Captain Nate

No, it's a 1994 film (http://imdb.com/title/tt0110081/). It follows the story of a family from the Civil War through the Cultural Revolution and beyond. It's actually very good, and very frightening, imagining what actual people suffered through in the PRC.

Probably the worst I had was my economics teacher, where I debated her on the issue of farm subsidies. She argued that without farm subsidies, all the farms would be close down and factories would be built on them, and then we'd have no food in case of a shortage or a war. After which it would be impossible to grow food again because we covered all the good farm land with factories. I eventually brought in all these examples of a nation that lowered their subsidies (I think it was New Zealand?) and rather than shrink their agricultural industry boomed. I never got to use this evidence though, because the topic never came up again.

The only way to do that would be to travel to Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama myself, interview people and then grant specific amounts of money or resources to those I deem deserving. Such an act is not only inefficient and prohibitively expensive, but also against my own interests for the time and effort required. I could help far more deserving people by donating to a reputable organization to handle it. Is there a possibility of parasites recieving aid? Yes. But it would be far worse if no worthy people recieved aid because of worries about a few freeloaders. True, but the opposite argument could be made too. By not donating, I could send the message that Americans are not willing to act without government coercion to respond to emergency situations.

Inspector, I understand a lot of your sentiments. However, not everyone trapped in New Orleans deserved their fate. Some people were old, ill and unable to leave on their own power. Others, all though economic status is not an excuse for complete innaction, were just too poor to find a means out, in part because the evacuation of the city was poorly executed. And a lot of the money donated will go towards helping those who did have the sense to leave, and who still have lost everything they worked for.

Second semester of my Freshman year at college (currently a Junior), my writing teacher started her first class with an assignment to read & summarize several articles she gave us and then write a response. Several of the articles were from CATO. I'm not sure if she was an Objectivist, or just a free-market conservative (we did agree a lot on politics), but she was one of the few (outwardly) conservative/non-liberal teachers I had on ANY grade level, especially in college. I ended up doing my final writing assignment on the merits of free trade. I also had a High School English/Film study teacher who actually lamented about the loss of capitalism in the United States -- now he was cool. We watched a fantastic chinese film called "To Live" about the evil regime the PRC imposed on its people.

I think the failed and deadly colonization attempts, Indian attacks and horrible winters would suggest that America did not have a reputation for "safety." What I'm sure it did have was distance and space. They were far enough to establish their own social orders, with enough land and resources for an innumerable amount of people.

Do property owners need "checks" on how they can use their own property?

I agree with you, I think the Governor totally dropped the ball and failed the people of the State. I also think it's appropriate for the federal government to come in and restore order, as well. But I hate the notion that the federal government has to be responsible for maintaining the levees and preparing for every disaster in every part of the nation. The reason we have a federal system is to allow local government to take care of that, and allow the national government to focus on its proper sphere (defense and commerce).

Which is why I'm not going to start "tilting windmills" over this issue and instead going to support the relief effort to a reasonable degree. Accepting that we don't have the ideal system, it would be cruel to ignore the plight of these Americans while helping other nations recover from their natural disasters. (Of course, politically as a very strict Constitutionalist, I wish the federal government limited their role, let the State's handle protecting from national disasters like this in the future and letting private organizations lead the relief effort, but, alas, I don't expect any of that to ever happen )

Not everyone moved there, many were born and grew up there and never left (for a variety of reason). That doesn't mean that they aren't responsible for what happens to their property, of course.

Yes, to the extent that it is necessary to restore order and security to the situation. After that point, private organizations can continue with the recovery.

The US economy grew in spite of protectionism. If you look at the success of the US economy, look no further than the Constitution which creates a free-trade zone (all though that's not what they would have called it then) among the States which increased their prosperity. It's a real no brainer.

They're already complaining that the flooding is being caused by a lack of federal aid to build up the levees in the last few years.

Cut spending, raise more revenue than it needs, and pay it back. Just as it always has.

For a few reasons. Among them, the nations of the world don't share a single philosophy. Therefore, any international body will restrict the sovereignty (which means restricting our rights) of our nation in pursuit of interests different than our own. And as the U.N. believes its authority grows, extending beyond dealings with nations towards dealing directly with individual citizens (such as with the International Criminal Court, which the Bush administration is, thankfully, smart enough to be fighting) we have more to worry about when it comes to our individual rights because we can now be jailed, tried and arrested by an international body that we neither elect, nor is legitimately established by "the people." And there is no guarentee the government of a single nation won't violate our rights. But as a single nation, we can share the right philosophy (individual liberty). We can establish a system whereby power is balanced against each other, and limited and we can keep a watchful eye on those in power (as it is under the Constitution). A world government would be all the more harder to achieve that.

The ideal existing "international body" is called the U.S. Constitution. It has united 50 different sovereign states into one nation. Establishing international organizations like the UN to "enforce international law" is a waste of time. Establishing a federal government among like-minded, free people? Now that works. (edit: all though, to be sure, the Constitution isn't flawless. We did have to experience a bloody civil war to "preserve" it...)

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to, but I remind you that Hamilton had been telling British diplomats, with whom he established personal ties with, secrets about American diplomacy which could hamper American interests in Britain. Again, I don't particularly understand how you can blame the motive of the law on Jefferson. Jefferson opposed to law, which violated individual rights and was clearly, in part, politically motivated in order to prevent a growth in Jeffersonian Republican party members by curtailing naturalization. Treason is in the Constitution itself, so I don't understand why you would say they didn't understand it.

I think you give too much credit to that sentiment. Jefferson has serious reservations about the Federalist policy and a lot of it was aimed at legitimate critiques. Such as the Alien and Sedition Acts, high taxation and a bias towards England(especially Hamilton, who had unknowingly been leaking state secrets to the British). Had we been around in his day, I'm sure many of us would be HIGHLY critical of the Federalist party. Did he do some underhanded stuff? I'm sure. But so did other politicians of the day. Washington's own second-in-command, Hamilton, proved to be rather politcally savvy and conniving in his own ways.

And to accelerate the defeat of the Nazis, which would prevent any more slave labor and death.

Their individual rights have already been ignored. We're not morally responsible if they are innocent and die while trying to overthrow their government, their government is responsible. Just as a criminal is to blame if anyone gets hurt in a police chase, so too are the leaders of an illigitimate regime.

Not to mention they've got Mickey Mouse now. :-\ I would much rather that Taiwan were getting such resources and attention, but I certainly don't see it in the products I buy or in most of the references I read about new investment and development. Taiwan used to produce a lot of junk too, but now their economy is more developed. They have the 23rd best economy based on GDP (PPP) per capita, better than China (97).

Just something I found amusing: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166247,00.html

Can't argue with that.

No, you're limiting the definition of emergency situations to one example, when being forced to act immorally under the threat of force by another. There are other examples of emergencies, such as the shipwreck victim allowed to save their own life by violating the property rights of others (though not by "right"). Or, the nation of Israel (acting as the defender of its sovereignty and protection of its citizens, as granted to it by being a free state) deciding to, in an emergency situation, to act to restore peace and security to the nation and, as soon as possible, restoring the rights and properties of the settlers with just compensation. And risk instigated an armed conflict between the Jews in the Palestinians which will only hurt Israel in the long run? I think that's an unacceptable solution. The act of removing the settlers is extreme, but made reasonable by the extreme circumstances. Israel must act to defend its citizens and people within its borders, and it has determined it cannot do that with these Settlers living on what will ultimately become Palestinian territory. And, immediately after this act is done and stability restored, the rights settler's will recieve just compensation and take their place in Israel with the full rights of other citizens.

What you don't note is that in emergency situations, morality is "thrown out the window", so to speak, which includes the morality of violating people's rights. Israel is obligated to defend the rights of its citizens within its borders, its government, freely elected, has determined it cannot do this with these Settlers living outside its actual borders. It's taking extreme, but reasonable, measures to restore the situation to the point where it can fulfill its function of defending its people. I know its little consulation, but they will be compensated for their homes, and their full freedom restored as soon as this situation ends.