The Free-Market Lesson of the Web by Gerard Docherty

The World Wide Web was invented in 1992 by Sir Tim Berners-Lee as a simple mechanism to share scientific papers with colleagues. The key innovation of the web was the use of hypertext — the mechanism by which we click on a link, such as a chunk of highlighted text, and are able to download the target document automatically. Although this is a simple idea, the web has changed the world we live in. Its rise is also a superb example of what happens when the private sector is left alone to meet market needs.

Despite its great complexity and rapid development over the last 10 years, the web community works largely without state intervention of any sort. Web designers did not need the hand of government to develop the skills to create ever more complex websites; IT professionals did not wait to read official reports saying they had to adapt as the technology changed; and companies were quick to offer the ever-evolving range of services needed for the web to run smoothly.

In other words, the private sector adapted, and adapted very quickly. Free-market mechanisms did what they always do — they rushed to meet consumer needs. This is reflected not only in the wide range of products available but also in the rapid drop in prices of almost every aspect of the web. Ten years ago, a personal website was an expensive proposition, especially if you needed anything professional or polished. Today, in the form of blogging software or services like Facebook, it is free. The overall cost of entry — taking into account the cost of training needed only a decade ago and now no longer necessary — has not so much dropped as evaporated. This low cost of entry has allowed a wide variety of individuals and companies to trade online, providing considerable choice for consumers.

Although the growth we have seen online is exceptional, it is still only a faster version of something capitalism does well: meeting a myriad of needs in a diverse society. It is difficult to imagine a better example of the free market at work.

Read more at Mises Institute

From the Bear’s Corner: The Individuals right to own property

I have said this before and I will say it again and again until my face turns blue.

One of the basic rights that we inherited from the Constitution is the right to own property. This right brought us into the modern world and no man was longer beholding to nobles to till the fields.

Our Founders new this (God Bless them all) and yet the government doesn’t know it or most likely they choose to ignore it. And if you wonder why…ask Karl Marx.

The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.

Marx and Obama

Just look at this of the United States and portion in red is the land controlled by the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) and when you consider that the EPA now considers that any all water in the United States is now subject to their control including your houses because rain falls on it; ALL PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE EXTINGUISED and under government control.

us_public lands

He, who controls the land and water, controls everyone’s destiny.

And just who is the BLM? It is a government agency under the umbrella of the Department of the Interior. The BLM was set up mainly to administer government lands in the West, some of lands where purchased and others were confiscated by the military in the days of the old and wild west.

And just where did the BLM get their money from to purchase land? From the American tax payer.

These lands that BLM control are considered “Trust Lands” which is a very complex law and hard to understand. But basically what it means that the BLM are only stewards of the property. They don’t own it, We the People do. So I come back to my basic premise that I have preached for many years that all the land in in the United States belongs to We the People … every square inch of it.

And never forget that!

Related

A longtime friend of this website “GD” pointed me to this article from a year ago which mirrors the BLM standoff in Nevada and the property rights of ranchers.

Federal Judge Rules for Property Rights, Smacks Down Abusive Feds

In an historic 104-page ruling, Chief Judge Robert C. Jones of the Federal District Court of Nevada has struck a major blow for property rights and, at the same time, has smacked down federal agencies that have been riding roughshod over Western ranchers and property owners. The long-awaited ruling, which had been expected before the end of last year, was finally issued at the end of May. The court case, U.S. v. Hage, has been keenly watched by legal analysts and constitutional scholars — but has been completely ignored by the major media. (No surprise)
[…]

Judge Jones said he found that “the government and the agents of the government in that locale, sometime in the ’70s and ’80s, entered into a conspiracy, a literal, intentional conspiracy, to deprive the Hages of not only their permit grazing rights, for whatever reason, but also to deprive them of their vested property rights under the takings clause, and I find that that’s a sufficient basis to hold that there is irreparable harm if I don’t … restrain the government from continuing in that conduct.”

In fact, Judge Jones accused the federal bureaucrats of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, and accused them as well of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an effort “to kill the business of Mr. Hage.”

You can read the entire article at the New American

Flavor Is a Human Right, Too. By Michael R. Shannon

The biggest problem Christians and conservatives have in making the case for marriage to the younger generation is we don’t speak the same language, and I’m not referring to the number of ‘likes’ inserted into each sentence that replace thought. Our frame of reference has only a tangential connection with that of the younger generation.

The default authority for Christians when explaining their opposition to homosexual marriage is the Bible. But it’s not for the generation born after 1980. The Washington Times reports, “More Americans are doubting the infallibility of the Bible, treating it as a guidebook rather than the actual words of God, according to a survey released Wednesday.”

This belief (no pun intended) puts that generation in agreement with Episcopalians, Methodists and Unitarians who also don’t understand what the big deal is when Rev. Adam and his wife, Steve shake hands with the faithful as they leave the sanctuary on Sunday.

This finding was part of a survey conducted on behalf of the American Bible Society. In the Times its president, Roy Peterson explained, “I think young people have always questioned their parents, questioned the church…Today the skeptics are saying, ‘It’s just like any other piece of literature, and it’s no different from that.”

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that when a Christian references the Bible, the youngster counters with, “You may like the Bible, but I’m partial to the Epic of Gilgamesh. However, if there was a modern language translation, the Egyptian Book of the Dead also has some value for those who want to increase their spirituality quotient.”

This declining interest is an indication there’s a real chance the Bible may lose it’s spot as the perennial number one best–seller, although this is not sufficient cause for Ellen to hope her bio will take its place.

The importance of the Bible for moral instruction has also declined. In 2013 almost a third of respondents “blamed a lack of Bible reading as the problem” behind a decline in American morals. This year it’s only 26 percent, but that decrease may be explained by the corresponding number of Americans who purchased 70” TVs in the intervening months.

So how does one explain opposition to homosexual marriage in terms the young can grasp? How does one put in context the aggressive demand that Christians conform to an unprecedented definition of marriage that didn’t exist even 25 years ago and flies in the face of all of human history?

How can they relate to our rejection of this absurd definition of marriage that completely upends an accepted way of life in the interest of pleasing an intolerant minority and its cheering section.

There are essentially no sexual taboos today, so approaching the problem from a Biblical angle is like expressing your opposition to the healing power of crystals by using the Physicians Desk Reference, when your audience hasn’t read either one.

Fortunately in today’s brave new culture food taboos have replaced sex taboos and it is here Christians can make our case in a way that duplicates the situation we encountered with homosexual marriage and is simultaneously understandable by the younger generation.

My analogy works regardless of whether you’re locked in debate with a smug and superior homosexual marriage supporter or you’re simply answering a question from one of those ‘love and let love’ types unable to understand why we feel so strongly about the issue.

The demand that Christians completely redefine marriage and accept a radical new definition that institutionalizes and affirms a form sexual practice the Bible specifically forbids, is the exact equivalent of pork lovers demanding that vegan restaurants serve bacon.

If America’s homosexuals can demand “marriage equality” then bacon lovers can demand “flavor equality.”

A vegan’s unconstitutional exclusion of bacon is simply elevating personal preference over a fundamental human right to have food that tastes good. And even diners who aren’t eating bacon because of an irrational fear of being attacked by their heart, can still feel the pain and humiliation of being ostracized.

Just try wearing an Arkansas Razorbacks’ Hog Head hat into your nearest Busboys & Poets restaurant if you want to see how a real second–class citizen is treated by kale bigots.

And who says vegans get to define what qualifies to be labeled as “vegan?” Flavor is flavor, people. Just as we’ve been told “love is love.” You may like the slimy feel and hay–infusion aftertaste of tofu, but I like the crunch of crispy, fried bacon and how can that be so wrong?

One doesn’t choose to love bacon any more than one chooses whom to love. It’s fried into my DNA.

I should be able to go into Sweet & Natural bakery and ask them to whomp up a delicious quiche Lorraine and not get a bunch of sanctimonious static about beliefs, animal rights and cholesterol.

Who are these Pharisees to tell me I can’t eat pork?

And the same goes for the photographer who refused to document my family’s annual fall hog butchering reunion and hoe down. If she/he (I think the photographer was undergoing some sort of transformation) is open for business to the public, then the photographer should not be allowed to discriminate based on unscientific belief and superstition. Go down that path and the next stop is Montgomery and Bull Connor.

Separate but equal is inherently unequal. If Western Sizzlin’ can offer food for vegans then its only fair that Arugula ‘R We be forced to offer a BLT.

“Gay” Activism: From Bullies to Brownshirts By: Christopher G. Adamo

An Open Letter to Mitchell Baker, Chairwoman of Mozilla Corporation, regarding the dismissal of Chief Executive Officer Brendan Eich:

Dear Chairwoman Baker,

I’m writing to inform you that as a result of the decisions made by Mozilla Corporation during the past week, I will at my earliest opportunity be switching to another web browser, and will no longer utilize Firefox or any other Mozilla product from this point forward. Admittedly, this change can not take place instantly, since I have used Firefox almost exclusively for many years, and am deeply entrenched in it.

Nevertheless, the reprehensible actions taken against your former CEO Brendan Eich, and your stated rationale for doing so, make it impossible ever again to have any confidence in the integrity of your organization. Given the vast expansion of Internet communications in the past few years, it is imperative that First Amendment rights, including the unconstrained exchange of information and ideas, be preserved and protected. The critical importance of maintaining the ability to communicate is essential to the continuation of a healthy and free America. With the stakes being so high and the consequences of ethical capitulation so grave, it is far too risky to associate with an organization that exhibits such flagrant institutional hostility for the noble principles enshrined at the nation’s founding, and by which Mozilla, among so many other American enterprises, has flourished.

It is particularly distressing that Mozilla would conduct itself in so deplorable a manner at the behest of a tiny segment of the population that incessantly claims to oppose “bullying” while historically engaging in the worst of bullying as a means of advancing its agenda. The flimsy veneer of “equality” and “tolerance” in which the homosexual advocacy cloaks itself belies the well-documented manner of its activism. And all those who choose to accept its falsely sanitized presentation of itself and its goals are guilty of enabling this insatiable portion of the counterculture to continue its assault on the fabric of the nation.

The notion that the homosexual activists only aspire to establish a “live and let live” regard for their lifestyle has been thoroughly disproven throughout history. In particular, the “Gay” agenda in America in recent decades has never been content with mere acceptance, but has demanded a universal stamp of unconditional approval from the entirety of society. It is this premise alone, and not some feeble tax edge, that has motivated the whole same-sex “marriage” onslaught of the past decade.

Contrary to the sanctimonious caterwauling of “inequality and discrimination,” the homosexual segment of the population has been able to conduct itself within its own circles as it chooses for many years. But as is always the case, this latitude only served to embolden its members to impose their conduct on society around them to an ever expanding degree. Thus, the lifting of social taboos resulted in such atrocious demonstrations as the disruption of services in Saint Patrick’s Cathedral in New York and other major church settings where deliberate sacrilege was committed in protest against Biblical teaching on right and wrong that did not comply with the homosexual worldview. Since that time, the instant and unrelenting accusations of “hate” hurled at any who dared disagree with the “gay community” have become the standard weapon of intimidation invoked to marginalize and silence any individual or organization who might deviate, no matter how slightly, from the countercultural orthodoxy.

As this movement continues to burgeon and metastasize, business owners are being harassed, vandalized, and hounded out of the public marketplace merely for refusing to lend their services to, or otherwise participate in a same-sex “marriage” ceremony. Clearly, no latitude for “live and let live” exists here. Total conformity and compliance is demanded, with the dreaded inevitability of bullying and reprisal awaiting any who refuse to acquiesce to the new order. Those who reflexively characterize as “hate” even the mildest digression from their creed prove time and again that it is they who are consumed and driven by hate, and completely willing to act on it at every juncture.

Against such a backdrop, it is particularly disappointing that you would seek to cloak your collaboration in such transparent euphemisms as “diversity,” and “inclusiveness,” or suggest that you have any regard whatsoever for varying “religious views.” Your actions against Mr. Eich clearly reveal that within your organization, the moment an individual’s beliefs fail to align with countercultural dogma, retribution is imminent and swift. Despite your attempts at covering your conduct with window dressing, you engage in the starkest form of attempted “thought control.” No room for any “religious beliefs,” other than those ordained by the prophets of “political correctness,” will be tolerated.

In a healthy climate of self-governance, the appropriate response from those who took issue with Mr. Eich’s donation of $1000 to protect traditional marriage in California would have been to donate $2000 dollars to the opponents of that initiative. But the modern counterculture increasingly abhors the American ideal, and instead embraces the philosophies and tactics of Machiavelli and Alinsky, which scorn mutual respect and resort instead to threats and subterfuge. The goal of their assault on Brendan Eich was twofold, first to publicly punish him for daring to contravene their dictates for society, and second to exploit his plight as a means of intimidating others from ever daring to exercise their freedoms as he had done.

On both counts, Mozilla has become a willing participant and collaborator. You can mollify your conscience with such flowery platitudes as “protecting the web.” But be warned. If you aid and abet the destruction of America’s moral foundation, once the countercultural orthodoxy has assumed a position of uncontested dominance, your only option will be to completely agree with it on every issue forever without exception, lest you share the same fate as Mr. Eich.

To that end, the damage Mozilla has done to the nation, and to itself, is irreparable. The quality of your product, regardless of the heights it may reach in the future, cannot compensate to any degree for the Orwellian pall now descending across the nation, in which you have chosen to become a key player. That trust which you violated can never be restored.

Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, and has written for regional and national magazines. He is currently the Chief Editorial Writer for The Proud Americans, a membership advocacy group for America’s seniors, and for all Americans. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.

The Paranoid Madness of the Democratic Party by Daniel Greenfield

The Democrat may no longer believe in God, the Constitution or even motherhood and apple pie, but he devoutly believes that somewhere out there Republicans are sitting in a sealed room and plotting to bring back the 50s.

And if not the 50s, then at least the early 60s.

The left accuses the right of being deeply paranoid. Meanwhile the left is convinced that every Republican sneeze is a racial putdown of America’s first black president since Bill Clinton.

Forget about looking for Communists under every bed. The proper progressive never lies down with his or her partner of choice and their government mandated birth control from the Catholic institution with no choice in the matter without first checking their privilege and checking for conservative bigotry.

Sometimes, somewhere in Kentucky or Alaska, a minor Republican functionary forwards an email depicting ObamaCare as the work of a voodoo witch doctor and the first lefty to discover it dines out on that triumphant accomplishment for a year before writing a book about it. The rest of the time, the McCarthyists of the left have to work to unpack the subtext of a random remark.

Read more at FrontPage Magazine