Government does not have the power to make you happy. But it does have the power to make you unhappy. How? Mainly, by interfering with the generally harmonious and, for the most part, rational progress of human civilization that would otherwise take place without government interference. Although it's a mouthful, that rational progress of human civilization is necessary to sustain all the comforts of daily life you take for granted. Obama did not provide these things; productive human beings, the system of individual rights and capitalism DID. Do we need government? Yes, government is essential. Any civilized society must have a government to enforce property rights, voluntary contracts and, most of all, protect you from violent thugs. When government becomes a violent thug itself, then you're in trouble.

Recent case in point: Comments from the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. She said that people who don't agree with Obama on the desirability of an Islamic mosque at the site of 9/11 should be "investigated." She wasn't specific on which people should be investigated, nor by what means. Using or even threatening force against those whose opinions you don't like, to keep them in line? That's what thugs do. They now run our government. Reason enough to launch them, via elections, out of our government, or at least out of positions of high authority. Let's hope when compelled, they'll go. It will be a wonderful moment, if it comes, to watch Nancy Pelosi, nothing more than a thug in a dress, hand that Speaker's gavel over to somebody else.

CLICK HERE for a treasure trove of Dr. Hurd's articles (1992-present) on government, philosophy, human nature and human relationships.

Government officials plan to stop young people from smoking, since many young people persist in thinking it's "cool" to smoke. Forcing movie makers to rate movies "R" if any smoking appears, as well as posting anti-smoking warnings prior to a movie with smoking in it, will (these government officials reason) cause fewer young people to smoke. Anybody who actually believes this does not understand young people, especially those who smoke knowing full well that it's medically harmful. Young people will continue to understand that smoking is something adults don't want them to do and, therefore, it's cool and they will continue to do it. Refusing to allow smoking to appear in movies will not cause young people to stop smoking, any more than outlawing the presence of sex in movies would lead young people to stop having, or wanting, sex. This is just more evidence that most government restrictions and regulations neither work nor make sense even on their own terms.

CLICK HERE for a treasure trove of Dr. Hurd's articles (1992-present) on government, philosophy, human nature and human relationships.

Q: Dr. Hurd, what do you think of voting for the Libertarian Party this year?

A: I generally avoid the Libertarian Party. First of all, they have no chance of winning. They split the non Obama/Pelosi vote, and ensure the victory of that crowd. The only possible value of voting for them is as a protest vote. It's an alternative to staying home. It could also send a message to Republicans to shape up -- i.e., keep religion out of politics, and to get serious about cutting government and starting to dismantle the welfare state/Big Government, not just slowing it down. You can use this as a voting strategy if you have no reason to trust or like your Republican candidate running for a particular office. A major problem I have with the Libertarians is that they tend to be against strong defense. Their most prominent leaders oppose the Iraq war, for example, not because of the war itself, but because they're against the use of military force by the United States in general, on principle. This is a dangerous view, especially since Western civilization depends on oil resources under the power of Arab and Islamic dictatorships in the Middle East. We have to intervene abroad, at times, to protect our interests. Iran is the biggest gathering storm in this regard, and the Libertarians have no more answer to this than the far-left of the Democratic Party who nominated Obama on the premise that no war involving the U.S. is a just war.

Things are changing, because the 40 percent who are not one party or the other are looking for change, and not change as Obama defined it. The Democrats have gone over the cliff with Obama, and I don't believe there is any redeeming that party, ever. The thirty percent of the country who form the core of Democratic Party support are hard core liberals and will be to their dying day, no matter what happens. The Republicans have to get religion out of politics and to move from being tax collectors for the welfare state to people offering innovative proposals for dismantling it. There is almost no indication of this happening, even as Obama implodes, although the proof will be if they take over Congress and the White House in the next two elections and do something like the Republican governor of New Jersey is reportedly doing -- massively cutting state spending and in the process, the state government. This is what has to be done on the national level, including even Social Security and Medicare. It's not possible to dismantle these overnight, but they will be bankrupt at some point and it makes sense to pass legislation taking that inevitability into account. There are huge opportunities for Republicans to take on these challenges but they just won't do it. The Tea Party movement, although I do NOT like the religious elements, has the right idea: Emphasize reforming and taking over the Republicans, which they are doing in nominating contests to a remarkable degree. For the most part these candidates emphasize spending, limited government and possibly defense, while leaving religion in the background. The question is to see if they can win, and if so, will they really be different Republicans once in office or the same old Bush lightweights that brought us the current disaster? The Tea Party, like the libertarians, are right about many things but do not yet represent the majority. Yet, you have 70 percent of the country against Obama's hard core socialism, so Tea Party/libertarian elements of the Republican party could conceivably at least push things in the right direction. This will not save America, but it can buy time, at least if the wrecking balls known as Obama and Pelosi don't literally ruin what's still a pretty great country. Ultimately I blame the majority of the people, though, for letting it get to this point.

How to grow up, politically and otherwise? CLICK HERE!

Barack says that anyone who wants to build a mosque at the site of 9/11 and Ground Zero has a right to do that. We are to infer by this that he means: a Constitutional, individual property right. If this is so, then why doesn't everyone else have property rights to keep all of what they earn -- or at least most of it? According to Obama, the purpose of government is to seize wealth/property and spread it around as politicians deem fit. Why are the only people with property rights individuals who belong to a religion whose open goal -- backed up in practice again, again and again -- is to destroy all things Western and non-Islamic, including the very Constitution and concepts Obama is citing to defend their right to build that mosque?

Maybe, just maybe, some motive other than property rights is behind Obama's position.