Andrew S.'s Comments

Rise Up Rochester : Fight Government Encroachment into Health Care!

Tue, 9 Jun 2009 16:06:38 +0000

The sad thing I would say about this article is that 'encroachment' seems to be entirely the wrong word. government is so far into healthcare that it's almost impossible to do anything without some form of government payment, regulation, etc. I've heard the figure that government pays for 75% of transactions but only pays half the bill, leaving private payers to pay 200% more than they should have to. Socialized medicine? It's already here.

Liberty Maven : Rochester Private Fire Company Public Relations Disaster

Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:24:25 +0000

To clarify, for a non-Rochester audience, during the "cool sweeps" the firefighters would open hydrants for kids to play in the water. Doesn't seem worth taking to court, does it? Due to a monopoly on firefighting by the government-run department, these types of things are determined by politicians instead of by the market. The real news story: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20090...

Rise Up Rochester : Ron Paul's H.R. 1207: Audit the Fed!

Mon, 1 Jun 2009 18:57:08 +0000

You've done an excellent job breaking down why exactly the Fed needs to be audited. I believe that people who are already aware of this topic understand why the Fed should be audited, at minimum, but trying to explain this topic to someone else can be quite difficult. I've gotten anything from blank stares to strong defenses of the Fed. Very few supporters of the Fed's policies, however, actually understand just HOW secretive the Fed's activities are. As Glenn Jacobs said in a recent interview, if we are going to have government-controlled fiat currency (which we shouldn't) then it is absolutely critical that there is complete transparency at every level. Of course, it's impossible to have complete transparency with the only agency that PRINTS ITS OWN BUDGET. I mean, as bad as the "alphabet soup from hell" is, at least none of them get to print their own budget and then not tell anyone how much they printed. You've pointed out quite correctly that the Fed is miserable at 'controlling inflation' in the sense of keeping it low. I always try to point out that the Fed's only purpose is to print money, which by definition inflates the money supply. So in fact, in the most Orwellian of ways, the Fed operates in exact opposition to its stated purpose! But again, that doesn't surprise any of us... =/

Liberty Maven : The Money Bomb Gets Passed From Ron Paul To Son Rand

Wed, 27 May 2009 18:06:26 +0000

I made my first political campaign donation to Ron Paul. I can't wait to support his son!

Rise Up Rochester : Medical Marijuana in New York: Progress or Compromise?

Tue, 26 May 2009 19:59:28 +0000

I suppose you're right. I thought I might be going down that road when I made that proposition, but I'll stick to it. Why should a doctor be anything more than a consultant for medications? Wouldn't it be in the interests of drug companies to control prescription refills to prevent overdosing in order to avoid liability lawsuits? Is it a good use of tax dollars to spy in everyone's medicine cabinets to make sure they are clean when it comes to drugs? If you think the Feds are leaving the states alone you might want to check out this: http://riseuprochester.org/2009/01/29/dea-makes-f...

Rise Up Rochester : Review: The Obama Deception by Alex Jones

Sat, 23 May 2009 13:40:18 +0000

You're the one that thinks a retarded person can produce a feature-length documentary.

All American Blogger : Phoenix Tax Day Tea Party 2009 Photos

Tue, 19 May 2009 03:10:59 +0000

By the way, McCain voted for the Bailout but I don't hear too many Republicans worried about that. Oh yeah, Bush tripled the size of government in 8 years, but it's ok because he's a Republican, right?

Rise Up Rochester : Yes, Legalize Pot, But Why Tax It?

Thu, 14 May 2009 17:45:22 +0000

Thanks Bill for bringing more facts to the table. I believe that these issues should be argued on principle and if the principles are solid then the empirical evidence will back up the reasoning. I will work on a follow-up article to include the helpful input from all of those who left a comment. Thanks again. :)

Rise Up Rochester : The Liberty Movement in Rochester and the 9/12 Project

Thu, 14 May 2009 17:41:42 +0000

It's only worth being patriotic if there's something worth being proud of. Claiming that our plot of land with a certain flag that represents it is better than another plot of land with a different flag is arbitrary and pointless. If you stand for liberty, free speech, self-ownership and the rest, then I'm with you. If you're for cheerleeding every action of the government while waving an American flag than I must say that is not patriotism.

Liberty Maven : Yes, Legalize Pot, But Why Tax It?

Tue, 12 May 2009 16:06:27 +0000

I'm working on a follow-up to this article. Please head over to http://riseuprochester.org/2009/05/07/yes-legaliz... to see the interesting comment thread there as well. I'm going to incorporate some of the comments and criticism and try to expand the argument. :o

Rise Up Rochester : Yes, Legalize Pot, But Why Tax It?

Tue, 12 May 2009 04:14:13 +0000

It is the Statists that promise utopia for the common man. Freedom from bondage for all people does not rid man of his imperfections, society of its vices or the wicked of their schemes. I don\\'t really subscribe to objectivism nor do I expect everyone to feel the way that I do. There are as many ways to look at the world and experience its wonders as there are people. Tyranny takes a thousand forms, although liberty has but one. Liberty is the framework to build a better tomorrow, not a quick fix for all of the problems in the world.

Rise Up Rochester : Yes, Legalize Pot, But Why Tax It?

Tue, 12 May 2009 03:41:46 +0000

I\\'m glad you read to the end and saw that guy\\'s point of view. I read those with Alicia yesterday I think. It\\'s really true about facts and figures. That\\'s the main reason that libertarians are so ineffectual sometimes at convincing others. We try to use facts and figures (which are almost always on the side of liberty and freedom) yet the opposing argument is always...\\"well it\\'s a social contract\\". I do agree that Mexico is in bad shape because of our drug policies.

Other people are very much entitled to their own values. One of my own values (the one that seems to draw the most criticism here) is that I value living together with people who share as a base line at least some of the same values I have.

What you\\'re describing here is the fundamental value of libertarian thought. Namely the non-aggression principle, also known as the \\"good neighbor policy\\". You surround yourself with those people who have similar values and live in peace with them. \\'Society\\' and government are just the opposite. They are force. There is no voluntarism. You don\\'t get to choose much of anything and you don\\'t get to exclude anyone. A society that is founded upon coercion and violence cannot have anything good come of it. I applaud you for that statement. If more people in this world could feel the same way we would certainly be much better off, even if we were unable to completely escape the grasp of petty rulers.

Rise Up Rochester : Yes, Legalize Pot, But Why Tax It?

Tue, 12 May 2009 03:32:33 +0000

I believe (as does libertyvee as far as I can tell) that LSD should be legalized not because the drug is the same, but because the PRINCIPLE is the same. The distinction may seem minor to some but it is incredibly important. I attempt to take a principled stand on my views based on evidence, reason and logic. Everything bad that has been said about LSD, crack or any other hard drug has been said about alcohol and marijuana - true or false. The point is prohibition doesn\\'t work. It doesn\\'t work because it\\'s a fundamentally anti-human policy. For the record, anarchy is not \\'no rule\\'. It\\'s self rule. Every individual is a sovereign individual. I have not turned my sovereignty over to the government. Anarchy is the principle of voluntarism where individuals can enter mutually beneficial relationships and contracts without force or coercion.

Rise Up Rochester : Yes, Legalize Pot, But Why Tax It?

Tue, 12 May 2009 03:12:24 +0000

Actually I much prefer Rothbard to Rand. My point is that an intellectual argument includes being able to tell the difference between an individualistic train of thought and a collectivist one. You\\'re mixing the two like they\\'re the same thing.

Rise Up Rochester : Yes, Legalize Pot, But Why Tax It?

Mon, 11 May 2009 14:13:52 +0000

I also find it strange that you continuously quote from Ayn Rand, who was one of the greatest champions for individualism, yet you seem to support a utilitarian/collectivist distopia! What gives? o.0

Rise Up Rochester : Yes, Legalize Pot, But Why Tax It?

Mon, 11 May 2009 12:39:48 +0000

Holding every action accountable is not at all necessary. The smoker has rights too, and if you went to a bar that everyone else was smoking at a should not support your case if you attempted to sue everyone. You saw the danger and accepted it upon yourself. Instead, you think that it would be morally acceptable to grab the guns of government and point them at the smoking minority. If your friends smoked and you didn't want them to I'm sure you wouldn't pull a gun on them, but 'society' we point the gun at smokers every day. Smoking is healthier than fascism. http://riseuprochester.org/2009/05/01/anti-smokin...

Rise Up Rochester : Yes, Legalize Pot, But Why Tax It?

Mon, 11 May 2009 12:35:33 +0000

I guess I shouldn't be surprised by your answer. When it came to your physical safety you did not think that you had a significant incentive to keep yourself safe from harm. You were eager to give that responsibility away to others like storekeepers, police and military. I can't force you to realize that your body is yours and yours alone. I can only encourage you to think rationally about that.

Rise Up Rochester : Yes, Legalize Pot, But Why Tax It?

Mon, 11 May 2009 03:57:42 +0000

I think you should take the time to study the concept of 'negative rights' versus 'positive rights'. The former is also known as natural rights while the later is something that Statists like to promise to everyone. The only things that should be considered rights are those things that you would be morally justified to use force to protect. My 'ideal' society does not look like weighted taxes to compensate for how 'society' feels I am impacting 'them'. My ideal society allows people to be free to live their lives any way they wish so long as they don't harm others.

Rise Up Rochester : Yes, Legalize Pot, But Why Tax It?

Mon, 11 May 2009 03:52:32 +0000

I'm saddened to hear about Ayn Rand's drug use. I had not known about it before. But doesn't that illustrate exactly what's wrong with our society anyway? I mean she trusted a doctor's opinion and took a drug that was 'legal' and 'safe', yet look where it could have lead her! Rand took the appropriate action to protect herself as the government and 'society' were unable to do for her.

Rise Up Rochester : Yes, Legalize Pot, But Why Tax It?

Mon, 11 May 2009 03:52:19 +0000

Ryan, you either own your own body or you don't. I would like to argue that your body is yours and yours alone. I don't own it, I can't stop you from putting things into it that I don't like. I can't force you to eat well, study hard, exercise or get enough sleep. Yet the government has claimed that it DOES own your body and that it has the right to make you go to school, eat or not eat certain things, control what you put in your body, etc. Aren't you insulted by this? This is why no distinction at all should be made between any drugs. There is no such thing as 'society', there are only individuals. A crackhead can't do anything to 'society', they can only hurt an individual. As such, individuals should be held responsible for what they do, whether intoxicated or not - high or not - tripping or not. I firmly believe that if people were held responsible for their actions we wouldn't need special laws for every possible situation. If someone you loved was killed by another driver tomorrow, would you care if that other person had been drunk, high, eating a cheeseburger, texting on a phone, tired or just momentarily distracted? No you wouldn't. Your loved one would be dead. We don't need to prevent certain substances from reaching people's hands (we're failing at that anyway) just to protect 'society'. I'd rather have individuals protected.