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.

In a letter to Edward Carrington, before the Constitution was written, Jefferson talks about the up risings in America during Shay’s Rebellion.

DEAR SIR, — … The tumults in America, I expected would have produced in Europe an unfavorable opinion of our political state. But it has not. On the contrary, the small effect of these tumults seems to have given more confidence in the firmness of our governments. The interposition of the people themselves on the side of government has had a great effect on the opinion here. I am persuaded myself that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves. The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs thro’ the channel of the public papers, & to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

You have to love the way Jefferson puts things. “…whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” shows how Jefferson did not trust government, and that the only way for government to remain accountable was to have a press that informed the people of exactly what the government was doing on their behalf. Considering all the backroom dealings, the couple thousand page bills, and Obama shutting the press out of meetings with foreign leaders, can we say that we even have a government with newspapers (open information)? I would have to say we do not, and as such would tend to agree with Jefferson that I would prefer newspapers without a government. At least then, I could get information and make choices myself, instead of slime ball politicians making them on my behalf, and then not letting me know how those decisions were made and what those decisions entail.

But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them.

Jefferson must have never thought about what the public schools would end up doing to our literacy rate.

I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under the European governments. Among the former, public opinion is in the place of law, & restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did anywhere. Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves & sheep. I do not exaggerate. This is a true picture of Europe.

Here Jefferson sure sounds like an anarchist. He argues that public opinion is just as powerful as laws. Could it be happiness is not derived by the so-called tranquility created through government, but instead by the free choice of how to live your own life? Public opinion does not require force. There is no gun pointing at you. Instead you are choosing to abide by public opinion in order to get along with your neighbor and to be accepted into society. No one is forcing you. You could just as easily choose to not abide by public opinion and either work to change the opinion or setup a society based on new public opinion. It is by this free choice that Jefferson believes that societies without government enjoy “an infinitely greater degree of happiness”.

Cherish therefore the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you & I, & Congress & Assemblies, judges & governors shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions; and experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the governments of Europe, and to the general prey of the rich on the poor. The want of news has led me into disquisition instead of narration, forgetting you have every day enough of that. I shall be happy to hear from you sometimes, only observing that whatever passes thro’ the post is read, & that when you write what should be read by myself only, you must be so good as to confide your letter to some passenger or officer of the packet. I will ask your permission to write to you sometimes, and to assure you of the esteem & respect with which I have honour to be Dear Sir your most obedient & most humble servt.

via Edcarringtonlttr.

Wonder what Jefferson would think of our government today? Would he consider a government who runs up a $13 trillion debt that will enslave it’s citizens wolves? Would the people who are looted to pay for enslavement programs for the poor and the poor who are enslaved be considered sheep? How about the money stolen from tax payers to hand over to wealthy bankers? Does that qualify our governors as wolves? And are we sheep when our governors stick guns to our heads and tell us what we must buy?

Surely, Jefferson would see that our government has become the wolves, and we the people have become the sheep.

But, he would speak glowingly of the people who are now rising up and becoming attentive once again, for it is this spirit that Jefferson cherished.

From my local paper comes even more proof of government’s complete incompetence. Why anyone trusts government is beyond me.

Pennsylvania hasn’t paid the annual recommended amount to its school and state employee pension funds in years, and won’t for at least another decade if lawmakers adopt a budget proposal designed to spread costs into the future.

The state is not alone with that tactic.

As 2009 pension reports trickle in, it appears cities, states and schools across the country are cutting back on pension fund contributions in order to shift money to budget needs. Of 71 funds that reported 2009 contributions in the Boston College report, about 40 percent of them met their recommended contributions.

The annual recommended contribution is the yearly amount required to cover administrative costs, the cost of benefits employees earned in a given year and the cost of paying off any unfunded liabilities. Typically, employees and employers — in this case the state, city or school district — each pay a portion of the tab.

“It was easy to cover this stuff up. Nobody is going to look at something like this in good times because it is so easy to cover it up. … That’s why (governments) went ahead and increased benefits, saying the stock market would cover it and it wouldn’t cost anything. I knew a day of reckoning was coming,” Dean said.

Easy to cover up? Are people catching on that government is a fraud? If the private sector did this, they’d be hauled before congress and used as a public sacrifice to the Capitalism Is Evil gods.

Although many states and municipalities adjusted benefits for new employees, courts have ruled they must meet their obligations to retirees and active employees.

“Now when someone asks about pension problems, I tell people you better check city hall, because they may be selling your child’s soccer field to pay for pensions,” Dean said.

Pennsylvania increased benefits for state and school employees and lawmakers in 2001, added a cost-of-living raise for retirees in 2002, and then reduced contributions to the funds and spread costs out over a decade to soften the blow of market declines.

Don’t worry. I’m sure the intelligentsia can figure this out.

Munnell said researchers could offer no easy solutions.

“We don’t have anything brilliant to say. There is little in the way of public options to fix this quickly,” she said.

Uh oh!

via Triblive.com

While the rest of us are cutting back, struggling just to get by, and many of us haven’t been able to afford contributing to our retirements, the government just keeps spending. They keep making more and more promises to government workers, who produce absolutely nothing. Of course, guess who has to backup those promises? It’s not the slimy politician or bureaucrat. It will be us, the tax payer. We will have to work extra weeks of unpaid labor just to hand over to the government, like slaves trying to increase their masters wealth.

Why do government workers even get pensions? Who in the private sector gets pensions anymore? The private sector has moved away from the pension system because it’s  unsustainable. Of course, the morons in government don’t care about that. This is just another example of government not doing what’s best in the long term like private businesses do. This is why government should be extremely small, and private businesses should handle the services we want as consumers. The privates sector has moved toward 401k, IRAs, etc. These are self managed by employees and do not require long term commitments by employers. Not with government though. Government workers retire young with huge benefit packages. They didn’t produce anything while they are working, and now they get to sail off into a tax payer funded sunset.

Alright, so I’m on Facebook, and I see someone posted this picture. Following it was typical LOL type of comments. What really makes me LOL is how liberals think only government can handle essential services like fire protection. Do they just assume that if government ceased to exist tomorrow (I know, I’m daydreaming) that all the sudden people would stand by asking themselves who is going to put a burning house out? It’s as if the government created the idea of extinguishing a fire and is the only group of people who know how to do it.

That was my first thought. Second was the caption of “No, thanks – I’m a libertarian.” I’m a registered Republican, but I probably more align with libertarian ideas. Do these statists think libertarians are against fire departments? Do they think that if libertarians wanted no government what-so-ever, that they would not establish services to handle fire protection. If you’ve ready this post, you know fire protection could be provided by your insurance company.

If insurance companies payout based on the amount of damage done in a fire, wouldn’t they have an incentive to develop fire protection and fire fighting services? It’s only the blinded view of the statist that can’t see other options other than state power. Do they need the government to tell them how to interact with their friends, family, neighbors, etc? No, they interact based on their self interest. The same would happen with fire fighting.

INSTAPUTZ: Hehindeed..

While this is no shocker to those of us who know government is a completely ineffective, you would think this would make the most ardent defenders of the state question how effective government is.

About half of the more than 4,000 security cameras installed along New York City’s subways are not working.

At the same time, the cash-strapped Metropolitan Transportation Authority has cut the number of weekend police patrols on major bridges and tunnels.

Critics say the non-working cameras are a blind spot in the crime and terrorism safety net for the nation’s largest city.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Tuesday that the MTA needs more funding. But he says Albany lawmakers turned down a plan that would’ve eliminated most of the agency’s problems.

MTA officials say safety of riders is the top priority. They point out that about half of the cameras do work and about 900 more will work by June.

The problem of missing video came to light after two men were stabbed to death on the subway — and there was no camera installed in the station to catch an image of the killer. Darnell Morel and Ricardo Williams, both 24, were killed in a fight that started around 5 a.m. Sunday at the Christopher Street station, about four miles from the World Trade Center site.

via The Associated Press: Insecurity cams? About half in NYC don’t work.

Can you image a private security company pointing out, as if this is proof of their good work, that half of their cameras “do work”? Luckily for us, with private business, we abolish them by not using their services. With government, we are stuck with them. They have the guns.

Can’t wait till these morons run all of health care. It should be interesting being rushed into an emergency room. Your health care will be like playing a game. Do you get lucky and get put into the room with working equipment, or do you go to the room with the broken down equipment? Who knows! Maybe they can turn this into a reality show, so the government dependents can feel good about the disasterous system. I can hear it now. “I’m having a heart attack. I’m going to be on TV! “

John Stossel had a great episode last week on government licensed professions. Here is a short segment from the show.

OK, so the typical statist argument goes, “Do you want your butcher to perform surgery on you?”. Well, maybe. It depends. How many successful operations has he performed in the past? What’s his success rate? How does that compare to his competitor or a certified doctor? This argument that they lay out assumes that we are all driveling idiots, and the government in it’s infinite wisdom is here to protect us. Without the state, we’d hand a knife over to anyone to cut us open.

Professions without government licensing would operate no different than they do with licensing, except they’d have more competition and waste less time, money and energy on stupid government regulations. Ultimately, that would lead to better prices for consumers and more options.

So, what do you do now when you look for say a licensed real estate agent? Do you just go up to some stranger and say “Here’s my keys. Go sell my house.” Of course not, you ask around to people you trust asking who they recommend. Then you may look online to see if they have reviews. A perfect example is Angieslist. I just had my carpets cleaned. Did I just grab a phone book and call a random number to clean my carpets? No, I checked Angieslist, read reviews, and called for a price from those who had the best reviews. This would be no different with any profession, including doctors.

The truth is professions do like to keep out competitors. They don’t want you having the freedom to ask your neighbor who wired up his house himself to help you wire up yours. You must be forced into calling a licensed electrician. Then you must call an inspector to certify your job. Why can’t you use your neighbor? After all, it’s a free country right? Why can’t you call an inspector only if you want to make sure the electrician did his job right. This should be voluntary. Yes, you may sell your house, but the buyer should then pay an inspector to make sure they aren’t buying  a house with electrical problems. This too should be voluntary.

Now, I have nothing against voluntary associations and certifications. If doctors, attorneys or electricians what to set themselves apart from their competition, I have no problem with them forming an association and certifications. Those tell the consumer that they have gone through more training, and they are approved by the association. This is good information, but it should be voluntary. I should be able to choose between someone not a member of the association, who may not have had all the rigorous training but may be cheaper, or the certified member of an association, who I know has gone through a specific training program. I work in computers and this is how it works in our field. I don’t need to be a licensed IT consultant, but if I want to separate myself and increase my opportunities of employment, I go through certain certifications for my area of expertise. This tells potential employers that I’ve gone through certain training and was able to pass the tests that go with it. I’ve demonstrated a certain amount of knowledge. This should be the same of all professions.

The truth is there is not need for licensing. It’s just another way for governments to take you freedom and to prevent competition.

While our government constantly preaches to the Chinese government about freedom of the internet, they are quietly attempting to get control of it themselves.

The president would have the power to safeguard essential federal and private Web resources under draft Senate cybersecurity legislation.

Federal is fine, but what gives the president power over “private Web resources”? This is how they sneak in the ability to take over the internet as a whole. Essential federal and private Web resources pretty much covers everything.

According to an aide familiar with the proposal, the bill includes a mandate for federal agencies to prepare emergency response plans in the event of a massive, nationwide cyberattack.

The president would then have the ability to initiate those network contingency plans to ensure key federal or private services did not go offline during a cyberattack of unprecedented scope, the aide said.

Does anyone have confidence that the government can even pull this off?

Their renewed focus arrives on the heels of two, high-profile cyberattacks last month: A strike on Google, believed to have originated in China, and a separate, more disjointed attack that affected thousands of businesses worldwide.

Rockefeller and Snowe’s forthcoming bill would establish a host of heretofore absent cybersecurity prevention and response measures, an aide close to the process said. The bill will “significantly [raise] the profile of cybersecurity within the federal government,” while incentivizing private companies to do the same, according to the aide.

Oh boy, any time you read “incentivizing” you can pretty much get ready to be robbed. Businesses already have incentives to guard against cyber attacks. Unlike government they are accountable to the bottom line. If the chance of an attack would cost them more than the cost of safe-guarding against an attack, they will take the actions needed. They don’t need government to stick a gun to their head forcing them to do it.

Additionally, it will “promote public awareness” of Internet security issues, while outlining key protections of Americans’ civil liberties on the Web, the aide continued.

Good luck on the civil liberties. The last thing the government cares about is civil liberties.

Privacy groups are nonetheless likely to take some umbrage at Rockefeller and Snowe’s latest effort, an early draft of which leaked late last year.

When early reports predicted the cybersecurity measure would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency,” online privacy groups said they felt that would endow the White House with overly ambiguous and far-reaching powers to regulate the Internet.

It is unclear when Rockefeller and Snowe will finish their legislation. And the ongoing debate over healthcare reform, financial regulatory reform, jobs bills and education fixes could postpone action on the floor for many months.

I’d say let’s hope it never reaches the floor, but considering the other bills before it, I’m not sure it would be much worse.

Both lawmakers heavily emphasized the need for such a bill during a Senate Commerce Committee cybersecurity hearing on Wednesday.

“Too much is at stake for us to pretend that today’s outdated cybersecurity policies are up to the task of protecting our nation and economic infrastructure,” Rockefeller said. “We have to do better and that means it will take a level of coordination and sophistication to outmatch our adversaries and minimize this enormous threat.”

via Cybersecurity bill to give president new emergency powers – The Hill’s Hillicon Valley.

The only cybersecurity policies that might be outdated are the ones guarding federal computers. That is just more proof of the idiocy of government. Private enterprises on the other hand are not outdated and the highly sensitive businesses take it upon themselves to hire the experts needed and purchase the systems needed to properly security their networks.

As far as government goes, if this truly is just to secure the federal computers under a cyberattack, why do we even need legislation? Shouldn’t the government already be taking action on their own networks through current budgets? I’m sure we don’t require separate legislation to secure our military arsenals. That security is already part of the military arsenal budget itself. Also, wouldn’t the President already have power to declare an emergency over the federal networks?

It would appear that the President and the government already have all the power that they need…well unless they want the power to take control of the entire internet. Let’s not sugar coat this as The Hill and the Senators trying to pass this bill are. The government is pushing legislation for one thing only. They are pushing it to get control over “private Web resources”, the very resources that are already secured by private businesses themselves.

The government cannot be trusted with a power like this. They want to “secure” the internet to make sure if there is ever a challenge to their power from the people, they could cut off communication between those people. It is not to protect us from the boogieman overseas as they always claim it to be. It is to prevent us from ever challenging our government.

Interesting that this would show up just days after my privatizing 911 post. If you watch the video or even if you read the post at Hot Air, everyone seems to think this has to be a government service that is provided for “free”.  Of course the news piece focuses on a retired gentlemen who is on a fixed income, because he probably depends on another crappy government program, social security.

My guess would be that the city is doing this knowing that people will be up an arms. There are probably 100s of other places to cut, but those are probably places voters don’t care about. They need the voters to get up in arms to raise taxes or to get the federal government to cough up more money. Ultimately though, this probably isn’t a bad idea. It shows people that government really does have a cost. Imagine if you had to pay one time fees for all government services. How quickly would the waste be  drained out of the system?

Saying that people shouldn’t or can’t pay $300 for a 911 call, which is probably used to save someone’s life, should tell us how bad our country has become. Who in their right mind wouldn’t spend $300 to save their life or someone else’s life? My only question would be why aren’t they having private sector companies competing for this business. If they are going to make people pay, at least let them have service from people who care about their jobs and a business who cares about their customers.

If we are ever as a nation are going to get back to the free market and back to any semblance of what the founders envisioned, we must realize that nothing the government “gives” us is free, and nothing the government does is more efficient than what the free market can deliver.

via Hot Air.

Well, it looks like private roads are going to be an ongoing brain fart here. You can read previous posts on the subject here and here.  Almost every time I get in the car and deal with the frustrations of driving, I can’t help to wonder what private roads would be like.

Yesterday, we were coming to a light by our house, and I usually go straight through the light and avoid the main road, because the main road always has traffic backed up. Of course, there are signs now on the road I normally take saying the road will be closed beginning next week. This is all too typical where I live. Of course, there is no incentive for permanently fixing roads. That would cost government jobs and union votes.

Anyway, of course with my recent posts on private roads, I had to ask myself would this be treated differently with private roads? To delve into this question, let’s just say the roads are toll roads, since that is the what most people think of when it comes to private roads. Now if all roads were toll roads, it would be crazy to think there would be actual toll booths. People would take ages to get anywhere. So, for sake of discussion, we are going to assume there is some type of monitoring technology using either GPS or radio frequency for the toll road charges.

Now, if you are a company who operates the toll roads, do you want your roads closed? This road that I take to save time would not be making the owner money if he closed it for repairs. Maybe he owns the main road too. That is my other option, but he would still end up losing business because people may reroute completely considering they avoided the main road in the first place before additional traffic was put on it.

Maybe a competitor sees an area along the main road that would be better suited for traffic than the road that is closing down temporarily. Wouldn’t this be a great time to open a new road and get a boost in initial business from the drivers that normally took the closed road. Maybe those drivers never go back to the previous road when it re-opens, and you are not able to compete.

What I am getting at here is the profit motive would drive business to minimize the inconvenience on drivers. It also might entice a smaller outfit to get in the business of building side roads to capitalize on the drivers who want to avoid the traffic of main roads.

Another issue that drives me nuts around my house is they have torn up the main road to lay fiber (I believe that’s what it was), and they half assed the filling in. The road feels like you are out four wheeling. Now, if your business depended on tolls, would you let your road be like that? How many people, who take care of their cars, avoid that road, and how much money would be lost if that road was private?

OK. Second thing that prompted random thoughts about private roads was Popular Science magazine. We went to the in-laws house for lunch, and I took my magazines to catch up on reading them. What the heck, right? So, the one article is about how to renovate America’s infrastructure. The article talks about all these new technologies for roads, bridges, etc. You can read it here. There is some very cool technology such as cars reporting potholes, self healing roads, and roads the de-ice themselves (would be huge right now where I live).

So, we already spend a fortune under the government system, and we never get new technology. If you had self-healing roads and roads that de-ice themselves, you’d lose union jobs. So, it would appear that all these technologies would find their way into our road systems much faster under a private road system, because they would increase profits and improve a road operators competitive advantage.

Also, the chances that it would take new technology this long to be developed and implemented would be slim to none. Technology of road systems would constantly be updating and changing. I could see private interstates partnering with carriers to market their roads as having the best cellular access for your long trips. There is no doubt there would be private road operators and other service companies partnering up to make your driving experience better.

As I said, these were just some ideas that came to mind while out driving this weekend. I’m sure I’ll have more as time goes on.