Friday, November 13, 2009

Some economics questions...

Nixon "goes Keynesian
Carter goes Keynesian
President Reagan introduces supply-side economics
Saving Chile

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Feds eye control of vitamins, supplements – even water!
FDA looks to regulate natural substances as drugs, with prescriptions from doctors

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Letters to the socialist

Monday, April 02, 2007

Our Supreme Court has gone the way of the Areopagus

Our Supreme Court has gone the way of the Areopagus, that is, the supreme court of the Athenian Empire, in great similarities. The Athenian democracy was a balanced democracy , and the sovereign will, of the people, was checked by a supreme court composed of ex-magistrates , indirectly elected by the people. Now this supreme court could veto, or declare unconstitutional a law passed by the assembly of all the Athenian people. And this was exactly what was happening, the laws passed by the people were being overturned by this high court, similar in fashion, as to what’s happening today.

From 462 to 461 BC, a series of political reforms abolished the power of this supreme court. The leader of this reform was Pericles, who would guide the Athenian democracy till his death in 429 BC. Maybe we should make some changes also, restricting the use of international cases and reducing the significance of precedents. The Greeks felt that this was an injustice in itself, to judge a case based on a similar case, and yet, being a completely different case altogether, was wrong. Each case presents a new set of circumstances, and thus, it should be judged, based not on past cases, but on its own merits.

Think about it,

By Dennis Lamb,
4-2-2007 7:18 PM

Friday, March 02, 2007



The definition of liberty was well accepted, I think by Tories and Whigs, on the continent as well, and we find, perhaps our best definition today, in terms of the harmonizing sentiments of Jefferson today, in Cato’s Letters. These were a series of newspaper articles, written in the first part of the eighteenth century, ( published between 1720 and 1723), by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon and they became one of the foundations, the staples of the literature of liberty, when one of the early firebrands of the revolution, Josiah Quincy died, he left his letters of Cato, as they were called, to his son with the admonition, “May the spirit of liberty be upon you”. And these letters, Cato’s letters, as they are called, named after the great Roman patriot, who defied Caesar, defined liberty as the right to live as you choose, as long, as you harm no one else. It is freedom to live your life to enjoy the fruits of your property, to do what you know to be right and without being obliged to do something you know to be wrong. So upon this concept of freedom, I think we would be generally agreed of life and liberty, and freedom to live as you choose. But Cato’s letter and I think Jefferson, as well, go on to add to this. For Cato’s Letters, it is a fundamental denial of freedom to be restricted in your actions, when you do something that harms no one else.

So we wonder how an eighteenth century Whig, the authors of Cato’s Letters or Jefferson himself, might respond to laws about second hand smoking, or the demand that we wear seatbelts. Are we really harming others? In fact, in an effort to reduce the idea of government intervention to an absurdity, Cato’s Letters say, “What if we went to the extreme of having every person looked after by a national college of physicians, now that would be true lunacy. The idea that it’s the government’s Prerogative and need to take care of people’s health, surely that must be the individuals decision.”2

But we have moved very far from those notions, very far from Jefferson’s concept of liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When we looked at the Declaration of Independence, we saw how the concept, pursuit of happiness was chosen pacifically by Jefferson, not property, but the pursuit of happiness. The mandate that we finalize, that are a benefit to ourselves and the community. Natural law is also founded on an ideal of universal truths and absolutes, absolute right and wrong, absolute justice.

These are concepts we no longer accept as society . As a society, we believe that actions and values and what is right and wrong is determined by the circumstances, that there are no absolutes. So it challenges the very concepts of natural law, in fact, it denies the essence of natural law. To speak of the law itself, for the great jurist Blackstone, "natural law was expressed through the common law, no law could become a true law if it violated reason, justice or common sense". But, to us as a society, the law is not a set of absolutes, but a set of tricks. And yet, it was in the diverse, multicultural empire of Rome, with many sects of religion, philosophies and ideas, that natural law based on absolute truths, that provided the binding nexus, and that set of shared values essential to the survival of a free nation. And natural law offers that same challenge today, if we have the courage to grasp it.

Sunday, February 25, 2007


Epilogue in paragraph E.7 from the book: Socialism by Ludwing Von Mises:

History will call our age the age of the dictators and tyrants. We have witnessed in the last years the fall of two of these inflated supermen. But the spirit which raised these knaves to autocratic power survives. It permeates textbooks and periodicals, it speaks through the mouths of teachers and politicians, it manifests itself in party programmes and in plays and novels. As long as this spirit prevails there cannot be any hope of durable peace, of democracy, of the preservation of freedom or of a steady improvement in the nation's economic well-being.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Global Warming:

Climate change in 3200 BC caused big changes to occur in the Egyptian civilization, in that, it started the pharaoh dynasty in 3000 BC. At the end of an ice age around 6000 BC, the region experienced warmer and wetter climates, and thus, became a time of an easy life of growing and harvesting crops. After 3200 BC, this civilization suffered from two centuries of hot, dry and desert like conditions which we now call the Sahara Desert. The Egyptian civilization covered the entire northern half of Africa and not as we view Egypt on the map today.

The people wanted a leader who could communicate with the Gods and change the climate, and thus, the pharaoh dynasty began. Not only did they grant him the absolute power over the people, but also, made him a god. He did nothing to change the climate, but he did develop an irrigation system from the Nile River, which was a good and noble idea. The following pharaohs became barbaric in their leaderships. Many of the small city-states and the nomads disappeared in the middle of the Sahara Desert during this period. Many made their way to the Nile Valley near the river, while others just vanished. Now you know the rest of the story of how pharaohs came to be.

Similar events occurred in climate changes in the 1700’s BC in China and again in the 1300‘s AD in the Aztec civilization, when they tried to change the climate by offering human sacrifices to the Gods.

In the 1970’s, we had the conference on global cooling in Oslo by many of the same scientists that are screaming today, that global warming will destroy the human race and life on Earth. What would have happened to the American way of life had we fallen for that junk science?

Now it seems that the pharaohs have returned in the form of the Democratic Party and the UN, in that, they want to dictate what we can eat, drink, think, speak and drive. They want to have control over our lives in everyway down to the minutest detail. After all, like the pharaohs, they are little gods on earth. Are we to make sacrifices to these gods, by giving up all that we love and cherish? Are we to sacrifice the first principle of democracy, which is , “OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE“, that was passed down from that great Greek statesman, Pericles, through John Locke to Thomas Jefferson and our Founding Fathers? Are we to give up Jefferson’s principle of, “LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS.” Are we to sacrifice to these gods, our formal rule of law, ”US CONSTITUTION”, for their so called living and breathing constitution? Are we to sacrifice our natural rights from God, and accept the dictates from the courts without representation? We are to sacrifice all this in the name of Global Warming, or are we really sacrificing all to their altar, the cold, cold state, and to what, an end to freedom which took thousands of years to develop, only to be thrust back to the damp, dark, epoch of barbarism? If not stopped in time, this will end the American way of life as we know it today!

Commentary; Feb. 10, 2007
By Dennis Lamb