This morning on FaceBook, Dimitri Vassilaros, a local reporter in Pittsburgh, posted his question of the day, which was “How long should someone be allowed to receive unemployment assistance?”

Of course, there were the typical stories of someone that was laid off, and then there were the all caring liberals who love to say they care. The one commenter said they should receive unemployment until they find employment. Wow, that sounds caring. How motivated is someone going to be if they know they will receive free money for as long as it takes. I’m ready to get laid off just at the thought of it.

How long the unemployed should receive unemployment payments should be obvious by the name of the program, Unemployment Insurance. It is insurance, and as such should be no different than any other insurance. If I buy life insurance and I die, my family doesn’t have the amount raised just because my death may cause more hardship than I was willing to provide for. Why would unemployment insurance be any different? If you bought unemployment insurance that provides 26 weeks of unemployment benefits in the event of losing your job, then you should get 26 weeks, no more no less.

Of course unemployment is different than other insurance in that it’s ran by the government, which means it’s all political. When there is no restraint on how much money you can steal via taxation or inflation, you can buy off the unemployed with bribes of continuing unemployment. What these all caring liberals do not understand is that nothing is free. Just because you feel all warm inside when you say you want to help take care of someone who’s out of work doesn’t mean you aren’t harming someone else to do it.

To start, insurance rates, including unemployment insurance, are based on the chances of a person becoming unemployed and the length of unemployment benefits that will be paid. If you you arbitrarily, as the government does, change the terms after the fact, the money that was paid in isn’t enough to cover what is being paid out. Then who pays it? Well, everyone else in the country who is working and paying taxes and everyone else including children and those not born yet through the form of debt. Truth be told all of the money is paid by borrowing tomorrow production in the form of debt. In the future, the next generation and the current will have to work, not to reap the rewards of their labor and investment, but to pay for the non-productive time of those who were not working in the past. Is this really caring? Is it caring to enslave someone who has no say in their enslavement?

I said back in this post that neocons shouldn’t be too excited about all the drone attacks, because eventually they’d be used on us. Well, seems it has begun.

Switzerland has been the home of off shore banking for a very long time. People who want to keep their money off shore, are doing it to protect their money from the modern day mafia, the US gov’t. Well, not for long. The Obama administration has vowed to go after those who believe their money is theirs, whether it is at home or over seas.

The Swiss were not giving in until just yesterday when their parliament approved a treaty with the US that would hand over files on their clients.

ZURICH—The Swiss Parliament Tuesday approved a treaty with the U.S. that will hand thousands of files on suspected tax cheats to U.S. authorities.

A majority of 81 to 61 lawmakers in Switzerland’s lower house have voted in favor of the government-backed deal. Fifty-three lawmakers abstained on the issue that has been portrayed as a nail in the coffin for Swiss banking secrecy.

Tuesday’s vote passed after the powerful Swiss People’s Party dropped its opposition. A first attempt last week to have parliament approve the treaty was blocked when the nationalist party and the left-wing Social Democrats voted “no.”

Technical details remain to be ironed out and the proposal may still be put to the Swiss public in a referendum before it finally becomes law.

Subjecting the bill to a referendum would likely mean that Switzerland would fail to meet the August deadline set in the pact with the U.S. because of the months it takes to hold a signature drive to launch a referendum in Switzerland.

The August 2009 settlement reached between Swiss and U.S. officials aims to resolve a conflict between Switzerland and the U.S. over data on wealthy Americans suspected of using hidden offshore accounts at UBS to avoid paying taxes.

OK, now two things are going on here. Number one is that the American government is so tyrannical that they will go after your money anywhere on the face of the earth. There is no such thing as personal property. There is no such thing as doing what is best for your money. They will chase you down literally to the edge of the earth. If that isn’t tyranny, I don’t know what is.

Second, the Swiss Parliament is completely screwing their people. If they turn over the files of wealthy Americans, what reason do wealthy Americans have in the future to put their savings into Swiss banks. They don’t. What will happen is savings will dry up in Switzerland. This means less capital for Swiss lending.

When savings are built up in banks, banks, in order to make profits, lend out that money. They lend it out to businesses, who then will look to grow the economy. In this short sighted attempt to appease the US regime, the Swiss will be giving up those savings, and they will be giving up the economic growth that that savings would have stimulated. In short, they are screwing their citizens, because the US regime wants to screw it’s citizens.

There is no doubt BP has bungled the handling of this oil spill. What is even more bungled is the government’s back and forth trying to act like they are or even can do something about this that will actually help. Most recently, Obama is now calling for a fund to be setup to pay claims.

From the Wall Street Journal:

The Obama administration, facing growing public anger over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, plans to ask BP PLC to establish an independently administered fund for reimbursing victims—in effect, taking some of the compensation decisions out of the company’s hands.

White House officials on Sunday said they wanted BP to put “substantial” funds into an escrow account to cover claims by Gulf Coast businesses and residents affected by the spill.

President Barack Obama plans to bring up the idea at a White House meeting Wednesday with top BP executives, including Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg.

The call was echoed by congressional leaders and state officials. In a June 10 letter to BP released on Sunday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) and other Democrats asked BP to establish a $20 billion account, administered by an independent trustee, that would be used to pay the damages and clean-up costs associated with the spill. Florida Governor Charlie Crist and other officials in the Gulf Coast region joined the chorus.

It remained unclear how any such funds would be supervised, in particular who would oversee the compensation decisions. Administration officials on Sunday didn’t comment on the size of the escrow account they will seek, or on where money might come from. Nor did officials detail the legal status of the proposal.

Such a fund would provide a measure of security, proponents argue, for people concerned BP might file for bankruptcy protection or otherwise stop paying claims at some point in the future. It also has the potential to give the government or its designees control of distributing a significant pool of relief money.

OK, so the fund does not sound like a bad idea other than the “It remained unclear how any such funds would be supervised…”. That sure sounds like a nice slush fund for someone.

While not opposed to the idea of the fund, BP objects to the implication that if it isn’t required to set money aside, it might try to avoid paying it in full, according to a person familiar with the company’s position. BP insists it has the financial muscle to settle the final bill for the clean-up, as well as pay its dividend.

From BP’s side, maybe they do have the means to pay the bill. If there is no fund setup all at once, BP will be able to handle claims as they come, which will help cash flow. If the government tells them to setup a fund, and it’s required to be funded all at once, that could really harm BP’s chances of recovering from this. Cash is king, and if cash flow runs out, BP may be too tarred and feathered to raise capital.

Legal experts struggled to come up with a precedent for such a move. Examples of government-run funds exist, but they differ from the proposal facing BP.

Are we trying to act like our government cares about the law now?

In the early 1980s the government passed Superfund legislation that would create a fund to pay for the cleanup of hazardous-waste dump sites.

Through the law, the Environmental Protection Agency can compel the polluter to clean up the site or pay for it through the Superfund and sue for reimbursement.

Around the same time, the first of about 40 trust funds were set up with court approval by Johns Manville Corp. and later other companies with asbestos liability to alleviate some of the problems of lengthy asbestos-related litigation. But their creation stemmed from bankruptcy proceedings for Johns Manville. The trusts now oversee about $20 billion in assets, a sum that has nearly tripled since 2005, consultants say.

What they don’t say is this huge fund created an industry of lawyers looking to make millions off these claims. Instead of settling suites for those effected by asbestos, it was really a pay off to the trial lawyers.

Typically, corporations fund such victims accounts to settle class action lawsuits, although there have been a few examples of legislatively mandated funds such as the 9/11 victims fund, according to Howard Erichson, a law professor at Fordham University. “If the idea is to get BP to do this voluntarily, the question is what’s in it for them? Is there some liability protection in it for them?” Mr. Erichson said.

See, here’s the pay off to BP. While the government is trying to make it seem like it’s coming down hard, they will really setup an escape route for BP. They will put in liability protection for BP.

What I would like to know is why are we pushing to have a fund setup now? Did we not know there are risks involved in what they were doing, and shouldn’t we have planned accordingly? Of course, they didn’t because instead of focusing on liability they focused on buying off the government regulators. In a free market with private property protection, companies would buy insurance for liability protection. Insurance is the fund that would pay claims. Why is there not drilling rig insurance that pays out when something like this happens? My guess is there is no need for an insurance company to provide insurance like this, because government is used as the insurance.

Let’s just think about how this should work. If I’m BP, and I’m proposing to drill one mile below the ocean. One of the first things I should be thinking about is how will I pay claims if this goes bad? I better get insurance. Then the project should be submitted to an insurance company. The insurance company would have the expertise to evaluate the riskiness of the project. Then based on that, they would say, “BP, we are willing to issue a policy on this project for X number of dollars. Here are the things that we would require to issue this policy. 1.) You must use this latest technology. 2.) You must have this expertise on site at all times. 3.) We will inspect the rig weekly…..”. You get the picture.

Now, the insurance company is basically saying we are taking the risk off BP, and to do this BP will pay them so much money and meet certain criteria. The insurance company now must limit it’s chances of having to pay out claims. That is how they make money, and YES, this is a good thing. Insurance provide a valuable service to society, so quit letting the government smear insurance companies.

Anyway, so the insurance company will take actions to limit their chances of being liable. How will they do that? They will first take actions, such as inspections, to make sure that the rig is up to the highest standards. Also, they will develop clean up plans ahead of time, so they can quickly take action and limit their losses before the problem gets out of control. If they don’t, they run the risk of losing money on this policy.

So as you can see, this is how a true market works, when there is real private property protections in place. Instead, we have a government regulated market, where there were laws on the books capping the oil companies’ liability at $75 million. Why buy insurance or why provide insurance, when the government already said what your cap is? Oh sure, Obama is grandstanding and trying to make it seem like he’s coming down hard on BP. The truth is they will setup a way for BP to limit it’s liability. They will protect big oil. Even if BP doesn’t make it through this, the billionaires at the top have already put into place a way to limit their losses. Entities, government created of course, will be moved around, gobbled up, etc, but make no mistake about it. The government is and will protect their rich masters, instead of doing the one simple thing a just government is supposed to do, protect property rights.

In a free market, when people do not want a product, businesses have to adapt their products to deliver something that is wanted. If they do not, they will go out of business. This is a good thing, because it keeps what is produced aligned with what is demanded. For example, when automobiles came out, eventually no one wanted horse carriages anymore. Companies that didn’t adapt went out of business. You wouldn’t keep producing horse carriages when no one had horses and were driving around in cars.

Well, in modern day America this isn’t how it works. In the modern day United States of America, you just lobby the government to force citizens at gun point to pay for your product even when they don’t want it and you don’t even provide it.  Take for example the newspapers. Here is a business model that has been collapsing for years. The internet has changed the way people get their news. People can get articles from many different sources instead of just their local paper. This isn’t something that just started happening. The writing has been on the wall for a long time. So instead of adapting to deliver what people are demanding, what are the news papers doing?

The U.S. government has some creative ideas to “save journalism” or more aptly to save newspapers. Among their feel-good suggestions to help preserve the free press (paper) is to institute a 5 percent tax on all consumer electronics.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has submitted a multi-faceted proposal to President Obama and Congress. The FTC insists the proposal is “solely for the purposes of discussion”, though it expects aspects of it could work their way in to legislation.

The most controversial part of the proposal is to tax all digital electronics, including, but not limited to — iPads, iPods, iPhones, laptops, desktop PCs, Macs, netbooks, Zunes, Sansas, Creative MP3 players, digital cameras, video cameras, Android smart phones, Nintendo DS's, PSP Go's, Xbox 360s, Wiis, and the PS3.

The 5 percent federal tax, along with applicable state taxes, would bump total tax on these items to 10 percent or more in many states.

The proposal would suck in $25 per $500 spent on electronics goodness. The government would “redistribute” the $4B USD it hopes to haul in from the proposal to struggling print news businesses, who have seen their ad revenue drop 40 percent in the last decade as advertising has made the leap to the internet.

The full recommendation is available here [PDF]. Feel free to contact your Senators and Representatives and give them your thoughts.

Even if the government can’t find a way to enact a consumer electronics tax, state governments should help pick up the slack. Nationwide there's a wealth of measures looking to tax digital downloads such as iTunes tracks, video game downloads from Valve, and more. Critics say the laws will drive people to piracy, but advocates say they will allow the government to harvest much needed funds to pay for roads, schools, and police forces.

via DailyTech – FTC Discusses 5 Percent Federal Tax on Computers, Phones, and Consoles.

There you have it. Stick a gun to everyone’s head and  make them pay for newspapers, when they neither want nor get a damn newspaper. Instead of the person, who will have to pay this tax, being able to spend that money on something they want and that will generate new business, they are having it stolen from them to give to another business, which will not provide a product in return. Think about that.

Say you have $525 to spend. You decide you want to buy an iPad for $500. Under this tax, you’d have to pay $25 for newspapers. Do you get a newspaper. No you do not. The newspaper gets your money without providing a product. Does this stimulate business in any way? They are basically selling their products at inflated prices, but the difference between what their real customers pays and what the real price is is what the rest of society has to pay.  Nothing more is produced. There is no economic gain here. The consumer lost out on the enjoyment of whatever labor it took him to earn that $25, and the business is being reward for producing what people do not want.

Now if this consumer had the same $525 to spend as he pleases, he would buy his iPad for $500. Then he would have his $25 to encourage businesses to produce what he demands. He would actually get the enjoyment that he earned through his labor. That $25 may go to online media, which has adapted to the new business models. Who knows. When the money is spent, a product would actually be delivered and be produced. The economy would benefit. The consumer would get the benefit of his labor. The producer that was intelligent enough to produce something people want would be rewarded, and quality of life is improved. Price signals would do their job. The newspaper would then have to charge more money to stay in business. Consumers obviously wouldn’t want what they are producing, since they don’t want it at the current lower prices. The newspaper businesses would consolidate, change and adapt to survive. This is how the free market works, and the government should let it work. If we did this years ago, we’d all have horse carriages sitting in our driveways next to our automobiles.

This morning I was reading a piece by Thomas Frank, the token idiotic liberal over at the Wall Street Journal. His piece is an argument against people calling for laissez-faire capitalism, and he uses the oil spill as his proof that we need government.

Just last week, for example, the Washington Post featured a 2,500-word essay by Arthur C. Brooks, head of the American Enterprise Institute, calling for a “New Culture War” for laissez-faire capitalism—a grand moral debate over the right relationship of business and government that Mr. Brooks felt his side was sure to win.

Well, the Gulf spill has given Mr. Brooks and his movement the perfect opportunity to stage that debate. On one side, we’ve got the liberty-minded oil companies, the gentle giants that, just two months ago, the right was so keen to liberate from federal interference and to unleash on the nation’s coastline.

And on the side of government, we’ve got the Obama administration, which has backtracked on its new offshore-drilling policy and even announced plans to beef up drilling regulations. True, for most Americans that’s not a lot of statism to deplore, but the tea party movement is accustomed to regard even the most insignificant regulatory initiative as a front in the eternal war between freedom and socialism.

“Liberty-minded oil companies”? Is he serious? What oil company isn’t buying politicians? What oil company is begging for less federal involvement? Oh sure, they may not want the government involved in their operations, but they sure love government to be involved in steering leases their way, sending troops off to secure oil over seas, etc. Oil companies are in bed with government.

Also, laissez-faire doesn’t mean unaccountable. Those harmed by the spill would have recourse through the courts. BP and the other companies involved would have to compensate property owners for the damage they caused.

Most importantly, who will find an inventive way to blame government for the disaster? Not blame it for reacting too slowly after the spill—that is merely a statist reflex in disguise—but for somehow causing the spill with its meddlesome concerns for safety and the environment?

The answer, as far as I have been able to determine, is almost nobody. True, newspaper columnist Charles Krauthammer attempted last week to divert a little blame toward “environmental chic,” arguing that one reason the oil companies were even drilling in the Gulf is that environmentalism has blocked their access to other spots, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

But for the most part, what we hear from the right these days is essentially the same as what we hear from the liberals: complaints about corporate misbehavior, the need for more federal action, and demands for a shakeup of the regulatory agencies involved so that they might regulate better in the future.

Has Mr. Frank ever heard of moral hazard? I’d blame the government for making the oil companies focus on bribing them instead of focusing doing what’s necessary to protect themselves from liability. Maybe if BP wasn’t wining and dining MMS bureaucrats in order to get awards and win approval for their projects, they would instead hire the best minds to focus on safety instead of hiring the best lobbyists to mingle with politicians and bureaucrats.

In fact, one of the people leading the criticism of the Minerals Management Service—the regulator in question—has been conservative paladin Darrell Issa (R. Calif.), who correctly accuses MMS of having “too cozy of a relationship” with industry. Former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, for her part, has actually used the spill to outflank Mr. Obama on the left, suggesting that someone should find out whether his administration’s vacillating response can be attributed to the sizable campaign contributions he has received from BP employees over the years.

These are refreshing arguments to hear from the right. After hurricane Katrina wrecked New Orleans, you will recall, conservative pundit Amity Shlaes famously described the Bush administration’s vacillating response as the traditional observance of the “Federalist Pause.”

And Galt only knows how many times “coziness” of the MMS variety has been celebrated as part of the struggle for free markets and free people. For a reminder, just pull out that famous 2003 photograph of James Gilleran, then director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, a bank regulator, “cutting red tape” along with a smiling group of bank-industry lobbyists.

So Frank does see that the regulators are useless, but he call is for more regulation. Are we to believe every time there is a failure that that just means there wasn’t enough regulation, when it turns out the regulators were all corrupt?

But things are different today. The catastrophe is too great to brush it off with the usual laissez-faire scholasticism. So the great debate must wait. We are all liberals for the duration.

via Thomas Frank: Laissez-Faire Meets the Oil Spill – WSJ.com.

I’m still not a liberal Mr. Frank, well in the modern day context anyway. Laissez-fair is the correct approach. It is the only way for companies like BP to pay the piper instead of the governors. Mr. Frank comes to these debates with too many assumptions. He assume laissez-fair would mean no accountability, which is wrong. It would be increased accountability. Remember the corporate veil is a state created entity to protect the big wigs from liability. Remove that veil, and see how many idiotic risks are taken by our economic titans.

The media has been all a buzz with the Sestak scandal. Republican hacks have been jumping ugly that they might have something on Obama. Maybe they do. I don’t really know the law, but in Obama’s explanation there is something more revealing. Something that should tell all of us what government is all about. Here’s a snippet from the Wall Street Journal.

The memo said Mr. Clinton, acting at the request of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, raised with Mr. Sestak the possibility of an “uncompensated advisory board” position. That would have given Mr. Sestak a new opportunity for public service, allowed him to keep his House seat and “avoid a divisive Senate primary,” the memo said.

Mr. Clinton made the approach during a phone call in June or July 2009, according to an official familiar with the matter, who provided additional details in a briefing. Mr. Sestak declined the offer, the memo said.

via White House Used Clinton to Nudge Sestak From Senate Bid – WSJ.com.

Bolded letters were obviously mine. So, what would make Sestak want to drop his Senate run if the position was just an uncompensated board position? If you are truly wanting to change government, you of course would want run for the Senate, but what made Obama think that simply offering this uncompensated position would make Sestak drop out of the race?

Could it be that people in these unelected positions are able to hand out favors more easily? Is this more like, “Take this position. You’ll be able to enrich yourself by handing out contracts.”? I’m guessing this is the case. What this whole thing should tell you is your government does nothing but steal money from  you and then use that money in order to bribe and coerce others into behaving the way they want. They use the money to enrich and empower themselves. They are not working in your interest. They will do anything legal, illegal, moral, immoral, ethical or unethical to keep and gain more power.

Now as far as the uproar. What is it all about? Obama tried bribing Sestak, and this is news? Isn’t that like being shocked and appalled that a prostitute had sex with someone outside marriage? Yeah, of course. That’s what they do. Why are we so surprised?

So many people complain about the government. Actually, I cannot think of one person who doesn’t say politicians are corrupt and our government sucks. Can you? Even the people who run for government offices tell us every election how bad the government is and how they are going to fix it. So what’s up with no one thinking our government is really for the people? After all, the Constitution says “We the People..”, so shouldn’t at least some people believe in the government?

Well, as I’ve said in previous posts, you must think about the government not as a special entity but as a collection of individuals. Take it down to the individual level. What would people think if I did this? Then you can understand why everyone dislikes the government.

Let’s take an example. Let’s say 10 people move to a deserted island. Now the 10 people get along pretty well. Of course, there are some flare ups. People can get on each other’s nerves periodically, but the fact that they all must survive on this island keeps them working with each other. (Eh boy, this is sounding like Lost) There is only one rule on this island that keeps peace between the people. That rule is do not steal from each other. What about murder you say? Well, isn’t murder just stealing someone’s life from them? What about violence? Isn’t violence taking someone’s well being?

How do they enforce this? At first, they each enforce it by themselves or with other members of the group. Also survival keeps you in line. What would happen if every member decided to stop working, sharing and trading with you, because you were deemed untrustworthy? You would have a hard time surviving. One day the group is out searching other parts of the island, and they find some left over stuff from someone who was previously on the island. Part of this find was a gun.

As you can imagine there is a lot of discussion about what to do with the gun. Finally the group decides that they must pick one member of the group that will keep the gun and use it to protect everyone. If someone in the group is accused of stealing from someone else, then the others will judge and it will be up to this individual to enforce the judgment. Also, this individual will use the gun to protect the group from threats outside camp, such as local animals who have trashed their camp several times.

At first everything seem OK. They picked a trust worthy member of the group to be the leader, the guy who governs. Disputes are raised amongst the group, and the leader decides in favor of one or the other. He starts out being pretty fair. Also, if it’s a dispute over something that effects the whole society like say, should they move camps or something, the group can decide for themselves.

One day the camp is destroyed by animals scavenging for food, while the group was off working in the woods. After some discussion, the group decides that the guy with the gun should remain at camp to look over things while everyone else works. The group will have to give up some of their production in exchange for that protection. All but one person agrees to it, and you now have a form of taxation.

As you can imagine, seeing this guy back at camp not doing much other than providing security begins to irritate some in the group. Of course, they need protection, so they suck it up and keep working. If only there were more guns they think to themselves. They could provide their own protection.

Now that this leader, ah let’s call him governor, has all this free time. He starts thinking of ways to run everything better. What would make this society better? His first idea is to have one person do all the cleaning. If one person handles all the cleaning, then the others can focus on working in the woods, gather food, etc. So, he picks the person he believes is best at cleaning, and says this person will be a full-time cleaner. Everyone in the group will have to give up some production in order for him to keep everyone’s clothes, camp, etc clean. As far as giving up production, do not worry, because there will be more production now that the rest of the group doesn’t have to clean. One member says, “I already had an arrangement with that guy to clean my stuff. I would give him some of the berries I picked in exchange for him cleaning my stuff.” The leader responds, “I know. He did a great job for you. That is why I think he could do a great job for everyone. Now everyone will trade with him for that service.” The member responds, “But you asking me to pay more in taxes than I was paying him before.” The leader, “I’m sorry that’s the case, but we can’t expect him to clean everything for less than this. He’s going to need this much to survive. It’s not fair for him to either not get paid enough to do what we’re asking or for you to be the only one who doesn’t have to clean.”

As you can imagine this member is not happy with this decision. He asks the other members to veto the leaders decision, but the majority of them like the idea of not having to clean. They decide they agree. This member who originally didn’t like this idea says he’s not paying more than he was for this service. The group is appalled by his statement. It would not be fair if he didn’t kick in his fair share. On the day when everyone has to pay up, this member refuses. The leader is summoned and explains if he does not contribute, the group will be forced to take his production or some other property he has. He still refuses, so another member goes to take what he is supposed to contribute. When the other member does, he gets punched. He reports this to the leader, and the leader comes to protect him the next time he goes to take his property. The leaders stands there with a gun for protection of this member who’s been tasked with taking what the resisting member is supposed to rightfully contribute.

Going forward the member who had his production taken at gun point begins to despise the leader and the member who took his stuff. He has a very good friend in the group who also starts disliking what’s going on. This friend though just thinks what can he do. This is what was decided by the group. He should have just given up what he was supposed to.

To make matters worse, some members start complaining that the guy who’s cleaning isn’t doing things right. Their clothes aren’t done the way they like. Their camps aren’t thoroughly cleaned like they used to do themselves. They also become disgruntled with this whole cleaning thing. Meanwhile, the cleaner and the governor have developed quite the friendship, since they are both back at camp all day while the others are off working. One day while they are talking, the cleaner says, “You know, it would be great if someone concentrated on gathering wood. It seems like we are always short on wood. Almost every night, I run out and end  up freezing half the night.” The leader responds, “Hmmm, you’re right. I have the same problem. That’s a great idea.” Cleaner, “The one guy who created the axe and saws is great at cutting down trees. He always has extra wood, and I’ve seen him trading with the other guys when their supplies get low. He’d probably be perfect for the job. Besides, it’s not fair that because we are serving the group as  a whole and don’t have extra stuff to trade, that we shouldn’t have wood to keep warm too.”

As you can see, this goes on and on. Soon the “axe man” is cutting wood full-time for the entire camp. Those who used to trade with him only for what they needed are now forced to hand over a certain amount of production in order to ensure equality when it comes to wood for cooking and heating. Those who used to trade with him are very upset, because they are now paying more for less wood. The axe man was a little upset about this, but then he got to thinking that he would at least have a certain amount of food and supplies guaranteed to him. He wouldn’t have to trade anymore and possibly go without something. Over time, his production falls. It doesn’t matter to him now that he’s getting paid the same no matter what.

One day the axe man comes to the governor. The governor is complaining that wood production seems to have declined, and he’s finding himself without wood again in the middle of the night. The axe man responds by promising the governor a little extra wood. The governor agrees and decides to leave things as they are.

As you can imagine, idea after idea is brought up. They are sold to the governor, who then takes a vote. The majority wins, and the rest of the people have to abide by it. If they don’t, the governor comes with the collectors to collect what a disgruntled member should be contributing. He’s not threatening the disgruntled member. He’s just their to protect the collector.  As time goes on, the disgruntled members do the same thing. They come up with ideas, and other members who previously had ideas become disgruntled. No one wants to go back to the way things were originally, because they all had their ideas implemented, and they do not want to lose that.

Quickly the inefficiency of all these ideas eats away at the standard of living on the island. There are shortages all around. Because each member is defending their idea that was implemented, none of them accept responsibility. It’s always someone else’s fault. Finger pointing becomes a way of life. The best anyone can do is throw a little extra production at the governor to get him to weigh in their favor. Everyone seems to be doing this after a while. The governor is the only one who seems to be doing well, but everyone is too busy pointing fingers at each other to notice. After all, shouldn’t the leader be compensated more than the rest. He is their leader. Everyone has a say in what happens. This is democratic, so why is it so bad?

There is one reason it’s bad. There is a monopoly on the gun, and under democracy, everything revolves around the gun.

If you’ve read my blog, I’m sure you’ve seen several times where I mentioned that you cannot expect different results from the government than you can from your own household. If you go into debt and go bankrupt, there is no reason to think a bunch of people in a group can go into debt and avoid the same destiny. There is nothing that you cannot do individually because it is immoral, unethical, or unjust, that for some reason when the collective known as the government does it will yield better and opposite result and becomes moral, ethical or just.

Let’s think about this. The government tells us that it can stimulate the economy by borrowing and spending. Can you stimulate your personal economy by borrowing and spending? Let’s say your family has hit a rough patch. Several family members lost their jobs, had their wages cut, etc. Would you be able to stimulate your way out of this by the employed members of the family borrowing money to purchase goods and services from the unemployed family members? Of course you could not. By borrowing, all you are doing is taking your future wages and pulling them to the current day. In the future, you will not have that income to use, to enjoy and to stimulate the future. Also, because of interest, you will have lost some of that income completely, which means over the long run, you are worse off than you would have been had you did nothing.

How about theft? Is it alright for you or a family member to steal from your neighbors? Let’s say one of your family member is unemployed and has no money to feed his family. Is it alright for you to rob someone in order to give your family member some money to buy food? Of course it is not. Theft is the invasion of someone’s liberty, and it is not moral all the sudden because it’s voted on. Making something law does not make it moral. Also, by legalizing something doesn’t make it moral. The law is only supposed to protect each individual’s liberty and property. Theft is a violation of an individual’s liberty and property and is immoral whether done by a stranger in a dark alley or by a collection of elected thieves in government.

Next, we are told by government regulators that without their protection, there would be corporate monopolies that would hold us hostage and force us to buy their products at artificially high prices. Luckily for us, we have a “benevolent” government that just so happens to be willing to step in and save the day. Since we are on the topic of me vs we, would it be OK for me to force you to buy my goods and services? Could I tell all other IT service firms they can no longer operate, and if they do, I’m going to send my goons to haul them off to prison? Maybe, I let them still operate but tell them they must run their businesses exactly as I tell them. They much charge what I tell them to charge, cover what I tell them to cover, and pay me a portion of the proceeds. Would this be considered moral or just? Well, this is what the government has done in industry after industry, health insurance being at that forefront of most people’s minds. If I cannot do this because it is unjust, at what point in time does it become just? Does justice come from the consent of 50.5% of the congress?

How about empire? Is it just to put bases in other sovereign countries against the will of many of their people? Let’s say I’m coming home from work , and I find my two neighbors in an all out brawl. I knew they have been arguing back and forth for a few weeks, and the one neighbor is completely wrong. Well, it just so happens this is the guy who as we speak is pounding the life out of the other neighbor. Being a great friend, I jump out of the car and break it up. The stronger guy takes a swing at me, but luckily I know a little something something and put him on his back. I force him to agree to the argument as I see it. Then I tell both of them, I’m going to monitor the situation, so it doesn’t happen again. I setup cameras, and I decide to set one of my trained attack dogs at both of their houses to maintain the peace. After a while, the two guys make amends and realize how stupid their argument was. They ask if I’ll remove my dogs, but I say no. I need to maintain the peace. Eventually both guys turn against me, but I say to hell with them. I’m right. If it wasn’t for me, one of them would be dead right now. One day they notice that I have my dogs at several other neighbors houses, and everyone seems to be talking about how I’m using these dogs to control the neighborhood. So, would this be considered a just thing to do if I did it? If not, then why do we have millions of people advocating more US troops on foreign soils?

I’m sure by now you are getting the point. If something is unjust for an individual to do, such as sticking a gun to someone’s head to force them to do what you want, it is just as unjust for a group of individuals known as the government or We The People to do to any individual or another group. We must realize this if we are ever going to stifle the growth of government, mitigate the oppressive hand of government, and end the march toward tyranny. In ever political debate, people of good will need to ask themselves, if I took these actions or my neighbor took these actions on me, what would I think about it? Would I think it’s just or unjust. Is it taking someone’s liberty, life or property? There are those who profit from government force, so they will be hard to turn away from their masters. If they claim to be for individual rights though, you must show them the errors of their ways, because you can’t be for your own rights and not the rights of others. If that’s the case, then neither have rights, and it’s just a battle to be the one holding the gun.

Over the past week, I’ve seen many postings, blogs and pundits arguing back and forth about the Arizona immigration law. While I personally do not know how constitutional the law is, I have intentionally stayed out of the debate. The debate always seems to consist of roughly three arguments about why illegal immigrants are so bad. I would argue none of them should be laid at the feet of the immigrants, and instead should be directed toward the real culprit, the federal government.

The first argument is that immigrants are coming over the boarder and driving up our taxes because they are receiving welfare, medical care and education at the tax payers’ expense. What is the difference between the immigrant and the American citizens in our society who refuse to produce? Are they some how morally different? The problem is the entitlements in the first place. If you did not have entitlements and laws that allow entitlements to illegal immigrants, you would not have to worry about them driving up taxes. Again, I would ask though why is it OK for an American citizen to drive up your taxes by receiving unearned rewards, but for some reason the immigrant is different? Both are human beings, and both should not be able to receive unearned rewards by the force of government. We already know, the government robs Peter to pay Paul. Now would you blame Paul? Would you despise Paul? Would you put all your energy and your anger into fighting Paul? Would ridding ourselves of Paul fix the problem? No it would not. You must direct everything at the robber, and that robber is the government.

Second, I constantly hear that illegal immigrants drive down our wages and steal American jobs. So first, I must ask which is it? Do they want to come in and collect entitlements, or are they coming in and stealing our jobs? I guess it’s possible they are stealing our jobs and still collecting because their wages are so low. Why are their wages low? Their wages are low because of their illegal status. They are driven underground, and they are easily taken advantage of. They cannot take their employer to court for redress. They cannot do anything that might upset an employer to the point where the employer just turns him into the authorities.

The second problem here is the cost of an American worker compared to the immigrant worker. Because the government has purposely devalued our currency, the American worker must earn more wages than he did in the past in order to maintain his standard of living. For example, if your wages did not rise by 30% over the past decade, you are not able to afford what you were able to afford just 10 years ago. Add to that the cost of necessities such as food, gas and housing has been the most inflated, and it forces Americans to demand more and more wages. On the other hand, immigrants many times are sending their money home. Their government is even more corrupt than ours, and the dollar has maintained it’s strength versus the peso. Because of this, they do not need to demand more an more wages. Add this to their already suppressed wages because of their illegal status, and you got a double whammy against the American worker.

So do you blame the immigrant worker who is just making decisions that will best benefit his or her family? No, you should blame the group of people who eat away at the purchasing power of the American worker, the Federal Reserve. You should blame the federal government for idiotic immigration policies. Allow immigrants to come in and work, and they will not have to hide in the shadows. Then they would not be at a disadvantage when it comes to bargaining for their wages. Also, all the costs associated with American workers, such as FICA, unemployment insurance, disability, OSHA, etc would all apply to the immigrant as well since they would be out from the shadows.

Lastly, I hear about the criminal element. The immigrants are bringing the drug war to our borders. While I am no expert on the intricacies of the drug war, I will say that the drug war is also the result of our government. Because the federal government has made it illegal for adults to do as they please, it has created an underground market where the only recourse for failed business transactions is violence. If government ended the drug war, people who are in the illicit drug business would also be out from the shadows. The excessive profits would attract real business men, who would drive out the thuggish element. They would drive them out by lowering prices, creating and enforcing contracts, and delivering services without the threat of violence on the consumer. While I believe drugs to be horrible, I do not believe it is my place to decide their morality, and I do not believe people should be thrown in jail for disagreeing with me. I do know that when you criminalize anything that should be the free choice of free people, you end up with crime. I know. It’s shocker. The problem is you end up with way worse crime than the new crimes you just created. Instead of just having illegal drug use, you get murder, rape, gang violence, etc. So, when we blame immigrants for violence on the borders, I think we need to think about who really creates this environment. It’s the federal government, and we should demand that they end the drug war. Ending it does not make drug use all the sudden moral, if it is even immoral. It just rids us of all the violence that comes from pushing it underground.

People need to start realizing what the feds are doing. While people scream about the federal government not doing anything about illegal immigration, why would they? Immigrants are the perfect scapegoat for them. Always, and I mean each and every time you find yourself blaming someone other than the federal government for societal ills, quickly turn and look what the government is doing. The chances are they are creating the problem and using it to take your money and your liberty. It’s like the robber saying, “Hey, look Paul has all your stuff.” You respond, “Son of a bitch. Thank you Mr. Robbert. Can you get my stuff back from Paul?” Gladly agreeing, the robber says, “Sure. Sure I can. I’ll just need you to do a few things for me first.” Quickly all your anger is directed over at Paul and the robber gets away with theft, while having you thanking him for his help. This is what the government does to all groups. It divides us. Then it tells each group that the other group is the cause of their problems. Those groups fall for it, and the government rakes in the money and takes more and more of our freedom. Do not fall for it. Do not blame the immigrant. Blame the robber, because he’s getting away with your money and your liberty.