Tag Archives: logical libertarian

Capitalism, Drug Use, Libertarianism, Logic & Reason, Social Issues

The Point Of A Gun

5 Comments
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

On any given day, we are bombarded with news media, film stars, and sometimes just random citizens who champion the idea of government doing more to solve all the world’s woes. Those of us on the side of liberty think these folks are misguided and/or ignorant, but the question has always troubled me as to why two people, often of similar intellect, can come to two drastically different conclusions about the role of government.

I pride myself on embracing empathy. I try to imagine what it is like to think the way my ideological opponents think; it helps to break down any claims of theirs I consider erroneous, if I first understand them. While sometimes I get frustrated to no end with the semi-socialist mantra, I give them credit for simply wanting no person left behind. There is a beautiful altruism in the idea that people should always help other people in need.

So why can’t I come on board with them?

Socialism has been tried many times in history; we have four nations in the world today that practice it as official policy. China, Lao, North Korea, and Cuba. As near as I can tell, living conditions in these nations, by no account whatsoever, can be considered even remotely as nice as what we have in America or most other capitalist nations.

Russia, a former communist nation with similar land mass and natural resources to America collapsed under communist rule while trying to compete with us. We hardly batted an eye vying with them for economic might.

Even comparing same cultures, look no further than Hong Kong versus the motherland China. Where capitalist Hong Kong natives live largely free, make good wages, and enjoy a strong economy; the Chinese struggle to keep workers from just killing themselves.

Suicide Prevention Nets at Foxconn factory
Suicide Prevention Nets at Foxconn factory

Altruistic or not, history has shown complete socialism, as official policy, doesn’t have any successful examples (from the perspective of the citizenry) to choose from. So being someone who tries to approach everything with logic, why would I champion something so historically laden with failure?

But if someone eschews history, and simply believes that somehow the only reason a government controlled economy has always failed is because they haven’t been the one running it, that person may be stuck in an ideological Alcatraz.

For those who are willing to consider a different viewpoint however, I wish to ask you to empathize with me. I’m going to give you an exercise to try to understand how I think of government, then pick any government policy you condone and apply this simple test.

First, I want you to remember one thing:

Everything government does, it does so at the point of a gun—sometimes just implied, but the threat is always real.

I know that may seem like hyperbole, but I assure you it’s not. The IRS will show up with guns on the doorsteps of those who simply refuse to pay taxes. If you fail to comply with a government demand (they don’t make requests) every step of the way, as the situation escalates, government will not simply say, “OK,” and walk away; the ultimate conclusion will either be you or a government official getting shot and killed.Bad-boys-bad-boys-watcha-gunna-do-courtesy-freepatriot.org_[1]

So when I consider any law, the first thing I imagine is whether I would be willing to put my own gun on that person to make them do what the law being proposed is asked.

For instance, I do not use recreational drugs—I think doing so is an illogical act and they simply do not interest me. But if my neighbor were next door smoking a joint, would I be compelled to walk over there, put a gun to his head, and tell him stop immediately or I’ll shoot?

Of course not.

Yet every one of you who argue to keep marijuana illegal are asking the government to ultimately do exactly that in your name. Government is an extension of you in this country, so if you’re not comfortable doing it yourself, you’re being lazy and hypocritical asking government to do it.

Conversely, if my neighbor were next door molesting a child, would I be compelled to go over and tell him to stop at the point of my gun? Honestly, I’m not so sure I’d even pause to ask him to stop. I’d probably go straight to “kill” mode. Therefore, I’m very comfortable asking government to enforce such a law.

I am firmly convinced that those of you who will not acquiesce to calling yourself a libertarian have never applied this simple principle to every single law you’ve considered a good idea.

But that’s sticking your head in the sand, because you cannot remove “being compelled by lethal force” from the equation of legislation.

Would the average Democrat put a gun to Bill Gates head and demand he pay a welfare mom who refuses to work, despite being physically able to, a chunk of the salary he worked so hard to attain?

Would the average environmentalist put a gun to the CEO of General Motors head and demand his vehicles get 30 mpg or you’ll splatter his brains all over the wall?

Would the average Republican put a gun to the head of a gay couple and tell them they had better not try to marry one another?

I’d like to think none would. But unlike me, they wrongly never take the time to think of considering the government in the proper way I proposed.

Libertarian Party Logo
Libertarian Party Logo

So I ask all of you, think about a law either proposed or on the books that you condone. Then imagine putting a gun to the head of the would-be violator and honestly ask yourself if you still feel the same.

If you do, I would like to think that for many of you, I can now warmly welcome you into realm of libertarianism. We’re glad to have you.

Libertarianism, Social Issues

72 Dolphins—no longer undefeated

1 Comment
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

As any NFL football fan knows, the 1972 Dolphins are the NFL’s only team to go a full season without a loss. It was a pretty amazing accomplishment. However, at the time of their perfect season, it was not yet a common practice for the sitting president to invite the Super Bowl winning team to the White House. Then again, maybe Nixon was just a Redskins fan.

Nonetheless, Barack “The Cool President” Obama decided that it was better late than never and invited them now, 40ish years later.72DolphinsObama

Never mind the irony that a man hell-bent on penalizing the wealthiest Americans for success and giving what the successful have earned to the not-so-self-reliant, decided to bring a team to the White House that is the most successful NFL team in history. Maybe they were invited so he could force some of them to give their Super Bowl rings to the then 1-13 Houston Oilers? Seems plausible.

However, some Dolphins who aren’t so thrilled with the president’s policies opted not to attend. Among them, Hall of Fame center Jim Langer, former offensive lineman Bob Kuechenberg, and Manny Fernandez.

While I agree with these players in principle, I feel this reflected poorly on their part not to attend. The inviting of a team to the White House is a highly non-political event. Since I can’t really think of some evil socialist ulterior motive Obama might have had in doing this (The Super Bowl ring thing was a joke), I will give the president the benefit of the doubt that this was simply a nice gesture to give them the White House visit they never got.

If you’ve read my blog, you know that I disagree, often vehemently, with about 90% of what this president has championed and done. But if the blog fairy came and granted me fortune and fame resulting in an invite to a golf outing with the president, I’d go without hesitation, and I’ve even be thankful and respectful doing it. Then again, I do really love to play golf.Obama-golfing[1]

All kidding aside, Barack Obama is a human being as far as I know. When he’s not in front of a TV camera bashing Republicans and the upper class, he may be a reasonably nice guy. I have some Democrat friends, and although it pains me to admit it, my mother is a Democrat too; although she hasn’t voted since the 70’s as I understand it. While their policies seem to defy logic and ignore the history of socialism in one fell swoop, on occasion, Democrats can still be pretty good people to hang out with.

If the conversation were to get around to policy, I would do my best to be respectful to the man, logically laying out where I think he’s going wrong, and simply voice my displeasure with his performance, sharing my ideas for how I’d like to see him preside over our nation. The White House is likely a very lonely and isolated place where the president, surrounded by other politicians and advisers, gets mostly 2nd hand information about what the people are feeling. I doubt he’s supped with the random John Q. Public very often. So an opportunity for us constituents to chew on the president’s ear should not be wasted.

While I don’t care to debate with someone who appears to be ignorant to the point that they simply can’t intelligently debate me, I’d certainly sit down and hash it out with the man holding the veto pen. If I could change one heart and mind just a bit, who better than his?

If you have a policy issue, new idea, or are simply disgruntled, the worst thing you can do is remain quiet and say nothing to those who oppose you, especially if they were elected to serve you. Sure Obama hears the complaints from largely right-wing media outlets, but it can’t hurt for him to hear it face-to-face from the people he was elected to serve as well.

If a person believes in their ideas like I do, they should never be afraid to defend them in the face of a contrarian. If the ideas are sound, they will stand on their merits. I would think men who spent their professional lives relentlessly beating on one another for an hour would not be afraid to discuss politics with the president, but on this day, the president was only met with like or ambivalent minds.

It has been said that for evil men to accomplish their purpose it is only necessary that good men should do nothing. On this day, some of history’s mightiest athletes, chose the path of least resistance, and I say that as a result, the 72 Dolphins were handed their first loss. If you feel it, don’t be afraid to speak it. As much as he may not seem to appreciate it, along with every other government employee, he is a servant to the people, and should be treated like one.

 

Blue Sky Thinking, Justice System, Libertarianism

I never tell a lie, and I’m never wrong. Let’s have some legal reform!

1 Comment
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

As we all know, politicians are often known for two things: lying and the inability to admit when they are wrong. If you want to see a prime example of both in one instance, look no further than this example from the chairperson of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz (DWS).

Lying and the inability to admit fault are traits that are generally considered immoral, and are upsetting to the populace these people are elected to serve, but what’s the real reason behind it?

Let’s first discuss the lying which can be either malicious or altruistic.

I’ll give you examples:

  • Malicious: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky ~ Bill Clinton
  • Altruistic: No honey, that dress does not make you look fat ~ Every husband in history

An easy way to tell the difference is to understand who is being protected by the lie. If it’s the liar, then there’s a good chance it’s malicious.

So are all lies that roll off a politicians tongue malicious? Of course not. But, we all understand how malicious lies come about and agree they are wrong, so let’s focus on the altruistic ones instead.

What’s the one type of altruistic lie that’s good? Every time someone called the government because they saw a UFO and were told, “We’ll look into it” when in reality they knew it was the latest super-secret plane the government was testing and weren’t at liberty to discuss—I’m OK with that. The B-2 Stealth Bomber alone is estimated to be responsible for hundreds of reported UFO sightings before the curtain was lifted on it.

B-2 Stealth Bomber
B-2 Stealth Bomber

There is no way for the government to tell Americans their secrets without telling our enemies too. So some things simply must be kept out of the public knowledge base.

With politicians however, most of their altruistic lies are born out of arrogance. Many think voters can’t understand their superior knowledge or intellect well enough to support their ideas. So they lie to get elected, then proceed with their original agenda because “they know better.”

For instance, many on the left lie about the origins of their proposed social engineering policies, calling them anything but socialism, because they know people in America aren’t very fond of the socialist doctrine, even though these politicians honestly believe socialism can be good.

Many on the right lie about their intent to cut government assistance because they know telling people they intend on putting the kibosh to their government aid will be seen as cruel and heartless, when they truly believe it will help promote self-reliance and actually help those it’s expected to hurt.

I would argue that if these policies are good, they will stand on their merits. An intelligent person should be able to explain their position in such a way that reasonably smart people will understand. If socialism or capitalism are good, just make the best case as to why, and let us decide.

It’s hard to paint politicians as completely immoral here, they legitimately think they are doing what is best. But I find the hubris for them to assume they are more intelligent than me, the person they are nominated to serve, distinctly offensive.

Moving on from the lies, let’s discuss the inability to admit wrongdoing.

Although DWS has a degree in political science, not law, she does serve in Congress with a few hundred other law makers, many of whom do have a legal background; our president too.

I’m not attempting to disparage lawyers, it’s a noble profession. But it is common practice for them to vehemently avoid any admission of wrongdoing or offer any apology for a wrongful act. This practice has sadly become part of our fabric, and it affects all of us morally and financially.

Scales of Justice
Scales of Justice

In our current legal system, an apology is admissible evidence against you, so we have been conditioned to never admit wrong-doing. Lack of personal responsibility is everywhere these days, and I think it’s in no small part to our legal system’s exploitation of apologies.

As you saw DSW pirouette around the issue like she was on Dancing With The Stars (They do share the same initials after all), it became clear she knew she had lied, but was adamant about not admitting it.

What can we do about these two issues? While we will never be able to stop people from lying, we can do something about the admission of guilt issue by changing our current legal system.

If we look at health care, many doctors who know they erred when giving treatment will often refuse to give an apology at the insistence of their legal team, due to its evidential liability. Interestingly enough though, a 2001 University of Michigan program showed that while the liability may increase, the number of actual lawsuits decrease as patients are far more apt to accept an apology as restitution than most lawyers give them credit for.

This study shows that we humans care more about personal responsibility than money, and we are capable of forgiveness if it’s simply asked for. So, I have a simple proposal to make a meaningful reform to our legal system.

Introduce legislation that provides certain indemnities to a person when they accept fault. If a person admits their error, apologizes, and/or makes a sincere attempt at restitution prior to legal action being taken against them, (ruling out criminal activity), they should be immune from additional punitive damages in civil court over and above their actual fiscal liability for the damages inflicted.

This one simple change to our legal system could not only introduce a better moral code in our society by encouraging people to accept responsibility, but imagine the dramatic lowering in prices of goods and services, as insurance premiums and general business operating costs drop due to a lower or complete lack of settlement costs.

There you have it, I have improved our sense of morality and helped our economy with a few strokes of my keyboard, and that’s no lie!

Blue Sky Thinking, Justice System, Libertarianism

The Self-Imposed Death Penalty

Leave a comment
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

After the unforeseen suicide of Ariel Castro, a man who plead guilty to avoid the death penalty in the first place, the Ohio chapter of the ACLU has asked for a full investigation. I have one simple question—why?

In America we have an incessant need to prevent people from killing themselves. Whether it be someone who is depressed, terminally ill, or in prison for a heinous act, we behave as though it is our duty to stop them from ending their own life. But let’s review these three scenarios.

If I had a loved one who was depressed, I would do everything in my power to talk them off the proverbial ledge, and I would want the police to try to convince them otherwise as well; if they were called to the scene anyway. But would I want police arresting them for a failed attempt? Not on your life!

Imagine you were terminally ill with no chance of getting better, on a morphine drip just so you could eke out another few months, and burning through whatever inheritance you had intended to give to your children. Then imagine you finally come to the conclusion that the life ahead of you is only going to get worse, so you just want to end it. Seriously, close your eyes and imagine it. Now imagine some politician telling you that you may not by penalty of law? Now, honestly say you wouldn’t be furious. How dare some bureaucrat insist that you suffer because suicide is immoral in their eyes.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian understood this, and did his best to help those in pain to the most painless end possible, and he was put in prison for it where he eventually died. Every juror, the judge, and the prosecutor should be ashamed at the disgusting perversion of a trial outcome that took this man’s freedom from him when all he did was help people achieve peace.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian
Dr. Jack Kevorkian

In a free society, no one has the right to dictate to another that they must choose to live—it violates the core concept of freedom—that you own your own body. Yet we so often do exactly that. While I suspect that much of this comes from our heritage as a largely Christian nation who consider suicide a mortal sin, legislating religious dogma violates our Constitution and the freedom of those not encumbered with such beliefs.

Moving on to the Ariel Castro situation, the ACLU, an organization I should be in lock-step with based on their name, continues to show that they’re not about civil rights, but instead about contradicting and interfering with any American government agency. Being a constitutional libertarian versus an anarchist one, I believe our government has a place in this country, it’s to protect the rights of others. But unlike many, I also know our forefathers had another duty in mind that was explicitly implied, but never written: they have a duty to stay the hell out of our way.

If Ariel Castro had been attacked by other inmates, the ACLU would be right to want an investigation; prisons most protect prisoners. But if the ACLU had any concern to actually protect civil rights, they’d agree with me that if Ariel Castro wanted to die, we should simply let him. It’s the ultimate civil right.

Analyzing the actions of offenders who have given themselves the death penalty, I can’t see how we as a society have a problem with it. If they feel they did something wrong and wish to atone for it; good for them—it’s their final act of decency.

If they want to protect society because they know that they are prone to do it  again pending a release or escape; again—good for them.

If they simply don’t want to suffer in prison; maybe not good for them, but good for the rest of us. They have assured that society need never fear them in the future.

Part of me wishes to point out the savings to the taxpayer, but fiscal issues should not play into matters of life and death, however I have an idea I’ll get to in a minute.ACLU_oh[1]

Many have said that Castro took the easy way out as opposed to suffering in prison. While I agree; I don’t care. Prison was not meant for the suffering of offenders, we do have a cruel-and-unusual-punishment clause in the Constitution, after all. It was meant to protect society by detaining people who might infringe on the rights of others. By killing themselves, such offenders merely guarantee a safety to society that prisons attempt to accomplish through incarceration.

We all know I’m prone to some blue sky thinking, so what I propose is the exact opposite. If a prisoner wants to die, let them ask to see the warden and volunteer for a lethal injection. Make them wait a period of time such as 24 hours to change their mind, but if that’s what they want, then I say thanks for protecting society from any future bad acts as well as thanks for saving us taxpayers the approximately $28,000 a year we spend to incarcerate them. If we take it one step further, we could even offer a financial incentive to do the right thing. prisoner[1]

For instance, a 30-year-old prisoner is sentenced and decides to self impose the death penalty. The average life expectancy of a prisoner is approximately 78 years old. So 48 years times $28,000 is $1,344,000. If we took half of that money and paid it out in installments to the victim’s families, it would truly be the last decent act of a violent offender, and still save the taxpayers a decent sum of money.

Either way, I think the majority of America, like me, shed no tears for violent offenders who decide to end their own lives. While we are a republic, not a democracy, the Constitution doesn’t forbid it either. So in such situations the majority rules; maybe it’s time the majority decides to make a rule and insist the government let people end their own lives if they want, and leave it up to loved ones to convince them otherwise. But the days of prison having a suicide watch need to end.

Justice System, Poll

Capital Punishment Poll

Leave a comment

Capital punishment is an issue that often crosses party lines. What’s your opinion?

Justice System, Labor Unions, Libertarianism, Social Issues

A Good Police Officer Is A Humble Police Officer

2 Comments
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

I have a great respect for police officers. Like soldiers, they selflessly put their lives on the line for my safety. But a good police officer is a humble one. They understand that they are not above the law—they are there to serve and protect the citizenry. When a humble and respectable person is wrong, they admit it. More importantly, when they’re wrong, and a 12-year-old kid asks for their badge number, they give it up and show dignity and honor for the job they are charged with. This Las Vegas police officer however, has traded such dignity and honor for a sense of entitlement and a god-complex.US_Park_Police_badge[1]

He did something illegal by parking his motorcycle where a motorcycle shouldn’t be parked unless he had been chasing someone, or doing other official police business that required an emergency parking job. As it turns out, he was getting food/drink and he got called out on his illegal parking by young Jeremy Drew, a kid with a pretty good sense of justice.

If this officer had a shred of dignity, he would have looked at Jeremy and said something like, “You know, you’re right. My sincerest apologies. I was wrong to park here. Here’s my badge number, and if you feel a duty to report me, then by all means, you should do so.” Would the officer had been so kind had I parked my motorcycle there while I got lunch?

Las Vegas PD Officer In Question
Las Vegas PD Officer In Question

Then that officer should seriously reflect on why he became a cop in the first place, and whether he’s serious about defending the Constitution and local laws—therefore not violating them himself. He then should either resign if he doesn’t have the honor to do the job properly anymore, or change his way of thinking and behaving if he does.

Many police get upset when we citizens show little respect for them. To those officers I say this: don’t do actions that are disrespectful, hypocritical, arrogant, or plain illegal, and you won’t usually get disrespected. The corrupt among you, the indifferent among you, and the good officers who do nothing about the bad ones, serve as the main reason respect for the badge is waning.

We all know bad cops are bad, but that’s simply not the whole issue. I understand the idea of the police “brotherhood,” but if one of your fellow officer’s is out of line and you accept it, allow it, and/or condone it, you’re indifference might as well be an endorsement. If it is a crime for a person watching a murder to do nothing (depraved indifference), then you as police officers should also do something to stop your fellow officers when they do wrong as well.

The honor for the badge should be far more important than the honor for the random person behind it. If they don’t respond apologetically and remorsefully—showing clear signs such behavior will cease, then maybe a discussion with superiors or internal affairs is in order.

While most police officers are good, the ones that are doing illegal and/or inexcusable acts are rarely dealt with when their offense is only a misdemeanor like above, and this tolerance of bad behavior is exactly why America has shifted from a country that heralded Andy Griffith to a country that embraces the “F*** the police” mantra so prevalent in pop culture these days.

In another instance, on May 26th, 2012, a Portland Maine law student who remained unnamed by choice, was carrying a sidearm, as is his Constitutional right. A resident with what appears to be little understanding of the rights to carry a sidearm, decided to call the police and report the innocent open-carrier. Officers were dispatched to the scene. See the story here:

Again, an officer was in the wrong, and reacted incorrectly once confronted by a citizen who was in the right. Here’s what should have transpired but didn’t.

  • An officer should have never been dispatched. The person who called the police should have been advised by the dispatcher that carrying a weapon is a legal act and that they cannot dispatch an officer unless it appears there is an illegal act happening.
  • The officer merely did his duty in responding, but he was incorrect in his interpretation of the law. I can forgive an officer for not being in command of the laws like a lawyer—a law degree takes a lot longer to attain than your typical police academy certification. But if someone is telling you the law, and they seem to know what they’re talking about, especially when you don’t, then stop acting like you do. The law student was right, which means the officer was either purposefully being incorrect, or just wasn’t certain and thought he knew the law. Either way, arguing with someone when you don’t know you’re right is pure arrogance. What would have been so hard about saying, “You may be correct, let me check with my superior” or “You’re right sir, my mistake” once corrected by the law student.

There are a litany of videos of police officers abusing their power, these are merely two. The military and police are somewhat similar, yet where the military is revered for its respect and honor, the police are too often not. The one glaring difference between the two is labor unions—soldiers aren’t unionized. When union entitlement mentalities take over a workforce, the workers rarely fear for losing their job. Someone with little fear of getting fired, isn’t so compelled to do the right thing—in government, this is a recipe for abuse.

When legislators, police, and other government employees violate the law, the penalties imposed are usually far less severe than what John Q Public might endure if he committed the same offense. This is fundamentally wrong in a country where “We the people” give power to the government.

Instead, government officials should be penalized more severely. I didn’t take an oath to defend the Constitution, but they did—they know better. If we can’t trust them, who can we trust? And if we can’t trust them, “We the people” who actually have the power according to our Constitution, might as well get rid of them. Would you hire an employee if you thought they would steal from you?

Barney Fife and Andy Griffith from The Andy Griffith Show
Barney Fife and Andy Griffith from The Andy Griffith Show

We voters must vote to rid our government of organized labor so that we can better hold the rule-breakers accountable. But police must start to care about the honor of their profession and police themselves as stringently is they police us. Doing so will yield top quality public servants. Until then, we get the Barney Fifes and/or Joseph Miedzianowskis instead of the Andy Griffiths and Elliot Nesses. We deserve better.

Libertarianism, Logic & Reason, Science & Skepticism, Tax System

Would you mind electrocuting this person real quick? Why People Support Overtaxation.

Leave a comment
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)
Gary Nolan (and THE Scrappy Doo)

In July of 1961, Yale University psychiatrist Stanley Milgram began an experiment that ended with shocking results—literally! It is now simply known as the Milgram Experiment—his most famous work.

Stanley Milgram
Stanley Milgram

Milgram was troubled with the excuses provided by Nazis in the wake of World War II for the atrocities they had committed. Obviously, they engaged in overly heinous acts toward their fellow man, so horrid in nature it makes one wonder how Hitler got his followers to do them. Yet their responses to the question of why were often the same; they were just following orders.

Milgram was skeptical that people would do something at the direction of an authority figure that they would not in good conscience do on their own. He devised an experiment whereby he would instruct participants to shock other participants they would never meet who were located behind a wall. The shocker was real but was unaware that the shockee was an actor. This actor would fain pain by screaming in agony, and the intent was to see if the shocker would continue to shock the shockee solely because an authority figure told them to, regardless of how dangerous or painful it seemed to be for the person on the other side.

The video below shows what happened. If you’ve never heard of this experiment before, check it out. It is certainly a fascinating study into the human psyche with very surprising results. His experiment showed people were willing to do horrific things to one another if an authority figure told them it was OK to do so, confirming the idea that many Nazis were indeed telling the truth about their motives.

As I think about this experiment, I can’t help but draw what I believe is a very exact parallel to modern-day tax policies.

There were potentially a number of reasons Obama and many Democrats scored victories in the last election, but there can be no doubt that class envy was one of the common motivating factors. The “tax the rich” mantra was a winning campaign strategy, but let’s think about it deeper.

Bill Gates
Bill Gates

Imagine I put a random democrat-voter currently receiving or requesting government assistance in front of Bill Gates or Warren Buffett and asked them to perform one simple task: look Bill or Warren in the eye and explain fairly and logically why you think they owe you something. I suspect most of them would be speechless and embarrassed, I know I would. But then again, I have a conscience and I am a libertarian.

Some may be brazen enough to look Gates and Buffett in the eye and argue that they’re simply too rich and have no right to all that money, but most would know there’s no rational argument to present and would simply accept that any effort to make such an argument would show that they were the ones being greedy by demanding what someone else had worked for, Bill and Warren are merely wanting to control what they’ve earned after all.

I specify “control” versus “keep” because they often donate a lot of their earnings to charities. But, when they give their money away, they choose instead of government choosing for them, who gets what they worked so hard for, and risked so much to obtain.

However, if voters can hide behind the wall of government just like Milgram’s participants hid behind a wall, and an authority figure like a politician tells them it’s OK to harm the wealthiest among us, the Milgram Experiment mentality takes over and people who wouldn’t have the gumption to demand the earnings of someone else in person all of a sudden wave the “tax the rich” banner like it’s part of their religion. If Obama says it’s OK, it must be, right?

What’s the solution? I don’t rightly know. But the first step in fixing a problem is understanding it. I don’t know that too many people have applied Milgram’s findings to politics, but there is no doubt in my mind that this an “apples to apples” comparison. The answer to how we get people to begin to grasp the concept that they are cowardly asking government to do something they would likely never have the hubris to ask for themselves is elusive, and likely always will be.