Virginia Libertarian

The event of Ted Kennedy’s death has prompted me to finally get moving and write this post.  I’ve been contemplating for a while now on how one person can really make a difference (legally) in politics today.  Sure, you can be an advocate, push your ideas, vote in all the elections, donate money and time.  But where does all that really get you?  There is still someone else out there making the decisions for you, and no matter how much you make like them, and think that they think like you, you really don’t know how they are going to be influenced by the political game and how they are really going to end up voting.  The only way to guarantee that someone is going to do things the way you want them done, is if that someone is you.  So, with that said, my home county of Louisa’s supervisor elections are coming up this November, and I am, even though I will be rather late entering, if I can do so at all at this point, going to try to run for my districts seat.  Hopefully the process to get on the ballot isn’t too prohibitive.I’ll keep everyone posted on the process.

Looks like there may be a good development coming up in gun control.  Alan Gura, the man behind the District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) case that got the Washington, D.C. handgun ban struck down, may be heading back to the Supreme Court to fight basically the same battle again in McDonald, et al., v. City of Chicago, except this time he has to successfully argue that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that such rights (i.e. the Second Amendment) “may not be violated by any form of government throughout the United States”.  If he argues successfully, this would mean that no government entity could take away your right to carry.  Since D.C. is run by the Federal government (they are not a state), this is a new case as it is applying the Fourteenth Amendment to over-ride states rights to legislate away your “fundamental” rights (like your right to carry as granted by the Second amendment).

Some People out there actually get it

If my employer decides they no longer want me as an employee, then it should be their right to fire me." she told me. "I understand the desire for people to have government step in and try to protect women, but there’s real costs to government intervention.

This is going to be a short post, I’m just going to try to re-enforce the Principles of Government yet again, and hope that more people at least try to understand.

Just un-fucking believable.

What scares me even more is that this realistically could happen in the U.S.

So Massachusetts is starting to jump on the bandwagon with regulations around fast food and calorie notifications on menu items.  Here are a few of questions you should be asking yourself:

1. Has anyone done any studies to see if this is effective?
2. What is the cost of oversight on these programs?
3. Why is this any of the governments business?

Ok, here are your answers:

1. Hell no, why would they do that?
2. Nobody knows, or cares
3. Control

Let me go into detail on the 3rd one, that will explain the answers on the other two.  The government is trying to control what you eat for one reason, to control the cost of health care.  But why should government care about that, I hear you crying!  They care because they have taken over and now own health care in Mass.  This is the wonderful result of government ownership of anything, once they own it, they will control you with it.  Now since everyone is becoming a fat ass, that adds cost to the bottom line of the health care program.  How long until they start requiring people to weigh-in in order to get their full benefits.  Wait, that would be exclusory, and government can’t do that.  What they can do is control businesses, so it won’t be long before you start seeing proposed legislation on what restaurants can sell, so they can then limit what you can eat.  It’s all about control.  They rope you in one little bit at a time.