We will do better at advanced medical care than you think. I personally own a few such diagnostic tools.

Sir, was the revision of the 16th amendment of the constitution every legally ratified with a full 36 of the states approving the change or was it not ratified an we are paying federal taxes on person income anyway

It would have been interesting if he had elaborated on what particular ideas in the different philosophies were important to him and why.

That wasn't the message of Atlas Shrugged, but certainly was one part of the mentality described. The message of Atlas Shrugged was the them: the role of man' mind in his survival, with the plot illustrating what happens, in a fictionalized acceleration, when it is withdrawn. With the wrong ideas dominating a culture and a country, they never do let go. Part of the illustration of the novel was the looters willing to go down with everyone else rather than give up their power. The eventual "bloody revolution" could be mundane violent mob action of competing thugs, as in AS, or something much worse than simply separating into smaller countries with different cultural norms. The altruist-collectivist-statist mentality does not work in one country or several smaller ones.

Obamcare law places much of the power under the IRs, which has not been impeded by Constitutional protections of privacy, due process or much else. Lots of complaints for a long time, but nothing has happened to rein it in.

Either of those 2 would be adding to the riffraff not removing.

But it wouldn't stop the states from doing the same thing, which they already are and want to do more of.

And under these circumstances his arguments are effective and more needed than the political change, which can't precede a change in dominant ideas.

Some deregulation is possible, but even under Reagan's efforts the net result at the end was a bigger government. And "deregulation" is not "dissolving the regulatory agencies". This isn't something that can be done in such a short time frame as a Rand Paul presidency. The president is very limited by statutes already on the books that authorize agencies and protect "civil servants" entrenched in government positions. Political appointees can't change that, and under current trends, Congress isn't going to either. Expecting that from a Rand Paul presidency is bound to lead to disappointment. Significant and cultural reform takes much longer and the current trends are against it.

But that is the political response, not the "constitutionality". Overthrowing a government is not "legal".

From Mitt Romney or #3 in the Bush Dynasty?

It's a legitimate method and may eventually be the mechanism that is necessary to use, but who can count on power struggles between state statists and Federal statists to turn repulsion of Washington into individual freedom?

It's not a fundamental failing of mankind. It's caused by a fundamental failing in the wrong philosophy. There is no inherent "sin".

It is only a minority of individuals who ever accomplish any significant change for the better. The minority in the American Revolution operated in a different culture than today. They had the advantage of the Enlightenment being largely taken for granted.

The kind of people who have been in those offices were there because they were voted to be there by people thinking in accordance with a progressively increasing collectivist and statist mindset under the moral criterion of altruism. Those who didn't fit that largely did not ever have a chance to take their oath of office seriously. It wasn't hard for the a minority of cronies to cash in on it, but they didn't start it. The size of the population is irrelevant.

"Shrugging" by anyone will not bring about the fictionally accelerated change portrayed in the novel, and that is not what Ayn Rand advocated. She did not distinguish heroes from villains on the basis of "super wealthy" or place in "the food chain" or willingness to "shrug".

The philosophy of Pragmatism replacing principle while embracing statism as a tool for anything in the name of the "practical" while relying on the moral standards of altruism and collectivism has been very open for the last more than a 100 years. Cynically covert tactics fit right into that, e.g., Gruber.

There are limits on what you can produce in a small group, including advanced medical care. You can't hide even that much with ray screens and radar when you need a license for the spectrum you use, i.e., some kind of permission for almost everything, with everything monitored more than ever before (especially the wilderness the viros want locked up under Federal control). And considering your motives, puns are now the crime of "hate speech".

I don't disagree with you, but they don't have to be overt about their plans. Covert works better for them, as they have done for the last century.

Regarding shrugging to Atlantis, who says we have to then be productive by current standards? We would need to produce only for ourselves. That amount could easily slide under the radar (pun intended).

The establishment does not dare, at least yet, openly and systematically campaign against freedom and the rights of the individual. But it does exploit every other characteristic of a candidate that it can to create a diversion from what it is doing, and in particular it homes in on and pounces on religion repeatedly, knowing that common sense voters are turned away by it as a flaky and destructive alternative. Religion is the baggage within but unnecessary for the tea party movement. It is irrelevant to its goals, cannot be intellectually defended, and undermines the defense of freedom. Elections are not about, nor should they be about, atheism versus religion, which is supposed to irrelevant to politics and government. But the establishment will exploit it where it can, only needing to stir up enough of a controversy to turn back enough of a margin of voters and smear the entire movement.

There are no candidates consistently promoting a proper government, and they couldn't be elected if they did because the philosophy of the culture has evolved so far to statism. But it is possible for candidates to move the system back from the progressive statism we now experience in order to reform the philosophy, of the country which is all that ultimately can save us, and that will take generations. There is a lot the tea party movement can do that would help achieve that by buying time and heading off the worst from coming sooner, but not if it continues to be embarrassed by an anti-intellectual obsession with religion undermining elections, what is left of government, and a rational philosophy.

"Shrugging" for a mythical "Atlantis" will do nothing but hasten our own demise. There is nowhere to go to escape the progressively increasing statism that rules everywhere. The best you could do is find some area, most likely in this country, better than the rest in the hope of surviving longer. But any relative success, once noticed, will be the first to be attacked.

You forgot to add "windy". :)

Outstanding reply! Thanks much.

Dear Judge Napolitano,
Thank you for your time. I loved your book, 'It's Dangerous To Be Right When The Government Is Wrong.' To your continued success.
Kind Regards,
NonMoochingArtist

I just now saw this and am in awe of the excellent questions produced by the denizens of Galt's Gulch. I am anxious to read the judge's answers but all I can find is his farewell. How do I access them?

Judge - I have a proposed solution for minimizing political corruption while enforcing individual rights and freedoms. In my view, all the "campaign finance reform" legislation will never work. The reason most corruption takes place among politicians and bureaucrats lays in their ability to grant special favors - a tax on import steel, exemption from Obamacare, etc.

Here is my solution: Pass an amendment to the Constitution that essentially says

"Any law, presidential executive order, tariff, tax, duty, regulation, etc. shall apply equally to every citizen, government employee, union member, corporation, etc."

This would strip away the power of politicians and bureaucrats to grant special favors. If a politician can't grant you special favors, why would you donate millions of dollars?

Literally they bought the election of William McKinley. It is poetic justice (Dare I say "karma" in the Gulch?) that McKinley was shot and replaced by the first progressive president (Teddy Roosevelt).