in which we live."
E. In fact, it does exactly the opposite -- it's a nihilistic and idiotic muddling of the distinction between (a) rational entities that have rights and non-rational entities that do not and (b) the immoral versus the disgusting and wasteful.
F. Primary responsibility for a crime goes to the perpetrator, not the creator of the weapon (if anyone, the guy that pushed that button rather than the museum director should have been fined.)
G. A college frat induction would have been a far more productive use for the goldfish. Fortunately for the goldfish, their brains are not capable of caring whether they are slowly eaten away by stomach acids or instantly made into chop suey.

When it comes to Statism,

When it comes to Statism, American bureaucrats are no better than Iraqis.

Victims of America's Immigration Policy

Two sad stories in the news exemplify the unfortunate victims of America's restrictive immigration laws. A high school student from Laos is set to be deported 22 days before graduation. His family has lived here for 13 years, and after unsuccessfully attempting to get permanent citizenship, are set to be deported. Both parents have productive jobs, and Tchisou has been accepted into the University of Minnesota, where he wanted to study natural resources or aerospace engineering. Unlike so many illegal immigrants from south of the border, the Tho family actually attempted to comply with the law and obtain citizenship, and deportation is their reward.

Like the Tho family, in a few weeks I will mark the 13^th year since my family came to America, and although we came here legally, it boggles my mind that I could be deported back to Ukraine because of a difference in paperwork. I cannot speak for Tchisou, but I speak virtually no Ukrainian, and loath Ukraine and everything it stands for with a passion that rivals only my distaste for commies (and for the same reasons). Besides that, the country I left was USSR, and it is dubious that Ukraine would even take this dirty Russophile Jew back, probably dooming me to years in detenention camps while the bureaucracy decided my fate. Like Ukraine, Laos is a mix of communism and anarchy held together by nationalistic propaganda, and a former immigrant would be doomed to second class citizenship or worse. (I dramatize a bit since the Tho family will probably end up in France by virtue of having lived there on the way to America, but being an American in France is only a marginal improvement over Laos these days.)

Meanwhile, the bodies of 18 immigrants were found in truck in Texas, stuffed inside a locked truck that may have held over 100 people. This is just the latest episode of the annual death marches that many thousands of illegal immigrants undertake to find low-paying and unwanted jobs in America that usually involve working outside in 100 degree Texas heat. Everyone who has ever complained that Mexicans are "stealing" his minimum wage job should feel some guilt and responsibility for the suffering his economic ignorance causes.

While they are expert at sending little boys and young men back into slavery, the immigration services too overwhelmed by the drug war and their attempts to stop well-meaning immigrants to deter any actual criminals from crossing our shores. The ultimate hypocrisy is that Middle Eastern terrorists are able to buy visas while harmless and hard-working immigrants are denied their chance to the American Dream.

Power Politics

A major step on the path to my political enlightenment was the rejection of the traditional left-right, liberal-conservative political spectrum in favor of a two-dimensional one, with one axis representing political freedom and the other economic freedom. Later, I came to see that political and economic freedom are ultimately inseparable. While the two may exist out of sync in places like Hong Kong and Singapore, economic freedom leads people to demand political rights, and authoritarian regimes attempt to monopolize economic as well as political power. While I could write a book on both the historical and theoretical implications, for now I'll offer a quote from For the New Intellectual: "Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries."

A good quiz to measure one's position in this two-dimensional spectrum is at the Politopia website, and the original World's Smallest Political Quiz (about which I have some reservations) is worth taking a look at as well. (Actually, to the best of my knowledge, the original idea comes from Ayn Rand.) What I found tonight however, was a grotesque rip off of the original idea twisted beyond recognition by marxists brainwashed by "critical theory". An objective test should accurately determine one's actual level of knowledge or views, given an honest examinee -- but this quiz is so laden with contradictory, loaded, and irrelevant questions, that no objective evaluation is possible. (In fact, it only claims to be valid for citizens of "western democracies.") My reason for mentioning it at all is to bring up a recently realized point to light: libertarianism is inevitably a subjectivist and anarchist philosophy because it rejects the difference between power and authority, or might and right.

About half the questions on the quiz reflect the false dichotomy between blind state-worship and the rejection of all political authority shared by libertarians and Statists. In other words, you must either blindly accept everything the government does without question, or reject it as the selfish actions of power-hungry bureaucrats. Sample questions: "Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity." and "No one chooses their country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it." Libertarians and leftists have a lot in common: it is only the hypocrisy of the left in distrusting government to protect them from criminals, yet blindly trusting government to be their mommy and daddy that prevents them from reaching the anarchists conclusion that many "classic" Marxists did.

The quiz includes a number of seemingly irrelevant questions that actually reject the distinction between the government's proper roles of preventing the use of force and assume that it must force a particular morality down everyone else's throat. (Welfare and earth-worship excepted, of course.) Examples:

Sex outside of marriage is usually immoral. Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers. Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all. Astrology accurately explains many things.

Again, libertarians argue, "government should not enforce morality," forgetting that any legal system must be based on a particular morality, and often failing to distinguish between government interference in voluntary vs. involuntary interaction. Admittedly, many libertarians do make this distinction -- but to the extent that they acknowledge a certain moral code as the basis of their political views, they are not libertarians, for by rejecting any specific moral code as a basis for political authority, libertarianism excludes any particular moral code from forming such a basis.

The imporance of the distinction between power and authority is certainly not a new idea. John Locke was aware of it, and Machiavelli and Plato believed that a "legitimating myth" is required to keep ordinary folk in line. Authority is no myth however: as Aristotle first wrote, there exists a necessity for government precipitated by our condition, and a rational man had the capability to realize it.

An interesting line by LGF

An interesting line by LGF on this story:

First they came for the Nutter Butters, and I said nothing, because peanut butter cookies make my fillings hurt.

Then they came for the Mallomars, and I said nothing, because Mallomars are really kind of gross.

Then they came for my Oreo cookies, and it was too late, because there was no milk left in the fridge.

Please bear with me...

I'm currently migrating my server to Linux and this blog to Movable Type. Most of the site has been converted from asp/.Net to php already, but I'm migrating the remnants (including the asp blog and the access comment database) to run on Linux. Sorry Bill, it's been a bumpy ride and I decided to move on. If speed is any indication, the server performance of my wimpy 233Mhz ADVX Linux server is comparable to my 1.2Ghz XP/IIS desktop. (Update: The new MT blog is under way.)

Btw, someone emailed me to ask what CMS and scripting language this website runs on. I counted four scripting languages and three databases: asp, .Net, perl, php and MySQL, access, and XML, respectively. I wouldn't dare accuse anyone of writing such a Frankenstein monstrosity, so I offer my learning experience in each language as my excuse. Speaking of php, it's extremely intuitive and pleasant to code, unlike the bulky and dated asp. (Don't get me started on jsp!)

Note: If the above didn't any sense, don't worry, I'll be back to bashing peaceniks and other assorted lefties as soon as the operation is complete.

Please excuse the recent site

Please excuse the recent site outages. My Linksys router is betraying me, so I might be moving my site to a *real* server soon.

In other news, six monkeys typing on a typerwriter produce a real mess!

..faculty and students in the university's media program left a computer in the monkey enclosure at Paignton Zoo in southwest England, home to six Sulawesi crested macaques. At first, said Phillips, "the lead male got a stone and started bashing the hell out of it. "Another thing they were interested in was in defecating and urinating all over the keyboard," added Phillips, who runs the university's Institute of Digital Arts and Technologies.

My Gradumacation

Well, I graduated yesterday. I got a BS in Economics and Political Science from TAMU and a cool watch from my dad (on the right.) What does the future hold for me? I don't know, but if you're looking to hire a highly-motivated techie to design the next killer app, let me know. Meanwhile, I will be having fun at the Objectivist Summer Conference and Cancun this summer as I catch up on my programming and philosophy and put my plans for the future in focus.

After my experiment with using

After my experiment with using MSN VoIP as my sole means of calling people yielded mixed results, I decided to get a shiny new glow-in-the-dark cell phone. Single, sexy, and intelligent female readers of my blog may reach me @ (979) 220-6418 :-) Readers bothered by unwanted calls should refer to the very helpful resources at Suing Telemarketers Made Simple.

By the way, one of the primary reasons I decided to go with Verizon (and my roomate refuses to have anything to do with them) is that they are being forced to share their own lines with their competitors as part of an anti-trust settlement. For those not in the know, antitrust is socialism.

The Talmud and Jewish Racism

I realize that some of the views expressed in this blog are pretty radical, so I'm not surprised to see a large number of flames and negative remarks in my comments from all sides of the political and social spectrum. I tolerate them because the arguments presented by my opposition are often so unsubstantial and dishonest that they bolster my case by contrast. However, I will make exception and delete outright lies that a reasonably intelligent person could fall for. One such example is the comment to my last entry, which features a numbers of "quotes from the Talmud" that can be found on a number of websites on the web, and which at least one of my friends has mistaken as a legitimate site.

Well, to clear things up, let me state in no uncertain terms, that any such quotes are blatant lies fueled by anti-semitism. For exposés, go here, here, or here. For real quotes from the Talmud, go here or here. The Talmud is an extremely complex document virtually impossible to translate into English, but having studied it myself, I can assure you that such "proof" of hatred of gentiles has been a reflection of the anti-semite's own feelings ever since the middle ages. I am no friend of any form of mysticism, but I think the enormous intellectual and economic success of Jewish communities all over the diaspora is indicative of the pro-life philosophy espoused in the Talmud, especially when contrasted to the Augustinian tradition of violent hatred for human life and happiness in the medieval Church. To sum, I offer this (real) quote from the Talmud: "Live well. It is the greatest revenge."

Cultural misunderstanding?

Hard to believe but true: The swastica on the Coca-Cola robot below was condemed by Jewish groups who must have been unaware that the Swastika-like shape (not quite - it's reversed) is actually an ancient Chinese symbol of good luck. If the Jews really want to go after anti-semitism, then it's the Arab dictators and Islamic fundamentalism they should be after. Here is a quote in translation from a textbook called Islamic Education for the Tenth Grade, 1999-2000, page 116:

The logic of justice obligates the application of the single verdict [on the Jews] from which there is no escape; namely, that their criminal intentions be turned against them and that they be exterminated. The duty of Muslims of our time is to pull themselves together, unite their ranks, and wage war on their enemy until Allah hands down his judgment on them and us.

This is great: Looting and

This is great: Looting and Food Fight at the U.N.

Also: A hate letter to Michael Moore that left me rolling on the floor.

Also: Will the real Hussein please stand up?

The Anti-Conceptual Mentality

I've been engaged in some heated debate with some commies over the last few days, and would like to share my last response, which is basically a rehashing and application of an essay from Philosophy: Who Needs It, which I didn't read, and don't have on me, but found an excerpt from here. Incidentally, I clearly remember possessing the book a few months ago, so if you borrowed it, I want it back!

Anyway, go read my essay on capitalism and the anti-conceptual mentality.

Check out today's Cox and

Check out today's Cox and Forkum. In other news, would conservatives object to this 7-year-old "abortion"?

More on Crime and Punishment

Judging by the number of comments left, my last post left a bit of confusion. I believe I made my point clear enough the first time, but let me reiterate: no, I do not think that the police should spy on anyone unless they have reason to believe that their suspect is guilty of a crime. I believe that the Constitutional safeguards found in the Bill of Rights form a good, but not all-inclusive model for the safeguards that must be followed to prevent innocents from being harassed by the police. The proper level of precautions to follow is an empirical matter, depending on the nature of the crime (murderers should get more scrutiny that embezzlers, citizens more than foreigners) and the nature of the technology available to the police (with DNA, there is less need for eyewitness accounts.) Nevertheless, security and liberty cannot exist without the other.

By the way, it is inevitable that cops, judges, and juries will make mistakes. Innocents will be searched and convicted of crimes they did not commit, and perhaps even put to death for their crimes. Reason and evidence are rarely perfect, and that fact that mistakes will happen must be accepted as a given. The precautions and safeguards taken to prevent erroneous convictions will necessarily have to vary with the accuracy of the system, but the question of what amount of risk to tolerate, how many guilty men must be set free to prevent the imprisonment of one innocent is an ethical question that depends on the value one places on the sanctity of an individual human life versus the value one places on maintaining peace and order.

How does one weight the need to carry out justice versus the risk of punishing an innocent? I would say that the liberty of the individual must be placed first because it is its own end, while justice is only the means of ensuring it. Again, these are not mutually exclusive values, and I have yet to see a sound philosophical discourse on the topic. One thing that is clear however, is that the greater the accuracy of the system, the less guilty men will go free and the less innocent men will be punished.

Btw, what do you think of the background color changing to gray on mouseover? Should I just change the background to gray, or leave it white?

Also, please keep up the comments - I do find them entertaining, even if some of my readers (no names) need a good dose of reality.

The Fallacy of "Liberty vs. Security"

One more thing I'd like to address is the fallacy of "security vs. liberty" -- the notion that our choice is between having a Nazi-like police state and a wild, free-for-all, hedonistic orgy/looting spree. The truth of the matter is that there is no dichotomy between liberty and security, and we cannot have one without the other.

Liberty means "the freedom to engage in any activity which does not involve initiating force against other individuals." Security means "freedom from the initiation of force of other individuals." In other words, liberty is the ability to do as we choose, as long as we respect the same right in others, and security is being free from the force or fraud of others. I should be able to stop there, but the notion of "rights" has been so perverted that I feel that I have to elucidate to get my point across.

Consider the so-called conflict between freedom and security in wiretapping. Is liberty threatened by the attempts of the police to maintain security? If the criminal is truly guilty of a crime, then he is limiting the freedom of others by using force or fraud against them. Wiretapping a criminal is not an infringement of the criminal's security, but the protection of the liberty and security of his victims. As long as the police take due care to not spy on innocent individuals (by following constitutional safeguards, for example) they are not infringing on anyone's liberty or security. There is a fine line between being too zealous in going after criminals and being too lax - but there is a line nonetheless, not a murky gray area where both freedom and security are threatened. The precise procedures are an empirical matter for experts in criminology to define - but we must be clear on the philosophical point that neither liberty nor security can exist without the other. If the police allow citizens to run wild and do not act to stop crime, then the life, liberty, and property of innocent bystanders is threatened - and if the police go around strip-searching random victims and breaking into random homes, then everyone's health and privacy is jeopardized.

This point is especially important to keep in mind as liberals and conservatives wrangle over the various Patriot Act(s) and the "balance" between our freedom and security. So how can we know when we are reaching the ideal? When neither government nor any other goons with guns try to stop you from any taking action that does not initiate force or fraud against others, then you can be sure that both your security and liberty are safe.

What happened to all the terrorists?

Thanks to Hootinan for this story on the State Department's report that deaths due to terrorism are down from 3,300 in 2001 to "only" 725 in 2002, the lowest in more than 30 years. I can already imagine the spin conservatives and liberals are going to give to this story.

Conservative: "This shows the effectiveness of the new Dept. of Homeland Security/Bush Administration/Federal Airport Security!"
Anti-war liberal: "See, I told you the Bush administration just made up a terrorist threat to turn America into a police state!"

I don't think the decline in terrorism should be attributed to a huge new federal bureaucracy nor a sudden change of heart among former terrorists. The CIA still has a lot of dedicated and talented men trying to find as many terrorists as the bloated and un-responsive bureaucracy will allow them, and the federalized airport security is a security risk as much as it is a drain of our tax dollars. The major difference between early 2001 and 2002 is the government's resolve. Granted, the initial determination to find the men responsible for 9/11 was greatly weakened after too many "why do they hate us?" and "love thy Muslim neighbors" tv specials, but the Clinton era pragmatism of lobbing a few cruise missiles into the desert as a pathetically weak response to a terrorist attack was replaced by proactive security agencies that didn't just ignore known planned attacks, but actively went after terrorists and the regimes that supported them. Terrorists, and especially their leaders, who aren't as willing to be martyrs for Allah as their brainwashed followers, took notice.

Let me say that again: any difference between pre-9/11 and post-9/11 levels of terrorism is not due to increased funding or more bureaucrats (in fact, I bet that the agencies could do just as well of a job fighting terrorism with half their current budget) -- the difference is due to the resolve of the government to actually go after terrorists by letting FBI/CIA/etc agents to do their job.