“Pony Up”? That all the taxpayer keeps doing!

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

http://ems.gmnews.com/news/2006/0517/Front_Page/031.html

State needs to pony up more funds for schools
Council supports bill requiring state to fund 25 percent of school costs
BY JOHN DUNPHY Staff Writer

***Begin Quote***

EDISON – Officials and residents alike are looking for solutions on how to fund education in the wake of the Board of Education's recently defeated budget.
*** AND ***

We may not be an Abbott district, but it doesn't mean we have unlimited funds," she said.

***End Quote***

Ahh, Mister John, tsk, tsk, There is no "State". There are only taxpayers. And, if you're telling us that we have to pony up more, then I'll ask you why?

What makes you think that the taxpayer can afford to "pony up"?

And "pony up" for a failed solution.

If I was in Detroit with a map of Chicago, then you'd know I was lost! But when we have a failed system like "publik skoolz", why can we see that we need a new map?

We certainly should have learned from the Communists that centralized state planning doesn't work. Our education model is lifted directly from the great socialists of the "education  experts". 

No, sorry, more money is not needed. I don't pay to feed other people's children. Nether, do I clothe them. So why do I have to educate them? 


Automatic 401(k) options

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200605/NAT20060517a.html

Bipartisan Push for Automatic 401(k) Plans
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
May 17, 2006
***Begin Quote***

(CNSNews.com) – Former vice presidential candidates John Edwards and Jack Kemp joined forces on Tuesday in Pentagon City, Va., calling on corporations to offer automatic 401(k) options in an effort to boost the financial security of middle and lower-income American families.

***End Quote***

As usual, when the two political parties agree on anything, you can be sure of one thing, it must benefit them.

Once again, the public is being "helped" by Mommy Government, backed up by the rules of Father State.

You're too dumb to save money on your own, so Mommy is going to make sure you are "signed up" from Day One. And, of course, Father State will make rules to interfere with the established employer employee relationships.

AND, it ignores the fact that "one size fits all" solutions are be their very nature not what some people need.

401ks can be subject to errors in judgement by selecting badly or failing to diversify because of restricted choice. DOn't forget that most 401k offerings come with high fees as well.
Now let's look under the covers and question why these two politicians are worried about you. Hmmm, could it be that the Ponzi scheme Social Security "Insurance" is broke and gettin' broker!

So there we have it!

We're being given something that won't work for most "for our own good" backed up by laws by a pair of politicians with something to gain. Hmmm!


Flood Insurance is welfare for rich people!

Sunday, May 14, 2006

http://www.boston.com/business/personalfinance/articles/2006/05/14/cover_yourself_against_flooding
THE COLOR OF MONEY
Cover yourself against flooding
By Michelle Singletary  |  May 14, 2006

***Begin Quote***

It's hard to forget last year's hurricane season and the lessons we all should have learned from it.

One of the chief lessons for both homeowners and renters: Consider getting flood insurance.

Here are two facts I bet you didn't know: Floods occur in all 50 states. And most homeowners insurance does not cover flood damage.

***End Quote***

Aghhh! One lesson we need to learn is that we are STUPID!

OK, follow along kiddies. Hey Mommy Government treats like you are too stupid to run your own life. Why shouldn't everyone?

Where does most flood damage occur?

For those who went to gummamint skoolz, it's the coast line.

Who lives on the water?

For those of you who have not looked into or dreamt about buying something on the "water", it's rich people.

What happens when a disaster happens?

For those of you lucky enough to not to have had this happen, the government cuts a check and you rebuild.

What happens after you rebuild?

Get another flood insurance policy and wait for another disaster. Most people when they rebuild build something better.

Who pays for the flood insurance program?

Everyone who buys it and the taxpayers.

What if you never have a loss?

You're among the losers in this game of rich people's roulette!

What if you're a poor slob, who can just barely afford life?

You might not buy flood insurance and cross your fingers.

So the taxpayer and the dummies who buy flood insurance and never collect pay for rich people to build and rebuild every better houses in dangerous areas.

Solution is simple. End this form of welfare. End federal flood insurance. If insurance is desired, the marketplace will provide it. If no one wants to insure that risk, (i.e., a New Orleans mansion next to the old flood wall), then why should the taxpayer.

If you can't end it — government programs never die — like a vampire they're eternal, then restrict it to one check per location. Rebuild in the same spot at your own risk!

Seems simple to me? 


A Libertarian solution to the “illegal immigrant problem”!

Sunday, May 14, 2006

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2006/tle367-20060514-03.html  

***Begin Quote***

The simple solution is to require welfare recipients, public school students and recipients of government medical care handouts to PROVE that they are US Citizens.
***End Quote***

It's obvious to any Libertarian (defined as: I don't support the use of force to achieve social or political goals.) that the problem is the government "services". You know those things that they do TO us for our own good that we'd rather they not do. I find it amusing that I can't opt out of their "services". And, that I am force to pay for them.

One quick example. I use sugar. The government "protects" the sugar growers in the US with a high tariff which is essential a tax on me. I don't want to protect sugar growers. Look at a truly free market. Division of labor. The cheapest producer is the best producer. If I wanted to "protect" US Sugar Grower, then I could just "Buy American". My choice. If "protecting" US Sugar Growers was important, I coudl do it. I'm sure some smart advertiser could announce "made with only the best US sugar". They could put little American flags on the boxes. But in the end the US consumers woudl vote with their pocketbook imho. Government "protection" at the point of a gun. Government protection = no freedom; market protection = you choose. 

So when someone says  "illegal immigration problem, we have to immediately fire back "end government welfare". The freedom solution.

But if we eliminate welfare (i.e., checks; publik skooolz; hospital subsidy), everyone will starve, be stupid, and die! Yeah right. There will be no charities: feeding those that deserve help,  helping the poor, teaching those who want to learn, or caring for the sick. Hey gang, wake up, those things were originally done by other than the government before some one fell for the idea that the gummamint could do it better.

We have to recognize that Government Socialism kills. It did in the Soviet Union, a 70 year experiment in misery. Greed is good. It motivates people to help each other. We are a good and charitable people. Look at the 911 fund, the tusamni, and the Katrina efforts. The Government is inept, corrupt, and stupid. Let's trust ourselves. Who do you want to rely on WalMart or FEMA?


Homeland Security took this fellow’s site and whole bunch more

Saturday, May 13, 2006

http://grigorioneurope.wordpress.com/2006/05/13/homeland-security-stole-my-site/

***Begin Quote***

I go to my web host's site – 2MHost; after this ordeal I won't give them the honour of a direct link – and look for a phone number. None to be found. I suddenly lose all my faith in the up until now fairly reliable host. I get onto their Live Chat, wait for about 10 minutes for the guy to tell me what the hell has happened. Then get a canned response to the effect that the US Department of Homeland Security (there it is, oh {Expletive Deleted}!) has confiscated their hard drives. 'Objectionable material'. Possibly terrorist documents? 'We don't think we will get them back in a timely manner so we have restarted all logins with blank accounts …. 3 months free hosting to compensate'. Oh thanks. Three months hosting what? I have no files.

*** AND ***

Thanks for that watercooler. It does look like that Democrats site was hosted by the same company, 2M Host.

Hopefully they can put some pressure on the DHS or ask some questions. I completely agree with what those guys said about giving reasons for the seizure. Of course I understand what needs to be done needs to be done – if it was some kind of terrorist data or child porn – but a reason would be nice.

***End Quote***

See Big Government Law#3, "Big Government Programs create new problems (aka Unintended Consequences)"!

For anyone involved in technology as a provider or user, backup, backup, and then backup again. For content creators not to have all their content stored all over the place, local and onnet and offsite and in lots of places is inexcusable.

See in my mind the villians of this piece is into DHS or whatever unnatural disaster that happened. No the bad guys are the author and the service provider. Either or both could have made this a non-event.

In my mind, you would think that one service provider would have a reciprocal agreement with another for recovery.


REALID in NH, a battle for the soul of the American Revolution

Saturday, May 13, 2006

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060512/REPOSITORY/605120346/1037/48HOURS

***Begin Quote***

Kurk, a Weare Republican, has been among the most vocal opponents of Real ID. When two-thirds of the House voted in favor of bucking the program, he earned the praise of privacy advocates, those who favor limited government and a group of Christians who believe a national ID card is the Biblical "mark of the beast" and, thus, a harbinger of the Apocalypse.

*** AND ***

Real ID has also upset the National Governor's Association and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, who predict it will be too costly and time-consuming for many states.

*** AND ***

The federal law, he said, allows the government to change the rules, and could eventually to lead to licenses with computer chips or a national database of citizens.  

***End Quote***

This is right out of a WWII spy move. "Vere isss you pape ers?"

First kiss your privacy goodbye. Just as we couldn't have had "identity theft" without the social security number. Remember that was "never to be used for identification". Yeah, another government assurance! I remember that was printed on my first socsec card. "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES"! Yeah right. Sure. I'd formulate a Sixth Iron Law of Big Government: "Don't believe any assurance that you are given." The AMT (alternative minimum tax) was to catch the rich people cheating by paying no taxes. Now more people are caught by the AMT. And Intelligent Designer forbid you sell something big.

Why do we need any gummamint id at all?

Functionality? Cost estimates? Refer to Harry Browne's Five Iron Laws of Big Government

1. Big Government Programs don't work (But never end!)
2. Big Government Programs often make things worse for the very people they're intended to help (Government Help is like Jumbo Shrimp)
3. Big Government Programs create new problems (aka Unintended Consequences)
4. Big Government Programs are costly and wasteful (Multiply all estimates by VXCM or infinity)
5. Big Government Programs divert money and energy from positive, productive uses (Broken window fallacy)

Don't believe "could". It will!


Honor Mother’s Day by bringing all “our” boys and girls home from everywhere overseas!

Saturday, May 13, 2006

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woolley/woolley20.html

Happy Mother’s Day
by Miles Woolley
May 13, 2006

Miles Woolley is a disabled Vietnam veteran living in Miami, Florida. He served with the 9th Infantry Division in The Mekong Delta in a Ranger unit doing reconnaissance 1968–69 where he received a gunshot wound to the head leaving one side severely paralyzed. He is a father of four grown children and grandfather of seven, including a set of triplets.

***Begin Quote***

So as Mother’s Day approaches and I see that our death toll in the Iraq war has reached nearly 2500 Americans, I reflect on all the mothers who will not have their son or daughter to be with them this year and how difficult it must be for them. I imagine the pain is like someone took a spoon and scooped out every good feeling and memory of their child and just threw it onto the ground. What must hurt is the area in their souls or bodies where the good feelings and love they had for their child used to be.

Can we now stand up to our moronic leaders and say Enough! Have we not lost enough Americans and caused enough pain?

To all the mothers who have their children safely back and can appreciate the joy of watching them grow into mature citizens, have a very happy Mother’s Day! Enjoy your good fortune and if you are so lucky, enjoy your grandchildren. Take today’s opportunity and hug them all. Hug them a little extra just to ensure they get the message. To the mothers who know the pain of losing your child, my heart goes out to you. I was fortunate to have had a loving mother and fortunate as well to know that had I not made it back, she would have been destroyed.

***End Quote***

I have often ranted about politicians who send "our" boys and girls off to war while they sit at home safe and sound with their only care being reelection, how they can enrich themselves from the public trough, satisfy their contributors, reward their friends and punish their enemies. Fathers have to tell "Father Government" that their children are not toy soldiers to be squandered. Moms have to tell "Mommy Government" that their children are not the government's play toys used at whim and discarded.

Bring the troops home now!

From all the four corners of the world. Tell the world that this is a new era in America's isolationism. The world thinks of us as a "global bully". Great. Let's get out of the business entirely. If we are to learn anything, we have very few friends in the world. Israel, England, Canada, Austrailia, and possibly Japan. If countries think they can do so well with out us, let's let them do it. Time for everyone to step up to the plate for their own soverignty.

Oh, and let's get out of the UN. It's a failure that we are paying for. Not ethe Rights Comission with all the thugs. Financial corruption. It's the worst idea ever! Let us return to the dead old white guy's ideal of "no entangling alliances".

Moms and Dads have to lead this charge of our troops back to the US!

Politicians that don't listen, which is most of them, need to be sent back to productive work. Some general rules: Vote the incumbents out. Don't vote for a D or an R! When no third party candidate is available write in the catcher of your state's baseball team (i.e., Catcher's are the smartest guys on the field look at Yogi). If you don't have baseball team, or it's for a local election, write in the name of the busiest businessman you know. A local realtor would be a good choice. All else fails, write in your neighbor's name. Don't know your neighbor, write in your spouse's.

Stop the nonsense now!


Hillary Clinton proposes minimum wage increase tied to Congressional wage raises!

Friday, May 12, 2006

From http://mhaille.livejournal.com:

***Begin Quote***

. While I am not a particular fan of hers *, and I realize that there are economic ramifications to making a drastic jump in minimum wage that I don't fully understand, you really have to admire the beauty of that concept. It's a good thing I'm nearly as easily amused as I am pissed off. * She and Lieberman are still on my shit list for their stance on violent video games and music.

***End Quote***

Sounds like a positive feedback loop!

The FED inflates the currency. Congress raises the minimum wage. All the union and government workers make more money. All the federal non-union "executives" have to make more than those they "manage" so they get a bump. All the gummamint execs can make more than Congress so they get a bump.

Now, if Congress legislates a rise in the minimum wage when Congress gets a raise, the it completes the feedback loop.

When I was in injineering school, we waz taught that positive feedback loops eventually destroy themselves. Power increase means increasing power. Very quickly the whole thing melts.

Back to Hillary's latest "proposal", who melts down? The taxpayer (higher taxes), seniors on fixed income (inflation), non-union non-gummamint workers (higher prices), property owners (higher taxes), small businesses (have to pay higher wages), low wage workers (unemployed if wage exceeds value generated), and welfare recipients (they don't get more but inflation get them).

Great plan!

I got an IDEA! Peg congress critters and their staffs to a dollar a year. It's an honor to serve your country. They would have to rely on what they steal. They do that anyway. Just think, no government salaries, pensions, or paid heathcare. Double dippers could have TWO dollars!

Wow we'd save gobs and gobs of money!


LBTY: Gas tax revolt (Had enough yet?)

Friday, May 12, 2006

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060512/D8HI16JO0.html

States Weigh Cutting Gas Taxes
May 12, 12:46 AM (ET)
By ROBERT TANNER

***Begin Quote***

(AP) UPDATES with most recent state gas tax numbers; graphic shows state gas taxes and historical…

With a gallon of gas breaking $3 and voters unhappy, state leaders across the country are taking a sudden, sharp dislike to gasoline taxes, proposing to eliminate the levies that are a mainstay for road programs – or at least suspend them for the summer.

***End Quote***

Gee, I wonder what was their first clue? Maybe it was constituents coming for them with torches and pitchforks.

As blogged previously, I don't think we have any worries. They will not forgo this tax or any other without a fight.

Tax revolt? Count me in


LBTY: Father Faces Felony Charges For Rushing To Injured Daughter’s Side (Had enough yet!)

Thursday, May 11, 2006

http://www.wftv.com/news/9160265/detail.html

Father Faces Felony Charges For Rushing To Injured Daughter's Side
POSTED: 12:22 pm EDT May 4, 2006
UPDATED: 6:53 am EDT May 9, 2006

***Begin Quote***

NEW PORT RICHEY, Fla. — A panicked father who pushed past rescue workers to get to his injured daughter at the scene of a car crash now faces felony charges.

Karl Swanson of Holiday, Fla., told the St. Petersburg Times he got a call from his daughter's cell phone late Tuesday: "Listen," the caller said, "your daughter's been in a terrible accident. She's in critical condition. It doesn't look good."

Florida Highway Patrol troopers said the 48-year-old anesthesiologist drove into the accident scene, narrowly missing an emergency helicopter, then pushed past a trooper and a paramedic to get to his 18-year-old daughter's side.

Swanson was charged with battery on a law enforcement officer and battery on an emergency medical care provider. He is free on $10,000 bond.

"Basically, he made a very serious and stressful situation worse," Florida Highway Patrol Trooper Larry Coggins said. "When people just relax for a second and listen to reason, we always let them see their loved one."

Swanson's daughter, 18-year-old Krystyna, remains in serious condition at a hospital. On Wednesday, he defended his response to the crash.

"They told me my daughter was dying," he said Wednesday. "They told me to go there. So that's what I did."  

***End Quote***

I particularly note the arrogance of Trooper Coggins. "We always let them see their loved one" Well, isn't that big of them.

Who died and left them in charge?

And then charge him? Now unless the cop and "the rescue worker" have severe injuries, I am not so sure that this is an appropriate response.

You are not dealing with children or serfs. That fellow is your employer and you're supposed to be "serving" him. Has he been well served? Perhaps your attitude and "service" was less than desirable.

Now I give volunteers — the First Aid squad or the VFD — a lot more lattitude. They give freely of their time and effort for their community. The paid help gets a lot less lattitude. I expect superior performance. I'm sure that the dad wouldn't have had to push his way to his daughter's side if he was been quickly escorted there.

Arghhh!


LIBERTY: Raise gasoline prices to $10 a gallon! Another writer out of their mind?

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

LIBERTY: Another bozo wants to raise gasoline prices to $10 a gallon! Are you out of your mind?
May 9th, 2006

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/10/DDGNNIO05K1.DTL&hw=morford&sn=001&sc=1000

Want to change the world? Make gas $10 a gallon.
– Mark Morford
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Mark Morford's column appears Wednesdays and Fridays in Datebook and on sfgate.com. E-mail him at mmorford@sfgate.com.
 
***Begin Quote***

No wait, not 6. To hell with that. Make it 10. Ten bucks a gallon, no matter what the going rate for a barrel of light, sweet crude. That would so completely, violently, brilliantly do it. Revolutionize the country. Firebomb our pungent stasis. Change everything. Don't you agree?

{Extraneous deleted}

But, of course, such an idea is also, right now, absolutely impossible. It will never happen — not 10 bucks, not 6, not even a buck more per gallon — and not just because no politician on either side of the aisle has the nerve to come out and suggest that Americans might actually need to drive less, conserve and change their gluttonous habits. This is, of course, absolute death for a politician. Tell Americans what to do? Dare to suggest that they're doing something wrong or that their behaviors are destructive and irresponsible? Are you insane? This is America! We're flawless!

{Extraneous Deleted}

Another example: You know what would happen if guns — all guns, everywhere — were banned outright tomorrow? Well, right off, nothing much. Criminals would still commit crimes. Lawsuits would skyrocket. The NRA would shoot itself in the face in screaming protest. Crime rates would dance all over the map. It would be a little ugly.

{Extraneous Deleted}

So what? The rest of us can simply roll our eyes and laugh, evolve and sharpen and sigh, and wonder what great change we can embark upon next.

***End Quote***

Dear Mr. Morford,

NO!

Your plan is a disaster for liberty, a windfall to the big government statist, and proves to me that Californians must get too much sun!

First rule of political discussions is that they always generate more heat than light. I've been arguing for more freedom for a long time but don't have the sensitivity of a Mary Ruwart or the polish of a Harry Browne, may he rest in peace. So I'll try and be as gentle as possible.

Are you out of your mind?

Let's start with the fact that you can no more legislate the price of gas, or any other commodity. If the legal price is set lower than the replacement cost then gas lines will ensue because no one will make it. President Carter demonstrated that. If the legal price is set higher than the value it represents, then the sellers will be unable to sell it. At any arbitrary number, you will have created a market discontinuity that will make the Great Depression look like a boom!

It just seems obvious that you can't make people behave the way you want. If you have to force your ideas on people, then they can't be very good ideas. If they were, then you could convince people to do things voluntarily. See that is the problem with doing things by "law", you have to back up the laws with guns and worse.

So in the spirit you asked, here are some ideas that perhaps might convince you that freedom could work better.

(1) Increase supply

(a) Let's repeal all government rules in ANWAR. As a matter of fact, let's sell ANWAR to the highest bidders and leave the problem to the new owners. Maybe the Greens could partner with the oil companies to figure it out. Give them each a fifty percent interest and let them fight it out.

(b) Let's repeal all government rules on new refinery construction. And, then walk away.

(2) Reduce consumption

(a) Instead of raising the gasoline prices to $4 a gallon, let's eliminate all taxes on gasoline.

(b) Instead of making the price increase permanent, let's agree to make the tax reduction permanent.
Seriously, the only way to work with government is to starve it of it's life blood … … money.

You have to realize some key things:

(A) By uncoupling the dollar from gold in 1913, we permitted the government to inflate the currency. That means that the government can spend money without bothering to tax us.

(B) By hoodwinking us into the Social Security Ponzi scheme, we permitted the government to have an inter generational slush fund. That means that the government can spend money without bothering to tax us.

(C) By allowing the government to "protect us" by regulations, we permitted the government to foul up the economy and distorting the economy. That means the government can "direct" what we can and can not do.

Centralized planning did NOT work for the Communists. What makes you think it will work here?

Freedom doesn't require the government to tell us anything. The free marketplace allows peaceful exchanges that every one benefits from to occur.

In short, let's unlock the creative power of the free marketplace and put the government back in pandora's box.

IMHO,
a casual web browser

P.S.: After you have taken away guns, then get ready for the death camps. Don't laugh it can happen here. Can you say Japanese Internment, Lynch Mobs, and Waco? The Second Amendment is about the ultimate check on unrestrained Government abuse.


LIBERTY: Raise gasoline prices to $4 a gallon! Are you out of your mind?

Tuesday, May 9, 2006

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P150649.asp

Jubak's Journal
My 4-point plan to cut U.S. energy use
By Jim Jubak at jjmail@microsoft.com
 
***Begin Quote***
 
I want us to get real about wasteful, gas-guzzling vehicles and other stuff that soaks up too much electricity. Now, it’s your turn: Tell me how we can boost supplies.

{snip}

Raise gasoline prices to $4 a gallon

{snip}

Make the price increase permanent

{snip}

Create a national energy-efficiency lottery

{snip}

Use the remaining gas-tax revenue to shore up Social Security

{snip}

My suggestion: Sequester the tax money — I mean, really sequester it — by using the 75% that remains after my =

{snip}

Okay, your turn.

***End Quote***

Dear Jim,

Permit me to say that I enjoy reading your investment advice. Please allow me to repay that advice with some of my own. Stick to financial advice. Politically your plan is a disaster for liberty and a windfall to the big government statist.

First rule of political discussions is that they always generate more heat than light. I've been arguing for more freedom for a long time but don't have the sensitivity of a Mary Ruwart or the polish of a Harry Browne, may he rest in peace. So I'll try and be as gentle as possible.

Are you out of your mind?

Let's start with the fact that you can no more legislate the price of gas, or any other commodity. If the legal price is lower than the replacement cost then gas lines will ensue because no one will make it. President Carter demonstrated that. If the legal price is higher than the value it represents, then the sellers will be unable to sell it.

Why don't people recognize that there are "LAWS" in economics as there is the Law of Gravity in physics. Ignore the real world laws at your peril. Politicians in Louisiana repealed the Law of Gravity to demonstrate their stupidity.

It just seems obvious that you can't make people behave the way you want. If you have to force your ideas on people, then they can't be very good ideas. If they were, then you could convince people to do things voluntarily. See that is the problem with doing things by "law", you have to back up the laws with guns and worse.

So in the spirit you asked, here are some ideas that perhaps might convince you that freedom could work better.

(1) Increase supply

(a) Let's repeal all government rules in ANWAR. As a matter of fact, let's sell ANWAR to the highest bidders and leave the problem to the new owners. Maybe the Greens could partner with the oil companies to figure it out. Give them each a fifty percent interest and let them fight it out.

(b) Let's repeal all government rules on new refinery construction. And, then walk away.

(2) Reduce consumption

(a) Instead of raising the gasoline prices to $4 a gallon, let's eliminate all taxes on gasoline.

(b) Instead of making the price increase permanent, let's agree to make the tax reduction permanent.

(c) Instead of creating a national energy-efficiency lottery, let's just let people select the their own projects.

(d) Instead of using the remaining gas tax revenue to shore up Social Security, let sell the government's stuff and unwind social security completely. Chile did it. Why not us?

(e) Sequester the gas tax money! Yeah right. Maybe we can put it in the empty social security lockbox. That works so well.

Sorry about the last one, I'm an injineer and we think sensitivity is an electrical measurement.

Seriously, the only way to work with government is to starve it of it's life blood … … money.

You have to realize some key things:

(A) By uncoupling the dollar from gold in 1913, we permitted the government to inflate the currency. That means that the government can spend money without bothering to tax us.

(B) By hoodwinking us into the Social Security Ponzi scheme, we permitted the government to have an inter generational slush fund. That means that the government can spend money without bothering to tax us.

(C) By allowing the government to "protect us" by regulations, we permitted the government to foul up the economy and distorting the economy. That means the government can "direct" what we can and can not do.

Centralized planning did NOT work for the Communists. What makes you think it will work here?

Freedom doesn't require the government to tell us anything. The free marketplace allows peaceful exchanges that every one benefits from to occur.

In short, let's unlock the creative power of the free marketplace and put the government back in pandora's box.

IMHO,
a casual investor


LIB: Rockwell posits some excellenet questions … … (should be asked of every politician!)

Tuesday, May 9, 2006

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/british-dentistry.html

***Begin Quote***

Will he or you be the one to suffer if something goes wrong?

Who is going to be held to account if the plan results in deprivation rather than plenty?

What is the exit strategy for abolishing the system if it doesn't work?

Where is the guarantee that this exit plan will be followed?

***End Quote***

With all due respect to Lew, I'd suggest a few more.

(A) Where is the unequivocal universally agreed definition of the problem? It is not enough to say, for example, "homelessness", or "poverty" or "campaign finance".

(B) Where is the evidence that this proposal is a timely solution to that problem. Government and Politicians are great a providing solution to problems that are on their way to being fixed already only to make things worse.

(C) Who is going to pay? How much? And, who will make up the difference between your estimate and reality? The answers are universally the taxpayer, too much, and are you kidding. Estimates of cost are usually off by orders of magnitude.

IMHO


Why the politicians will NEVER ever take the taxes off anything!

Saturday, May 6, 2006

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/gastax-hustel.html

The Gas-Tax Hustle
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. 

***Begin Quote***

Congress toyed with the idea of a tax holiday on gasoline as a way to drive the price down to address constituent complaints. But, as you might guess, they rejected it.

Why, oh why, did Congress decline to give us a bit more liberty, aside from the obvious fact that they like the revenue and power? Well, we can't go too much aside after all: they like the revenue and power. From their point of view, why give it up?

Here is the New York Times's explanation: "it was rejected as unworkable, partly because there were no guarantees that the oil companies would pass the saving onto consumers, partly because the tax pays for federal highway projects, and partly because many Republicans say the only answer to the problem of high gas prices is to increase supply."

{Extraneous deleted}

But let's say that the price of gas actually fell in one day by 18 cents (federal level) or a total of 41 cents (if states went along). Can you imagine? Consumers would flip out. It would be a real consciousness-raising moment. "You mean to tell me that every time I fill up my tank of gas, I'm forking over more than $8 to government? Hey, guys, what kind of racket do you have going on here?"

Then there would come a time for the holiday to end. What then? That might really inspire a revolt. Instead of being angry at gas stations, consumers would turn their vengeance on the party that truly deserves the blame. The real gougers would show their face, and they are likely to be pummeled with rotten fruit.

{Extraneous deleted}

This is why government has a principle: never ever, under any circumstances, abolish a tax unless your life depends on it. You might find that you can never get it back again.

***End Quote***

Yup, they'd have less money to spend. We'd learn that the economy would work a lot better with the load of gas taxes factor into every single thing we use or consume. AND, perhaps we would finally realize that if we don't keep government under control, it will control us.


Gas prices too high? Why does the gummamint tax gas anyway?

Thursday, May 4, 2006

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul322.html

***Begin Quote***

If we want to do something about gas prices, we should demand and vote for greatly reduced welfare and military spending, a balanced budget, and fewer regulations that interfere with the market development of alternative fuels. We also should demand a return to a sound commodity monetary system. 

***End Quote***

Gotta love Ron Paul.

Let's start by declaring no level of government can impose taxes on any product. Let's start with gas and oil. That will immediately lower the price of a gallon by at least 75 cents.

We'll have to pay for it by nuking some programs. Let the gladiator games begin. There's a fixed amount of money up for grabs. Put all the special interests and their bought 'n' paid for legislators in a pit. And let just one emerge.

As an "unintended consequence", the price of everything transported by oil (i.e., trucks and planes), or supported by something moving using oil (i.e., workers that come to work or consumer who drive to stores) will drop like a rock. Faster than prices get cut at a WalMart. Betcha, WalMart's price come down fastest of all.


JPFO always remembers the Shoah (aka Holocaust) and it’s important for us to do so also!

Wednesday, May 3, 2006

http://www.jpfo.org/alert20060502.htm

***Begin Quote***

 – Taxes sap away as much as 40% of our income, a small portion of which can be relieved if you agree to _register your children_ with the federal government.

– You can be fined, jailed, or held indefinitely without trial for _thousands_ of administrative "infractions" as decreed by any of a number of unelected federal agencies (our "Boot the BATFE" campaign (www.jpfo.org/bootbatfe.htm) shows just how arbitrary those "infractions" can be!).

– We endure checkpoints, random searches, and demands for our "papers" on a regular basis ( http://www.papersplease.org/cases.html ).

– And just around the corner is the National Animal Identification System, which will require you to register your name, property and any livestock you may own, and you get to pay a fee for the privilege.

***End Quote***

The JPFO regards our Second Amendment as what went wrong in Nazi Germany. Just look what a few guns did in the Warsaw ghetto. There is a striking similarty between the Nazi gun laws and the United States gun laws. In order for a governement to kill its citizens, or the residents of its country, or the occupants of another country, it's necessary that they be unarmed. Visualize the brown shirts or the Gestapo breaking into a Jewish home to drag them off to the camps. Add one crummy revolver. Let's say that the head of household only gets the first one of the intruders. Pretty soon the you run out of intruders when losing one intruder per apartment. Look at the Liberator pistol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberator_Pistol (aka the only weapon that took longer to load, or reload, then it did to make). If you couldn't spit on it, you probably couldn't hit it. Imagine the Genocide in Rawanda or Dafur. Bad guy with machette meets poor slob with a Liberator. Result = sudden shortage of bad guys.

The question is what will it take for us to recognize a police state here in the US. And what will you do about it?


Sigh, the FTL boys don’t know that Heinlein was a libertarian

Wednesday, May 3, 2006

http://freetalklive.com

I was listening to the Podcast of FTL when I heard them chatting with a caller about Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988) and "Starship Troopers". RAH was the fellow who turned me to Libertarianism. I read his stuff over and over again. The hosts at FTL have "Starship Troopers" all wrong. It is about personal liberty! The book celebrates democracy, individuality, diversity, and free choice, in peacetime first; then wartime. The clueless high school senior evolves as a result of his choices and events to an adult, ultimately earning his father's respect. The book is a easy "hard read". Just from memory, let me hit a few high points.

(1) RAH in ST first made me question suffrage. In his alternate world, you are allowed to vote only if you have done something positive for society. Seems reasonable. Just being born, doesn't confer "wisdom" upon you. But, if you have to "pay" a stiff price for a "privilege" of voting, then you will think long and hard about the choices you make. RAH made the "privilege" universally available, everyone would be assigned something dirty, dangerous, and hard. You had to pay a high price in RAH's world to be allowed to steer the ship of state. An excellent concept.

(2) RAH in ST made me think about democracy and the popular majority. People cannot vote themselves into prosperity. They certainly shouldn't be allowed to vote away my past, preset, and future. It makes you think about fundamental assumptions that you have never brought up before. He brought up interesting insights in the "History & Moral Philosophy" class. I especially liked the dialogue, "My mother always told me that violence doesn't solve anything. Really? I wonder what the city founders of Hiroshima would have to say about that." It completely destroyed my thinking about peace and aggression. That led me to Ann Rand and the Zero Aggression Principle. Capital punishment, juvenile delinquency, civic virtue all got skewered in his world. He pointed out that there were millions of people already in America before the Europeans came and ruthlessly slaughtered these 'subhumans' on their new property. That made me think differnetly about such diverse topics as Columbus, the Spanish "missionaries", religion, and the Japanese Internment.

(3) RAH in ST introduced me to the concept of wolves and sheep. Only warriors should vote because they "know" the true cost of freedom. Very powerful concept. If you aren't willing to die for your country, then why should you be allowed to lead it. Today's politicians put our boys and girls at risk without that visceral understanding of what it means. With the backdrop of American's dying in VietNam, it hit home. I'm no John F. Kennedy fan, because he had the morals of an alley cat, but he did steer the US thru a dangerous time with Cuba and VietNam. If was LBJ who escalated the war there. And, while I'm no John McCain fan, I bet he would be more circumspect about using the military. Heinlein backs up wolves with the logic that "revolt is impossible". I always looked after that if I was being lead by a real "leader" with experience, or one with paper credentials.

(4) RAH made his military 100% voluntary. A unique concept. If a trooper didn't want to drop, he didn't have to. Far cry from today's all "volunteer" force.

He used the juvenile fiction novel genre to "sneak into" our heads with personal responsibility, non-aggression as opposed to pacifism, and objectivity.

Heinlein is pure American and IMHO his ideas are almost Jeffersonian.

"Correct morals arise from knowing what man is; not what do-gooders and well-meaning old Aunt Nellies would like him to be."

The book was a treasure. The movie was a joke. I beleive the hosts confused the two together. The book had a provocative depth. I learned and taught myself a lot as a result of it. Perhaps because RAH was an engineer, he new how to connect to a future engineer.

Stealing a line from the movie "Would you like to know more?"!!!!

###

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers


Why does any level of government have any business in the institution of marriage?

Tuesday, May 2, 2006

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200605/POL20060501a.html

Advocacy Group Launches Campaign Against Marriage Amendment

***Begin Quote***

(CNSNews.com) – A homosexual advocacy group has launched a postcard campaign urging senators to vote no on the Federal Marriage Amendment, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

***End Quote***

Would NOT a better question be: "Why is the Gummamint (Federal Government) involved in Marriage?"

One should question why any level of government has any business in the institution of marriage. Isn't that the province of the people and possibly the Church?

Why does one need the permission of one's government to marry? That's what a license is. Oh please, Mommy Government and Father State, may I have your permission to do this? It couldn't be rooted in the desire to keep the black men from marrying the white women? Remember we can trace most of the bad and restrictive laws to racial discrimination and fear of immigrants. The Saturday Night Special and Gun Control laws were designed to keep guns out of the hands of minorities and immigrants. In the days when immigrants referred to the Irish and the Italians!

No, the State should mind its own business. Was force or fraud used? If it was, then it has a duty to protect and serve regardless of what the Supreme Court says. (Remember the Dred Scott decision?) If not, so be it.

Butt out! The answer to the title question is "None whatsoever".


Evan Bayh: Abolish the Electoral College! (No, abolish dumb politicians!)

Tuesday, May 2, 2006

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/434527.html

***Begin Quote***
Evan Bayh: Making a stand on stewardship
U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana
Rob Christensen, Staff Writer

Editor's note: Even though the presidential election is not until 2008, potential candidates to succeed President Bush are already making their way around the country. When they visit the Triangle, The News & Observer will try to ask them a few questions.

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh was in Raleigh over the weekend to speak at the Democrats' annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner when reporter Rob Christensen caught up with him. Bayh was twice elected governor in Republican-leaning Indiana before being elected to the Senate in 1998. He is looking at running for president in 2008.

{extraneous deleted}

Q: Why do you think we should abolish the Electoral College?

A: "I think our president should be chosen by the majority of the American people. That is ordinarily the case. But in 2000, as we all recall, we elected this president with fewer votes than the other candidate got. I just don't think in the modern era that is appropriate."

***End Quote***

What a bone head!

Obviously, this Presidential candidate has never read the Federalist Papers, thought about the implications of the Electoral College, or taken a course in Engineering Measurements with Brother Austin Barry. The reporter and writer must have missed those experiences as well.

The electoral college is part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have representatives in Congress, thus no state could have less then 3. This ensures a republic; not a democracy. remember that the dead old white guys view democracy as mob rule and rightly so.

Thinking about the implications would expose a few hidden benefits. (a) The Electoral College presents the image of a plurality when the nation is closely divided. Thus, in 2000, 271 to 266 Electoral College vote disguises the razor thin popular vote. (b) It insulates the process from fraud. Stuff the ballot box in a red or blue state all you want, you'll only get that state's electoral vote.  In a popular vote, that's a problem. (c) What happens if a candidate dies before inauguration? The Electoral College will solve the problem. The peaceful transition of power is the hallmark of the republic. (d) The States are sovereign entities. They make the rules for their own state. They could decide to pick them at random like jurors. (e) It ensures that the President MUST campaign in the small states. Popular vote could be decided in the big cities, even without fraud. The current system ensures that candidates know where New Hampshire and Iowa are. Remember if Gore had carried his "home" state of Tennessee, he'd be president. Kerry lost West Virginia. Ignore the small states at your own peril. (f) A state or local issue could bring a big turnout for someone in one state at the expense of another state. Turnout rates don't matter ACROSS state boundaries. (g) [My personal favorite] A third party elector could influence the election in ways that have not yet been seen. The Repubocrats and the Democans split the Electoral vote 267 each and NH elects 3 Libertarians. Those three guys extract promises to increase freedom, lower taxes, and curtail the growth of government from one side or the other. Probably the side that would lose by throwing the election to the House of Representatives. And the Libertarians could care less after that. Imagine the howls of "we wuz robbed" from the losers. And, the "winners" wouldn't be that happy either! Love it.

Finally, as Brother Austin Barry could have instructed the candidate, every measurement has blunders and errors. We don't worry about blunders, but we do worry about errors in measurement. Every measurement process has errors. Count a deck of cards ten times and you won't get the answer 52 every time. And we know the answer we are supposed to get. Unless the good Brother, took out a card or two OR stuck in a joker. Different people can measure the same thing and come up with different "correct" answers. Counting votes is no different (e.g., Florida recounts). The electoral system does not mandate that the vote tally be exactly right. Therefore it makes no difference if you win a state by 50.1% or by 80% of the vote you receive the same number of electoral votes. This confers the benefit that we don't need an exact nose count. "Close enough" is good enough. Some places don't bother counting absentee ballots when the plurality is larger than the number of absentees.

So the dead old white guy continue to earn my undying admiration for their political construction.

And, before anyone glibly says "amend the Constitution", remember all the bone headed results form messing with success. Prohibition gave us organized crime. Direct Election of Senators gave the States unfunded mandates. Presidential term limits gave us lame duck two term presidents.

Don't mess with what you don't understand!

###


when a team full of NBA All-Stars can’t even medal in basketball, then one must truly fear for the future of America

Monday, May 1, 2006

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49995

***Begin Quote***

Public schools that can't teach children how to read or speak English is nothing new, but when a team full of NBA All-Stars can't even medal in basketball, then one must truly fear for the future of America.

***End Quote***

I like that line. We have survived on an abundence of natural resources, two oceans to protect us from Europe's insanity, and a small does of freedom after the Revolution. What are we going to do now?

I'd suggest: MYOB geopolitically speaking, a big dose of Freedom as oppose to the Serfdom we have now, and a return to an ethic of 'personal responsibility'. As both a Big L and little L libertarian, my suggestions are right out of the Libertarian playbook.

MYOB in all things but especially geopolitically. Stop mucking about the world. Democracy in Iraq that the Iraqi's problem. Nut job in Iran that's an Iranian problem. Hamas in Gaza that's an Israeli problem. Gay marriage, any Marriage ain't a Government issue. Drugs, stick anything you want in your body, but pay the costs. Government has two very minor roles: keep the peace domestically and repel foreign armies. period.


RANT: Income Tax and Taxes as theft!

Sunday, April 30, 2006

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Apr-30-Sun-2006/opinion/6704537.html

***Begin Quote***

Kicking off from there, "Freedom to Fascism" deals primarily with the basic question of the tax education movement — who owes the income tax, and why won't the IRS show us the law that requires an average wage-earner living in one of the 50 states to file and pay a tax on his wages?

Of course we do have to file and pay, in the sense that armed government goons will seize our houses and cars and paychecks if we don't.

But that's no different from saying you "have to" give your wallet to an armed thug who's threatening you in a parking garage. The question is why judges refuse to allow any detailed reading and discussion of the actual written statutes and relevant Supreme Court rulings in their courtrooms — witness the recent federal trial of Irwin Schiff here in Las Vegas.

***End Quote***

Do I detect a trend here? Are real people, little peopel, beginning to show signs of becoming fed up with taxation. Time for a tea party? 


They say he also consented to a search

Saturday, April 29, 2006

http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=29976

***Begin Quote***

Investigators went to the school and obtained his consent to search his person. They say they found a set of brass knuckles and a knife.

They say he also consented to a search of his vehicle, where deputies found two more knives and a pipe with marijuana residue in it.

***End Quote***

Nope sorry. No one can consent to a search. Put me on this fellow's jury and he walks everytime. He was detained pending arrest. They obviously had no probably cause because why did they ask for his consent. he was in no position to freely consent.

Furhter he has an Intelligent Deisgned given right to carry any weapon he chooses for self-defense. The "no weapons near a school" guearantees that the bad guys have no opposition when they seek to do bad things. Drugs, what a joke. Anyone is free, again with right that is inherent to all of our species, to put anything they want into their bodies. While I think drug abuse is "bad", I don't impose my opinions on others' by force of arms.

This story saddens me how we have lost our liberties.


“When parents’ values conflict with public schools” change the paradigm!

Friday, April 28, 2006

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/04/27/when_parents_value_conflict_with_public_schools/ 

When parents' values conflict with public schools By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist  |  April 27, 2006 

***Begin Quote***

When it comes to the education of children, there is always an agenda — and those who don't share that agenda too often find themselves belittled, marginalized, or ignored. Perhaps it was true, as Thomas Reilly says, that the public schools his children attended "reinforced the values of our home." But as the Parkers and Wirthlins in Lexington can testify, other families have a very different experience. When Kerry Healey says she wants her children "to be in an environment where they can talk about values ….. in a way that you can't always do in a public school setting," many public-school parents will know exactly what she means.

***End Quote***

Sorry to say it but the "gmmamint publik skoolz" are a socialist idea that were designed from the beginning to create cannon fodder and factory robots. It's an "experiment" that needs to stop.

In no particular order. It's racist! It's sexist! It's egalitarian! It's unfair! It's ineffective! It's inefficient! It's unsafe! It's dehumanizing! It's socialist! It's "one size fits all". It's not subject to marketplace discipline! It's a financial rat hole! It's social engineering! It's a class warfare! It's divisive! It's anti-family! It's anti-religious! It's union dominated! It's corrupt! It's inescapable! It's anti senior citizen!

Other than that it's a great system.

Oh I'm exaggerating am I?

It's racist! Can you tell em the black and white literacy rates? It's ok use their numbers. We know they are fudged but go ahead.

It's sexist! Boys get treated badly. Girls are pushed around. Both lose.

It's egalitarian! As cited in the article 5/6 of rich white people don't send their children to publik skool. Why?

It's unfair! The childless pay to educate other people's children. Why is that? I don't pay to clothe them.

It's ineffective! Even using their fudged stats, the results are an absolute joke.

It's inefficient! Does it take twelve years to not tech these people to read? They are out of school more than they are in. It's unsafe! Look at teen violence in skoolz. Skool buz accidents. Guns and drugs?

It's dehumanizing! More like a prison, ring bells to change classes like a Pavlovian dog. Justice in proceedings. Rights?

It's socialist! The designers like Horrace Mann wanted a classless society.

It teaches socialism! It's "one size fits all". Too smart;too dumb. Look at the boundary students. Handicap? Everyone is ADD and dosed with drugs if they won't sit still for the nonsense paraded as education.

It's not subject to marketplace discipline! No child left behind? When a business doesn't serve, the marketplace "rewards" it with a going out business sale. When a school fails, they give it more money.

It's a financial rat hole! Look at private preschools, there's financial and quality competition. Look at the parochial schools; even with one foot in a bucket, they cost a third of a state skool.

It's social engineering! The stat skool fosters worship of the state religion — state worship. Children are taught and trained to expect the gummamint to solve their problems.

It's a class warfare! There's a reason that the suburbs have better skoolz. And, it ain't cause we are all equal. The curse of low expectations is placed on all who enter the 'system'.

It's divisive! Parents fight among themselves to get the best, or any, education for their children. It's played by the state as a zero sum game.

It's anti-family! It contradicts the beliefs of the parents and the community.

It's anti-religious! It teaches state worship and Earth Day paganism. It sneers at the cultural and religious values. It subsumes the religious holidays and relabels them.

It's union dominated! Guess that goes without saying. Tenure in skoolz?

It's corrupt! There is a education industry that has grown up around the politicians – 'educators' – contractors. They've got a nice scam going and it keeps everyone rich and happy.

It's inescapable! A Catholic friend of mine can't afford to pay the taxes and pay to send his kids to the Catholic school. Then as the final kick in the <pick your favorite sensitive region> they teach his kids things contrary to his beliefs.

It's anti senior citizen! Why are seniors taxed to pay for skoolz from their fixed incomes?

Did I miss anything? Any redeeming value? Nope!


“jury nullification” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Thursday, April 27, 2006

http://feeds.feedburner.com/HammerOfTruth?m=1556

***Begin Quote***

A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based appeals court, in overturning the verdict, said a juror had had inappropriate communication with an attorney.

“Juror A” had asked the attorney during trial whether she had to follow the law or could vote her conscience because she suspected Rosenthal was growing marijuana for medicinal uses. The attorney told her she must follow the judge’s instructions to follow federal law or she would get in “trouble.”

“We hold that here the communication was an improper influence upon Juror A’s decision to acquit or convict,” the appeals court wrote.

***End Quote***

Interesting that people don't know about "jury nullification" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification. I guess that's why I never get on a jury. I do. It's a pre-constitutional tradition emerging out of English common law and I first learned about it in connection with the Peter Zenger trial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenger. It says the jury is sovereign. They can not only judge the guilt or innocence of the accused. But they can judge the law. Sort of like a one person veto.

Now, needless to say, the judge ain't gonna be to happy if you vote "not guilty". For example, in your opinion, the Drug Laws may unconstitutional, or they may be intrusive, or they may be draconian, or they may be just plain stupid. You may think that the cops planted it, or that the Prosecutors are picking on some poor dumb defendant. Or that the judge is just a horse's behind. Bottom line, for what ever reason, you can vote "not guilty".

My personal advice is if you do, keep your mouth shut. Do NOT elaborate. Don't discuss. Don't tell anybody anything. Just say "not guilty" when asked.

It doesn't matter if he was caught on video tape, recorded, and 22 people swear that they bought drugs from him. Just smile quizzically and say "I believe the defendant. Hence, I vote "not guilty"." and shut up.

There are cases where your fellow juror will report all sorts of stuff to the judge in their zeal to do their duty.

You have to be just a zealous doing yours.

:-)  "Not guilty" ;-)

Did you have a preformed opinion? Nope! Did you apply the law as I explained it? Yup! Did you go into the deliberations with an open mind? Yes! Have you ever heard of the FIJA http://www.fija.org/or jury nullification? Nope!

:-)

How can you justify your verdict? I heard the defendant and believed him.

Period!

Bet you never get called for jury duty again! Yeah, I know it's completely random. Just register as a Libertarian and see how often you get called.

It's a rigged game.


Professor Williams nails Oprah for minimum wage nonsense!

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49917

***Begin Quote***

Minimum wages can have a more insidious effect. In research for my book "South Africa's War Against Capitalism" (1989), I found that during South Africa's apartheid era, racist unions, who'd never admit blacks, were the major supporters of higher minimum wages for blacks. Gert Beetge, secretary of South Africa's avowedly racist Building Worker's Union, in response to contractors hiring black workers, said, "There is no job reservation left in the building industry, and in the circumstances I support the rate-for-the-job [minimum wages] as the second best way of protecting our white artisans." Racists recognized the discriminatory effects of mandated minimum wages.
 
***End Quote***

Dear Professor Williams,

As usual, spot on!

My own observation is that a raise in the minimum wage is an automatic pay increase for unions, government workers, and politicians!

I never get a raise due to minimum wage laws.

And, when I was running my own business (twice) where do I get my “minimum wage” from? I know that many a week I worked my tush off for zero income. Did I miss the memo of which “gummamint agenze” to submit my claim to? Interesting that because I formed my own business, I wasn’t eligible for unemployment “insurance” (another misnomer). If I could have kept all those “contributions” (nothing voluntary there), then I could have paid myself my minimum wage!

Any way just thought I’d chime in.

Thanks,
“student” John


“I vote small government. Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses.”

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

I've taken the liberty of reproducing Cloud's excellent advice. I have signed the Small Government pledge and I try never to miss a chance to toss an incumbent, defeat a school budget, nuke a proposition, or otherwise gum up the works.

http://www.centerforsmallgovernment.com/sgpledge.htm

***Begin Quote***

"Here's what the Small Government PledgeSM means:

I will vote for and support only those candidates who consistently vote for small government; who work to make government smaller than it is today. For candidates who have never served in office, I will vote only for those who campaign to make government smaller than it is today.

I will vote against and refuse to support every candidate who votes to sustain or enlarge today's Big Government – or campaigns for it.

I will vote in every federal, state, and local election. If necessary, I'll get an absentee ballot. I'll find out about the choices on my ballot – and make sure I always vote small government.

If there is no small government candidate on the ballot, I will either write in and vote for a small government candidate or leave the ballot blank for that office.

I will vote for every ballot initiative and referendum that shrinks the size, spending, taxes, scope, or power of today's Big Government.

I will vote against every ballot initiative, referendum, and bond that increases the size, spending, taxes, scope, or power of today's Big Government."

***End Quote***

AND here's the Cloud article that I thought was GREAT!

***Begin Quote***

IS VOTING UN-LIBERTARIAN? by Michael Cloud

A well-known libertarian scholar once told me:

“Voting is an act of force. Libertarians are opposed to force. Ergo, true libertarians don’t vote.”

His syllogism was, as H.L. Mencken wrote, “… simple, neat, and wrong.”

Why?

“War is simply the continuation of politics by other means,” wrote Carl von Clausewitz.

True, but libertarians recognize that the opposite is also true:

“Politics is war by other means.”

Voting is conflict by ballots, not bullets. Big Government is domination and looting by the victors. Voting is force.

But the argument misstates and misrepresents the libertarian principle.
Libertarians oppose the INITIATION of force. Libertarians recognize and endorse the right of self-defense.

For true libertarians, for champions of small government – voting is an act of self-defense.

I live by the Small Government Pledge:

“I vote small government. Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses.”

Every vote I cast is designed to dismantle, reduce, and remove Big Government programs and policies. At all levels of government: local, state, and federal.

Neither I, nor any other champion of small government votes to take our neighbors’ life, liberty, or property. We vote to reduce or stop Big Government aggression and plunder.

Voting to shrink government is an act of self-defense.

NON-voting is political pacifism.

And, for one who loves liberty, it is slow motion suicide.

But the political pacifists do not stop there. They insist that the rest of us surrender, too – stop voting in self-defense.

In 2002, Carla Howell and I put Question 1 on the Ballot in Massachusetts.
This Ballot Initiative would END our state income tax, put $9 Billion per year back in the hands of the men and women who earned it, and cut state government spending 39%.

Yet several ANTI-voting libertarians told us that Carla Howell and I are UN-libertarian, immoral, and evil for putting this to a vote. These paragons of libertarian principle told us that they refused to vote for it – because voting is force.

But the income tax is the initiation of force.

Voting to END the income tax is a vote to END the use of force. ENDING a tax is an act of self-defense.

We earned 881,738 votes to END the state income tax. 45.3% of the vote. In Massachusetts!

Would freedom have been better served if 881,738 voters had stayed home?

And wouldn’t that have made Ted Kennedy, Mitt Romney, and John Kerry giddy?

Anti-voting libertarians are the people who attack Richard Rider, tax cut activist, for opposing tax increases and tax bonds in San Diego.

Politics is war by other means. Demanding that libertarians cease voting is like urging Colonial Soldiers to desert George Washington’s Army in the winter of 1776.

In that hard winter, many American soldiers did desert. Tom Paine sought to rally and inspire those hard-pressed and discouraged soldiers who remained when he wrote in “The Crisis”:

“These are times that try men’s souls: The summer soldier and sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”

Aren’t you grateful that our colonial soldiers refused pacifism and desertion?

Because of their efforts over 230 years ago, you and we have the opportunity to move freedom forward.

[This is the first of several rebuttals of false libertarian arguments against and objections to voting. Moral and practical.]

***End Quote***