The Sixth Penny Problem? That It's There To Be Taken

Our backup editorial, published in the February 3, 2012 issue of Liberty's Torch.

The Sixth Penny Problem? That It's There To Be Taken

By Bradley Harrington

As could have been predicted ahead of time, yet another upcoming Sixth Penny ballot measure has introduced yet more controversy amongst the governing bodies in question as to how the plunder’s best to be divvied up and spent - and that’s a surprise? The tax, itself, guarantees that such controversies are bound to arise; it’s actually built right into the system, and little else should be expected but for such controversies to occur.

The City of Cheyenne, for instance, argues that - as the main population center of Laramie County and the source of most of the Sixth Penny revenue - it should get the lion’s share of the monies generated by the tax. With Laramie County as a whole at a population of 91,738 according to the 2010 Census, and Cheyenne accounting for 59,466 of those people by that same Census, that places Cheyenne’s share of Laramie County’s population at 64.8 percent, yet Cheyenne’s share of the Sixth Penny largess of $105 million only comes to $57 million, or 54.3 percent. Which means: Per head, Cheyenne residents receive disproportionately less on their return, while residents of the other, less-populated areas of Laramie County receive more.

Indeed, the exact amount for a Cheyenne resident’s return from the Sixth Penny tax comes to just $958.53 - whereas a resident of the town of Albin, for instance, with a population of only 120 but Sixth Penny tax receipts of $3.2 million instead, enjoys a return of $26,666.66, a ratio increase of 2,782 percent.

That hardly seems fair, and some people in both the past and the present have recommended that these ratios be rectified. But how? For, consider another fact as well: If some of that Sixth Penny tax money, regardless of where a Laramie County citizen lives, has been used to purchase “services” he might not have any use for - such as, say, a fairground or a rec center -that resident’s “return” on his “investment” is ZERO.

The biggest computer in the world couldn’t figure it out, no matter how big it got, because there’s simply no way to incorporate all the millions of factors and individual choices made by nearly 100,000 people into the equation. No, the only thing that could even come close to being “fair” would be to simply divide $105 million by 91,738 and hand each and every resident of Laramie County a check for $1,144.56, call it good, and let everybody spend their money as they see fit. Were we to do that, of course, then the next question would be: Why have the tax in the first place?

--
Bradley Harrington is the Publisher of Liberty's Torch; his email is publisher@libertystorch.us.

Solving The Schools' Social Ills: Let Free Markets Reign

Our lead editorial, published in the February 3rd, 2012 issue of Liberty's Torch.

Solving The Schools' Social
Ills: Let Free Markets Reign

By Bradley Harrington

As evidenced by last Tuesday’s Town Hall Action Meeting regarding school bullying in Laramie County School District #1, this issue is finally beginning to get the attention it deserves. It’s tragic that 13-year-old Carey Junior High student Alexander Frye had to take his own life to escape such bullying for that to happen, and - as Alexander’s sister, Lauren Bard, said in the meeting, “This shouldn’t have happened; we all need to learn something from this.” (“‘Town Hall Action Meeting’ Draws Crowd, Discusses Bullying Problem,” Page 1.)

And, indeed, we do - but will we? Yes, it’s true that parents need to be more involved with their children; and yes, it’s also true that our educators face many obstacles, with their legal inability to take any action in restoring discipline, accountability and personal responsibility to the classrooms topping the list; and yes, it’s also true that it’s the students, themselves, who need to learn to respect one another and quit playing these stupid, destructive games.

So, striving to improve in all these areas is good - it’s certainly better than doing nothing, which has generally been the involved parties’ approach for decades. None of it, however, will have any lasting impact until we come to understand the true nature of the problem: A tax-supported, monopolistic school system that does not have to succeed in order to gain students.

As evidence, consider the same principles of operation we’ve chosen to apply to the schools, were they to be applied to another area of our lives: Restaurants. Suppose you don’t like the service at Joe’s Diner any longer and you’ve decided to eat at Alice’s Restaurant instead - but, as you exit the establishment, never having eaten one bite, you find yourself seized by Joe’s employees and relieved of the money you might have spent, had you stayed to eat. Suppose, further, that your plundered earnings were all the food-money you had. What are your “choices”? To starve - or resume your seat and eat dinner at Joe’s whether you like it or not. And, as you eat, you’d ask yourself: How much quality food or service will you ever be able to expect out of Joe’s in the future, as long as they have a guaranteed monopoly on your “business”?

And so it goes with our schools: How many parents, fed up with the “services” rendered in our public halls, can afford to quit the system and use the so-called “private” market instead, when they’re still coerced into paying for those public halls whether they like it or not? And what kind of true success in the provision of educational services can we ever expect to see, in the complete absence of any market-based incentives to bring it about? This is the problem, and it’s the only problem, for a true free market in education would act to reward those who succeed and punish those who fail. In such a dynamic, competitive environment, solutions to all our other school issues would quickly be found, because voluntarily-paying customers simply wouldn’t tolerate anything less.

By snapping the link between educational services and the free choice of parents to spend their money as they see fit, we’ve obliterated the ability of the system to create, innovate, adapt and adjust itself to altering market conditions. That is our lesson for the day, what we really need to learn here - and, until we do, all other attempts at solving these problems are doomed to ultimate failure. Class dismissed.

--
Bradley Harrington is the Publisher of Liberty's Torch; his email is publisher@libertystorch.us.

A Vision For The Future: The Supremacy Of Individual Rights

A Vision For
The Future:
The Supremacy
Of Individual Rights

By Bradley Harrington

In last month’s issue of Liberty's Torch, in my piece "Buy Guns, Gold, And A Farm, Folks - We're On The Skids," I didn’t have a lot of good things to say; but, in that endeavor, I was merely calling the situation as I see it, as fixing a problem will never be facilitated by refusing to recognize its existence.

Despite the fact that social and political destruction may be all we can see on our horizon, however, I’m not the type to go down without a fight - for what we are truly lacking here is an integrating principle, a cohesive and coherent idea. A vision, if you will, of what could be and should be: A new dawn for America.

So, allow me to fire up my thoughts, just for fun, and imagine…

Imagine, economically: A system in which all government controls and regulations, above and beyond the protection of private property rights, simply vanished. No more building codes, zoning laws, “anti-trust” legislation, subsidies, minimum-wage laws, union legislation, worker “safety” standards, licensing schemes, federal grants, “stimulus” spending, food inspections, fiat paper “money” or utility monopolies; no more bureaucracies such as the EPA, NLRB, FCC, FTC, FAA, Federal Reserve, HUD, USDA, DOE 1, DOE 2, FDA, FEMA, ICC, SEC, TSA or DHS; all gone. Atomized, blown away, like smoke from a cannon dissipating in a high wind.

Imagine, politically: A system in which government no longer acts as a social engineer, except for insuring that the individual rights of each of us are acknowledged, defended, encouraged and protected - provided each of us seek no infringements on the rights of others. A civilization that recognizes the existence of arbitrary political power for the tyrannical tool of domination that it is; a society in which government uses force only in retaliation, and only against those who initiate its use, whether that be to the criminals within our culture or the terrorist jihadists without.

Imagine, socially: A system in which all men and women are free to pursue and realize their dreams, where one man’s life is not viewed as a tool to be used, plundered, exploited or taken advantage of by another. Where every citizen retains the right to exist for their own sake, without the good they might be doing for others acting as the justification for their continued existence; where each individual has maximum control of their own lives and decisions, and minimum control over the goals and aspirations of others; where the visions, creativity and indomitable spirit of the human mind are fostered, rewarded, promoted, advocated and supported; where no man - or State - can ever say, “Do it because I said so!”

That’s a nice dream, right? Hey, if we’re going to dream, let’s dream BIG. You’re probably thinking it would sure be nice to live under such a setup, but that the evils and foibles of human nature rule it out as impossible.

In thinking that, you would be wrong. For, excepting some imperfections, yes, some minor, some major, such as slavery, a lack of women’s rights, and a few controls and regulations that never needed to have been there - imperfections that need to be removed, as it was their presence which caused the collapse of all the rest - this is EXACTLY the system set up originally in the United States of America well over 200 years ago. If you doubt it, I’d suggest you dust off your copy of the Declaration of Independence and read it: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” That we have “certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…” And, “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Now, as you read those words, ask yourself: Just what are their consistently-practiced implications, if not the ideals I’ve listed above? This system even has a name, an originally derogatory designation given to it by one of the world’s greatest haters and destroyers, Karl Marx: It’s called capitalism, a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, in which all property is privately owned.

So: “Impossible”? I hardly think so. Read your history, and understand the tremendous impact the formation of the United States of America had on both our own civilization and the world around us. Even in the presence of several self-contradictory imperfections, the establishment of America and the proliferation of its planet-shaking principles of the Rights of Man blew untold centuries of the rule of the thug, dictator, King and despot sky-high, all of it atomized by the power of an idea: That all individuals have a right to seek and experience their own liberty.

And the result? Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, America was an outpouring of wealth, freedom, peace, prosperity and productivity that served as an incredible beacon of hope to a stunned world, which had never seen anything like it before, and hasn’t since.

Our Founding Fathers did it, so don’t flap your gums to me about “impossible.” Against all odds, they dreamed, they believed, they acted and achieved. Can we not, too, rise up and re-establish the principles of liberty, justice and individual rights - without the imperfections, this time - and take the United States back from the precipice to which the looters have led us?

For, after all, isn’t that really what our existences are all about? Creating what could be, and should be? Personally and socially? So, standing on the shoulders of the giants who came before me, I’ll repeat their words for everybody reading this to hear - for, to that end, I pledge “my life, my fortune and my sacred honor.”

--
Bradley Harrington is the Publisher of Liberty's Torch; his email is publisher@libertystorch.us.

Buy Guns, Gold And A Farm, Folks - We're On The Skids

Buy Guns, Gold And
A Farm, Folks -
We're On The Skids

By Bradley Harrington

Will the United States collapse?

A loaded question, to be sure - and one involving so many different social, political and economic factors, many of them in constant flux, as to be virtually unanswerable. The overall picture, however, is easily discernable, and it isn’t pretty: The highly probable political and economic dissolution of the United States of America, and the end of our country as we know it and as it has existed for nearly 236 years.

Consider: Economically, our system is a shambles by whichever criteria you care to employ. Our dollars, which used to be gold, are now merely worthless pieces of paper, steadily losing their “value” year after year. The price of an ounce of gold, which stood at $18.63 in 1900, has now skyrocketed to $1,554.40, an increase of 8,343 percent. Our national debt, which stood at $2.1 billion in 1900, has now mushroomed to $15.3 trillion, an increase of 728,571 percent. Nor does it take a rocket scientist, or what passes for an “economist” these days, to state that these exploding levels of cost and debt are totally, horrifyingly unsustainable - and not just in absolute values, either, for the rates of growth themselves are tearing the roof off.

Our manufacturing base, additionally, once the anchor of our economy, has fled overseas to escape the intrusive costs of taxes, regulations, environmental quackery and the monopolistic power of the unions - and this, combined with the high amounts of economic uncertainty that always accompany the interventionist policies of fascist-socialist regimes, has resulted in a decimation of employment opportunities and growth. We have, through predominant left-wing policies of tax-and-spend, obliterated our own abilities to help ourselves.

Consider: Politically, the firm limitations on government power that fostered the phenomenal growth of the United States in the first 150 years of its existence, have become corroded to the point where the original constitutional intents are hardly recognizable any longer. We could co-exist, for awhile, with such contradictions as the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Interstate Commerce Commission; how much longer will our liberties be able to survive in conjunction with the Federal Reserve, Social Security, Medicare, the United Nations, the so-called “Patriot” Act, or such 1,000-page-plus Obamanations as ObamaCare or the Frank-Dodd Financial Reform Act?

This political corruption has mirrored our economic erosion in that, while it started off slowly back in the late 1800s’, it has now picked up steam over the intervening decades and currently proceeds at a dizzying pace. With thanks to the snowballing impact of ever-more-interventionist public policy, dislocations that once took years and decades to materialize now slam us silly in a matter of days or weeks. Remember the 2008 Meltdown, when $7 trillion disappeared in 24 hours?

Consider: Socially, our cultural fabric also faces identical escalating rates of degradation: An “educational” system geared toward indoctrination as opposed to true education, resulting in a widespread and almost irreparable dumbing-down of our population’s understanding of our historical liberty and individualism, or even the ability to read; a collapse of the integrity of our national borders as our weak-sister laws are made a mockery of by the illegal aliens and the drug cartels, none of whom are even required to have ID, while the rest of us mere citizens need licenses and permits to operate anything more complicated than a hair-dryer; and a rise in the already all-pervasive Entitlement-State mentality of those who think the world owes them a living courtesy of the United States taxpayer, while they owe those taxpayers nothing in return.

And that’s just the high points, folks, and not even all of them. I haven’t even discussed our enemies nor any of the nuclear/chemical/biological horrors they might have in store for us while we fiddle about, kissing the rings of dictatorial thugs.

Given these trends, what else could possibly lie ahead but collapse? For how long do you think you can plunder the productive assets of the country, rape the Constitution, deep-six any social standards of dignity, respect, personal responsibility and accountability - and get away with it? How long do you really think you can fake reality without suffering the tremendously devastating consequences?

Despite the grimness of this evaluation, however, it is always true that things can be changed - there is no “fate” or “historical necessity,” only the free choices of individual human beings. Should we decide, as a society, to counter these trends, we have the power to do so. But, at this point, we must realistically recognize the two incredibly potent forces working against us: (1) Nearly half of the voting population now depends, in one form or another, on government entitlements for their very survival, and will vote to continue those entitlements; and (2) We have erected a leviathan political state with all-encompassing authority that will act to continue - and enlarge - that authority. That’s a whole lot of inertia to overcome in a very short time.

So, if you want my honest, straightforward evaluation - we’re on the skids, soon to become yet another monument to collectivist folly. The chaos will worsen, to the point where I predict the declaration of martial law within two to five years - and, when that happens, we’ll either crash, or fight a Second American Revolution to restore the freedoms we Americans once held dear. It’s one or the other. My suggestion? In either case, I’d be buying guns, gold and a farm, for the flashpoint is rapidly approaching where you’re going to need all three.

--
Bradley Harrington is the Publisher of Liberty’s Torch; his email is publisher@libertystorch.us.

"American Exceptionalism": Good Philosophic Ideas Served As Engine For American Success

This article was published in Liberty's Torch on December 2nd, 2011.

 “American Exceptionalism”:
Good Philosophic Ideas Served
As Engine For American Success

By Bradley Harrington

Is America an “exceptional” nation? This is a question bandied back and forth by many, often with differing meanings associated with the phrase, so our first objective should be to define just what it means.

The first known writer to have referred to America as “exceptional” was Alexis de Tocqueville, in Democracy in America (1831/1840), where he said: “The position of the Americans is therefore quite exceptional, and it may be believed that no other democratic people will ever be placed in a similar one.”

The word “therefore,” however, refers to a previous iteration. In a prior paragraph, de Tocqueville said: “The Americans are a very old and a very enlightened people, who have fallen upon a new and unbounded country… This state of things is without a parallel in the history of the world.”

Yet, while it is true that America represented a tremendously “unbounded” frontier physically, de Tocqueville misses the point: For the essence of American Exceptionalism is not physical but ideological in nature.

To get to the core of the issue, consider: “Almost without exception the countries of the world owe their origins to non-ideological factors: To the accidents of war, the meaningless warfare of clashing tribes, or of geography, language, custom, etc. The United States is the first nation in history to be created on the basis of ideas. Its Founding Fathers were not tribal chiefs or power-lusting conquerors or a revelation-encrusted priesthood; they were thinkers, thinkers of the Enlightenment - educated, articulate, thoroughly imbued with the ideas of the period. Jeered at by traditionalists on both sides of the Atlantic, these men proposed to create a nation whose institutions would be without precedent, and to do it on the basis of a theory, an abstract theory of the nature of man and of the universe. The United States, they decided, would be the first country in history to stand for something. It would be the first nation to have an avowed philosophic meaning.” (Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, 1982; emphases those of the author.)

This is the core, the essence and the source of the “state of things without a parallel in the history of the world” - that for the first time, a nation’s political structure was constructed on the basis of man’s reasoning mind. This is what American Exceptionalism is all about; the rest is non-essential fluff.

The Declaration of Independence was not merely a rebellion against the rule of the King; subjects have revolted against kings before, generally to replace one arbitrary dictator with another. The Declaration, at root, was a Declaration of the Rights of Man - a statement, not only against the inequities inflicted upon American colonists by King George III, but a positive presentation of a new theory of social organization: The theory that “all men are created equal,” that they have “certain inalienable rights,” that the purpose of government is “to secure these rights,” that such government must derive its “just powers from the consent of the governed,” and that “when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.” As such, the Declaration is the most radical document ever written in man’s history.

While the Enlightenment, however - a brief century of human reason surrounded by philosophic irrationality on both sides of the timeline - didn’t last, America’s political institutions had already been carved out in the Constitution of the United States; and it was the momentum of that action, the establishment of a near-complete free society, that spawned all the other effects for which American Exceptionalism is usually defined: Scientific, economic and technological creation and progress.

But such material gains were rooted in the political freedom that made them possible; and, as man’s reason and the ideals of the Enlightenment began to suffer attack by the philosopher Immanuel Kant and the rest of the post-Kantian critiques on the efficacy of man’s mind, the United States found herself philosophically helpless to resist. Disarmed at its ideological roots by a failure to challenge the resurgent swamp of mysticism, altruism and collectivism which began pervading philosophy in the 19th century, Americas’ political institutions suffered - and, by the dawn of the 20th century, the corruption of the Constitution, through such measures as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Interstate Commerce Act, was well underway.

Today, in the 21st century, that constitutional corruption is all but complete - and, as a result, the growth, prosperity, success and wealth that followed the Constitution’s creation has all but disappeared as well. Did I hear someone say that “ideas don’t matter”? Nothing could be further from the truth; effects always follow causes.

Philosophy, far from being a futile and arbitrary exercise of intellectual gymnastics, is the driving force behind all human action. It was the philosophic ideas of the Enlightenment which created America, and it was the destruction of those ideas that has given the Left the power in this country to subvert its founding principles. When you see reason and freedom losing to faith and force, you can be sure that only an inside job allowed it to occur.

To save America, therefore, nothing less than a Second Renaissance, a return to the principles of reason, individualism and capitalism, will suffice. Then, and only then, will it be possible to de-construct the nonsense that has taken its place.

--
Bradley Harrington is the Publisher of Liberty’s Torch; his email is publisher@libertystorch.us.

The Roots Of "Occupy Wall Street"



Anti-Capitalist Protesters in Pittsburgh


Scheduled for Nov. 4th Liberty's Torch.

The Roots Of “Occupy Wall Street”

By Bradley Harrington

"These are the commandos of the haters' army, who crawl out of the sewer of centuries and shake themselves in public, splattering muck over the passers-by, over the streets, the plate-glass windows and the clean white sheets of newspapers, where the drippings are scrambled into a long, steady whine that strives to induce guilt and to receive 'compassion' in return." - Ayn Rand, "The Age of Envy," 1971 -

The Left, for decades, has attempted to deny the implications of its own principles, engaging in every kind of semantic pretzel-twisting imaginable to hide the full meaning of its ideas and actions: Regimentation, slavery and the looting of wealth.

The truth, however, cannot be faked forever, and the final proof of what the Left stands for has now been splattered in newspaper headlines for everyone to see: The “Occupy Wall Street” (OWS) movement.

That the overwhelming majority of OWS protestors fall into the Leftist category cannot be denied: “The protestors have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. On Oct. 10 and 11, Airelle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protestors in New York’s Zuccotti Park… 65 percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement - no matter the cost. By a large margin (77 percent to 22 percent), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58 percent oppose raising taxes for everybody… Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn’t represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believe in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence.” (Douglas Schoen, “Polling the Occupy Wall Street Crowd,” the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 18.)

Is it any wonder that every Leftie organization in the country, including the unions, the White House, the mainstream media, the Democratic Party, the Nazi Party and the Communist Party, support OWS goals?

Back in 2008, right after the banking bubble imploded, I wrote: “For decades, writers such as Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand have been warning us that the mixed-economy ‘welfare’-state is not a third alternative between capitalism and collectivism but is, instead, an explosive and unstable mixture which must, by the logic of the principles involved, become one or the other.” (“Capitalism Vs. Collectivism,” The River Cities’ Reader, Sept. 24, 2008.)

I knew then that the flashpoint I’ve seen coming for 30 years was quickly approaching; and, for any of you “middle-of-the-roaders” who still believe it’s possible to keep the benefits of capitalism once all of its essential characteristics have been removed, reality has just delivered you a well-deserved slap in the face.

No such “middle ground” exists. As I wrote then, "Any attempt to create one will simply lead to an ever-widening spread of economic dislocation and disruption, as the controls breed further controls - and, as the process accelerates, so does the rate of acceleration, until the entire shoddy structure is either repealed completely or collapses into authoritarian dictatorship." Do you seek to understand the core and meaning of current events? Today, you are witnessing the final crystallization of that process.

Need further proof that no half-pregnancies are possible? In a discussion of both the OWS movement and the Tea Party, Patrik Jonsson reports: “‘We’ve… got a conservative populist movement and a progressive populist movement happening at the same time… There’s a sense on both sides that it’s us against that unnamed force out there running the world.’” (“Occupy Wall Street movement intrigues, confounds the Tea Party,” the Christian Science Monitor, Oct. 18.)

But the “unnamed force” ruling the world is the power of ideas, which cannot be evaded by any number of “consensus-building” advocates. The Left, confronted by the social and political reality of a serious organization out to end the Entitlement-State power-game they’ve been playing for the last century, is pulling out all the stops and doing whatever it takes to prevent that occurrence. The “extremist” walls are grinding away at the so-called “safe center” and the “middle-of-the-roaders” are quickly becoming ideological hamburger.

And the small fraction of OWS protestors legitimately upset about financial bailouts and lobbying in government? The final joke is on them, for it is only the system of capitalism - which abolishes the arbitrary political power that serves as the root for such activities, and which all the OWS protestors abhor - that can possibly serve as the solution to that problem. It’s one or the other, capitalism or collectivism, clear as can be. So I’d suggest you get off your fence, folks, for your time for deciding which side you’re on is rapidly running out.

--
Bradley Harrington is the Publisher of Liberty’s Torch; his email is publisher@libertystorch.us.

Tales From The "You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up" Department

Beginning with the November 4th issue, Liberty's Torch will feature a new ongoing commentary: "Tales From The 'You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up' Department." This piece will be published as the pilot offering for that issue.

Tales From The “You Just Can’t Make This Stuff Up” Department

By Bradley Harrington

LANSING, MICH. - If you’re the type who welcomes the fact that our tax-supported school systems are geared towards developing “minds” all cast from the same social mold, with tremendous “educational” pressures applied against any individual deviation, then you’ll just love Michigan Governor Rick Snyder’s idea of applying that same type of “thinking” to our kids’ physical bodies as well. Lamenting the fact that “12.4 percent of Michigan youths… are now obese,” Snyder has just the answer for that problem - a state registry for fat kids:

“I have also directed the Michigan Department of Community Health to incorporate information about BMI in the Michigan Care Improvement Registry (MCIR), which tracks childhood immunization records. This rule change will allow a health care provider to report height and weight measurements on MCIR. The goal is to increase obesity screening rates and improve treatment in childhood obesity, which is significantly under-diagnosed in children.” (“A Special Message from Governor Rick Snyder: Health and Wellness,” http://www.michigan.gov/, Sept. 14.)

And if that isn’t enough to send a chill down your spine, the Gov, in all of his infinite wisdom, intends to ultimately trap the entire population of Michigan in his nanny-state snare:

“Although the proposed rule would apply only to persons under the age of 18, I will support expanding MCIR to apply to persons of all ages, which would give Michiganders greater awareness of and control over the state of their own health.”

One can only wonder what the Gov’s next move will be, when recalcitrant individuals fail to adhere to state-mandated “standards”: The formation of the Greasy-Food Police? “Drop that cheeseburger and put your hands into the air!” And what would the sentence for such a conviction be? 40 hours of treadmill service? With this so-called “Republican” governor standing close by, whip in hand to encourage the “proper” reduction of the BMI? “Run, Fatso, run!”

MALVERN, ARK. - Back in football’s “good old days,” Green Bay Packers coach Vince Lombardi used to ask: “If it doesn’t matter who wins or loses, then why do they keep score?” Lombardi was well-known for pushing his football players to their absolute limits on the playing field, because “Some of us will do our jobs well and some will not, but we will all be judged on one thing: The result.”

Well, “that was then,” as we like to say, and “this is now,” where a different style of playing sports is coming to the fore:

“Meet Demias Jimerson, an Arkansas 11-year-old who is so good that his youth football league has dug up an old rule to prevent him from scoring too many touchdowns. After Jimerson scored seven touchdowns in a recent game, the Wilson Intermediate Football League revived its old ‘Madre Hill Rule,’ in which a player is prohibited from scoring more than three touchdowns if his team is ahead by 14 points or more. The rule is named for Madre Hill, who played in the youth league and went on to play running back for the Arkansas Razorbacks and Oakland Raiders.” (“Youth league benches 11-year-old for scoring too many touchdowns,” http://www.nbcsports.com/, Sept. 30.)

Imagine, if you will, this type of approach as applied to the real world: Have you beat your classmates with a superior SAT score, thanks to your higher intelligence, or the fact that you studied harder than they did, or both? Sorry, but you’re not allowed to answer the last 20 questions; such a success rate is bound to put the rest of the students’ self-esteem into the toilet.

Have you invented a great new product to offer your particular area of industry, far better than anything presently out there? Sorry, but you can only market your creation to a certain amount of people; after that, your customers have to patronize your competitors instead, to keep them from going bankrupt.

So, excellence in performance and ability is no longer a goal to be striven for; that would, apparently, be too “extreme” for tender hearts to handle. For how much longer will people and players such as Jimerson continue to strive for excellence, when they are punished for it instead of rewarded? And, when excellence no longer counts, who sees anything but mediocrity taking things over?

Wilson Intermediate School Principal Terri Bryant, however, the Commissioner of the league, doesn’t see it that way at all; she said that “The rule isn’t meant to punish Jimerson. It’s there to help the other fifth and sixth graders on the field develop as football players too.”

But of what use is such “development” when the best honing edge for that development has been removed from the field? And what kid would ever consider themselves as “good” when they know in their hearts that they’re only “good” because Jimerson’s sitting on the bench? And how would such a policy ever prepare these kids for the real world around them, that does happen to keep score? But never mind all that; Principal Bryant has the losers’ best interests at heart. Or so she thinks. If you can’t raise the molehills, you raze the mountains instead, right? This is egalitarianism run amok - and, were such men as Lombardi alive today, they’d be rattling the rocks in her head with an excellently-aimed football.

--
Bradley Harrington is the Publisher of Liberty's Torch. He can be reached at publisher@libertystorch.us.

Yep, I'm Still Here, And "Changes" Are A Comin'...

Yep, I'm Still Here, And "Changes" Are A Comin'...

...But not to worry, they won't be the kind of changes President Zero is offering us - or, should I say, cramming down our throats??

I've been on and off this blog all day, referencing material as I prepare for the launch of my "Retro Rants" on the Liberty's Torch website, which will be a huge collection, in one place, of anything I judge as worthwhile that I've written since I was 20. (I'm 52 now.) I'm at nearly 200 articles already, and that's just the stuff from the OC Register back in the '80s and'90s, my Saddleback Lariat stuff, and what I've written for the Wyoming Tribune Eagle. I still have well over a hundred of my "national" commentaries to include from the last three years.

At any rate, I've noticed a number of things about the blog:

(1) I haven't posted onto it for a while, and it was an even longer while before that; so I want to get new and updated information on here soon. The Torch has kept me pretty busy, but I will get around to fixing things up here eventually, so stay tuned.

(2) Many of my dates are off, and need to be corrected.

(3) I want to provide much more "multimedia" material in the way of links, illustrations and whatnot.

(4) I think I'm gonna re-design the whole flipping thing.

So in case anybody following this thing has been thinking I'm dead - sorry, I ain't. More to come!

With Love,
And Best Premises,

Brad

Liberty's Torch's Opening Editorials

The following are the three editorials that will open publication of Liberty's Torch, scheduled to print its 1st issue on September 2nd, 2011.

Who We Are

When a new publication starts up in order to lend its voice to the thoughts of its community - as we are now doing - openness, honesty and intellectual integrity all demand that we should identify ourselves, discuss who we are, and declare at the outset our motives and purposes for doing so.

At this point in time, Liberty’s Torch is essentially the work of the two of us, Bradley and Barbie Harrington. We’re it. The membership on our “editorial board,” if you want to call it that, consists of us two and us two alone.

Which is not to say that we don’t have the writings of other writers present in this issue, because we do; and we intend to continue and expand that policy in the future. Nor is that to say that several other people haven’t contributed to other aspects of this newspaper’s production, because they have and they do. Skip Eshelman, Ethan Eshelman, Peter Aras and Duncan Philp, in particular, have all played enormous roles in getting this newspaper off the ground - from layout to writing to finances to distribution - and our contributors and advertisers, of course, have also made the whole adventure possible by helping to fund our operations.

But when it comes to “editorial policy” and where this newspaper is headed, that would be us, and us only. As President Harry Truman was fond of saying, “The buck stops here” - so if you’ve got kudos or problems, we’re the ones to thank or berate. And we’d both love to hear from you in either case. It’s integrity and the truth that we seek and stand for, and neither one of us are arrogant enough to think we hold monopolies on either. We welcome your Letters To The Editor, and our website will soon have interactive capabilities as well.

As for who we are in terms of our “editorial policy” - Bradley sums it up best in his interview on Page One: “Liberty’s Torch will proudly promote and assert rational opinions that foster individual freedoms wherever they are to be found, whether on the “Left” or the “Right” - and we will always tell you why we believe what we do, giving you our reasons for it… Liberty’s Torch is out to provide not only more positive and objective news, but real-life solutions and input to real-life problems. And, as the name suggests, those solutions will be based in capitalistic principles of individual liberty, private property and personal responsibility.”

And, speaking of the “Left” and the “Right” - yes, we are proudly and profoundly pro-freedom, a position normally construed by most people as being “Rightist” in nature. But that all depends upon how one chooses to define the “Left” and the “Right,” does it not? (For Bradley’s thoughts on these definitions, see his commentary, “A Rainbow With Two Red Edges?” elsewhere in this issue.)

It is extremely important for our readers to grasp, however, that we are not “conservatives.” Our take on individual liberty is best summed up through the words of the philosopher Ayn Rand: “We are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish.” (Introduction to “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal,” 1967.)

We view both the “Left” and the “Right,” in the meaning of these terms as they are commonly accepted today, as self-contradictory in many respects, and we don’t wish to have “conservatives” and “Republicans” controlling our personal sexual choices and marital decisions any more than we want “liberals” and “Democrats” controlling our bank accounts and pocketbooks. Neither “side” represents a principled and consistent approach to maximizing individual liberty, but that is exactly what you’ll be finding here.

And while we believe that political action, in and of itself, has a tremendous level of importance in today’s society and culture, we also know that such actions are really just an expression of, and an outgrowth to, the underlying ideas on which they are grounded. It is the philosophical principles of a free society that are now under attack, and that is where the battle most needs to be fought. Political action, for us, even when correct on any given particular issue, has no meaning outside of the wider intellectual context in which it is embedded and operates, and can often create more problems than it solves if not properly rooted in sound precepts. Arriving at the right answer through wrong means does no one any good, and it is in the realm of being concerned for, and paying attention to, those fundamental precepts that we prefer to devote our efforts.

Regarding that larger picture and the approach you can count on us to take in the future, we’d like to borrow another paragraph from Ayn Rand: “The task of defining ideas and goals is not the province of politicians and is not accomplished at election time: Elections are merely consequences. The task belongs to the intellectuals. The need is more urgent than ever.” (“The Wreckage of the Consensus,” 1967.)

So, now you know who we are and what we are about: We intend to provide the content and the intellectual focus so rarely found in today’s media outlets. As for what that means for how we will be running the Torch and what you can expect from us in the future - you need only read on.

What You Can Expect From Us

There’s all kinds of agendas out there, and a lot of people aren’t going to bother telling you theirs. Especially the ones that are up to no good. Secrecy and stealth are such folks’ weapons of choice, because most of what many of them advocate wouldn’t stand the light of day if properly and justly exposed.

Well, you’re not going to have that problem here. Liberty’s Torch is “dedicated to informative, responsible and objective journalism, and to proudly re-igniting freedom’s flame in Cheyenne, Wyoming and the United States of America,” and we are about to tell you just exactly what that means.

Many people, including ourselves, frequently bemoan and decry the lack of “objectivity” in journalism, but that’s easier said than understood. What, precisely, does “objectivity” mean in this context?

Perhaps we can best approach this discussion by first focusing on its absence, i.e., on what “objectivity” is not. As far as straight news is concerned, there are several ways in which a media outlet can “slant” a story:

• By inserting opinion, other than quoted opinion from a source, into the story, thereby smuggling a hidden agenda into the readers’ minds under the guise of news;
• By juxtapositioning the placement of multiple stories in such a fashion as to give one story precedence over the other in a manner not relevant to the newsworthiness of the stories, but highly relevant to that hidden agenda;
• And, finally, by deciding whether any particular news story is even going to run at all, i.e., by pretending that the news didn’t happen by simply omitting any reference to that news by ignoring and eliminating it.

All of these tactics, and more, are engaged in by most of today’s media outlets on a regular basis, and the discerning reader will find no need for a laundry list of examples here. Look at most of the newspapers in the country and you’ll quickly find your fill.

Regarding Point One: Our readers will never find such news stories published in Liberty’s Torch. We will always strive for the neutral objectivity that the proper dissemination of legitimate news demands, and any opinions we might (and will) have on such news will be restricted to clearly-labeled op-ed pieces and pages. Period!

As for Point Two: What one paper considers “newsworthy” can be another paper’s trash, not even fit to print, and the definition of “newsworthiness” will vary from outlet to outlet. For the Torch, we intend to focus upon local news only, relevant to and concerned with the residents of the City of Cheyenne, Laramie County and the State of Wyoming. We will cover local political events, such as City Council and County Commissioner meetings, school and state legislative actions, and so forth, to the best of our ability, positive or negative, as we believe the function of watching, reporting and discussing the doings of our administrative officials to be a major responsibility - if not the major responsibility - of a free press.

Outside of such stories, and other news stories we might consider as relevant based on the level of impact they might have on our readers, preference of positioning will be granted to positive as opposed to negative news.

Finally, regarding Point Three: Please be advised, here at startup, there’s just the two of us. We both have a host of other commitments, and we will do the best we can. Should our community find our efforts worthwhile enough to actually promote the Torch monetarily, we can do this all the way - and we are, of course, open to suggestions from our readers on stories to cover. Until that point arrives, however, there are going to be holes. Things we won’t have the time or resources to cover. Things we are going to miss. Tell us when we screw up - and, if we decide you’re right, we will seek to correct such lapses to the best of our ability.

Now, onward into the area of “objectivity” of opinion: Aren’t all opinions, by their very nature, biased and subjective?

“Yes” in some respects and “No” in others. Yes, in the sense that all opinions originate with individual human beings, and are often colored by those people’s own personal experiences and thought processes, which are unique to them.

Just because one has a “biased” opinion, however, does not preclude the possibility of comparing that opinion to the facts of reality. There is, after all, an objective world out there that functions independently of any particular observer, and the last 350 years of the scientific method make it clear that some things can be proved wrong and others proved right. So, when we talk about “objectivity” as far as opinion is concerned, what we mean is this: That the facts of reality are to be respected in their formulation - and that contradictions, either externally with respect to those facts, or internally with respect to other components of the opinion, cannot exist and are not logically permitted.

We intend to assert opinion that follows logically from the facts of reality - for we believe that the more freedom granted to a man, the higher that man can rise, should he choose to do so by expending the voluntary effort needed to achieve his goals. And we believe that the wider the offerings of individual liberty and private property, the greater the depth, breadth and scope of our peaceful social interactions.

So, to sum it up, here’s what you can expect from us:

(1) We will never lie to you, attempt to manipulate you or use our newspaper as a means for achieving any hidden agendas;

(2) We will always strive to be open and honest in our news, just and rational in our opinion, and fair and forthright in all of our dealings with you, our readers. And our goal? To have you say that you know it’s true, because you read it in the Torch.

What We Are Out To Bring About

As discussed earlier, our primary focus in our editorial/opinion regarding political action will be the “wider intellectual context in which it is embedded and operates,” but that certainly doesn’t preclude having such opinions either. We just prefer to have sound reasons for them. Trust us, we have opinions aplenty, and a partial list can be found below.

The items on this list are not meant to be all-inclusive, nor are their defenses elaborate or listed in any particular order; all of them, and more, will be discussed and advocated in much more detail as further issues commence and actual socio-politico-economic events occur. The point here is to simply be up-front with our readers, giving you a small taste of what you are in for, and to clearly and honestly spell out our agenda for what we are out to bring about:

• Government Spending: Way too high, on whatever level you care to name: Local, county, state or federal. Our national debt is a disgrace to a supposedly free nation and an incredible mortgage on the future of our grandchildren. Cut spending, balance the budgets, live within our means, sunset ignorant programs, and ask ourselves: Do these programs act to enhance or impede the protection of lives and property? Keep them, if so; get rid of them if not.
• Economic Regulation: Unnecessary and completely out of control. We have destroyed our free-enterprise system with stupid, stifling and non-competitive rules and regulations, and none of it needed but good tort law, the arbitration of contractual disputes and the protection of private property. And we wonder why our economic “growth” slows year by year? Separate the State and Economics in the same fashion, and for the same reasons, as we separate Church and State. Then sit back and watch our economy roar its way into the stratosphere.
• “Environmentalist” Controls: For what purpose? Protecting property? A sane court system is all that is needed for that. Our so-called “environmentalists” have hogtied our industries, caused jobs to be shipped overseas, destroyed our energy capabilities and jacked our prices sky-high - and it’s all just a last-ditch effort on the part of the collectivists for ever-widening control. Intellectually bankrupt and scientifically decrepit, the “Friends of the Earth” are proving themselves to be the enemies of Man.
• Education: An absolute travesty on every level. Johnny can’t read or write, can barely think, and parents are being made to pay through their extorted income for all of it, when half as much money invested into the private sector would increase both free choice and resulting conceptual capacity. Abolish the Department of Education and let the free market rule. When the government controls educational funds, it will control the content as well - and what you get is indoctrination and day-care camps.
• “Victimless” Crimes: A gross infringement upon our individual liberties, and for what gain? The spread of disease, the establishment of organized crime, rampant property theft to support the high black-market prices, drug cartels murdering thousands - and more drugs than ever. As well as ever-more “drug war soldiers” to fight a problem created by their very involvement. “Do-gooders” telling us what to do. The “War on Drugs” is a joke. Did we learn nothing from Prohibition?
• Money: Our dollars, which were once gold and silver, the market choice for over 6,000 years, have been pirated by our politicians and subjected to inflationary pressures (not possible with real money) to pay for bloated government expenditures. Consequently, our monetary “system” verges on the cliff of collapse. Get rid of the Federal Reserve, return to a commodity currency and get the government out of the money business completely.
• Energy: Quit subsidizing worthless forms of so-called “large-scale, industrial-level” energy sources, such as solar and wind (which are truly neither), and go with what we know works: nuclear, coal, oil and natural gas. Energy - domestic energy - is out there to be had by the giga-watt, if we’d only wise up and push the Department of Energy out of the way. Instead, we place our faith and our future in the hands of 4th-century Middle-East tinpot dictators. Sheer insanity!
• DOMA (“Defense Of Marriage Acts”): Another gross infringement upon the rights and liberties of voluntary, consenting adults. What free individuals decide to do with their lives, their bodies and their sexual relations is not the business of the State. Get the government out of our bedrooms and leave us alone. And, neither should gay and lesbian individuals be granted or given any special preferences or allowances either. People have the right to be who they are, and other people have the right to like it or not like it as they will. Isn’t that what being a “free country” is all about? Why do some people just not feel right unless they are controlling the lives of others?
• Abortion: While it is not our belief that abortion should be used as a form of birth control, and we would always support heavy social and ethical mores opposed to thoughtless decisions regarding such use, nor do we believe the government has a right to involve itself in the matter either. Which includes a very strong opposition to taxpayer funding of such choices. No one should ever be forced to pay for the choices of another. Pay for it yourself and keep your hands out of the rest of our pockets!
• Foreign Policy: We spend billions a year to prop up international thugs, while we deny our fighting men their right to blow the Hell out of our sworn enemies in combat action. We seem more concerned with how others think of us than in accomplishing the mission. Our current foreign policy is a disgusting, shameful, self-sacrificial shambles and needs a complete overhaul. End foreign aid, stop supporting those who hate us, and - if we must fight - let’s flatten the target and then come home. Our enemies can build up their rubble themselves.
• Social Security: Giving the federal government control over our retirement was one of the biggest mistakes the United States ever made, as the current state of Socialist Insecurity more than attests to. All we’ve managed to accomplish is to convert our senior citizens into a poorly-paid and highly-dependent class, when a private trust plan at the same rates of investment and interest would yield each and every one of them thousands of times more retirement money. (Do the math yourself - or just stay tuned and we’ll do it for you, sooner or later.) Privatize this Ponzi Scheme gradually over time and eventually phase it out completely.
• Other “Entitlement” Programs: With the exception of Social Security, Medicare and Veteran’s benefits, which our seniors have paid into and our soldiers have earned with their very blood, the rest of the “welfare” state only merits abolition. We’re creating poor people by the millions, on the back of the producers who pay for it all, when what these people really need are jobs. Get the state out of the way and those you’ll have in plenty. Work, or depend upon your family or private charity. Your “need,” as such, gives you no rights at all. Think you’ve got a “right” to the property of others? So does every burglar.
• Immigration: In typical knee-jerk government fashion, our entire approach on this issue is flawed. Liberal Democrats would flood the country with freeloading immigrants seeking “free” handouts, while conservative Republicans would slam the borders shut and cut off our best source of new blood. What we really need is closed borders and open immigration, whereby anyone who seeks to come here that isn’t a criminal or carrying a disease is allowed in. It’s not immigration that’s our problem, it’s the “free” lunch and the special favors that are being tied to it that needs to end. Produce, or go back to whatever socialist hole you came from.
• Taxes: As lovers of individual liberty, we always believe taxes are too high. Taxes, in essence, are theft, and there’s only one thing that could even remotely and possibly begin to justify such action: Collective defense of life and property. Short of that, leave our money alone to spend as we best see fit. In view of the other positions taken in this editorial, it should be pretty obvious that we can slash taxes to a fraction of our current levels and still have plenty left over for where it needs to be spent: The police, the military and the courts.

Radical? Some of it. But we warned you about that ahead of time, remember? And some of it not. That all depends on your source viewpoint.

Radical…but consistent. Observe the common strains that run throughout all of it: Individual liberty. Private property. Personal responsibility. The right to your own life, to be lived as you peacefully see fit. Some of these positions, as you can see, are associated with what are commonly considered to be positions of the “Left,” and others, to the “Right.” All of them reflect our core belief in the right and ability of a free people to govern themselves, the great message of the original American Revolution. And if neither the “Left” nor the “Right” can grasp this, what does that say about either of the two? And what, therefore, can we expect in the future from both? A competing political war regarding who wants to be the controller, and what it is they’ll seek to control.

None of that, of course, has a damn thing to do with individual liberty, property rights or personal responsibility - but it appears that, today, both the “Left” and the “Right” have forsaken those dreams. Yet those were the social conditions that made the United States of America the greatest country in all of man’s history - and it is only by returning to them, and clearing out such errors as were originally made, that we can ever hope to experience even a shadow of that greatness again.

And that, dear readers, is our dream, and what we intend to bring about.

Liberty's Torch Fires Up First Issue: An Interview With Publisher Bradley Harrington

It isn't often that you'll see anything written here that isn't written by me, but my dear wife Barbie will always be an exception. I should probably wait until the Torch actually prints to run this, but I'm impatient and want to get it out there now. And, since it's my blog, I can do what I damn well want, so there.

Liberty’s Torch Fires Up First Issue: An Interview With Publisher Bradley Harrington

By Barbie Harrington

Today, Sept. 2nd, in the midst of an era characterized more by failures than startups, America’s latest newspaper bucks the trend and begins publication: Liberty’s Torch, based in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

The newspaper, the brainchild of founder Bradley Harrington, former commentary columnist for Cheyenne’s Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, starts out as a monthly publication, but hopes to shift to at least every two weeks as soon as possible. “That will all depend upon our readership response,” Harrington said. “If we take off like I believe we will, growing readership will attract more advertisers, allowing us to print more often. Who knows? We might be the new daily in town in five years.”

At a time when newspapers all over the country are experiencing more financial difficulties than ever, what makes the Torch’s founder think it’s going to be any different? “Newspapers fail for a reason,” Harrington said, “and an examination of just what those reasons are is extremely illuminating. Yes, it is true that the rise of the Internet and the hypertext revolution have something to do with it, in a general sense. And Liberty’s Torch, by having an online presence as well (http://www.libertystorch.us/), intends to meet that demand. But, more often, what you find is that the newspapers being hit the hardest, print-style or online, are the ones failing to provide their respective communities with what those readers want.”

”A lot of people are fed up with the sensationalistic, biased, concrete-bound sound-bites that characterize what most newspapers provide,” Harrington said. “What they want is real, honest news that they can trust and depend upon - and thoughtful, straightforward editorial opinion without a hidden agenda being smuggled into their minds in the process. Fiercely independent and beholden to no one, Liberty’s Torch will proudly promote and assert rational opinions that foster individual freedoms wherever they are to be found, whether on the Left or the Right. And we will always tell you why we believe what we do, and give you our reasons for it.”

“Most of us, I think you’d agree, have had our fill of the constant negativity in today’s news,” Harrington continued. “It’s what kept me out of the field for 30 years, despite the fact that journalism was my education and inclination. And what we want, many of us without realizing it or being able to put words to it, is positive integrity. Yes, some news by its nature is negative. But why is that often the only focus? Isn’t there more to life on Earth than plane crashes, shoot-outs and murders? That changes right now.”

And does Liberty’s Torch plan on making a difference in these areas? “Absolutely,” Harrington said. “And it was you, Barbie, that started this ball rolling in the first place, with your desire to put out a little sheet every now and then that concentrated on our own hometown heroes and the positive impacts hundreds of our residents have on our community.”

“And then, as you know, one day earlier this year, as I was looking over one of my pieces in the local WTE, I thought: Wouldn’t it be great to have all of the editorial pages devoted to rational social and political opinion, instead of my writing merely functioning as a ‘voice in the wilderness’ amongst all the rest of that collectivist claptrap?” Harrington asked. “And wouldn’t it be great to read features and news stories that emphasized the best within us, instead of the worst? And then the thought struck me: What this town needs is a new newspaper that focuses on the things that truly matter - and that the voices to provide it need to be our own. That’s where my dream began, and I haven’t been able to rest ever since.”

And does Harrington believe that this type of newspaper is a formula for success? “You bet I do,” he said. “Newspapers litter the countryside, but how many of them are truly giving people what they want and need? In the final analysis, very few. And that is why newspapers are failing left and right, of the Left or the Right. Studies have made it clear, over the years, to say nothing of common sense, that no one likes to start off their day with a negative. Who wants a rag on their kitchen table that they don’t even want their kids to read? Liberty’s Torch is out to provide not only more positive and objective news, but real-life solutions and input to real-life problems. And, as the name suggests, those solutions will be based in capitalistic principles of individual liberty and responsibility.”

Harrington looked thoughtful, then scratched his nose and winked. “Maybe we’re wrong, you and I,” he said. “Maybe most people really do like all of that cultural crud. I’m sure that at least a small percentage do. Great. They can go and read the New York Times. But the majority of us? I don’t think so, and neither do most of the people you and I know. There was a time when the market promoted that kind of stuff, but I believe that time is waning, as the upheavals in the journalistic field strongly suggest. People are watching their country get flushed down the toilet - and it’s answers they are looking for, not political propaganda.”

"I guess we’ll just have to let the market decide,” Harrington said. "If we’re wrong, then we’ll fold. But, if we’re right, as I am convinced that we are - then let the fun begin, because it’s time to turn liberty loose and let freedom ring!”

--

Barbie Harrington is the Editor of Liberty’s Torch. She can be reached at editor@libertystorch.us.

Reviewing Atlas Shrugged: "This Is John Galt Speaking"

For those of you who've been wondering where I've been hiding, I've been busy on the upcoming production of Cheyenne's newest newspaper, "Liberty's Torch." First issue due out on September 2nd, "Atlas Shrugged Day" - and what could possibly be more appropriate than to write a review of "Atlas Shrugged" for that issue?

Reviewing Atlas Shrugged: “This Is John Galt Speaking”

By Bradley Harrington

“I swear - by my life and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” - Ayn Rand, “Atlas Shrugged,” 1957 -

In Atlas Shrugged, Rand depicts what happens when the producers of the country decide they’ve had enough of producing in the midst of a half-socialist, half-fascist political system where their only role is to continue to serve as the exploited and unacknowledged serfs made to pay for it all.

Tied by a twisted tangle of non-objective rules and regulations designed to foster the growth of the Entitlement State - one in which producers have to beg for permission to produce from those who produce nothing but impediments to production - those producers speak the two words that no thug or beggar can ever withstand: “I quit!”

And, since it is the producer who makes all looting and mooching possible through their prior productive efforts, the collapse of society rapidly accelerates to the point that it crashes - upon which time, at the end of the book, the producers, led by the book’s hero John Galt, return to society to re-establish Constitutional law and individual rights.

While Atlas Shrugged is chock-full of political drama, however, don’t make the mistake of assuming it’s mainly about politics, for its thrust and theme is much wider and deeper than that. In Rand’s own words, it deals with “the role of the mind in man’s existence” - and, “as a corollary, the presentation of a new ethics - the morality of rational self-interest.” (Ayn Rand, “Is Atlas Shrugging?”, 1964.)

Consequently, it is not merely arbitrary political power that Rand targets, but the underlying idea that makes that power possible: the belief that it is proper to enslave some men at the point of a gun for the benefit of other men. It is the idea of self-sacrifice that Rand blows sky-high, asserting instead the primacy of the individual human being’s right to their own happiness for their own sake, without the good that they might be doing for others acting as the justification for their continued existence.

It is nothing less than man’s right to life that Rand succeeds in reclaiming from the tidal wave of irrational “philosophy” swamping our world today - and if you don’t think it’s possible to accomplish that task through a fiction novel, you’ve got another think coming. A magnificent tribute to that which makes human life possible, Atlas Shrugged is, in the words of the blurb off its cover, a novel about “the murder - and rebirth - of man’s spirit.”

And today, 54 years later? One can only reflect on the incredible potency of the power of ideas when one hears our current crop of political looters speak of the need for “shared sacrifice” as the solution to all of our problems. Mr. Thompson, America’s Head of State in Atlas Shrugged, couldn’t have said it better.

And how much longer can we expect producers to continue shouldering their enforced burdens while the flotsam and jetsam of the Entitlement State - the concrete-bound savages devoid of any understanding of principles, concepts, values or absolutes - begin rioting in the streets? One only need observe England’s recent upheavals to comprehend the magnitude of the forces we have let loose on the world - and to grasp the fact that it is happening here in the United States as well, and for exactly the same reasons.

And the signs are growing abundantly clear that our own real-life producers have just about had their fill. If the ever-increasing worthlessness of our phony paper dollars and our anemic economic growth under the lashes and leashes of the looters is not enough to convince you of what happens when you turn off man’s mind, then chew on this as well:

“In the battle of environmentalists against business that began years ago in the United States, one of its latest victims is Birmingham, Alabama, coal mine owner Ronnie Bryant.” During a public hearing, Bryant sat still for two hours of castigation, and then had the following to say: “My only idea today is to go home. What’s the use?...Basically, what I’ve decided is not to open the mine. I’m just quitting.” (“Environmentalists halt plans for new coal mine,” New American, July 26th.)

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is “John Galt speaking” - but you’ll need to read that for yourselves.

--

Bradley Harrington is the publisher of Liberty's Torch. He can be reached at publisher@libertystorch.us.

Who Woulda Thunk It?

My final "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "It has been a good ride" on May 28th, 2011.

While conflict of interest prevented me from stating so in this piece, the "new adventure" Barbie and I will be embarking upon is "Liberty's Torch," scheduled for first publication on July 4th, 2011.

Who Woulda Thunk It?

By Bradley Harrington

“Ideals are like stars; you will not succeed in touching them with your hands. But, like the sea-faring man on the desert of waters, you may choose them as your guides; and, following them, you will reach your destiny.” – Carl Schurz, Boston Faneuil Hall Address, 1859 -

Well I remember the day, a couple of years ago, the first time Reed Eckhardt asked me to write a local opinion column for the WTE.

I’d started writing again shortly after Barbie and I moved back to Cheyenne in 2008. Motivated in part by the upcoming presidential election, as well as a desire to return to a field I had left a number of years ago, I was self-syndicating a “national” column to the newspapers around the country, and naturally that list included Reed at the WTE as well.

He ran a couple of them, but not often: Reed’s primary focus is Wyoming and local issues and events, and that’s what he wanted me to tackle.

I turned him down initially, telling him that I simply did not know enough about local issues to consider myself as any kind of “expert” anyone would be willing to listen to.

Which was true enough, but not my real reason at that time: Being a writer of a decidedly capitalist/objectivist bent, interested in analyzing current events in the light of the ideas and principles of liberty and individualism, and based on much experience with many other editors around America, I simply did not think Reed would ever be willing to regularly run what I wrote.

A few months later, he asked me again. “You can learn the issues,” he said. He wanted more right-wing commentary for balance on his editorial pages and he thought I was just the guy to fill that bill.

Well, I could learn the local issues; and Reed was right, I was just the guy to supply any interested readers with just that kind of copy. "Right-wing" I got. But still…

“Why would you run any such stuff?” I asked. “It’s not what you write. It’s not your position. You don’t agree with most of it. What would be the purpose? I’ll get going and then once you see what I’m actually going to have to say on a regular basis, you’ll just get tired of it and fire me.”

But Reed assured me that wouldn’t happen, and that whether he agreed or not was irrelevant. “When have I ever turned down a well-written column from any viewpoint?” he said. “Write about whatever ticks you off, as long as it’s local.”

So that’s how this whole thing started, and I began boning up to the best of my ability on local issues and events – and running my mouth on what I thought of them. It didn’t take long to realize that the larger problems gripping America begin at home, and often comically so. I couldn’t have made some of this stuff up if I’d tried.

And, to Reed’s everlasting credit, he ran it all. Even when he violently disagreed, as he did with a piece on the food police I wrote last year, an issue that I know is dear to his heart. “Do you really believe that we would be better off without county food inspections?” he asked me incredulously. “We’d all die of food poisoning!”

But he ran it anyway. Word for word. Just the way I wrote it. Who woulda thunk it?

And the ride with the readers has been a tremendously interesting experience as well. Being the outspoken proponent of freedom and capitalism that I am, it didn’t take long for the enemies of those ideas to take notice of me, and the friction between me and the unions, political hacks, “do-gooders” and other assorted riff-raff began early on.

Not everyone wanted to string me up, however; for I have also received more thoughtful, considerate replies to my columns and the ideas they have discussed than at any other writing time of my life. This city may be in the hands of the collectivists but don’t ever make the mistake of thinking you can take your average Wyomingite and put a noose around their neck; you might just be left head-and-heeled, hanging out to dry while you learn your proper manners.

So, why am I bothering to tell anybody all of this? Because this, Dear Reader, is the last piece you will see from me in the WTE. Barbie and I have decided to pursue another new adventure, and never the twain shall meet.

To my readers pro and con, thank you for all of your input. You’ve made me rethink my positions more than once, and I will never be the same for having done so.

And, to Reed in particular: Through thick and thin, you followed through on your agreement. Something I have to admit I didn’t ever think was going to happen. Even when the “good old boy” network came unglued about my anti-DDA stands, you merely shifted my column location over to the other page to avoid reader confusion between my rants and official editorial policy.

And that’s what I call integrity. Something we could all stand to see more of, personally and politically. And it has been appreciated more than you know.

--
Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

The Rec Center's Underlying Realities

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle on May 21st, 2011.

The Rec Center’s Underlying Realities

By Bradley Harrington

“There’s no fair way to steal.” – Andrew Galambos, “Sic Itur Ad Astra,” 1998 –

Last week, when I referred to the proposed recreation center for Cheyenne as a “boondoggle” and said that “If a society or community cannot marshal enough voluntarily-contributed resources to build a ‘public-works’ project, then that project needs to remain un-built” (“Here it comes again,” Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, May 14th), I knew I was bound to get some heated responses from proponents.

For when you strike out at “public works,” you are striking out at things very dear to some people’s hearts. And such people will tell you unequivocally that the “good” of such projects lies in the increase in human happiness that they provide.

Yet such projects actually breed the opposite: They create discord, dissatisfaction and resentments on the part of the taxpaying population they use as their base. As proof, consider the following letter I received from reader John Thompson:

“Burns Mayor Vern Testerman was said to have led the fight against the Rec Center. So, he got his money, but then says to hell with what Cheyenne wanted, even though it would not cost Burns one cent more in taxes…Well, Burns and Albin had better not need any more 6th penny money in the future; we are rallying to stop ALL expenditures outside of Cheyenne. We have learned our lesson, now it will be Burns’ turn to learn. I don’t care how important an issue is, I’m voting against it. Payback is a bitch.”

Whoa! Where’s all that “brotherly love” and “shared sacrifice” we’re always hearing about? Sounds to me like Mr. Thompson is a bit angry. But why? Don’t Laramie County voters have the right to vote as they will? And aren’t we all supposed to just go along with such decisions like good little citizens? In the interests of the “good of the public”?

The actual results, however, seem to be decidedly the opposite. And we haven’t even built the thing yet.

Which should come as no great surprise to anyone with a glimmer of respect for property rights: What other results can possibly be attained by regarding the lives and property of individual human beings as nothing more than fodder for a public auction block?

For that, in essence, is what the “public works” hypothesis is based on: Since we are all obviously too stupid to know how to spend our money the way we choose to, we have to have it done for us instead. And the fact that such a collectivist approach to human relations creates far more problems than it solves should give pause to anyone truly concerned with expanding human happiness. How can you possibly “expand” human happiness at the point of a gun?

And the answer is: you can’t. But that has never prevented “public officials” throughout history from trying anyway. Isn’t that how the pyramids got built? Through slave labor? Anyone care to be a slave in Ancient Egypt under a slave-master with a whip in his hand?

In our more modern times, however, we don’t actually enslave citizens and force them to build rec centers. No, we just steal their money to do it instead. Now that’s a real “improvement.”

The “public works” hypothesis of government is based on the following supposition: That you have no right or ability to spend your own money as you see fit – but that somehow, at the same time, you’re intelligent enough to cast votes to determine how others are to spend theirs.

How’s that again? The fact that someone can actually utter such nonsense with a straight face and receive nods of approval instead of universal condemnation is, perhaps, the most eloquent indication of the sordid level to which our social and political discourse has degenerated. We’ve sold our rights for free dentures and a rec center, and everybody claps when they ought to be horrified.

But human freedom, I’ve discovered, is a value few recognize or appreciate. So, in the face of such intellectual corruption, pardon me for a moment while I state a couple of principles of my own:

(1) My life, money and property are not tools for your social engineering schemes. You can get your gangster governments to steal it from me if you like, but you will never gain my moral sanction in doing so. I will, properly, regard you as the thieves you are, for the fact that you might build a “public works” project with your loot instead of hightailing it to Tahiti does not change the nature of your original theft;

(2) And, when such actions are engaged in, the net result for “society” will not be an increase but a decrease in human happiness - as must always be the case when you turn free human beings into slaves. What level of liberty do you people really believe is possible when you view other human beings as nothing more than tools for your own ends?

For those who accept such a designation, you’ve got it coming. Put on your little serf hat and smile! “Better Red than dead,” right? And, for those who don’t: Wake up. The collectivists have claimed your life as their own. How long do you intend on standing still for it?

--
Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.

Revisiting The Rec Center

A "local" piece, published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle under the title of "Here it comes again" on May 14, 2011.

Revisiting The Rec Center

By Bradley Harrington

“If men have grasped some faint glimmer of respect for individual rights in their private dealings with one another, that glimmer vanishes when they turn to public issues – and what leaps into the political arena is a caveman who can’t conceive of any reason why the tribe may not bash in the skull of any individual if it so desires.” – Ayn Rand, “Collectivized Ethics,” 1963 –

If you’ve ever thought that politicians really get our messages when we vote, you’d better think again. Back in 1996, Laramie County voters rejected a proposed $20 million recreation center for the City of Cheyenne.

But that wasn’t good enough for city officials. Convinced that they knew better than us, they marshaled their forces and tried it again in 2008. By that time, however, the cost for the rec center had more than doubled, up to $55 million. The voters rejected it again.

Enough said, right? Wrong. If you think that, then you have no respect for the tenacity of public officials bent on blowing your tax dollars in any way they think appropriate no matter how many times you, the voter, say otherwise:

“City officials have begun developing a list of projects to be included on the next sixth-penny sales tax ballot in 2012.” And one of the items on that wish list? You guessed it: “Recreation center - $30 million.” ("City begins sixth-penny project list," Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, May 8th.)

You have to almost admire the pit-bull-like determination of some of our public leaders. Shucks, if they worked half as hard at running this city properly as they do at devising ways to once again fleece voters and taxpayers on this rec center boondoggle, we’d all be better off and richer for it.

Indeed, the politicians’ constant barrage of re-attempts on this issue reminds me of what the Irish Republican Army once told Margaret Thatcher immediately after the Brighton hotel bombing of 1984: “Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always.”

So, is that the task before us voters? To constantly be on the lookout for these recurring waves of economic terrorism? Apparently so. Then man your defenses, folks, for we’ve got a $30 million roller-coaster ride heading our way come 2012.

And what, just out of curiosity, is the driving force behind this madness? The desire for “growth.” And mark my words, you can bet your next welfare check that I, and others who might happen to share my viewpoint, will be shortly labeled as “no-growthers” and “naysayers.”
Yet “growth,” as an economic phenomenon, is what occurs out of surplus earnings in a free economy. And the essence of a free economy is that those surpluses are voluntarily injected back into the economy by the people who own them in order to reap more profits. That is what “growth” is and that is how it occurs.

Taxing a population to erect a rec center, however, is not growth: That is merely a shift of economic resources not actual wealth-creation. And, as such, that action has no more claim to the fame of “growing” our local economy than a bank robber can claim “growth” after his latest heist.

For, when dollars flow on the basis of force instead of profit, their rates of return suffer accordingly. And the final result? An actual decrease in produced wealth overall as dollars are restricted by taxation from flowing where they will.

If “growth” – true growth, not the chimera of growth being advocated by city officials – were our actual goal, then we would ask ourselves: What is its source? From where does “surplus” wealth spring?

And the undisputable answer is: from the free and unfettered trade practiced in any honest market economy. Actions that promote that market economy, therefore, are pro-growth. Actions that impede it - such as the tax-and-spend policies of our city officials – therefore qualify, in reality, as anti-growth. And merit being labeled as such.

If a society or community cannot marshal enough voluntarily-contributed resources to build a “public-works” project, then that project needs to remain un-built. And if there’s some people in town who disagree, they are perfectly free to move to a community that engages in such practices. But they have no moral right – zero, nada, zippo, the null set – to force local inhabitants to pay for such nonsense whether they like it or not.

And, while we are often labeled as a “democracy” by both ourselves and other cultures, it might be useful at this point to remember that the United States of America was founded as a Republic, not a democracy – and that the difference is the protection of individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.

Just because you have a gang, in other words, does not mean you have the right to impose your view at the point of a gun. But try telling that to the next “do-gooder” pointing a weapon at your wallet.

--
Bradley Harrington is a former U.S. Marine and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at timeforeverymantostir@yahoo.com.