Click for article.

Sweden is attempting to banish gender altogether. No, really. You can't make this stuff up.

The land of already 'confusing' gender-neutral preschool has now added a gender-neutral pronoun to its National Encyclopedia: 'Hen' (pronounced like the English word for a female chicken).

Sweden's New Gender-Neutral Pronoun: Hen

[Sweden] has the highest proportion of working women in the world, and women earn about two-thirds of all degrees. Standard parental leave runs at 480 days, and 60 of those days are reserved exclusively for dads, causing some to credit the country with forging the way for a new kind of nurturing masculinity …

But for many Swedes, gender equality is not enough. Many are pushing for the Nordic nation to be not simply gender-equal but gender-neutral. The idea is that the government and society should tolerate no distinctions at all between the sexes … What many gender-neutral activists are after is a society that entirely erases traditional gender roles and stereotypes at even the most mundane levels.

… Several preschools have banished references to pupils' genders, instead referring to children by their first names or as "buddies." So, a teacher would say "good morning, buddies" or "good morning, Lisa, Tom, and Jack" rather than, "good morning, boys and girls." They believe this fulfills the national curriculum's guideline that preschools should "counteract traditional gender patterns and gender roles" and give girls and boys "the same opportunities to test and develop abilities and interests without being limited by stereotypical gender roles."

Earlier this month, the movement for gender neutrality reached a milestone: Just days after International Women's Day a new pronoun, hen (pronounced like the bird in English), was added to the online version of the country's National Encyclopedia. The entry defines hen as a "proposed gender-neutral personal pronoun instead of he [han in Swedish] and she [hon]."The National Encyclopedia announcement came amid a heated debate about gender neutrality that has been raging in Swedish newspaper columns and TV studios and on parenting blogs and feminist websites. It was sparked by the publication of Sweden's first ever gender-neutral children's book, Kivi och Monsterhund (Kivi and Monsterdog). It tells the story of Kivi, who wants a dog for "hen's" birthday. The male author, Jesper Lundqvist, introduces several gender-neutral words in the book. For instance the words mammor and pappor (moms and dads) are replaced with mappor and pammor.

Life isn't gender-neutral. But then again, what do I know? If we just let our Progressive Overlords arbitrarily change and regulate our language, suffocate our individualism, and control our every move (preferably from birth), then maybe, just maybe, the human species will finally, finally! cease producing that awful testosterone (which is, as you and I both know, what this is really all about).

But not everyone is keen on this political meddling with the Swedish language. In a recent interview for Vice magazine, Jan Guillou, one of Sweden's most well-known authors, referred to proponents of hen as "feminist activists who want to destroy our language." Other critics believe it can be psychologically and socially damaging, especially for children. Elise Claeson, a columnist and a former equality expert at the Swedish Confederation of Professions, has said that young children can become confused by the suggestion that there is a third, "in-between" gender at a time when their brains and bodies are developing … She told the Swedish daily, Dagens Nyheter, that "gender ideologues" have managed to change the curriculum to establish that schools should actively counter gender roles.

Just another Grande Progressive Experiment conducted on little human guinea pigs.

Ironically, in the effort to free Swedish children from so-called normative behavior, gender-neutral proponents are also subjecting them to a whole set of new rules and new norms as certain forms of play become taboo, language becomes regulated, and children's interactions and attitudes are closely observed by teachers. One Swedish school got rid of its toy cars because boys "gender-coded" them and ascribed the cars higher status than other toys. Another preschool removed "free playtime" from its schedule because, as a pedagogue at the school put it, when children play freely "stereotypical gender patterns are born and cemented … " And so every detail of children's interactions gets micromanaged by concerned adults … from how they form friendships to what games they play and what songs they sing.

H/T - So, What Do You Think of 'Hen' and 'Hen'?

Those "progressive" Swedes are at it again. Recently I posted on their move toward a complete Rothschild-Rockefeller cashless society and their ban on homeschooling. Now the workers' "paradise" is promoting the use of a "gender-neutral" term in their prisons—er, public schools—in order to allow the future tax slaves "to grow up without being limited by gender stereotypes."

See also:

• Schools Ban Best Friends – Why?
• Give Me Doubleplusgood or Give Me Death!
• A Conscientious Objector to the Gender War
• Battling Your Boys
• "Never worked a day in her life"
• Feminism is failure
• No More "Boys" or "Girls" - Those Are Bad Words
• Feminists Target High School Sports

Sweden’s Gender-Neutral ‘Hen’ is a post from: The Classic Liberal Blog

Schools ban children making best friends

Pals ... but kids told to form groups (The Sun: 19th March 2012)

TEACHERS are banning schoolkids from having best pals — so they don't get upset by fall-outs.

Educational psychologist Gaynor Sbuttoni said the policy has been used at schools in Kingston, South West London, and Surrey.

She added: "I have noticed that teachers tell children they shouldn't have a best friend and that everyone should play together.

"They are doing it because they want to save the child the pain of splitting up from their best friend. But it is natural for some children to want a best friend. If they break up, they have to feel the pain because they're learning to deal with it."

The Sun's Deidre Sanders added her 2 cents regarding this stupid policy at the end of the article, blaming it on insecure teachers.

THIS policy doesn't just fly in the face of common sense, it's chilling.

Our childhood friendships are how we begin to learn about love and commitment. Of course they often break up, and that is how we learn resilience so we can cope with rejection later.

Such a ruling has stemmed from teachers lacking confidence and skills to deal with the fall-out from classmates' rows.

The idea that best friends should be banned is indeed chilling. But that's London, it'll never happen here in "the land of the free," right?

Um, uh, wait a minute here … Take a look at this from a year ago.

Best Friend Ban? What a Lousy, Orwellian Way to Rear Children

Hey there, helicopter parents and minions in schools, camps and extra-circular activities: "Nineteen Eighty-Four" called. It wants its fascism back.

[Administrators] claim the best friend paradigm smacks of exclusivity and cliques, which could lead to bullying.

In recent years Timber Lake Camp, a co-ed sleep-away camp in Phoenicia, N.Y., has started employing "friendship coaches" to work with campers to help every child become friends with everyone else... "I don't think it's particularly healthy for a child to rely on one friend," said Jay Jacobs, the camp's director. "If something goes awry, it can be devastating."

I guess these parents and educators should tell kids to forget about college or a career, because if something goes awry, it can be devastating. Best to stick to minimum-wage jobs. By the same token, these parents should discourage marriage and encourage communes, like the ones that sprang up in the 1960s. After all, a marriage focuses on just one person. How unfair.

If we're going to outlaw best friends, what's next? Chocolate? Might as well outlaw life. It always ends badly, you know.

By this fail-safe standard, one should not attempt any feat. Baking pastries, for instance, can end in disaster.

The New York Times article referenced above offers some valuable insight into what these BFF bans are all about.

A Best Friend? You Must Be Kidding

Most children naturally seek close friends. In a survey of nearly 3,000 Americans ages 8 to 24 conducted last year by Harris Interactive, 94 percent said they had at least one close friend. But the classic best-friend bond — the two special pals who share secrets and exploits, who gravitate to each other on the playground and who head out the door together every day after school — signals potential trouble for school officials intent on discouraging anything that hints of exclusivity, in part because of concerns about cliques and bullying.

Conformity.

Individuals are a problem because they're too difficult to control.

"I think it is kids' preference to pair up and have that one best friend. As adults — teachers and counselors — we try to encourage them not to do that," said Christine Laycob, director of counseling at Mary Institute and St. Louis Country Day School in St. Louis. "We try to talk to kids and work with them to get them to have big groups of friends and not be so possessive about friends."

"Parents sometimes say Johnny needs that one special friend," she continued. "We say he doesn't need a best friend."

Yes, you read that correctly. Kids want a best friend. Parents want their children to have a best friend. But "teachers and counselors" think otherwise, so they're actively working against the wishes of both the children and their parents.

In other words, schools "are usurping the parental role of teaching personal values to children. They are not acting as educators but as guardians, in loco parentis (in the place of a parent)."

The People's Romance with the Savior State

You may wonder how they get away with this. Why have parents surrendered so much control?

That attitude is a blunt manifestation of a mind-set that has led adults to become ever more involved in children's social lives in recent years. The days when children roamed the neighborhood and played with whomever they wanted to until the streetlights came on disappeared long ago, replaced by the scheduled play date. While in the past a social slight in backyard games rarely came to teachers' attention the next day, today an upsetting text message from one middle school student to another is often forwarded to school administrators, who frequently feel compelled to intervene in the relationship.

Americans today, both on the political left and right, imagine the state to be the people's guardian and guarantor of well-being and morality. Convinced they need to be on constant guard against Ghosts & Goblins (thanks in no small part to government fear-mongering), it's only natural then, that they turn to their guardian of well-being and morality- the Savior State .

Professor of Economics at George Mason University, Daniel B. Klein, describes this as "The People's Romance." According to Klein, the reason so many of us seek political "solutions" is because we believe it is government which provides us a "common frame of reference, a set of cultural focal points, a sense of togetherness and common experience … " Furthermore, political action indulges the romantic notion that "we're all working together."

Klein also reminds us of Adam Smith's recurrent theme that "man yearns for coordinated sentiment like he yearns for food in his belly." Indeed, man is a social animal. The problem, however, is that our yearning for "coordinated sentiment" manifests itself via the coercive power of the state.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. -- H. L. Mencken

Hobgoblins

Smitten with power, politicians and bureaucrats naturally seek to expand their authority. To do so, they cultivate and exploit one of our most vital human instincts - fear. Hunger, poverty, illiteracy … predators, poisons, disease … invaders, terrorists, nuclear attack … government can, should, and will provide the necessary "coordinated sentiment" to ward off everything the people fear (whether you like it or not).

Governments always find new hobgoblins from which to protect us. The entire history of the 20th century is the story of governments beating the drums of fear in order to secure their dominance and expand control. Blinded by romance, we cheered for our "good guy" rulers to get the "bad guys" … and slowly our "government of the people" grew to become the sovereign state - ruler and creator of civil society itself.

Helicopter parents are simply the logical outcome of perpetual fear-mongering mixed with "The People's Romance." Politicians manipulate our fears for political purposes. The media manipulates our fears for ratings and also for political purposes. And the people demand "something must be done."

Our kids are in danger, dontcha know? In fact we're all in danger. We gotta do something! "You need to be there in case something happens," but you can't always be there, can you? So somebody … "the government needs to do something about … [drop in anything here]!"

Politicians in the upper echelons "never let a good crisis go to waste," others may simply fear being blamed for bad outcomes (which are really out of their control), so new regulations and laws are passed. Government power increases. Liberty retracts. Of course one overreaction leads to another … and The People's Romance with the Savior State has brought America's once "rugged individuals" to their knees.

Schools

It's no secret that public schools provide the state a powerful indoctrination tool. Israeli military historian and theorist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Martin van Creveld, points out in The Rise and Decline of the State, that American public schooling originated with socialists intent on imposing collectivist ideals which required increasing secularization, taking education away from family and church, and the "discipline" of independent minds. Former New York State Teacher of the Year, John Taylor Gatto, writes in The Underground History of American Education, that

Government schooling is the most radical adventure in history. It kills the family by monopolizing the best times of childhood and by teaching disrespect for home and parents.

Francis Bellamy, an early proponent of public education, declared that "the training of citizens in the common knowledge and the common duties of citizenship belongs irrevocably to the State." John Dewey, widely recognized as the father of modern education, warned that "The children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone would be interdependent."

From Murray Rothbard's Education: Free and Compulsory:

As early as 1785, the Rev. Jeremy Belknap, preaching before the New Hampshire General Court, advocated equal and compulsory education for all, emphasizing that the children belong to the State and not to their parents … [Archibald D. Murphey] planned a system of state schools as follows:

all children will be taught in them … in these schools the precepts of morality and religion should be inculcated, and habits of subordination and obedience be formed…. The state, in the warmth of her solicitude for their welfare, must take charge of those children, and place them in school where their minds can be enlightened and their hearts can be trained to virtue.

Into this atmosphere was injected the closest that the country had seen to Plato's idea, of full State communistic control over the children. This was the plan of two of the first socialists in America — Frances Wright and Robert Dale Owen … outlined their scheme as follows:

It is national, rational, republican education; free for all at the expense of all; conducted under the guardianship of the State, and for the honor, the happiness, the virtue, the salvation of the state.

The major aim of the plan was that equality be implanted in the minds, the habits, the manners, and the feelings, so that eventually fortunes and conditions would be equalized … From the age of two every child would be under the care and guidance of the State.

The Savior State

Most of us today have been raised in the state's public education system. We were taught that government is good, politicians are servants, and that they've saved us time and again from oppression, disease, economic depression, foreign enemies, and a whole endless array of hobgoblins instead of the truth … The state is an instrument of power; that politics is nothing more than the struggle for power; that common decency simply does not exist when it comes to politics; and that the sole aim of the politician is to accumulate power and keep it (see James Burnham's The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom).

The dominant worldview of the public school system is one of a sovereign all-powerful state to which the populace must conform and sustain - Hobbes' "great Leviathan … that Mortal god." We are taught that civil society could not exist without the state, for man is a brutish, nasty, unsocial animal. The state does not exist to serve civil society, but creates it. Because the "natural condition" of the individual is a "war of all against all," chaos would reign without the state to provide order. There can be no harmony without the glorious state.

The myth of democracy that "we're all working together," The People's Romance, is drilled into our heads for 12 straight formidable years of our lives. Natural moral law will not suffice, so we've been told, we need the state to save us. This myth, however, cannot succeed unless the people are unconditionally bound to the state. So the natural pillars of civil society to which we give our obedience - family and religion - must be destroyed. Thus America has become "a nation where not only have all Christian prayers, pageants, holidays and holy days been purged from all government schools and public institutions, but secularism has taken over" as the state has assumed parens patriae powers - "parent of the nation."

Until we shake our faith in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's collectivist "civic religion … that confers sacred status on democratic institutions and symbols," we'll continue to panic whenever the government warns of hobgoblins, happily turning to it for safety, while educators continue pushing collectivist ideas like banning best friends down our children's throats.

Schools Ban Best Friends – Why? is a post from: The Classic Liberal Blog

There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom.

Garrett was concerned about a revolution "within the form." While the "automatic continuation of ordinary life" made America seem normal, the wave of Progressive legislation that began around the turn of the 20^th century was actually a revolution within. America's substantially laissez-faire economy had been transformed into one of centralized corporatism, and Rousseau's "General Will" snuffed the Protestant individualist spirit out of society by subordinating him to the collective whole as represented by the State.

A small tax on tea sparked the original American Revolution, after all, we were liberty-loving people. But though we had once formally declared King George III a tyrant for "erect[ing] a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance," we now demanded a technocratic "multitude of new offices" each  charged with immanentizing our collective eschaton.

Achieving grand visions of technocratic utopia, of course, requires spending a great deal of money. So what do you do, as our Enlightened Rulers, to raise the necessary funds?

Taxes can only get you so far. Because as you increase taxes, you'll eventually run into resistance, either directly or via reduced production. You could borrow from banks, but you'll have to pay them back, plus interest, while opening the door to their interest in you. The ultimate solution to your problem therefore is, to monopolize the production of money and establish yourself as the banker "of last resort."

Obviously, the 16^th Amendment (income tax) and Federal Reserve Act of 1913 were both unavoidable consequences of this progressive revolution "within the form." The State now has the power not only to confiscate from every man money for which he labored, but when need be, the State can simply print whatever amount of additional money it needs (wants) at will. The entire process of which is explained in detail by Hans-Hermann Hoppe below.

The power to print money is a seductive force. Considering the fallible nature of man, it should surprise no one that powerful people and factions manipulate the Federal Reserve System to their own advantage. In addition to yesterday's Why the Federal Reserve Demands Control of Money Part 1, links have been added to Hoppe's essay to illustrate the real world consequences of this statist machination.

The probability of the people in power being individuals who would dislike the possession and exercise of power is on a level with the probability that an extremely tender-hearted person would get the job of whipping-master in a slave plantation. -- Frank Knight

Why the State Demands Control of Money

Imagine you are in command of the state, defined as an institution that possesses a territorial monopoly of ultimate decision making in every case of conflict, including conflicts involving the state and its agents itself, and, by implication, the right to tax, i.e., to unilaterally determine the price that your subjects must pay you to perform the task of ultimate decision making.

To act under these constraints — or rather, lack of constraints — is what constitutes politics and political action, and it should be clear from the outset that politics, then, by its very nature, always means mischief. Not from your point of view, of course, but mischief from the point of view of those subject to your rule as ultimate judge. Predictably, you will use your position to enrich yourself at other people's expense.

More specifically, we can predict in particular what your attitude and policy vis-à-vis money and banking will be.

Assume that you rule over a territory that has developed beyond the stage of a primitive barter economy and where a common medium of exchange, i.e., a money, is in use. First off, it is easy to see why you would be particularly interested in money and monetary affairs. As state ruler, you can in principle confiscate whatever you want and provide yourself with an unearned income. But rather than confiscating various producer or consumer goods, you will naturally prefer to confiscate money. Because money, as the most easily and widely saleable and acceptable good of all, allows you the greatest freedom to spend your income as you like, on the greatest variety of goods. First and foremost, then, the taxes you impose on society will be money taxes, whether on property or income. You will want to maximize your money-tax revenues.

In this attempt, however, you will quickly encounter some rather intractable difficulties. Eventually, your attempts to further increase your tax income will encounter resistance in that higher tax rates will not lead to higher but to lower tax revenue. Your income — your spending money — declines, because producers, burdened with increasingly higher tax rates, simply produce less.

In this situation, you only have one other option to further increase or at least maintain your current level of spending: by borrowing such funds. And for that you must go to banks — and hence your special interest also in banks and the banking industry. If you borrow money from banks, these banks will automatically take an active interest in your future well-being. They will want you to stay in business, i.e., they want the state to go on in its exploitation business. And since banks tend to be major players in society, such support is certainly beneficial to you. On the other hand, as a negative, if you borrow money from banks you are not only expected to pay your loan back, but to pay interest on top.

The question, then, that arises for you as the ruler is, How can I free myself of these two constraints, i.e., of tax-resistance in the form of falling tax revenue and of the need to borrow from and pay interest to banks?

It is not too difficult to see what the ultimate solution to your problem is.

You can reach the desired independence of taxpayers and tax payments and of banks, if only you establish yourself first as a territorial monopolist of the production of money. On your territory, only you are permitted to produce money. But that is not sufficient. Because as long as money is a regular good that must be expensively produced, there is nothing in it for you except expenses. More importantly, then, you must use your monopoly position in order to lower the production cost and the quality of money as close as possible to zero. Instead of costly quality money such as gold or silver, you must see to it that worthless pieces of paper that can be produced at practically zero cost will become money. (Normally, no one would accept worthless pieces of paper as payment for anything. Pieces of paper are acceptable as payment only insofar as they are titles to something else, i.e., property titles. In other words then, you must replace pieces of paper that were titles to money with pieces of paper that are titles to nothing.)

Under competitive conditions, i.e., if everyone were free to produce money, a money that can be produced at almost zero cost would be produced up to a quantity where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, and because marginal cost is zero the marginal revenue, i.e., the purchasing power of this money, would be zero as well. Hence, the necessity to monopolize the production of paper money, so as to restrict its supply, in order to avoid hyperinflationary conditions and the disappearance of money from the market altogether (and a flight into "real values") — and the more so the cheaper the money commodity.

In a way, you have thus accomplished what all alchemists and their sponsors wanted to achieve: you have produced something valuable (money with purchasing power) out of something practically worthless. What an achievement. It costs you practically nothing and you can turn around and buy yourself something really valuable, such as a house or a Mercedes; and you can achieve these wonders not just for yourself but also for your friends and acquaintances, of which you discover that you have all of a sudden far more than you used to have (including many economists, who explain why your monopoly is really good for everyone).

What are the effects? First and foremost, more paper money does not in the slightest affect the quantity or quality of all other, nonmonetary goods. There exist just as many other goods around as before. This immediately refutes the notion — apparently held by most if not all mainstream economists — that "more" money can somehow increase "social wealth." To believe this, as everyone proposing a so-called easy-money policy as an efficient and "socially responsible" way out of economic troubles apparently does, is to believe in magic: that stones — or rather paper — can be turned into bread.

Rather, what the additional money you printed will affect is twofold. On the one hand, money prices will be higher than they would otherwise be, and the purchasing power per unit of money will be lower. In a word, the result will be inflation. More importantly, however, all the while the greater amount of money does not increase (or decrease) the total amount of presently existing social wealth (the total quantity of all goods in society), it redistributes the existing wealth in favor of you and your friends and acquaintances, i.e., those who get your money first. You and your friends are relatively enriched (own a larger part of the total social wealth) at the expense of impoverishing others (who as a result own less).

The problem, for you and your friends, with this institutional setup is not that it doesn't work. It works perfectly, always to your own (and your friends') advantage and always at the expense of others. All you have to do is to avoid hyperinflation. For in that case people would avoid using money and flee into real values, thus robbing you of your magic wand. The problem with your paper-money monopoly, if there is one at all, is only that this fact will be immediately noticed also by others and recognized as the big, criminal rip-off that it indeed is.

But this problem can be overcome, too, if, in addition to monopolizing the production of money, you also set yourself up as a banker and enter the banking business with the establishment of a central bank.

Because you can create paper money out of thin air, you can also create credit out of thin air. In fact, because you can create credit out of nothing (without any savings on your part), you can offer loans at cheaper rates than anyone else, even at an interest rate as low as zero (or even at a negative rate). With this ability, not only is your former dependency on banks and the banking industry eliminated; you can, moreover, make banks dependent on you, and you can forge a permanent alliance and complicity between banks and state. You don't even have to become involved in the business of investing the credit yourself. That task, and the risk involved in it, you can safely leave to commercial banks. What you, your central bank, need to do is only this: You create credit out of thin air and then loan this money, at below-market interest rates, to commercial banks. Instead of you paying interest to banks, banks now pay interest to you. And the banks in turn loan out your newly created easy credit to their business friends at somewhat higher but still submarket interest rates (to earn from the interest differential). In addition, to make the banks especially keen on working with you, you may permit the banks to create a certain amount of their own new credit (of checkbook money) in addition and on top of the credit that you have created (fractional-reserve banking).

What are the consequences of this monetary policy? To a large extent they are the same as with an easy money policy: First, an easy credit policy is also inflationary. More money is brought into circulation and prices will be higher, and the purchasing power of money lower, than would have been the case otherwise. Second, the credit expansion too has no effect on the quantity or quality of all goods currently in existence. It neither increases nor decreases their amount. More money is just this: more paper. It does not and cannot increase social wealth by one iota. Third, easy credit also engenders a systematic redistribution of social wealth in favor of you, the central bank, and the commercial banks within your cartel. You receive an interest return on money that you have created at practically zero cost out of thin air (instead of on money costly saved out of an existing income), and so do the banks, who earn additional interest on your costless money loans. Both you and your banker friends thereby appropriate an "unearned income." You and the banks are enriched at the expense of all "real" money savers (who receive a lower interest return than they otherwise would, i.e., without the injection of your and the banks' cheap credit into the credit market).

On the other hand, there also exists a fundamental difference between an easy, print-and-spend money policy and an easy, print-and-loan credit policy.

First off, an easy credit policy alters the production structure — what is produced and by whom — in a highly significant way.

You, the chief of the central bank, can create credit out of thin air. You do not have to first save money out of your money income, i.e., cut your own expenses, and thus abstain from buying certain nonmoney goods (as every normal person must, if he extends credit to someone). You only have to turn on the printing press and can thus undercut any interest rate demanded of borrowers by savers elsewhere in the market. Granting credit does not involve any sacrifice on your part (which is why this institution is so "nice"). If things then go well, you will be paid a positive-interest return on your paper investment, and if they don't go well — well, as the monopoly producer of money, you can always make up losses more easily than anyone else: by covering your losses with even more printed paper.

Without costs and no genuine, personal risk of losses, then, you can grant credit essentially indiscriminately, to everyone and for any purpose, without concern for the creditworthiness of the debtor or the soundness of his business plan. Because of your "easy" credit, certain people (in particular investment bankers) who otherwise would not be deemed sufficiently creditworthy, and certain projects (in particular of banks and their main clients) that would not be considered profitable but wasteful or too risky instead do get credit and do get funded.

Essentially, the same applies to the commercial banks within your banking cartel. Because of their special relationship to you, as the first recipients of your costless low-interest paper-money credit, the banks, too, can offer loans to prospective lenders at interest rates below market interest rates — and if things go well for them they go well; and if they don't, they can rely on you, as the monopolistic producer of money, to bail them out in the same way as you bail yourself out of any financial trouble: by more paper money. Accordingly, the banks too will be less discriminating in the selection of their clients and their business plans and more prone to funding the "wrong" people and the "wrong" projects.

And there is a second significant difference between a print-and-spend and a print-and-loan policy and this difference explains why the income and wealth redistribution in your and your banker friends' favor that is set in motion by easy credit takes the specific form of a temporal — boom-bust — cycle, i.e., of an initial phase of seeming general prosperity (of expected increases in future incomes and wealth) followed by a phase of widespread impoverishment (when the prosperity of the boom period is revealed as a widespread illusion).

This boom-bust feature is the logical — and physically necessary — consequence of credit created out of thin air, of credit unbacked by savings, of fiduciary credit (or however else you may call it) and of the fact that every investment takes time and only shows later on, at some time in the future, whether it is successful or not.

The reason for the business cycle is as elementary as it is fundamental. Robinson Crusoe can give a loan of fish (which he has not consumed) to Friday. Friday can convert these savings into a fishing net (he can eat the fish while constructing the net), and with the help of the net, then, Friday, in principle, is capable of repaying his loan to Robinson, plus interest, and still earn a profit of additional fish for himself. But this is physically impossible if Robinson's loan is only a paper note, denominated in fish, but unbacked by real-fish savings, i.e., if Robinson has no fish because he has consumed them all.

Then, and necessarily so, Friday must fail in his investment endeavor. In a simple barter economy, of course, this becomes immediately apparent. Friday will not accept Robinson's paper credit in the first place (but only real, commodity credit), and because of this, the boom-bust cycle will not get started. But in a complex monetary economy, the fact that credit was created out of thin air is not noticeable: every credit note looks like any other, and because of this the notes are accepted by the takers of credit.

This does not change the fundamental fact of reality that nothing can be produced out of nothing and that investment projects undertaken without any real funding whatsoever (by savings) must fail, but it explains why a boom — an increased level of investment accompanied by the expectation of higher future income and wealth — can get started (Friday does accept the note instead of immediately refusing it). And it explains why it then takes a while until the physical reality reasserts itself and reveals such expectations as illusory.

But what's a little crisis to you? Even if your path to riches is through repeated crises, brought about by your paper-money regime and central-bank policies, from your point of view — from the viewpoint as the head of state and chief of the central bank — this form of print-and-loan wealth redistribution in your own and your banker friends' favor, while less immediate than that achieved with a simple print-and-spend policy, is still much preferable, because it is far more difficult to see through and recognize for what it is. Rather than coming across as a plain fraud and parasite, in pursuing an easy-credit policy you can even pretend that you are engaged in the selfless task of "investing in the future" (rather than spending on present frivolities) and "healing" economic crises (rather than causing them).

What a world we live in!

"Why the State Demands Control of Money" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe is reprinted from Mises.org.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, an Austrian School economist and anarchocapitalist philosopher, is professor emeritus of economics at UNLV, a distinguished fellow with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, founder and president of The Property and Freedom Society, and author of Democracy: The God that Failed. See Hans-Hermann Hoppe's article archives.

Why the Federal Reserve Demands Control of Money Part 2 is a post from: The Classic Liberal Blog

Schooling

Having endured public schooling after 100 years of government intervention, I can't tell you how much I hate it when someone says "we need to have a program..". At the point at which I graduated, 1998, I sat in block scheduled classes, 90 minutes long, where we did absolutely nothing after the first 30 minutes. My Civics/Econ class consisted of talking about economics and such for about six weeks. I think my teacher was trying to reach us about the whole NWO, showing us the movie Rollerball, but I just interpreted that as liberal indoctrination attempts, and yelled out my standard conservative talking points as a counter. We then watched a lot of VH1 pop-up videos, High School High (Anything with Jon Lovitz is funny right?), and then we had Spades tournaments. I was on the "Rush to Excellence" team, in honor of my Rush fandom. Pretty funny, huh? The guy had tenure and admitted he was just paid to babysit 17 year olds. Now, I did have AP Calc and AP English, and passed both tests, but I had run out of things to do at school, even with early dismissal. I saw it as one big waste, which is why when I see "conservatives" talk about reforming the education system, I just do a facepalm. Especially after reading Gatto and Iserbyt, and finding that the system is rigged to stymie young people at their prime, deliberately keeping them from the workforce until the Elite are good and done with them.

When we had pep rallies, no one cheered. The administration gets called out to scold us for not cheering. Who gives a crap, the whole student body seemed to be saying in unison. When I started ninth grade at this school, we had a new principal who turned the school into a prison and a sports-centered operation. Before, seniors could walk across the street to go to lunch at Hardees' or the Panther Den, but no more. Before, you could go to the library during lunch to play a game of chess or check out a book, but no more. Before, the band actually got funded. Now, all students had to be under constant surveillance. Once, when I went to make up a test, a woman hall monitor said, "Hey Girl, where do you think you're going?" I don't know why that really bugged me, as I was a senior and I had a name, but I was obviously guilty of some infraction for not being where I should be. She seemed to be genuinely miffed that I was in the hallway for a legitimate reason. There were good teachers at my school, understand, but we were trapped in a system that stymied our freedom and consisted of an oppressive atmosphere.

Anybody out there remember Channel One? That 10 minute news show that you had to sit through during 1st period where Lisa Lingading would tell you of the horrors of the "greeenhouse effect"? That was the '90s word for global warming. Just in case your parents didn't have the liberal media indoctrination on while you were getting ready for school, it awaited you before you started your day. We did our best to not pay attention. Our Christian teachers did a good job keeping us from the obvious indoctrination attempts, but there's just something about every textbook being written by the Establishment. I remember my US History teacher struggling through his options for next year's standard history class. They were all so biased, and hard to find more than a paragraph on George Washington. Anyway, going to school could best be described as "malaise".

Family

I'm not going to get into my dirty laundry, but as you know the divorce rate of the parents of people my age is really unprecedented. Let's just say it really affects one's trust-o-meter. When young people can't trust their parent(s) to hold true to their vows before God, it really creates a rippling effect of distrust onto all the other institutions. When I hear boomers complain of liberal media bias, I'm very unimpressed and uninterested. Why? I sat under Channel One for eight years, as it started when I was in sixth grade, not to mention the patent phoniness of having stuff "sold" to you all the time. Of course I've heard about the liberal media since I started listening to Rush Limbaugh in 1992, so the fact that the media is biased is a given fact with me. Can we talk about something else now? Other non-political people my age will not rail against media bias, but will take it for granted that there's an angle somewhere, everyone's got one.

I see a lot of Millenials in greater numbers shielding their children from the poor schooling and family experiences that they themselves endured. This is evidenced by the rise of homeschooling as an educational choice among parents my age, and as more women my age become homemakers. Having seen what being a latch-keyed kid was like, many Millenials don't want that for their kids. Now understand, I'm talking about a subset of the population, for the oblivious we shall always have with us. I would say, however, that those in my generation are more able to break away from "official" party lines given the huge amount of phoniness we've had shoved down our throats, than older Americans as a group.

So, to summarize, when you've seen the basis of civilization broken up right in front of you, it gives one a radically different perspective than one who has grown up in a world where you could at least trust your parents not to skip out on you. You then naturally, could trust the government to at least be watching your back as you slept. That's their job right? Uh, right?? A Millennial would have no problem whatsoever with the thought that the USG would be "stepping out on us" for more money and power. Many of us have seen that happen in our own homes, so why couldn't it happen on a larger scale?

Technology

This is obvious for those of us who have grown up using computers. I got my first Tandy Color Computer 2 when I was in Kindergarten. I had three games on cartridges, The Temple of Rom, Alphabet Zoo, and ..can't remember what the other one was.. Anyway, now I use that to date myself, as kids I'm working with will say how old I am because I can remember when floppy disks were really floppy. lol So, as a group, we're used to getting our information totally online. Remember when the Internet first came to your school? They had to shut it off pretty quick in my middle school, if I remember, for inappropriate uses. But the thing is that, more people my age are shutting off Establishment media. Remember that control of information is how the progressives took over this country. Recall the Reece Committee investigation that found one of the aims of the Carnegie Foundation was to control the education system. Also recall what Congressman Oscar Callaway said regarding control of the media back in the early 1900s. I had a ball when I was in Knoxville, telling the peddlers of the Knoxville News Sentinel that I would not take their crappy newspaper camping with me, much less pay for it. We had a challenger to the county executive position have a bullet miss his head by an arms length! Read about it on page D3. In case you didn't know, Tennessee is the most corrupt state in the nation, and our newspapers are totally in on it. Most of what they publish is just AP wire stories and fluff. So I don't read newspapers, I don't watch local news (but should probably find a local blog), I don't have cable or satellite. I am the master of my digital domain and it feels pretty good. I also do not listen to talk radio much, unless it's Jerry Doyle. Why? Because I've already heard it all. The big talk radio hosts add nothing to my knowledge of our national predicament.

The older generation is tapping into the Internet, but old habits die hard. The power of radio and TV is still prevalent among this group. Of course I'm talking about the subset of these age groups that even attempt to follow politics, which I acknowledge is not a huge number of people. But remember what they taught you about advertising, how the 18-34 market was crucial as that was when people picked the brands they would stick to for life. The Elite are disturbed that this market is highly suspicious of anything that they are selling, not just products, but entire sectors of the economy. Technology is allowing both liberal and conservative young people follow the money to the source of corruption. This leads me to ...

NH News

Libertarianism

When one follows the money trail with intellectual honesty, whether one be liberal or conservative, one arrives at similar conclusions. Libertarianism is like the Reeses Pieces of politics.

Hey! You've got corporate money in my government.

Hey! You've got expansive government bailing out my supposed "free market" corporations.

Hey! This all makes a heck of a lot more sense!

The government and the corporations have been working together over the past 100 years to create an all-encompassing socialist state. And no, it's not the Utopian socialist state the liberals try to push at universities. (By the way, every single university has these banksters as officials, provosts, trustees etc. and the liberal programs are 100% funded by the foundations where the banksters hide their money - do a Muckety or nndb.com search to prove it to yourself.)

I'm finding that conservatives who are still stuck in the talk radio / Fox News matrix dismiss those of us out here who are now identifying more under the libertarian label because they just don't understand what is really going on here. It's like trying to solve for x, but not understanding the process of isolating the variable first. While conservatives are railing against the unknown x, which in our metaphor would be liberals, liberals everywhere, libertarians are providing cogent explanations of how progressivism infiltrated America and the mechanisms by which it spreads. Libertarians isolate the variable of progressivism by subtracting the rhetoric away, and dividing by the political machine. What is left is progressives (both R and D) and their funding sources. Then one clearly sees the Fed Cartel, their associated banks, the foundations where they hide their money and their social engineering projects. It all becomes as clear as day.

For the record, I do NOT like to be labeled. I am an American, loyal to the following in this order:

1. The Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom Come - which emphasizes the individual over the group.
2. My family, which I am charged with guarding from the wiles of the devil and on this earth, that means guarding against progressive "deviling."
3. The US of A and its Constitution as founded and as intended to protect us all in our individual pursuits of happiness.

I have so many Continental soldiers in my lineage who fought against oppression and tyranny. They would look on our current national conversation in disgust. How could we be so easily played, when the answer is just to follow the love of money aka the "root of all evil"? When we do, we find the same crew running the show with the purpose of creating a world-wide communist government. The Elite see that this generation has tapped into the free-flow of information and that their time is limited. Like a cornered animal, they will try to lower the boom, which is why all those screaming hysterical Ron Paul fanatics are trying so hard to wake people up, because they understand the times in which they live and understand what is at stake. Mock us at your peril, we're just trying to live up to our birthright as Americans, defending the Constitution with a righteous zeal.

And of the children of Issachar, which were men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do; the heads of them were two hundred; and all their brethren were at their commandment. I Chron 12:32

"Politics and the Generation Gap" by republican Mother is reprinted from her blog, The republican Mother.

An investigative blogger who incorporates the classical liberal view of politics being a struggle between 2 adversarial classes, The republican Mother follows the money, questions the ties, and calls it like she sees it. She is also known to blog at Left Coast Rebel, Don't Tread on Us, Political Realities, and Smart Girl Politics. See republican Mother's article archives.

Politics and the Generation Gap is a post from: The Classic Liberal Blog

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call 'after-birth abortion' (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

Nice, huh?

Of course arguments like these are nothing new.

Eugenics is hardly a relic of the past

Eugenics, "the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed 'unfit'," has been with us for a very long time.

The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing.

Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions … Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in "colonies," and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning.

Eugenics was born as a scientific curiosity in the Victorian age. In 1863, Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, theorized that if talented people only married other talented people, the result would be measurably better offspring. At the turn of the last century, Galton's ideas were imported into the United States just as Gregor Mendel's principles of heredity were rediscovered. American eugenic advocates believed with religious fervor that the same Mendelian concepts determining the color and size of peas, corn and cattle also governed the social and intellectual character of man.

Elitists, utopians and so-called "progressives" fused their smoldering race fears and class bias with their desire to make a better world. They reinvented Galton's eugenics into a repressive and racist ideology. The intent: populate the earth with vastly more of their own socio-economic and biological kind--and less or none of everyone else.

Only after eugenics became entrenched in the United States was the campaign transplanted into Germany, in no small measure through the efforts of California eugenicists, who published booklets idealizing sterilization and circulated them to German official and scientists.

In 1972, professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado Michael Tooley, argued that a human being "possess[es] a serious right to life only if it possesses the concept of a self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states, and believes that it is itself such a continuing entity." Determining infants don't meet these qualifications, Tooley declares there should be "some period of time, such as a week after birth, as the interval during which infanticide will be permitted."

Many other ethicists have argued the same or similar.

Peter Singer's Bold Defense of Infanticide

In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot … In 1979 he wrote, "Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons"; therefore, "the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee."

Instead of upgrading the fetus to the status of a person, however, Peter Singer downgrades the newborn to the status of nonperson because newborns, like fetuses, are incapable "of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time" … In fact, some acts of infanticide are less problematic than killing a happy cat … Singer's logic can be summed up this way: Until a baby is capable of self-awareness, there is no controlling reason not to kill it to serve the preferences of the parents.

As for the doctrine of the "sanctity of human life," it is nothing but "speciesism," an irrational prejudice rooted in outdated religious traditions (e.g., Christianity). Insofar as some human beings are incapable of reasoning, remembering, and self-awareness, they cannot be considered persons. Put simply, dogs, cats, and dolphins are persons, while fetuses, newborns, and some victims of Alzheimer's disease are not.

The Infanticide/Abortion Link - the Dehumanization of Infants

[Steven Pinker, a professor of psychology at the august Massachusetts Institute of Technology] argues as follows: Killing a newborn infant should not be penalized as harshly as killing an older child. "To a biologist, birth is as arbitrary a milestone as any other," Pinker says. Pinker says babies aren't real people because they don't have "an ability to reflect upon (themselves) as a continuous locus of consciousness, to form and savor plans for the future, to dread death and to express the choice not to die. And there's the rub: Our immature neonates don't possess these traits any more than mice do."

According to Pinker, "Several moral philosophers have concluded that neonates (infants) are not persons, and thus neonaticide (killing an infant) should not be classified as murder."

Pinker favors a system where "A new mother will first coolly assess the infant and her situation" and then decide whether to keep the baby or kill it.

Eugenics in our time …

A non-person

Like those before them, Giubilini and Minerva argue that "a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a 'person' in the sense of 'subject of a moral right to life'." Got that? Is not a person. But as Matthew Archbold says,

The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn't, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand.

Before we consider the ramifications of declaring a newborn baby a "non-person," consider the following words from Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Roe vs. Wade itself does not define the right to an abortion, but it does unambiguously declare that the baby in the womb is not a person, and that the right to privacy protects the mother's decision to kill the baby.

Did you catch that? The Supreme Court declared that the baby in the womb is not a person. When it made that declaration, it rejected dozens of decisions of other courts, in America and in Great Britain, holding that the baby in the womb is a person. This is reminiscent of the Supreme Court's infamous Dred Scott decision in 1857 in which it ruled that blacks were not persons.

If the baby in the womb is a person, then all abortion is unlawful. That's because of the constitutional protection for all persons. The Constitution unambiguously prohibits the government from impairing or permitting others to impair the life, liberty and property of persons without due process.

How scary is this? The Supreme Court declares a class of humanity not to be persons, and then permits people to destroy the members of the class. That's what happened to blacks during slavery; that was the philosophical argument underlying the Holocaust; that's what is happening to babies in the womb today; and that might become the basis for the government killing persons it hates or fears in the future. It will declare them to be non-persons.

How scary is this? It's happening to people today.

Dred Scott Redux: Obama and the Supremes Stand Up for Slavery

After hearing passionate arguments from the Obama Administration, the Supreme Court acquiesced to the president's fervent request and, in a one-line ruling, let stand a lower court decision that declared torture an ordinary, expected consequence of military detention, while introducing a shocking new precedent for all future courts to follow: anyone who is arbitrarily declared a "suspected enemy combatant" by the president or his designated minions is no longer a "person" … They will have no inherent rights, no human rights, no legal standing whatsoever …

This extraordinary ruling occasioned none of those deep-delving "process stories" that glut the pages of the New York Times, where the minutiae of policy-making or political gaming is examined in highly-spun, microscopic detail doled out by self-interested insiders. Obviously, giving government the power to render whole classes of people "unpersons" was not an interesting subject for our media arbiters.

But William Fisher noticed, and gave this report at Antiwar.com:

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal Monday to review a lower court's dismissal of a case brought by four British former Guantanamo prisoners against former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the detainees' lawyers charged Tuesday that the country's highest court evidently believes that "torture and religious humiliation are permissible tools for a government to use."

… Channeling their predecessors in the George W. Bush administration, Obama Justice Department lawyers argued in this case that there is no constitutional right not to be tortured or otherwise abused in a U.S. prison abroad.

The Obama administration had asked the court not to hear the case. By agreeing, the court let stand an earlier opinion by the D.C. Circuit Court, which found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – a statute that applies by its terms to all "persons" – did not apply to detainees at Guantanamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law.

The Constitution is clear: no person can be held without due process; no person can be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. And the U.S. law on torture of any kind is crystal clear: it is forbidden, categorically, even in time of "national emergency." And the instigation of torture is, under U.S. law, a capital crime. No person can be tortured, at any time, for any reason, and there are no immunities whatsoever for torture offered anywhere in the law.

[L]et's be absolutely clear: Barack Obama has taken the freely chosen, public, formal stand -- in court -- that there is nothing wrong with any of these activities. Nothing to answer for, nothing meriting punishment or even civil penalties.

And still further: Barack Obama has now declared, openly, of his own free will, that he does not consider these captives to be "persons." They are, literally, sub-humans. And what makes them sub-humans? The fact that someone in the U.S. government has declared them to be "suspected enemy combatants." (And note: even the mere suspicion of being an "enemy combatant" can strip you of your personhood.)

One co-counsel on the case, Shayana Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights, zeroed in on the noxious quintessence of the position taken by the Court, and by our first African-American president: its chilling resemblance to the notorious Dred Scott ruling of 1857, which upheld the principle of slavery. As Fisher notes:

"Another set of claims are dismissed because Guantanamo detainees are not 'persons' within the scope of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – an argument that was too close to Dred Scott v. Sanford for one of the judges on the court of appeals to swallow," he added.

The Dred Scott case was a decision by the United States Supreme Court in 1857. It ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants — whether or not they were slaves — were not protected by the Constitution and could never be citizens of the United States.

And now, once again, 144 years after the Civil War, we have established as the law of the land and the policy of the United States government that whole classes of people can be declared "non-persons" and have their liberty stripped away …

How long before Patriot Act, NDAA, and other repressions of liberty in the name of "defending freedom," will get you or me declared a "non-person?"

What's that you say? I can't happen here?

Defending Freedom via the Abolition Thereof

Any standard US history text will at least mention, in passing, the suppression of American antiwar dissent in World War I. The great conservative sociologist, the late Robert Nisbet, wrote in 1988 that:

"The blunt fact is that when [under Woodrow Wilson] America was introduced to the War State in 1917, it was introduced also to what would later be known as the total, or totalitarian, state."

A bit harsh, what? American historians really hate coming to grips with what happened in America, starting in April 1917. They so fail because a fair reading would entail some responsibility for St. Woodrow, who oversaw the whole sorry show.

All free communication came to an end. People were arrested and indicted for casual remarks made in private conversation. It was not the New Left of the 1960s that actually invented the claim that the personal is the political – it was the United States government.

A great wave of repression came down on "the freest people in the world," as Americans liked to call themselves. Government gumshoes, federal, state, and local, delighted in following up idle charges of "disloyalty," "treason," "pro-Germanism," and "slacking." Legislatures outlawed the teaching of the German language and the public performance of music by such dangerous Teutons as Beethoven. Wilson and the administration – in charge of the enlarged federal apparatus of repression – encouraged, aided, and abetted local efforts, including those of self-appointed, hyperthyroid "patriotic" snoops and bullies. Tarring and feathering came back in style for those accused of the "crimes" mentioned above. Here and there, a local Barney Fife, or an Army officer who hadn’t quite made it over to Northern France, would shoot a "traitor" for saying the wrong thing in a public place. The hero would then be tried for it, acquitted, and finally, lionized in the moronic press.

Not fully satisfied with their good works so far, many hotheads and morons in positions of public authority demanded redoubled efforts to ferret out "traitors" and "slackers." They called for military courts to try domestic dissenters. Firing squads, they said, should be kept busy, full time. I am leaving out the names of these authentically American Robespierres to spare the feelings of their descendants, who might perhaps agree that these fellows were vicious idiots.

When not satisfied with forcing supposed "traitors" to kiss the flag or sing the praises of the Archangel Woodrow, mobs of patriotic fellows would occasionally hang someone. Meanwhile, Congress, deliberating again, strengthened the Espionage Act to criminalize whatever microscopic bit of free discussion might accidentally still remain. Congress even considered outlawing all discussion of the origins of the war or how America entered, which would have effectively ended all work by historians. Fortunately, however, many of the historians were otherwise employed – in producing propaganda for the cause. For a good discussion of these matters, see H. C. Peterson and Gilbert C. Fite, Opponents of War, 1917-1918 (University of Wisconsin Press, 1957).

Yes, it already has.

What about ObamaCare?

Latest infanticide push about more than killing babies

Now consider just one practical example of how personhood theory could soon deleteriously impact the well-being of you and your family. Obamacare has centralized control of health care into the federal bureaucracy, including by establishing a plethora of cost/benefit boards that will start operating within the next several years. Who do you think will be tapped to fill many of these powerful government positions that could ultimately decide what medical procedures will and won't be covered by insurance — perhaps even which patients will and won't receive them? Bingo! "Experts" trained in bioethics.

Now consider what could happen if many or most of these board members adhere to the noxious view that "human non-persons" do not have a right to life: To say the least, the potential for "death panels" comes vividly into focus.

Now that we've reduced the sanctity of life to merely drawing lines in the sand, those with the biggest guns, will ultimately decide who lives or dies.

"There is a simple solution to people problems. Kill the person."

The Ultimate Government Solution.

Related to "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?":

• Eugenics: Progressivism's Ultimate Social Engineering
• Socialism, Fascism, Racism, Eugenics and Militarism
• Killing Baby "Non Persons"–Just Grist for Bioethics Mill
• Orwellian Newspeak and Postnatal or After-Birth "abortion"
• Do Catholics Have Too Many Babies?
• Planned Parenthood
• Sex-selective Abortions and the Anti-choice People Who Oppose Them
• Measuring the Immeasurable
• War Against The Weak
• Obama's bad moves on infanticide come back to haunt him
• New Bill Known As Enemy Expatriation Act Would Allow Government To Strip Citizenship Without Conviction

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? is a post from: The Classic Liberal Blog