24 October 2010

Government "created" jobs

The fallacy that I will attempt to detonate is the myth of government created jobs. The government does provide jobs, but it does not create them. It takes from the private sector (which does create) to fund its activities. In a simple form, in a proper role of government, let's take the example of the police officer.
While police, when enforcing laws protecting individual liberty, are a necessary and proper role of government, the costs associated with the officer's duties are paid through confiscation of money by taxation. As a result, not only is the officer not available for the labor pool in private industry, the money that would provide his sustenance in his role has been taken from the economy. This is the best possible case and results in no net change as the money that has been removed from the private sector has been compensated by a reduction in the labor pool. The role of the police officer is clearly beneficial to civil society and justifiable but is, nonetheless, a drain on the private sector.
Let's expand to the overgrown administrative nightmare that is today's government agencies. Not only is every individual employed in these functions removed from private industry, their function within the government does not add to civil society. We are effectively removing two or more jobs from the private sector with each and every additional government bureaucrat.
There will be a number of people that would argue about the necessity and usefulness of the aforementioned bureaucrats but the bottom line is that government, by definition, is parasitic on society. All government activity is funded by usurpation of funds from the private sector. The larger the parasite becomes, the less healthy the host is.

14 October 2010

New series to open eyes and minds

Today initiates a new series of postings designed at opening the eyes, and more importantly minds, of anyone who reads it. Through a similar strategy to what Andrew Wilkow uses on his radio show, I am going to take popular progressive liberal strategies to their logical conclusion. Many thanks and much appreciation to Andrew for what he does.
Let's start with redistribution of income; notice that the word of choice is income and not wealth, I will get back to that shortly. The justification for income redistribution is the classic "who will help the children, widows, helpless, etc." strategy for guilting individuals for being "greedy". This is backwards and counterproductive to society at large. The needy will be assisted by charity which people give to voluntarily and yes, some will not get assistance due to refusal of assistance from either party (by the way, the recipient who would refuse voluntary charity typically will not go to the government for assistance either). The charity organization can rightfully place conditions on receipt of assistance, attending a church service, assisting other families, whatever they believe is required to insure that the assistance is a hand up and not a hand out.
The current target for the government redistribution group are those that make over $250,000 per year. Regardless of what those particular individuals do, like create jobs by starting businesses, what is the likely outcome? People will quit striving to increase their income beyond that threshold. As individuals realize that they will get screwed out of their money beyond a certain point, they will quit exceeding it. This will force the government to lower the threshold, which results in more individuals stopping short of the new bar. Eventually, the most productive members of society quit producing as they know that they will be punished for their productivity.
I said that I would get back to income versus wealth, notice that the target is the individuals who are productive (income is money received for work). Redistributing wealth would expose what people refer to as "limousine liberals" to their own ideals. Wealth is "an abundance of valuable possessions or money" which is very different from income. If we move into the realm of redistributing wealth instead of income, now your retirement investments are at risk of being given to someone "in need", your savings account is now fair game, the second car, a second home, all of it is now targeted for confiscation at the point of a gun.
It is not your "duty" as a citizen of the United States of America to work every day for the benefit of others. Your duties are first to yourself and your family both near and long term (investing for the future). If you have income left after that to assist others of your choosing, then you are free to do so. Government confiscation of your income is a violation of the Constitution; the Bill of Attainder clause in Article 1 Section 9 as well as the involuntary servitude clause in the 13th Amendment. Unless, of course, productivity and the right to the fruits of one's own labor is deemed to be criminal.

07 October 2010

Education or Indoctrination

With the federal government now discussing the possibility of getting involved in the credential process for post secondary education, it is time to discuss the reality of the current situation and the likely motive for this latest round of "hope and change". The education system in this country used to be second to none and, while the post secondary system is still top tier, as evidenced by the number of foreign born students, it won't be for long if the Department of Education gets entrenched.
Currently, post secondary schools in this country are indirectly controlled by the US government, through availability of financial aid for students. Their curricula have to meet certain requirements which are indirectly "blessed" through the accreditation systems. Currently, the biggest threat to a college or university is the loss of funding if they are pushing curriculum options that are considered politically incorrect.
Now let's add to this the ability for the federal leviathan to directly control the accreditation system and have all components of the curriculum subjected to the whim of some unelected bureaucrat with delusions of grandeur. We will end up doing to the post secondary system what has been systematically done to the K-12 system in this country. We will no longer have a system of education, it will purely a system of indoctrination into the progressive leviathan mind-set. It would be impossible to get a degree in anything without at least outwardly ascribing to the wonders of collectivism and everything that goes with it.
The post secondary education system in this country is already polluted with a bevy of progressive elitists who pummel the impressionable minds of our children with one-sided orthodoxy. Philosophy curriculum do not include studies of Aristotle's work, science curriculum involves memorization of random facts instead of leading students to their own discovery and understanding. The post secondary system, particularly state schools, is already rotting from within and does not need any assistance from the establishment bureaucrats.
The K-12 system in this country has achieved the status of truly pathetic in a number of locales. Abstract concepts are taught long before the basic facts are taught. Add to that the drive for social indoctrination, kindergarteners being "taught" about homosexuality and environmentalism, and you now have a recipe for crippling the minds of our children. If you are part of the establishment elite, this works out beautifully, since you don't want a general public capable of thinking for itself.
If you would like an indication of where this all leads, read Orwell's 1984 and Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron". This will give you a nice insight into the dystopian future that we have in store.