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.
24 October 2010
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.
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.
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.
07 September 2010
Class warfare?
The popular media, statists, intelligentsia, and all other people with a collectivist mentality will push that there is a class warfare in this country. They are correct that there is class warfare in full swing today, but their definition of the antagonists is absolutely incorrect.
Through the indoctrination of children in the public education system, college students in the public universities, and dishonest reporting in the media, we have all been led to believe that the "class war" is all about the wealthy versus the poor. When the entire world was agriculturally based and wealth was a fixed quantity, this may have been true. The owners of the land had a distinct advantage. With the onset of the industrialized world where wealth continues to be created, as opposed to being acquired, this is no longer true. Any individual, in a free society that guarantees individual liberty, has the ability the create wealth through ingenuity and sweat. Thomas Edison, one of the most prolific creators of wealth in history, once said "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration". This man, along with many others throughout history have shown that wealth can be created and is not a static quantity. Therefore, as long as there is a level playing field, equality of opportunity, any individual can elevate their own financial status.
The class war in which we are currently engaged is the political elite versus everyone else. The American people have finally started to awaken to this phenomenon that started one hundred years ago. The collectivists have been slowly usurping this country and establishing their positions of power since Woodrow Wilson was president. While the collectivist elite (more commonly referred to as career politicians) has been slowly acquiring power, the rest of us have been trying to live the American Dream and provide for ourselves and our family. In the 30's and again in the 60's, the collectivist elites made huge strides in establishing themselves as the ruling class by creating large numbers of people fully dependent on the government. A large portion of them originally understood that this is not the promise that America holds, but you can't bite the hand that feeds you.
The elitist class now openly states that we are essentially not smart enough to understand what is good for us. The media keeps us distracted with stories about celebrities behaving badly, and the legal system has devolved into judgement of popular will as opposed to Rule of Law. Most people don't even understand what Rule of Law entails or even the difference between natural rights and government handouts. But there is a growing number of us who do and are speaking up.
Throughout the history of the world, liberty has been secured for the many by the few. It is now time that the few do it again. This country has been usurped by would-be monarchs that promise equality of results instead of equality of opportunity. Those of us that are standing up for individual sovereignty are not racists or any other vilifying term that the "ruling class" or media choose to pin on us. We are Americans who still understand that this is the land of opportunity and all we want government to do is to protect our individual liberty and leave us alone to live our own lives. We all need to be allowed to succeed or fail on our own merits. Liberty must be secured in this generation or there will be none for future generations.
Through the indoctrination of children in the public education system, college students in the public universities, and dishonest reporting in the media, we have all been led to believe that the "class war" is all about the wealthy versus the poor. When the entire world was agriculturally based and wealth was a fixed quantity, this may have been true. The owners of the land had a distinct advantage. With the onset of the industrialized world where wealth continues to be created, as opposed to being acquired, this is no longer true. Any individual, in a free society that guarantees individual liberty, has the ability the create wealth through ingenuity and sweat. Thomas Edison, one of the most prolific creators of wealth in history, once said "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration". This man, along with many others throughout history have shown that wealth can be created and is not a static quantity. Therefore, as long as there is a level playing field, equality of opportunity, any individual can elevate their own financial status.
The class war in which we are currently engaged is the political elite versus everyone else. The American people have finally started to awaken to this phenomenon that started one hundred years ago. The collectivists have been slowly usurping this country and establishing their positions of power since Woodrow Wilson was president. While the collectivist elite (more commonly referred to as career politicians) has been slowly acquiring power, the rest of us have been trying to live the American Dream and provide for ourselves and our family. In the 30's and again in the 60's, the collectivist elites made huge strides in establishing themselves as the ruling class by creating large numbers of people fully dependent on the government. A large portion of them originally understood that this is not the promise that America holds, but you can't bite the hand that feeds you.
The elitist class now openly states that we are essentially not smart enough to understand what is good for us. The media keeps us distracted with stories about celebrities behaving badly, and the legal system has devolved into judgement of popular will as opposed to Rule of Law. Most people don't even understand what Rule of Law entails or even the difference between natural rights and government handouts. But there is a growing number of us who do and are speaking up.
Throughout the history of the world, liberty has been secured for the many by the few. It is now time that the few do it again. This country has been usurped by would-be monarchs that promise equality of results instead of equality of opportunity. Those of us that are standing up for individual sovereignty are not racists or any other vilifying term that the "ruling class" or media choose to pin on us. We are Americans who still understand that this is the land of opportunity and all we want government to do is to protect our individual liberty and leave us alone to live our own lives. We all need to be allowed to succeed or fail on our own merits. Liberty must be secured in this generation or there will be none for future generations.
27 August 2010
Wake up and smell the feces
On a radio station in northern California Tuesday morning, there was a county assessor lamenting about banks that are entering into revised mortgage agreements with customers while continuing to pursue foreclosure. The result in some cases is that houses are being foreclosed within days of arriving at a revised mortgage agreement. In classic latte liberal form, this overcompensated government employee was pointing out how evil the banks are. By the way, he should have been on the clock, which means that the taxpayers are paying for him to do radio interviews. Classic progressive fecal matter intended to skew your emotions so that you feel sorry for the poor mortgagee.
While this is a classic case of "the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing" on the part of the bank, claiming malicious intent is dishonest and libelous. What this typical government hack fails to recognize is that government programs have encouraged the banks to put themselves into positions of being over-leveraged and providing mortgages to people who couldn't afford them. They never mention that sixty percent of the mortgages "redone" through the federal assistance program last year are already in arrears/foreclosure again. That was money well spent.
The Austrian school economists have been highlighting the risks inherent in government intervention in the housing market (Fannie, Freddie, CRA, etc.) for years and now that the chickens are coming home to roost, is it really the banks that are evil.
Whether there was malicious intent in the banks or even the government is beside the point now. The real question is how do we get through this. We need to allow failure to happen and flush the system. People and businesses fail all the time and the self-reliant learn from it and move on with a revised perspective on how to handle the next issue.
It is time to stand up and let your government officials at all levels know that allowing rewards to be individualized while socializing all risks is destructive and misguided. Forcing people to accept the risk along with the potential of reward will go a long way to correcting what is wrong with this country.
While this is a classic case of "the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing" on the part of the bank, claiming malicious intent is dishonest and libelous. What this typical government hack fails to recognize is that government programs have encouraged the banks to put themselves into positions of being over-leveraged and providing mortgages to people who couldn't afford them. They never mention that sixty percent of the mortgages "redone" through the federal assistance program last year are already in arrears/foreclosure again. That was money well spent.
The Austrian school economists have been highlighting the risks inherent in government intervention in the housing market (Fannie, Freddie, CRA, etc.) for years and now that the chickens are coming home to roost, is it really the banks that are evil.
Whether there was malicious intent in the banks or even the government is beside the point now. The real question is how do we get through this. We need to allow failure to happen and flush the system. People and businesses fail all the time and the self-reliant learn from it and move on with a revised perspective on how to handle the next issue.
It is time to stand up and let your government officials at all levels know that allowing rewards to be individualized while socializing all risks is destructive and misguided. Forcing people to accept the risk along with the potential of reward will go a long way to correcting what is wrong with this country.
26 July 2010
Encourage your friends and family
Do you really want to affect change in the American political landscape? Get your family and friends to vote in the November election. The sad reality of the situation over the last 30 years is that less than 62% of eligible voters actually vote in the Presidential elections and less than 40% vote in the "mid-term" elections in between. That means that no matter what the talking heads on television would like you to believe, nobody, and I mean nobody, has been elected to national office by a "majority of the people". That means that even President Obama, who the media pundits will tell you won by an "overwhelming" majority only got an actual 35% of the vote.
This is the reason that we see the offal that currently occupies public office. Not only do we have a significant majority of elected officials in Washington who have never actually held a real job, by that I mean a job that actually results in the creation of wealth, but most of them are elected by less than one third of the electorate. The only way to stop this travesty is to get the voter turnout above 75%.
Over and above the turnout, stop letting other people make your decisions for you. Do your own investigation of the candidates and arrive at your own choice. Yes, it is time consuming, but it is much easier now with the internet. There are literally millions of resources available to determine which candidate will uphold your views and, you can only hope, will uphold those views once they are in office.
When making your determination on candidate selection, make sure that you are viewing it from a "what is the proper role of government" perspective. Be aware that a large number of candidates, particularly the career politicians, view the proper role of the government as controlling all aspects of your life. The only significant difference in the two major parties is which social direction that control will swing.
Personally, I have voted in every election since the day I turned 18. I can't honestly say that I always did the appropriate amount of research in my candidate selection, particularly when I was younger, but I am getting better at it. Yes, it consumes a large amount of time doing actual candidate research, especially separating the wheat from the chaff, but it is worth every moment if I can vote for someone that actually believes in the original structure of the government. It takes even more effort to shake the brain-washing of the public education system about how great the "nanny state" is.
Get your family and friends to vote in November and let's turn this government back into one that is actually "of the people, by the people, for the people" instead of "of some of the people, by the political elite, for their own re-election interests". And finally, remember, if you don't vote, you have also waived your right to complain about the government.
This is the reason that we see the offal that currently occupies public office. Not only do we have a significant majority of elected officials in Washington who have never actually held a real job, by that I mean a job that actually results in the creation of wealth, but most of them are elected by less than one third of the electorate. The only way to stop this travesty is to get the voter turnout above 75%.
Over and above the turnout, stop letting other people make your decisions for you. Do your own investigation of the candidates and arrive at your own choice. Yes, it is time consuming, but it is much easier now with the internet. There are literally millions of resources available to determine which candidate will uphold your views and, you can only hope, will uphold those views once they are in office.
When making your determination on candidate selection, make sure that you are viewing it from a "what is the proper role of government" perspective. Be aware that a large number of candidates, particularly the career politicians, view the proper role of the government as controlling all aspects of your life. The only significant difference in the two major parties is which social direction that control will swing.
Personally, I have voted in every election since the day I turned 18. I can't honestly say that I always did the appropriate amount of research in my candidate selection, particularly when I was younger, but I am getting better at it. Yes, it consumes a large amount of time doing actual candidate research, especially separating the wheat from the chaff, but it is worth every moment if I can vote for someone that actually believes in the original structure of the government. It takes even more effort to shake the brain-washing of the public education system about how great the "nanny state" is.
Get your family and friends to vote in November and let's turn this government back into one that is actually "of the people, by the people, for the people" instead of "of some of the people, by the political elite, for their own re-election interests". And finally, remember, if you don't vote, you have also waived your right to complain about the government.
17 July 2010
Response to editorial
Here is my response to Dana Milbank (via email) on his editorial in The Washington Post on July 17th;
You are missing the entire point of the billboard and Mr. Sowell's piece. All you have to do is read The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek and he explains that collectivism in it's many forms leads to totalitarianism. The propagation of the socialist doctrines of the early twentieth century led to (and naturally lead to) Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, etc. Maybe President Obama isn't the totalitarian dictator yet, but he is definitely blazing the trail. He has a cabinet full of people that think that Chairman Mao was a great philosopher, which is completely ridiculous. As my grandfather and father always told me, "judge a man by his actions, not by his words".
In judging President Obama by his actions, let's see what we get;
1) Nationalization of two of the big three American automakers. One still under government control, one sold to the administration's favorite bidder. In the process of that take-over, robbing legitimate investors of their capital. - destruction of capitalism as outlined in many socialist writings.
2) Nationalization of health care. Even though the health care industry is currently invaded by government over-regulation. - elimination of individual choice as outlined in socialist manifestos
3) Vilification of Arizona for trying to maintain their own (and the rest of the nation's) sovereignty - the self-diefication of the federal government and it's leadership as warned about during the Constitutional ratification debates
4) Divisive rhetoric attempting to turn all "minorities" against the Tea Party - as perfectly described in The Road to Serfdom, it is much easier to unite the masses (in its most derogatory definition) against a particular group than for a particular agenda. The Jews in pre-WWII Germany, the kulak in Communist Russia, now people who believe in individual sovereignty as the basis for civil society.
5) Grand-standing instead of actually doing something while Deepwater Horizon spewed oil into the Gulf. As a real leader, he should have been coordinating honest offers of assistance from all quarters. Instead he is setting the stage for the destruction of the heart of industrialized advancement. All part of the destruction of capitalism.
As a result of President Obama's actions, I would say that the only legitimate criticism of the billboard is that it is missing pictures of Mussolini, Mao, Chavez, Peron, and Castro. The twentieth century is full of examples all over the world of the catastrophic consequences of collectivism in any of its forms, yet we now have a president who is kicking in the afterburners to get us to our own catastrophe as quickly as possible. He sees it as his opportunity to put his personal stamp on history, and as many commentators and world leaders have noted, it's really all about him. The most narcissistic individual to ever hold the office.
As for you and your editorial brethren at the Washington Post, you should all quit fawning over the chosen one and provide your readers with actual critical assessment of the current president instead of kissing his feet. Wait a minute, that means that you are setting yourselves up to be his equivalent of Pravda. I guess that you have already accepted the end game and are now trying to insure that you have a sweet position within the new totalitarian regime.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)