Who’s nuts the conspiracy theorists or the conspirators?

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government, History | Posted on 02-01-2013


Yet another secret of the US government’s evil doings has emerged. Why do people constantly think conspiracy theories are the musings of wackos, when it’s proven time and time again, the government has no qualms about destroying human life by the thousands and millions.

The United States and New Zealand conducted secret tests of a “tsunami bomb” designed to destroy coastal cities by using underwater blasts to trigger massive tidal waves.

via ‘Tsunami bomb’ tested off New Zealand coast – Telegraph.

These stories always come to light decades after they have taken place. One can only imagine the horror the government is working on now.


VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 1.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Is The Tea Party Over?

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government | Posted on 20-10-2011


The rising of the Occupy Wall Street movement makes me wonder what happened to the what appears to be the short lived Tea Party movement. I know. I know. They still exist. After all, they had a Republican Tea Party Debate.  That should tell you all you need to know about the Tea Party. They are a Republican caucus and a complete waste of a movement.

I may sound a little harsh, but what was the whole point of the movement. Unless I’m completely off base, the Tea Party’s one underlying message was to get control of government spending. They vowed to kick any politician who voted for TARP out of office.

Fast forward to the next Presidential election. Who does the Tea Party seem to be backing? So far, it looks like Mitt “Wall Street” Romney, Herman “9-9-9″ Cain, and for a short period of time Rick “Al Gore” Perry.

What are these supposed fiscal hawks proposing that will cut the deficit? I haven’t seen anything.  Have you?

Herman Cain just repeats 9-9-9 to every answer like a catchy commercial line. He has mentioned no cutting. He even says 9-9-9 is revenue neutral. Well, that’s great. So we’ll keep government taking the same percentage of the economy. On top of that, we’ll still be running trillion dollar deficits.

Romney, who constantly tells us he understand the economy because he ran corporate chop shops, then goes on to tell us he’s going to focus tax cuts on the middle class and the poor. Wasn’t this the Obama plan during the 2008 election?  He also mentions no cuts, although according to the Wall Street Journal..

Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, has called for an initial cut to non-security discretionary spending of 5%, or $20 billion.

Wow, that Mitt Romney is a real game changer huh? We’re running almost $2 trillion a year in the red, but watch out Romney is ready to cut $20 billion.

Lastly, Rick Perry, who was the darling of the Tea Party until he opened his mouth is proposing to cut…. Who the hell knows. Every debate hekeeps saying he’ll be laying out a plan, but has yet to do so. He does talk about energy exploration every chance he gets.  Not sure how that cuts the deficit, but I’m sure it gets energy companies lined up to fill his coffers.

Next to cutting the deficit, what was the next big issue for the Tea Party? Was it not TARP, the same issue that Occupy Wall Street seems to be upset about? They said they were kicking out anyone who voted for TARP. Well, how do the three candidates stack up with TARP?

All three candidates supported TARP.

Rick Perry is smart enough to at least lie about that support now, although it’s hard to lie after you sent a letter of your approval. Romney and Cain on the other hand still say they support it. Now, they claim that at the time they thought it was the right thing to do. Of course, they would have done it better. They would have not given as much to one bank and instead gave more to another. Now I see why the Tea Party thinks these guys are great.

What the candidates are basically saying is they would do TARP II when Wall Street comes knocking for another bailout. They are not against TARP because it’s fundamentally immoral and ineffective. They are not against TARP because it bails out the unproductive by stealing money from the productive. No, they are against the way TARP was handled, but only after Obama took it over. They would have bailed out the bankers, but they would not have bailed out those evil car companies, like that makes a dime’s worth of difference to our fiscal situation.

There is one candidate who has propose substantial cuts and was against TARP. That candidate is Ron Paul, who proposed $1 trillion in cuts his first year. He’s a guy who is literally talking about shrinking government, as his plan cuts five federal departments. He even threw in his own salary as President, knocking down the President’s pay to the median household income.


On TARP, Ron Paul was against TARP from the get go. If you know Ron Paul, you know he would be against TARP before it was even conceived. His beliefs are constant. You don’t need to question which way he’s going to fall on some government proposal. You know, because you know his beliefs.

So does the Tea Party back Ron Paul. Yeah, right. They have shown their true colors. The Tea Party is over. It’s nothing more than a rebranding of the Grand Old Party (GOP).

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Is This A Revolution?

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government, History | Posted on 02-11-2010


The word revolution seems to get bandied about regularly at election time. Currently, the Tea Party is considered by many to be a coming revolution, but is it really?

When you talk to about revolution, the American Revolution stands as the greatest example. For those who are a little more historical, they may also look at the French Revolution as another revolution. They typically will explain that the French Revolution was a bad revolution, where the excitement of the people took over the ideology of revolution leading to the beheading and murder of many and ultimately to tyranny.

While I don’t want to get into the particulars of each revolution, there are a few things that stick out to me that separate the two.

The dictionary definition of revolution is “an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.”

Within this definition, you can see what separates the two revolutions. One was a repudiation and the other was an overthrow. Why did they differ?

The American Revolution was basically a secession, much like the south did prior to the civil war. The colonies, based on their declared belief “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”, decided to break ties or secede from the Britain. The government they were seceding from resided across the Atlantic. This provided an easy demarcation for the colonies. It gave them an area to defend against the coming invasion by those they just distinguished themselves from.

With the French Revolution,  you did not have this. The French rulers and the people resided in the same borders. This would make it much harder for a separation. In France, they decided to overthrow the government. Apparently, they didn’t believe repudiation was going to be possible. This leads to the second distinction.

I constantly hear people talk about peaceful revolution. They say let this, our current supposed revolution, be a revolution of ideas. The problem here is they are making it sound as if during the American Revolution we had violent revolution and somehow we are doing it different. The American Revolution was a peaceful revolution until the British crown decided to use violence against the colonies. The colonies didn’t look for over throw. The colonies wrote a document declaring why they were separating. They did not go waging war or violence against the government. The French Revolution was starkly different. It was waged in violence by those looking for a change in government.

At it’s roots, these two revolutions were fundamentally different. One was righteous while the other was violent. One was a revolution of secession, while the other was a revolution in blood. The Founders revolted by withdrawing their consent, while the French revolted by murdering the rulers. These are the fundamental differences between the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

So, which type of revolution is the Tea Party? I would have to say neither. While they love to quote the Founders and talk about revolution, there is nothing revolutionary here. They are not against oppressive government. They are for a little less oppressive government. They aren’t against a government’s idiotic drug war. They aren’t against our idiotic foreign wars. They aren’t against a legal plunder like welfare, Medicare, or social security. They are only against additional legal plunder. Ask most Tea Party participants if they want to get rid of any of these programs, and I bet the majority do not. For example, Real Time with Bill Maher had it’s first Tea Party person on the show. Did she represent a revolution? She said she would not cut one dime from military spending. She railed against new spending, but she had no fundamental disbelief in government plunder. She didn’t call for the ending of any government programs. She called for nothing revolutionary.

I guess what I’m really saying is while the media may like to hype of the Tea Party, one side saying they are a coming revolution for good governance, while the other side thinks they are a bunch of hicks wanting to take down a black President, neither side is right. They are not revolutionary. They are not looking for any real changes in our current government or the course we are heading. They are not looking to repudiate our government nor overthrow it.

If you are hoping for a sea change in our government, don’t hold your breathe, because all and all, this is no revolution.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

But How Would They Get Their Mail

Posted by Jason | Posted in Economics, Government | Posted on 24-10-2010


The other week I was debating a guy on Facebook, who was telling me how government has to provide certain services. I’m pretty sure it began because of the Tennessee fire fighters watching a house burn down. Of course as most of these arguments go, the Postal Service was brought up.

The argument he was making was that the private sector would not deliver mail because it is not profitable for them. I mentioned that I used to work at UPS whenever they first went public (this was my first IT job). I specifically remembered that UPS wanted to get into mail delivery, but of course I was told I was just flat wrong. Apparently, my own memory, the reality I was living in, is just propaganda.

I was told I was wrong because UPS and Fedex could not profitably deliver mail to certain neighborhoods. Yeah, it would work out for most New Yorkers, but how about the little people in Alaska (his term not mine)? While, I’m sure he felt good that he was looking out for the “little people”, is he really? I asked why a person in Iowa should have to subsidize mail for someone who chooses to live in Alaska. Of course that fell on deaf ears. He then proceed to tell me those who live east of Pittsburgh (where I’m from) would be lucky to get mail twice a week if left to the free market. As you can tell, now it is not whether the free market would deliver mail. It’s whether it would deliver it as frequently as some anti-free market thinker believes it should be. This puts to bed the idea that the free market couldn’t deliver mail profitably. It obviously could. It’s just a matter of how it would do it.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that some areas would only get mail once a week. Oh the horror. Bills and bulk mail only once a week. I’m in! We could even say once every two weeks. The point is this is completely arbitrary and whatever is profitable is what makes sense for everyone. If it’s unprofitable in the free market to deliver mail 6 days a week, then it’s even more unprofitable when ran by the government, which has no competition. As I’ve pointed out in my blog about profits, profit is what directs resources to the most efficient use. If UPS or Fedex could not deliver mail everyday to certain areas, it’s because those residents don’t need the mail six days a week at the cost it would take to get it there. There is nothing evil about this. These are choices that people make. They chose where they live. They choose what they can afford and want given their scarce resources.

Of course with the government in control of mail delivery, they just force those who make better choices, as far as mail delivery goes, to subsidize those who do not. Instead of a person who can be delivered to profitably being able to get the most out of their hard earned resources, say paying half of what they do for mail and using the other half to buy something else, they are forced to hand it over for someone else’s choice to live in areas where it costs more to deliver. That other 50% of their resources would have given them more for their hard work, and it would have created new production in the economy.

If someone wants to have mail delivered to some outskirt six days a week, they should pay for it. Why is this considered evil? As with most government arguments, anti-free market thinkers see everything as static. If mail isn’t delivered six days a week to every mailbox in the US, the world would collapse. This just isn’t so. If mail wasn’t delivered six days a week to some places, those people would adapt. If they really needed something, they’d pay more to have it delivered. If they didn’t need something right away, they’d let it come at regular intervals, which would be when enough mail has accumulated to justify the resources.

Also, this is the age of the internet. Why should most mail be delivered six days a week. Talk about locking yourself into an old idea and wasting resources. If the free market were allowed to deliver mail, it would have already innovated well beyond our current system. There is a good chance much of it would be paid for by advertisers since they are the ones filling most mailboxes. As far as personal mail goes, most people  use email, Facebook, text and that new innovation called the telephone to communicate. If something needs delivered urgently or someone purchases a product, they already typically use UPS and Fedex. Why? There’s a reason Dell computers don’t come through the post office. Ever see the first Ace Ventura?

There is nothing sacrosanct about mail delivery or the postal service. It is an old idea, whose time has passed. It is not economical, and actually hinders our progress. Private companies can provide everything people want as far as delivery services go. There is no service that is unprofitable that is at the same time a necessity. Profits only reflect the demand of consumers, and if there is no demand, there is no need. Unprofitable just means unwanted. I guess the best argument again the Postal Service, since it is unprofitable the way it is currently delivered, is no one wants it. Why should they be forced to have it?

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 6.9/10 (8 votes cast)

Fannie and Freddie Tab Could Hit $363 Billion

Posted by Jason | Posted in Economics, Government | Posted on 21-10-2010


According to the Wall Street Journal, the tax payer may be looking at another $363 billion bailout, but this time just for Fannie and Freddie.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s regulator said Thursday that the companies could end up costing the government $363 billion as they absorb losses from bad mortgages.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s regulator said Thursday that the companies could end up costing the government $363 billion.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency ran stress tests under varying scenarios. The best case, with improving housing prices, saw the government-sponsored mortgage operators drawing a cumulative $221 billion in taxpayer money. If house prices drop, the bill would hit $363 billion.

“These are not predictions; the results reflect the potential effects of a limited set of hypothetical changes in house prices, a key variable driving credit losses for the enterprises,” said FHFA Acting Director Edward DeMarco.

To date, Fannie and Freddie have drawn $148 billion from the Treasury Department under the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements program. The government took over the two enterprises in September 2008 as they faced a financial crunch.

via Fannie, Freddie Tab Could Hit $363 Billion – WSJ.com.

Why are tax payers on the hook? If these GSEs wanted to act like businesses with their profits and their million dollar pay packages for the executives, then they should be handled like the rest of the private sector, where you go bankrupt if you run your business into the ground. Of course, that won’t happen. The reason that won’t happen is the other banks, you know the ones that surround Obama, use Fannie and Freddie to sell off their crappy mortgages. They want their profits now, and they want the tax payer to take the long term risk. Add to that, the amount of money being made by those who are in government one day and running these GSEs the next, making millions of dollars a  year in the process, and it’s no wonder they won’t let these criminal institutions go under.

Does the media explain it to you that way? Of course not. They make it seem like something has to be done to save these GSEs, and they just pass the government propaganda along to the public. Jefferson was right. If I had to choose a government with no press or press with no government, I’d choose the latter. We currently have the former, so can we give the latter a shot now?

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

California Would Make Drug Laws “Greatly Complicated”, Let’s Hope

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government | Posted on 17-10-2010


California has a initiative on the upcoming ballot to legalize marijuana, and it looks like it has the feds worried.

Attorney General Eric Holder said the Obama administration “strongly opposes” a California ballot measure to legalize marijuana, warning that federal drug-enforcement efforts would be “greatly complicated” if the measure passes.

I was under the impression the government was supposed to serve the people, and it would appear the people don’t want the federal government kidnapping their friends and neighbors because they have the wrong herb on them and then throwing them into rape rooms to be transformed into life long violent thugs. Of course, Obama, who bragged about his youthful indiscretions, doesn’t care if the average Joe’s kid is thrown in prison for doing the very thing the President has done.

Attorney General Eric Holder has said the administration would continue to enforce federal laws against marijuana if California passes a ballot initiative legalizing pot in next month’s election.

Basically, “We don’t care what the people say. It’s our decision what freedoms citizens have, and we decided they aren’t having this one.”

The Yes on 19 campaign backing the California measure said passage “would kick-start a national conversation about changing our country’s obviously failed marijuana prohibition policies.”

Joseph McNamara, a retired San Jose police chief and supporter of Proposition 19, said in response to Mr. Holder’s letter that efforts to block marijuana use “waste billions of dollars” and are the wrong priority “in the midst of a sagging economic recovery.”

A great point, but one obviously the Feds don’t give two turds about. Look at their budget.

The U.S. government will “vigorously enforce” federal laws against marijuana even if voters next month make California the first state to legalize pot, Attorney General Eric Holder says.

via Holder Says U.S. Will Enforce Marijuana Laws – WSJ.com.

We see what vigorously means. They have militarized the police to storm into suburban homes with women and children living there, killing dogs, shooting at will, terrorizing American citizens.

There is a reason the feds don’t want to give up the drug war. It’s all that is needed for tyranny. They can storm into your house at a moments notice, steal your property, take your children, lock you up, kill you, create gestapo like networks to gather info on you, and lastly enrich themselves. They can do all this whether you do drugs or not. It does not matter. They can claim probable cause, and who the hell is going to stick their necks out to vow for you. If they do, they’ll get the same treatment.

The drug war has nothing to do with the people and everything to do with tyranny, so let’s hope that California makes this tyranny “Greatly Complicated”.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Go Figure. Texting Ban Having Opposite Effect.

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government | Posted on 09-10-2010


A recent study came out saying that bans on texting while driving have actually increased the number of accidents in 3 out of 4 of the states that put the bans in place. Is this shocking to anyone who realizes the government cannot regulate human behavior with one size fits all solutions? It shouldn’t be. Some people can handle texting while driving and some can’t. As humans we are all different, and the government has no business regulating our behavior. As with all human behavior, the free market can handle the incentives much better than government can. If people want to text, they can, but if they cause an accident while texting, they will be liable for the accident. This is nothing new. If you are negligent, you are liable for the property you destroy, including the destroying another life.

Of course liberals and conservatives, who want to regulate every aspect of human behavior to the point of making us all robots, have plenty of reasoning behind their belief that a ban on texting will save lives. They have the logic of a 5th grader. The problem is we don’t live in a static world. People don’t just stop texting because of  the dictates of some nanny wannabe politician. Instead, as I believe is the case here, they still text, but they are engaging in more risky behavior now, because they are trying to hide it. They are trying to keep their phones out of site from the prying eyes of the po po. This of course causes them to look down instead of up and out the front window, which obviously can lead to more accidents.

Why do people ignore the ban? Because there is nothing inherently evil with texting while driving. It’s not like we are banning slavery, which is obviously evil and a violation of an individual’s liberty and property. Texting can be a very good an productive activity in a car. If you are running late, you can text something that you are running late. Just think about the absurdity. Is there an exclusion if you are sitting in traffic at a stand still? I am guessing there isn’t, although honestly I’m not going to spend my time looking. What if there is another person in the car who is looking out the window with you and can alert you that the guy in front of you is breaking (My wife does this when I’m not texting. It’s annoying).

One size fits all laws never take in consideration the many factors that are involved in every human activity. Instead, government, in it’s attempt to turn us into robots, drives perfectly fine human behavior underground. They turn us all into outlaws.

Well, at least a study has come out and showed us the error of our ways. I’m sure this ban will be repealed. Right?

LaHood Weighs Urging Ban on All Driver Phone Use in Cars

Eh boy. Go figure. The problem isn’t the ban. The problem is it needs to be federal law. It needs to be one size fits all across 300 million people.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Does The Tennessee Fire Really Prove Libertarians and Free Markets Are Wrong?

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government | Posted on 06-10-2010


Having seen a complete smearing of the free market and libertarianism because of this Tennessee fire fiasco, I figured I should chime in with my four cents (two cents just aren’t what they once were thanks to the Fed). The argument goes that because the government charged a $75/year fee for fire protection and then stood idly by while someone’s house burnt to the ground, that this somehow was a complete destruction of all libertarian and free market thought. Well, let’s break down what happened and see if the free market is to blame or the government.

First let’s look at the actual act. The house caught on fire, and then the fire fighters drive to the fire and disgustingly just stand by watching as it burns to the ground. Is this the fault of the free market? These guys after all are government employees. It does not matter if they are volunteers or not, they are still government employees. If I intern for a company for free, I’m still considered an employee of that company during my intern.

So if the people who stood idly by while the house needlessly burnt to the ground were all government employees, how could this be misconstrued as an example of the free market or libertarian though? Well, it’s because the home owner was supposed to pay a $75 fee to the neighboring government for fire services and did not. Does that act of paying a fee to the government immediately make the government a free market player? Are competitors allowed to freely enter the market? What about inside the borders where fire services are included in the property tax? Can people choose to withhold their taxes and pick their own fire service? Of course not. Every aspect of this was government from the borders created, the laws that dictated the fire fighters could not put the fire out, and the fire fighters who twiddled their thumbs while a man’s home burned.

Was there any aspect of the free market involved? Well, there was the insurance company. You know, those evil bastards who look for any excuse to not pay your claim. I bet they used this whole not paying $75 to refuse this poor family’s claim.

The family has coverage with Farm Bureau Insurance through local agent, Josh Simmons, who raced to the scene of the fire as soon as he learned about it. Simmons says the insurance company would not refuse or reduce payouts on the fire loss just because the fee has not been paid.

Simmons said he knows of one other time this has happened. He said the insurance policy has a provision for a reduction in payouts if a fire protection service has not been subscribed but that the insurer has not enforced that in these situations.

Tennessee Tragedy: Family Had No Fire Service But Had Some Insurance.

Hmmm, so the one free market actor in this situation actually was the one that stepped up in the family’s time of need. Now I’m sure Josh Simmons, the agent, really wanted to help, being a neighbor and all, but why would the insurance company do this? I thought they only cared about profits, and they’d look for any reason to screw the home owner in pursuit of those profits. Well, the former is much more true than the latter.

Companies do only care about profits. Profits after all are societies reward to companies for delivering what society wants. Now, the question is what is more profitable to the insurance company? Would it be more profitable for them to screw the home owner? Maybe if they existed in a vacuum, but they don’t. In the real world, it’s more profitable for them to do the right thing. How would it look to the world if the news said, “In addition to the government standing by laughing at the home owner while his house burned, the insurance company piled on by refusing his claim. According to the insurance company, there is a clause in his contract that if he doesn’t pay his $75 for fire service, they are not liable for the claim.” Of course it would look bad, and many other customers of the insurance company would  go to a competitor. A competitor would say, “Look what Farm Bureau Insurance did to that poor home owner in Tennessee. You want to do business with us, not them. We care.”

Instead the insurance company did the right thing and will pay the full claim. Now they have a raving customer who will tell everyone that in this whole horrendous situation, the insurance company was the only one to do the right thing. As I like to say, “They stepped up in a real big way.” Other current customers of Farm Bureau Insurance will feel reassured they made the right decision in picking Farm Bureau Insurance, and competitors’ customers might even switch knowing that Farm Bureau was there for their client. All of this will increase profits or as I said earlier, will be rewarded by society.

Now on the other hand, will government be punished? They may get a lawsuit brought against them, but I doubt that will go far. They will still be there. They will still be the only game in town.

So while the media froths at the mouth denouncing libertarians and free markets, just remember, in this whole government created nightmare, the free market shined through. The private insurance company stepped up in the pursuit of profits (that is a good thing), and the libertarian and free market thinkers were still right.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 7.5/10 (4 votes cast)

Maybe I’m smart enough to run Google

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government | Posted on 03-10-2010


I’m just saying. Eric Schmidt is just now figuring out “The Laws are made by lobbyists.” Really? You’re just figuring this out? It sure isn’t setup to protect anyone’s liberty. Look at our prisons, our legislation, and our courts.

Of course laws are made by lobbyists. The average Joe just wants left alone. The last thing he’s going to do is try to have laws written. Also, the productive in society do not gain by laws. They are already productive, and laws will not make them more productive. It’s only those who look to gain by government force that actually profit from the time spent on lobbying the government to take action. It is the inefficient/non-productive looking to siphon the profits of the productive class that have the incentives to lobby for laws.

I wasn’t looking for a new job, but I’m always open for offers…

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Lessons from American Violet

Posted by Jason | Posted in Government | Posted on 03-10-2010


Last night I watched the movie American Violet, which is based on a true story. The story is about a single mother of four, who is falsely accused of dealing drugs.

According to Wikipedia, it is very close to the truth, except for names and minor details like how many lawyers were on the plaintiff’s side. Of course the attorneys’ on the DA’s side say they didn’t act the way they were portrayed, but mostly it is accurate.  The movie is definitely a must see movie for those who are for the drug war or think it doesn’t effect them. Check out the trailer below.

About 10 minutes into the movie I’m already pissed off. Watching police swat teams swarming a apartment complex like they are waging war on the Taliban is something that happens everyday in this country. People need to wake up and realize the police state we’ve become.

The main character, Dee Roberts (real life Regina Kelly), is arrested at her job and not told what she was being arrested for. She assumes it is for the horrendous crime of unpaid parking tickets, but in front of the judge she is finally told she is under arrest for dealing drugs and will remain imprisoned until she can post $70,000 bail. I’m sure you can see why I was disturbed early on in the movie. The arrest was made with out informing the alleged criminal why she was being arrested. Is this America year 2000, or something from the middle ages? Next, her bail is set at $70,000. How is a single mother of four supposed to post a bail in that amount? What is the point of bail? I was under the assumption that it was to make sure they don’t skip town (meaning they would forfeit their bail money) or to keep an extremely dangerous person locked up during trail (ie. a serial killer). They could have set her bail at $1000, and it would have been enough for someone with her financial means to meet and still take very seriously. As far as a dangerous person, it’s obvious she was no threat to society. To top it all off, she’s left with a public defender who looks like the young punk that probably was a C student at law school (this is based on the movie for I don’t know what the real attorney was like).

Next, you will soon notice how inhuman we treat accused people in society. Dee Roberts is put in jail with three other women in a disgusting cell. They are treated like animals and made to see their children through little windows that look like something from a submarine. Keep in mind these are women who have not been arrested for violence. Even if they were guilty of dealing drugs, they were not violent. They are still human beings. In the long run, treating people like animals will tend to lead to more people acting like animals.

So, why would the DA do all this? Because he is incentivized by the federal government to do this. The federal government in it’s war on drugs gives money based on drug convictions. What’s the incentive here, to lower drug usage or to increase convictions? Of course, the monetary incentive is to convict. Add racism and poverty into the equation, and you have the perfect storm for what takes place every day across our country. Justice is not the ends of our judicial system. Money and power is.

As the story progresses, you will quickly see the abuse of power that takes place all the time in government. When Dee decides to sue the DA, she has child services checking in on her and she has a child custody hearing in front of the same DA she is suing. The DA harasses her former employer, so she can’t get her job back. After applying for job after job, she finally gets a minimum wage job, but quickly loses it after the DA makes a visit to talk to the owner.

As the happy ending comes, what’s the punishment for the corrupt DA? Absolutely nothing. It’s to be left to the voters. An now you understand why government corruption is a mainstay of governments. There is no real punishment for corrupt politicians. Who cares. Even if voters are intelligent enough to vote them out, which typically they aren’t, former elected officials usually turn into lobbyist who use their connections to curry favors for their cronies.

Finally, I’d highly recommend this movie to anyone. You quickly see the lessons preached by those who believe in liberty playing out. Government incentives always lead to lost liberty. Corruption is inherent to statism. Drug laws are used to create jobs in the enslavement of others. Justice is not something provided by government. Dehumanizing people is used to keep outsiders from becoming involved. Lastly, as shown between Dee and her former employer, government always pulls people and communities apart and discourages helping your neighbor.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)