.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Milton J. Madison - An American Refugee Now Living in China, Where Liberty is Ascending

Federalism, Free Markets and the Liberty To Let One's Mind Wander. I Am Very Worried About the Fate of Liberty in the USA, Where Government is Taking people's Lives ____________________________________________________________________________________________ "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater-

Friday, September 30, 2011

Forget Multiculturalism: Restore The Anglo-Saxon Philosophy Of Liberty - Forbes

Forget Multiculturalism: Restore The Anglo-Saxon Philosophy Of Liberty - Forbes

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Americans Express Historic Negativity Toward U.S. Government

The leviathan is destroying American life and not protecting it. The people know and see this.

Americans Express Historic Negativity Toward U.S. Government

Friday, September 23, 2011

Modern politics.....

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't` eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. If a liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life. If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a person of color is conservative, they see themselves as independently successful. Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed. If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor and then sues.

If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.

A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".

Thursday, September 22, 2011

The death penalty.....

Irrespective of the horror of a crime, I am not a supporter of the death penalty in any circumstance. The state should an entity whose function is to protect life not to be intimately involved in ending it. However, for those that have argued with me about this, it is important to note that the state is charged with defense and this includes performing war. This legitimate function of the state and this may end in death for some.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

My thoughts today on the role of government, unalienable and inalienable rights.....

Government has a vital role in restricting people and defining their rights or better said as limits to these rights as people. Recognizing that we are all born with unalienable rights, those that we have by the simple virtue of being human; life, liberty and property (called pursuit of happiness in American parlance, a term broader than the early progressive libertarian thinkers in the 17th and 18th century) these are rights that cannot be taken away or given away (it is the right to property that cannot be taken or given away but the property itself can be done with as one pleases, ergo the pursuit of happiness).

A fine example of the limitation embedded in unalienable rights is that even if my life is in danger of say starvation, I do not have the right to unilaterally take someone else's food without their permission to save my life, my child's life or anyone else's life. My right to life ends at someone else's life and property.

So, we can understand why our rights are not totally absolute and are limited is simply that our rights cannot conflict with those of others otherwise society will be unable to operate peacefully. Early thinkers recognized that there can never be a world where there is a clear inarguable objective partial unalienable right other than a complete unalienable right but limited by the existence of others and therefore driving the need to have a government as an impartial adjudicator. Anything less than a complete unalienable right such as in one in which, for example, someone should be forced to give up their property to the benefit of someone else is subject to fail since one may be forced to give their unalienable rights against their will to benefit another. Granting of government inalienable rights can only be achieved by violating unalienable rights.

I argue that the granting of some new right by government can only be arbitrary. This new inalienable right granted to meet some argued for at objective would be impossible determine clearly and absolutely and if someone argues that this new right has an absolute objective point, it would necessarily include subjective opinions and analysis that will render it not objective at all and therefore arbitrary. In this environment, pretending to be objective whereas it is in actuality subjective and therefore possibly subject to a multitude of interpretations, arguments, conflicting interests, etc. we can expect that conflict and ultimately anarchy may ensue if this is allowed. People ultimately would begin to think that they are somehow entitled to other's property or even their life when adopting such flimsy reasoning to create this new supposed 'objective' reasoning behind the newly granted right. Ultimately, in trading for newly created inalienable rights our unalienable rights will lose their power and cease to have weight. We will therefore, through the simple act of our existence and living our lives on a certain piece of property, be forced to give to government that gives to others and ultimately become servants to government with no portfolio of rights excepting those granted and allowed by government. We all become serfs.

So, this adjudication of unalienable rights is the revolutionary portfolio of government duties as contemplated by the original framers of the United States. Prior to democratic republican government there were autocracies but problems emerged with these forms of government since the unalienable rights of people were not respected in its entirety and were sometimes enforced arbitrarily. Some people in these modern days, however, argue that times change and therefore rights change too. This may be true that times change but the rights embedded by virtue of being human, those granted by God, are those that can never change and those that are unalienable. The concept of changing rights due to changing times is nothing more than a ruse by some to create what they argue are new rights but that I argue are in fact not rights at all. Without total protection of all unalienable rights, none of them exist, its as if they are inseparable in one package.

The unalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness begin to compete with these new government created inalienable rights that modern society has unfortunately created. These new rights have created a need for the greater power of government to embark on methods of providing these rights and this has led to a host of interventions including socialist wealth redistribution or to the forced redistribution of the unalienable right of property. These newly manufactured rights flow from rights solely granted by governments, and once government creates one of these inalienable rights it opens the door to create new rights that could include almost anything that anyone can dream up.

Examples of new rights created and granted by governments such as healthcare, housing or retirement income are very popular with some people but since these are granted by fiat, they are tenuous and can also be taken away legislatively. There is no protection for these rights since the basis to the granting of these supposed rights were based not on nature but by grants determined by people through government.

As we know, laws can be changed and there can be and were circumstances in which these rights are denied to people therefore illustrating that they are not guaranteed and can be arbitrary. In 1960, a Supreme Court upheld a decision where social security benefits were denied to someone who was deported from the United States due to membership in the communist party. This action was based on a law passed in 1954 when the world was worried about communism and in this legislation individuals were denied this right but even those that were fully eligible for this benefit excepting for being guilty of this specific crime could be denied. Here. I find it kind of amusing that a socialist wealth transfer payment was denied to someone guilty of being a communist. Maybe this was done just to annoy communists in general and deny them the kind of benefits that they were wishing to expand upon.

However, the precedent here and the point that I am making is that legislative action to deny benefits to one person, one group of people or any other subset of people can be enacted fully within the context of this right for any reason what-so-ever. This is the nature of inalienable rights. Additionally, this supposed right can be changed by fiat creating new contextual relationships relative to the right such as we find with the transfer payment Social Security; means testing, age, amounts to be paid etc. So, given the changes that have been enacted with many wealth transfer payment programs, inalienable rights can be tenuous and potentially totally unreliable at worst since we actually do not have a unambiguous legal right to this inalienable rights.

Furthermore, government, through the USA constitutional system has never actually been given a portfolio to offer these new inalienable rights that they created and that they granted to certain people or groups. Even with out portfolio, through this process, government is in effect transferring wealth from one person to another and I argue that it is this wealth transfer that the right is created and not the legislation granting this inalienable right. Without the ability to deliver the right, the right does not exist at all. We could never be granted the right to live forever for instance, since it would be impossible to deliver this to a person.

So, many of these inalienable rights have been created by the existence of a coercive tax code without which, thee rights would not and could not exist. We are forced to give up our property under penalty of punishment and are compelled into a system of creating and granting rights that are in their creation, arbitrary and without intellectual or constitutional legal support. Without the ability to take from one to give to another, this right could never be created. Furthermore, in this transaction, government has seized unalienable property from one to arbitrarily give to another. Under normal circumstances, these transactions to give one's property to another is something that one has the right to willfully engage if one feels compelled to as a choice, however, in its current configuration it is not a matter of choice but one that is forced on us through with the coercion embedded in the tax code. Through this, we have all become servants to government and not the other way around.

We have to recognize as a free people that government has created these inalienable rights out of thin air and in order to deliver these rights, government has to take or seize property and therefore, through the mechanism they are not permanent by definition, since property to seize to meet these obligations may not exist at one point. It is like my earlier example, one cannot create the right to live forever and one cannot create a permanent wealth redistribution system if the wealth is not there to take. This tenuous and nebulous ability to deliver and protect these rights ultimately define them as inalienable and non-permanent. Eventually the property that is taken to give away runs out and as Margaret Thatcher was purportedly to have said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

Joke for mathematicians.....

An infinite number of mathematicians walk into a bar. The first one tells the bartender he wants a beer. The second one says he wants half a beer. The third one says he wants a fourth of a beer. The bartender puts two beers on the bar and says “You guys need to learn your limits.”

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Thought of the day....

Wealth redistribution is not just stupid economics, its morally wrong....http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
But more important, such wealth redistribution is morally wrong, because it takes away our individual freedom of choice. It gives the government the power (though it never has the right) to say to us, “No, you can’t spend the money you earn on a new TV, we want to use it to create green jobs or pay for other people’s children’s education or make sure one race gets as much work as another. We are the compassionate and wise and we know best.” This may seem appealing in the moment but it is viciously destructive over the long run. The moral heart of a nation, of the world, is individual choice. Fashioned, though it often is, in the crucible of foolishness and failure, it is still ultimately the only true path to decency and right action. Without free individual choice, without that crucible, a culture becomes flaccid, passive, unproductive, violent, and morally dead, a place-marker waiting to be conquered by the next group inspired by a moral vision. Welcome to Europe. Careful not to step in the sharia.
From here. And lets look at the greatest wealth redistributors in recent history, pre-1989 Soviet union, North Korea and 1960's Maoist China. Not only did they destroy their economies they also coarsened the relationship with and among their own people by breaking down traditional family, community and religious relationships but also had terrible relationships with their national neighbors. This is the inevitable outcome of wealth redistribution and the Marxism that this implies.

Monday, September 19, 2011

I am listening to the Obamessiah now on TV with his new taxes for Americans plan.....

He is a total idiot and and dishonest huckster. Lets send this buffoon back to Chicago where he belongs. Remember, that taxes were raised by $100 billion a year under the guise of Obamacare, probably one of the worst pieces of government nonsense in my lifetime.

He sounds like a communist since he is a communist. Some of you morons that voted for him should be completely ashamed of yourselves.

The greatest thing that the Obamessiah is going to do for the American people is completely discredit American socialism and hopefully assist in weakening the leviathan so that is can no longer consume more of people's lives.

Lets look at some historical facts on Israel.....

Remember, that the whole of the Middle East was part of the Ottoman empire for 500 years in which time there was no Palestine. After WWI, the region was partitioned into countries but the Arabs attacked Israel intent on destroying it. The so called 1967 borders are nothing of the sort since this was the armistice lines from the Arab invasion of Israel in 1948. The West Bank was then occupied by Jordan and it is disputed territory not undeniably Palestinian.

I honestly find it amazing how hostile Europeans and the American political hard left are towards Israel. It is truly a beacon of light in what is a brutal and unproductive Arab world. Europeans have proven over-and-over that they have become nihilists where they have gone beyond human morality into a hyper self-centered and God denying squishy semi-democracy, semi-socialist state. I wish them luck and when they are prepared to reenter the ranks of humans, we should welcome them back.

Thursday, September 15, 2011

The dishonest and distorted concept of government creating jobs in America....

The absolute silliness of the Obamessiah and his textbook Marxist economic policy is evident in the current jobs proposal that will do absolutely nothing for the jobs situation in the nation. Basically, it was a speech full of hotair that had no substance and when we get the actual details it is no surprise that all this program does is to tax the more successful people that will spend and invest less and deliver this cash to the friends of Democrats and other wasteful government programs. So what happened to the government's $900 billion spendfest passed in 2009 that was supposed to assist the economy back onto it's feet? All it did was shift money from people that save and investment through borrowing to those that spend and waste, the government. This boondoggle just did not work.

So how is this new 'jobs' boondoggle going to work? It won't work and it is not designed to work. What the Obamessiah wants to do is his singular focus on raising taxes. This for him is the success. As Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary, and one that is in love with higher taxes on higher income taxpayers, writes.....
So if the president was never really serious about getting Republican votes in the first place -- if his jobs bill and the tax increase on the wealthy were always going to be part of his 2012 election year pitch -- why didn't he make his jobs bill big enough to do the job?

Here's another odd thing.

The deficit-reduction plan the president will present Monday to Congress's special Super Committee on the debt (now struggling to come up with $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction) will also propose some $2 to $3 trillion in additional deficit reduction over the next ten years -- including changes in Medicare.
From here. Marxist Democrats are going to start feeding on each other as big government solutions fail miserably and destroy the legacy of FDR and the New Deal. Additionally, it is important to contemplate that economies tend to right themselves on their own. By getting some kind of 'jobs' bill even if it does nothing to actually create jobs, government will be able to claim credit when the economy eventually turns around.

The largest drag on the economy and jobs is the government itself that dump useless regulations on business that cost them money and that promise to achieve very little. One place that we can start is to get bad government off of the backs of people that work and save.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Best line of the day....

Republican presidential hopeful Gov. Rick Perry on Monday turned a South Carolina forum question into a quip, on an issue where no Texas politician dare be caught on the “wrong side.”

“Honestly, the next question is so easy that I don’t even want to ask it: Are you for gun control?” asked Rep. Tim Scott, R-South Carolina.

“I am actually for gun control: Use both hands,” Perry shot back. He put on a wide old-boy grin and gave thumbs-up to his listeners.

Headline of the Day, and a Big Reason to Worry.....

Labor Dept. Data: Only 1.75 Full-Time Private Sector Workers Per Social Security Recipient
There is absolutely no way that the US can survive with these kind of numbers. From here.

Federal Regulations....

Besides being costly and a headwind to job creation, regulations typically do very little to achieve the intended effects. And this is not lost on the American people as we have to endure this big government Marxist administration hopefully for just 16 more months.....
But the American people perceive the regulatory environment somewhat differently than does the president. Three quarters — 74 percent — of voters throughout the country believe that businesses and consumers are over-regulated, according to a Public Notice poll released today. And they strongly suspect that much of that over-regulation has been implemented recently: 67 percent believe that regulations have increased over the past few years.

In fact, they’re right. The rate at which regulatory burdens are growing has accelerated under the Obama administration, according to a Heritage Foundation backgrounder. During its first 26 months, the Obama administration imposed 75 new major regulations with reported costs to the private sector exceeding $40 billion. During the same period, six major rulemaking proceedings reduced regulatory burdens by an estimated $1.5 billion — for a net increase of more than $38 billion.
From here.

The hard left in the US is conducting rule by law instead of promoting what made America great, rule of law.

Monday, September 12, 2011

Liberalism is Laziness (Cont'd)

“For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”

-The Bible, James 2:26-
The breadth of good works/deeds goes beyond that of simply caring for the poor, but it is important to recognize that it is both faith and good works that makes one whole. As in Christianity, most of the popular religions also have requirements to care for the needy.....
Prayer and belief are not enough to make someone a good Muslim. Islam is very concerned about looking after the welfare of poor people, and the Qur'an specifies that all Muslims above the subsistence level must pay up 2.5% of their annual savings to help people in need.

So once a year a Muslim works out 2.5% of everything they own, and hands it to an approved organisation to use for charitable purposes.

Muslims call this Zakat, and it's the third pillar of Islam.
The object of ecclesiastical provision for the poor is, first the removal of their immediate need, then the nullification of the demoralizing effects of poverty, encouragement, the fostering of a desire for work and independence, and thus the exercise of an educative influence on the soul: "the care of souls is the soul of the care of the poor".
From here. Hinduism also has this requirement and around 3 billion people are covered under Christianity, Islam and Hinduism.....
The less fortunate were cared for within the extended family. Religious obligations also included various forms of charity. For example, scripture obliges the householder to step outside the front door before each meal and to announce three times "Is anyone hungry? Please come to take your meal!" Only then would the family eat, with or without guests. Today, Hindu families are still renowned for their hospitality. Other acts of generosity include giving alms and clothing, and ritually feeding the poor, holy people and animals. A righteous life, whereby God is perceived in nature, naturally protects the environment. Planting trees and digging wells have long been considered to bestow considerable spiritual merit.
So, as we can see, there is a very serious call to assist the needy within religions. But it is also notable in some of these calls to assistance, it is the family and individual that is responsible for these acts.

So, what is the obligation of a society to the poor within it's midst? Religions clearly tell us that it is our and our family's responsibility. There are 3 important elements of American (and all human) life that this relates to; the individual, family and community. Each of these is the interconnecting network of individuals that can provide the framework to first; take care of themselves and second; take care of others.

However, there is also another unit that is also charged with meeting these obligations and this is government. However, within this model, many conflate ability and obligation and also confuse local and national obligations.

For example, within a community, we educate our children. This has been chosen as a function of local government but it does not necessarily have to be but this is the path that has been taken. Here in Hong Kong, we pay tuition for our children's education despite there also being public education available. This is a matter of choice.

Other obligations such as care for the elderly have been almost completely removed from the portfolio of obligations of the individual, family and community since it has been expropriated by national government and dispossessed by those that are most closely associated with the obligation.

Obligations that have been seized by government with the attendant promises that are being made to both the receivers of the benefit and those that have paid for this benefit, make it very difficult to go back to the normal intended human interaction and obligation to the needy.

One of the problems with this kind of intervention by government is that it is subject to political tampering that may or may not be to the benefit recipients, the payers of this benefit and/or the community/nation as a whole. These programs can are sometimes used to transfer wealth to some that it was not intended or the programs are expanded to appease or please other groups of people that may not be deserving. Also, there are multitudes of secondary effects and unintended consequences and these are the ones that we can consider and I have many times in previous posts. I do want to consider these issues here since my primary purpose to expose duplicity by the American political Left.

What I find most insidious in the redistributionist transaction championed by the political Left is that those the cry the loudest for redistribution of wealth are those that as a group are least likely to give their own resources to this effort.....
Brooks shows that those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes. The average donation to educational causes among redistributionists was eight dollars per year, compared with $140 from their ideological opposites, and $96 annually to health care causes from free marketeers versus $11 from egalitarians.
From here. When one considers these kind of statistics, one has to wonder what drives redistributionist Liberals to so cravenly call for governments to step in to redistribute wealth when they themselves have been unwilling to do so themselves. Infuriatingly, in addition to this, Liberals also feel that the bulk of this obligation should fall upon just a small sliver of society, "the wealthy" and do not think that it should be the people as a whole that has to participate in sacrifice created by these kinds of obtuse government interventions.

Essentially, what neo-liberals are doing is using their 'superior' intellect to identify a problem, formulate a large scale solution and then get someone else to pay for it. To me, this is NOT the doing good works. It is pure unadulterated laziness and these people are washing their hands of the obligations that they have to humanity.

Lazily voting in redistributionists representatives into government is not a substitute to doing good works. Getting clumsy government involved in situations that are the rights and responsibilities of the individual, family and community may seem to be a reasonable solution to some problems but then we have to face the unintended consequences of these interventions. One of the largest consequences to me, is the weakening of the individuals, families and community's responsibilities that have been replaced by a leviathan that deceitfully promises to be all things to all people. By becoming hyper-reliant on government, we are simultaneously weakening the very institutions that are the strongest bonds that people have to each other and replacing them with the nebulous connection through government.

We will all suffer from this lazy approach to good works and will pay the price in greater poverty, lesser educated children and less fulfilling lives if we continue on this path.

Saturday, September 10, 2011

Obamessiah says the Republican party was foounded by Lincoln.....

Unfortunately for him, this is not true, actually, the original Republican party was founded by Jefferson and Madison as a counter to Federalists. This party split into the the Democrats and the Whigs. When the Whigs could not handle the issue of slavery, the Republican party was reestablished as the Whig party disappeared....
On this day in 1854, Alvan E. Bovay (1818-1903) called an anti-slavery meeting at the Congregational Church in Ripon, the Wisconsin town where he practiced law. The group voiced outrage at the Kansas-Nebraska Act, soon to clear Congress, which provided that settlers could decide for themselves whether to allow slavery in the new territories. The legislation repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had banned slavery in that region.

A similar meeting had taken place a week earlier in Jackson, Mich. Both groups dubbed themselves “Republicans,” evoking the Democratic-Republican label once used by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

Bovay called a second meeting on March 20, 1854, to popularize the new Republican Party movement. It quickly achieved success in Wisconsin, securing the governorship in 1856, and remained the dominant party in the state for many years.
So, of course the Obamessiah will never be held to account for this gaff in his prepared speech unlike Sarah Palin on her off the cuff answer to Paul Revere. One could never never call the brilliant Obamessiah a dope for his speaking mistakes but it is particularly allowed and encouraged by the leftwing media when bashing conservative women.

Friday, September 09, 2011

Quote of the Day.....

After many years, I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two are a law firm and three or more are a legislature.

-John Adams, second President of the United States-

Quote of the Day.....

The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin.

-Mark Twain-

Thursday, September 08, 2011

Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

As much as a Ponzi scheme is a fraud, as this fellow argues, Social Security isn't really a Ponzi scheme but something much more insidious. Please have a look at this frightening government program that has taken your money.

Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

Why did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac get involved in Subprime lending when it was not part of their mandate?

Can anyone say Andrew Cuomo (see below), who was head of HUD late in the Clinton administration where subprime lending became a social policy initiative and Wall Street's butt boy Senator Charles Schumer that used subprime legislative changes to positively impact his big money Wall Street supporters?
July 22, 2007

NEW YORK – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are riding to the rescue of the subprime lending market.

The two large housing finance agencies are beefing up their business of guaranteeing subprime loans at a time when slack lending standards and falling home prices have translated into rising delinquencies and foreclosures among subprime borrowers.
From here. So what did the current Governor of New York do that was so bad? According to hard left Village Voice....
There are as many starting points for the mortgage meltdown as there are fears about how far it has yet to go, but one decisive point of departure is the final years of the Clinton administration, when a kid from Queens without any real banking or real-estate experience was the only man in Washington with the power to regulate the giants of home finance, the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), better known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country's current crisis. He took actions that—in combination with many other factors—helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded "kickbacks" to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.
From here. The road to destruction is paved with good intentions. But government should never been intervening in housing to start with. And the Clinton administration was terrible in forcing lenders to lend and to actually own mortgages of supposedly needy Black and Hispanic voters.

Wednesday, September 07, 2011

The future of all government run businesses.....

The U.S. Postal Service is projected to lose $11 billion this year, and it's running out of cash.

Barring a bailout or massive restructuring, the Postal Service says, the organization may stop operating early next year.

That's a frightening thought. But it's also one designed to get everyone's attention. And now the question will be whether anyone with the power to do anything about it actually does something intelligent.
The problem with government, that these is no feedback mechanism to force change on an organization that it runs. Such organizations can be loss making, be poorly run, be forced to provide loss making services for political purposes and a raft of other issues but they definitely do not have to respond to true market needs. This is the problem with the Post Office. Too many employees, too expensive and forced to provide too many services that just cannot pay for themselves.

This is the future of all government run businesses including Social Security and healthcare as there is no negative feedback mechanism to force change.

And Now The U.S. Postal Service Is About To Go Belly Up… | Daily Ticker - Yahoo! Finance

Tuesday, September 06, 2011

I consider socialism a mental illness too.....

So, I figure almost all Europeans are mentally ill....
Europeans are plagued by mental and neurological illnesses, with almost 165 million people or 38 percent of the population suffering each year from a brain disorder such as depression, anxiety, insomnia or dementia, according to a large new study.
From here. Its no suprise to me that these people are sick, they make me sick too.

Monday, September 05, 2011

More all of my global warming mongering friends, a quote of the day for you......

The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance- it is the illusion of knowledge.

-Daniel J. Boorstein-

Does intervention in markets by government improve or worsen ultimate outcomes?

The lesson is that it is crucial to consider whether government regulations and laws are likely to improve rather than worsen the performance of private markets. In an article "Competition and Democracy" published more than 50 years ago, I said "monopoly and other imperfections are at least as important, and perhaps substantially more so, in the political sector as in the marketplace. . . . Does the existence of market imperfections justify government intervention? The answer would be no, if the imperfections in government behavior were greater than those in the market."

The widespread demand after the financial crisis for radical modifications to capitalism typically paid little attention to whether in fact proposed government substitutes would do better, rather than worse, than markets.
From here. I argue that despite what appears to be 'low hanging fruit' and easy central government intervention that has a positive long-term impact on outcomes, even these should not be taken. Governments very rarely have the ability to choose just the positive outcome paths, are unable to effectively determine beforehand what the outcomes will be and are ultimately both politically and from a survival instinct standpoint driven to continue their interventions. The slippery slope of government intervention leads me to think that once one action is taken, no matter how positive the potential outcomes, that this is the camel's nose under the tent that will lead to further less productive or unproductive intervention.

Despite there being a desire for governments to intervene by many groups, it is also questionable within the context of the Constitution that, in particular, the Federal government has any authority to do anything in many of the instances that it does intervene.

Lets take the recent gigantic piece of legislation forced upon the American people commonly known as Obamacare. One of the critical elements of this monstrosity is that it requires that people buy themselves health insurance. Forget that this is designed to force healthy young people to pay for others in a craven cost shifting effort, but the requirement for citizens to buy a good or service just by virtue that they exist is the 'camel's nose' under the tent for government to require citizens to buy anything with this precedent as justification.

Creeping socialism has been the norm in the United States since the 1930's. Early 'necessary' interventions have bred many many more that may not have been the smartest or most effective paths. However, they are justified since these interventions are in the portfolio of government by virtue of the first 'necessary' intervention.

Sunday, September 04, 2011

I could not have said it better.....

The Obamessiah is "blustering, opportunistic, craven and hopelessly ineffective all at once." From here.

Quote of the day....

Yet after all this, the grand promise of an end to the suffering was never fulfilled. As the state sector drained the private sector, controlling it in alarming detail, the economy continued to wallow in depression. The combined impact of Herbert Hoover’s and Roosevelt’s interventions meant that the market was never allowed to correct itself. Far from having gotten us out of the Depression, FDR prolonged and deepened it, and brought unnecessary suffering to millions.

-Robert Higgs, Ph.D. – How FDR Made the Depression Worse, February 1995
In the old world where central government activism is both expected and supported, people do not consider that maybe government intervention actually does not work and that when government fails people miserably, that maybe, just maybe, there should not be further intervention.

Thankfully, the New Deal is finally being exposed for what it is, terrible public policy, destructive to families, neighborhoods and people and finally a violation of Constitutionally supported liberty of individuals. Hopefully we can finally kill and bury the leviathan and but i doubt that this can be accomplished without violence. Since so many are being promised so much that a significant portion of American people will lose their government 'promises' in any collapse of American style Marxism.

Saturday, September 03, 2011

Forbes: Obama's Economic Reforms Are The Definition Of Insanity

Definitely worth a look.

Forbes: Obama's Economic Reforms Are The Definition Of Insanity

A dose of free market theory for today.....

Free trade vs. protectionism.

Creative destruction in an efficient economy is the mother's milk of true wealth creation. Mover resources to their most productive uses.

Friday, September 02, 2011

Newspeak of the day.....

“Under the direction of President Obama and Secretary Janet Napolitano, the entire federal family is leaning forward to support our state, tribal and territorial partners along the East Coast,” a FEMA news release declared Friday as Irene churned toward landfall.
Federal family? The leviathan just does not know its place. This completely sickens me.

FEMA'S use of term 'federal family' for government expands under Obama

Thursday, September 01, 2011

i completley expected in the era of the Obamessiah to start hearing these kinds of things.....

A top lawmaker in the Congressional Black Caucus says tea partiers on Capitol Hill would like to see African Americans hanging from trees and accuses the movement of wishing for a return to the Jim Crow era.
See, if you do not completely agree or succumb to the hard left Marxist socio/political/economic philosophy embedded in the Democratic party, then you are a violent racist. Why, because as a black man, no white folks are allowed to disagree with a black man... and I guess if you do then you are a unrepentant racist.


So if you believe in balanced budgets or a stricter interpretation of the Constitution, then you are a racist and should 'go to hell.' These Congressional Representatives of the people are appalling. Democrats are a joke and no normal human could possibly take them seriously.

See this.

Funny but probbly not true...

Barbara Walters, of 20/20, did a story on gender roles in Kabul, Afghanistan, several years before the Afghan conflict.

She noted that women customarily walked five paces behind their husbands.

She recently returned to Kabul and observed that women still walk behind their husbands. Despite the overthrow of the oppressive Taliban regime, the women now seem happy to maintain the old custom.

Ms Walters approached one of the Afghani women and asked, 'Why do you now seem happy with an old custom that you once tried so desperately to change?'

The woman looked Ms Walters straight in the eyes, and without hesitation said, Land mines.

Moral of the story is (no matter what language you speak or where you go-BEHIND EVERY MAN, THERE'S A SMART WOMAN