My name is Tyler. I am a radically moderate, non-dogmatic libertarian espousing radically moderate, non-dogmatic libertarianism.


  1. Walter Block and Vladimir Putin: When Reactionary Aversion Blinds Common Sense →

    Libertarians often argue over really small and stupid things (voluntary slavery comes to mind), but this is a healthy criticism from Tony.

    This is an excellent comeback to Walter Block’s controversial statement “It is not that Putin doesn’t deserve a Peace Prize. It is that the Nobel Peace Prize is unworthy of Putin.”

    This is, of course, by no means an endorsement of Vladimir Putin, but defending Putin is more than just defending the “undefendable” .

    Tony notes the hypocrisy, as well. 



  2. I just want to make this suggestion that if you have a policy that kills 70 times as many people as the problem you are trying to solve. Then usually that’s a prima facie indicator that you have an irrational policy.

    — Michael Huemer talking about the War on Terror



  3. Israeli Army Chief says Iran not to build a bomb →

    More evidence against the propaganda put out by liberal racist bigots and neoconservatives.

    Of course, this will be ignored and the leaders of this country, the great liberals, and “conservatives” will bomb them anyway. All hail death of thousands due to sanctions of war.



  4. your Christian brothers have been living among us for 14 centuries; in Egypt alone, there are millions of Christians whom we have not incinerated and shall not incinerate. But the fact is, there is a continuing and biased campaign being waged against us for a long time now by your politicians and writers of the media, especially Hollywood, for misrepresenting Islam

    — 

    Osama bin Laden - Transcript of 2007

    This raises the question, why do Republicans believe that bin Laden did it but not believe him when he says why he did it?



  5. Unfortunately, this is the future we have to look forward to with my generation. I can’t blame him, though, it is the result of a unsound moral foundation mixed with faulty miseducation. Should this man be the president of the United States in the future?


  6. Mini-essay Concerning Libya


    Although this may be slightly outdated, there is still information that can be useful. Such as narrowing down exactly what the founding fathers meant when in the Constitution they wrote “to declare war,” which has been quite a spark of controversy.

    On March, 19, 2011, President Obama in accordance with the United Nations agreed to a No-Fly Zone over Libya. This was in response to recent uprising throughout Libya. In a formal debate, it is only correct to have the affirmative arguments presented first. Then a rebuttal (rather than trying to prove a negative). What I propose to do, is first review the  arguments for it, then rebuttal them. After that I intend to do is show why it is more harmful than it is in our interests.

    According to the president, Qaddafi is a "tyrant who murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world — including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents.".  It would be foolish to argue against this particular claim. Qaddafi is known for having very bad human rights policies. However, Mr. Obama begs the question; why Libya? There are plenty of countries who have dictators or violation of human rights. Why aren’t we going in there as well? Rwanda, Equatorial Guinea, North Korea, Myanmar, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Syria, Iran, etc. Are there any underlying reasons why Libya is helped yet they are not?

    Another argument put forth by Mr. Obama, is the domino effect argument. The president argues, “We have a huge national interest in making sure that those are successful because if Egypt can make a transition from an autocratic regime to a democracy, if Tunisia can make those same changes, they become models for a peaceful transition that at some point may be adopted by other countries in the region.” Unfortunately, this argument defeats its own purpose. At one point he says Egypt and Tunisia become models for a peaceful transition, yet his own take is a violent one. In a later paragraph, I intend to rebuttal the claim that it is in our national interest. For now, Obama, faces a contradiction.

    The final argument we will look at is at the very core of the situation. On March 28, Obama gave a speech defending his reason to go into Libya. A main theme was freedom. However, this belief of intervention from another state helping democratize country is very superficial. A study from NYU concluded, “intervention does very little to promote democracy and often leads to it’s erosion and the substitution of largely symbolic reforms.” It wouldn’t be fair if it were just one study. There are more suggesting the same conclusion.

    For the first argument against Libya, without an actual rebuttal, is that Obama never went to Congress about it. Although there is much controversy over who has war powers, the “Commander in Chief” or Congress, the reality is very simple. The U.S. Constitution states that Congress, and only Congress, has the right to declare war. If that’s not enough, Alexander Hamilton, one of the founding fathers and author of the Federalist papers, wrote, “it belongs to Congress only, to go to war.” Now, then the question of what constitutes of going to war (declaring war). This, too, is very plainly stated. Written by an 18th century legal writer, Emerich de Vattel, “when one nation takes up arms against another, she from that moment declares herself an enemy to all individuals of the latter.”

    Earlier I had mentioned that the intervention when trying to promote democracy is counterproductive. This is seen by the fact that Tunisia, Egypt, and the continuing unrest in the Middle East and Northern Africa. When the United States gets involved in other countries affairs, it typically turns out to what the CIA calls, “blowback”. Blowback is the unintended consequences of covert operations.  This term first came to use when the CIA over threw the Shah of Iran in 1953 for a friendlier ally of the United States. It wasn’t until 1981 we’d see blowback” It was the overthrowing of the Shah that was cited as the reason for the Iranian hostage crisis. In fact,  Osama bin Laden has cited blowback as a reason he attacked the United States on September 11th.  

    In closing, we see, not only that there are reasons not to go, but that the reasons that were given, we’re not given much thought. Contrary to what the president says, the core argument of liberating Libya fails, since most studies show that interventions rarely helped. Perhaps next time he will let the country fight their own battle and have a much better government and much more prosperity like the United States in 1776.



  7. Reason understands the Bush-Obama connection.

    Reason understands the Bush-Obama connection.


  8. A George W. Bush 3rd term?


    I don’t think everyone had in mind what’s been going on for the past 50 years when they amended the twenty-second amendment in 1947. However, it looks like there is a loophole in the amendment. What if we elect someone who runs on a different platform, for a different party, but when gets in office and does the same as the former president? Thus, a third term presidency has been born.

    Now, this may be slightly unfair. I should probably put an FDR 16th term. However, it’s definitely more fun to hear people’s reaction when I compare George W. Bush (whom all the Liberals hated) to Barack Obama (whom all the Conservatives hate). I plan to set out to show that the liberals (and conservatives) are really just caught up in a giant contradiction. On one hand, they have somebody they hate for expanding government, bailing businesses out, starting wars with other countries, etc. On the other hand, they love somebody for expanding government, bailing businesses, starting wars with other countries, etc. So, what exactly do they believe? The left vs right paradigm while completely ignoring the facts. Hopefully when they look at the facts they’ll realize how red their face is from embarrassment. Starting with the most recent similarity.

    FOREIGN POLICY

    Yes, foreign policy. Up until the recent situation with Libya, Obama had only been flirting with George W. Bush’s policy. Sure, he started trying to get troops to Iraq but only to have sent more into Afghanistan. Why? Well, the Obama apologists will tell you because we have to fight the Al-Qaeda there but the bad news for them is that wishful thinking doesn’t make it reality. Let’s get this straight Barack Obama has sent more troops into Afghanistan to fight about 100 Al-Qaeda fighters? Sure, we could fight the Taliban but that isn’t who we should be fighting. Now it appears as though Obama has taken the full page of George W. Bush by attacking another country. One of the main similarities in this situation was, not only the actual attack, but the process in which preceded the war. What the Bush apologists have on the Obama apologists is that George W. Bush actually went to Congress for approval (yet still wasn’t a formal declaration). Whereas, Barack Obama simply just didn’t. We see Bush & Obama neglected to declare a war on either Iraq or Libya. The funny part is that Obama actually knows that he must go through Congress in order to declare war. I don’t know if George W. Bush was even that smart. Not only were the processes in which the two presidents similar, the reasons were as well. For Bush, it was to “protect” the United States and enforce U.N. resolutions. Unfortunately, there is no legislation to prove that Obama is in Libya to enforce U.N. resolutions, we’ll just have to take his word for it. Now, the Obama apologists will be quick to say that it’s not a war. This is silly. Bombing another country, whether you go through your own government or through the U.N. or NATO, without sending ground troops is still an act of war. If the Obama apologist persists, which he no doubt will, just remind him of Pearl Harbor and ask whether that was an act of war or not. 

    Healthcare

    In 2003, George W. Bush passed a bill that expanded Medicare the most it had ever been since its inception. The Medicare, Prescription Drug, Improvement, And Modernization Act was passed for a number of reasons. The main reason was a new part of Medicare. Medicare Part D subsidizes the costs of prescription drugs for Medicare recipients. It was in response mostly for the elderly who could not afford the rising cost of drugs. That’s not all, though. As of 2007 there were 39 million Americans covered for prescriptions under Part D. The cost estimate for Medicare Part D (from 2009-2018) is a lowly $727.3 billion. That doesn’t even include the rest of the bill itself! Like most government estimates, things tend to be a little bit more expensive than they estimate. The Medicare, Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act was no except. Originally it was estimated at $400 billion. Well, things have changed since that estimate and have gone up a little bit. Now it is estimated to be about $549.2 billion. Fast forward to today, Barack Obama has signed his legendary healthcare bill and now everyone must be insured (much like Mitt Romney’s plan) and the eligibility is endless. What George W. Bush did with the Medicare, Prescription Drug, Improvement & Modernization Act, Barack Obama expanded on it. An expansion originally thought to cost only $940. However, now the Congressional Budgeting Office has said that they could be wrong. Now, they seem unsure. The CBO states, “rising health costs will put tremendous pressure on the federal budget during the next few decades and beyond. In CBO’s judgment, the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish that pressure.” They also noted that, “there is a considerable agreement that a substantial share of current spending on health care contributes little if anything to people’s health.” There are two more things to worry about when the CBO says that this will reduce the deficit. As noted earlier, it is unsure with the rising cost of healthcare how much this bill will actually cost. Secondly, the CBO was required to ignore the “Doc Fix” legislation. The doc fix is a permanent upward adjustment to the rates at which Medicare providers are reimbursed. It has been created in order to cover the gap in which doctors get reimbursed after Congress passed a bill that had cut doctors Medicare reimbursements. The CBO was told to exclude the cost of the Doc Fix. The actual cost of the bill plus the Doc Fix has been estimated to be about $1.1 trillion. That is quite a huge cost. Here is something to also keep in mind written in a joint economic committee by Senator Brownback, Since the end of World War II, major health care reform proposals have generally always cost more-sometimes significantly more-than the highest cost estimates published while the legislation was pending.” And here is some data to go with it

    The point is not so much the cost rather than the actual content and the willingness to be a big spender. George W. Bush was willing to be a big spender. Barack just wanted to be an even bigger spender. It’s safe to conclude, though, the relevant similarities are there.

    The Economy

    The economic collapse falls under the responsibility of the president but the Federal Reserve takes much to blame for it, as well. I don’t want to talk about the events that caused the collapse or how the policies hurt us more than helped but how the presidents actually handled the situations. I’ll leave aside the criticism of the actual policies and stick to the point; Barack Obama & George W. Bush acted in the same manner towards the crisis. Starting off with the bailouts. First, George W. Bush with his $700 billion bailout (which Obama voted for). Mind you, this was a month or so before the election where Barack Obama promised change. So, what change did Barack Obama bring? None. The bailout of the auto industry was absolutely pale in comparison to the financial bailout, yes, however, it’s not so much the money spent that’s the issue. It’s the principle. It is the “too big too fail” motto. Where Bush believed that the financial sector was too big too fail, Obama, too, thought it would be such a travesty if these companies fell through. Let’s not also forget the Bush stimulus and then came the Obama stimulus. Although different in content, the principle remains the same. Both tried failed policies to stimulate the economy. Both tried to save jobs or create jobs. Both failed at it. Both wasted tax dollars (unless anyone can come up with any significant positive growth that the stimulus bills have done..anyone?). Instead of trying to grow the private sector both Bush & Obama grew the government sector. And while many Obama supporters love to show how Conservatives and the economic mess is all because the government didn’t do enough regulating. Well, the following news will upset them. Bush was a regulator (during Bush’s term government regulation spending increased by 62%, added almost 14,000 pages of new regulations, and regulations costing $100 million and up increased by 70%). A big one, too. Even just one bill increased regulations tremendously. Remember Sarbanes-Oxley? Then of course Obama took the side of Bush when it came to extending the Bush tax cuts. Finally we reach government spending. When Bush left office in 2008, he had spent about $2.98 trillion. Obama now proposes we go beyond that. In 2010, he proposed it to be $3.5 trillion. Under both presidents, our deficit grows, our government grows, our debt grows, but they have done nothing to help our economy. Probably because they’ve been continuing each others failed policies.

    There are a plethora of other policies that Obama backed Bush on. Such as; no rights for detainees, the PATRIOT act, and indefinite detention of detainees. I can’t help but to wonder when Obama spoke saying, “we can’t go back to the very same policies that failed us in the last decade,” if he could take himself seriously.


  9. An Interesting Look At Setting An Example


    Could it have started in Tunisia? Maybe Egypt? Regardless, we see now what happens when people finally get desperate. We see now that setting example might actually be a better way of bringing democracy to a country. Tunisia, Bahrain, Egypt, and Libya are all revolutionizing their country. Of course America has now starting helping the rebels in Libya to help overthrow their leader. However, The United States did not help Egypt, Bahrain, and Tunisia. Is it just a coincidence that all of these protests and revolutions are happening in a row or did someone set a bar and lead by example? It seems like the latter to me. Perhaps this is a lesson that Barack Obama should note even though he’s already started a war with Libya. I wonder what George W. Bush is thinking now.. “I dun goof’d”