Safety Syllogism

There is no safety this side of the grave.
The nanny state wants us to be perfectly safe.
The nanny state wants us dead (well, maybe just from the neck up).

World War C

The most important news last week was not the election results, since all that was accomplished was to replace a few Welfare Socialists with Warfare Socialists. The big news was from the economic master of the universe, Dr. Ben Bernanke, by whom the next round of quantitative easing was announced. QE2 is the latest euphemism for the monetary fraud of inflation, and will have lasting effects that will haunt our economic well-being for many years to come. It is economic warfare and will likely mark the beginning of the next world war, World War C, the currency war.

In this economic disaster, every nation wants to increase their own exports and minimize their imports. Obviously this is not possible for every country, and overlooks the fact that the division of labor inherent in free trade makes the whole world, both rich and poor, much better off. But if a country’s currency were to be devalued relative to the rest of the world, that country’s exports would tend to increase for a time due to their price advantage. Of course, when labor and material prices adjust to the presence of newly created unearned money, the advantage would disappear, but QE3 would fix that, and on it goes. So, when one rather large country devalues its own currency (and make no mistake, that’s what QE2 does), then every other country will try to follow suit so that their own currency is equally devalued. Central bankers must believe that if their currency is circling the toilet faster than the others, they win.

Obviously, this tactic also cannot work. So, round two will begin with increasing accusations of currency manipulation and price fixing, leading up to trade restrictions through tariffs and quotas. Then as free trade becomes a distant dream, regional shortages of commodities will appear, and so will the shooting part of this war.

When trade restrictions are proposed, you should think “this means increasing poverty”. When the drums of war begin, you should think “this means death to millions of innocent people”.

Stop the Central Banksters by using only gold and silver coins as money.

Seeking Rent & Restitution

According to the FBI, rates of violent crime in the US have been falling across the board since 1990. In spite of that fact, we see increasing reports of citizen abuse by Law Enforcement at every level. Those who have sworn to serve and protect look more like military every day, with black uniforms, heavy weapons, and Swat Teams proliferating. And they act like military, treating our own citizens like the enemy in an increasing number of cases. Productive citizens are beginning to fear Law Enforcement because any encounter could lead to being tazed, beaten or shot. There are many likely reasons for these developments, but the one I would like to address is “rent seeking”. In case you’ve never heard this term, it is the extraction of uncompensated value from others without making any contribution to productivity. Usually this occurs when private companies pursue government protection or benefit rather than trying to better satisfy their customers. But Law Enforcement can fall into this same type of behavior when enhancing traffic fines and asset forfeitures unjustly. These punishments for violations are negative incentives to the violators and of course, people modify their behavior to some extent because of the disincentives. But every monetary disincentive creates an equal incentive somewhere, because for every fine paid, someone receives payment. Now, who benefits from traffic fines and asset forfeitures? Why, the government does. You might say, well of course government receives the fines and confiscated property. They need the revenue to fight crime. That may be true, but let’s consider the incentives created by this revenue. Let’s say that society responds so well to the disincentive of a certain speed limit that no one speeds in that area anymore. What happens to government revenue? It goes down. So, government will seek to replace that revenue with a new or higher tax. If the tax hike works, the net result will be that public obedience to the law has led to higher taxes. But what if the voters reject the tax hike? Theoretically, government could lay off the now unneeded traffic officers, but in practice, they tend to find ways of enhancing the traffic fines in order to keep all officers employed. So, what can be done in response to an ungrateful public that has rejected higher taxes? Well, in this area, there is great creativity: They could lower the speed limit to ridiculously low levels. They could change the speed limit frequently and lurk at the lower limit areas to nab the unwary. They could enforce the existing limit more strictly, giving large fines for 1 mph over the limit. They could throw a few cones on the side of the road and double the fines for a construction zone. If you drive, you’ve seen all of these, and you’ve seen them because the monetary incentive is working. And by the way, lower revenue from fines can result from many causes other than civic virtue, like for instance the current economic man-made disaster.
The problem can be stated like this: as traffic law violators and criminals are impoverished by the loss of their property, government is enriched, and has every incentive to maximize revenue even when crime rates are falling. What to do? Well, I propose the following: All traffic fines and property confiscated as a result of criminal activity shall be donated to private charities which benefit the victims of the public roads or any of the crimes involved. This removes the incentive for any unwarranted “crackdowns” and at the same time revives the concept of restitution for victims, who are currently very badly neglected. DUI fines will go to DUI victims, and drug related asset forfeitures will go to victims of drug crimes. Ok, it’s not a perfect solution. Maybe the charities would also become rent seekers, but if so, at least they would not have the means to oppress the public, so it would be a more benign abuse, and could be handled in the courts. As long as traffic fine and asset forfeiture revenue flows to those with violent means of revenue enhancement, there remains the possibility of violent abuse of the public.

Immigration

The lawsuit brought by the general government in Federal Court against the State of Arizona is puzzling to say the least. Arizona's SB 1070 (the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act") is meticulous to stipulate that every aspect of the bill will comply with the United States Code regarding illegal immigration. So, how will the solicitors argue the case of the general government against Arizona? Will they object that Arizona has elected to enforce federal laws where federal agencies have chosen not to do so? It's difficult to imagine how any substantial part of Arizona's law could be found to be in violation of Federal Statutes in a fair court hearing. But in my view there is a problem with the Arizona and the Federal Immigration Statutes, both.

How can it be ethical to enforce by threat of violence, any law where the basis of that law is "legal status" rather than a violation of person or property? The existing immigration law can prohibit our citizens from inviting a non-violent person who might have the wrong "legal status", on to our property or to engage with them in mutually beneficial commerce. Sounds like the "land of the free" may have migrated from reality to wishful thinking.

The implication of our immigration law is that every person regardless of their status, age, etc. must consent to be a resource to be plundered by every level of government and that only those who allow themselves to be subject to government theft are worthy of being allowed to physically occupy any point in space that government claims as its jurisdiction. How else can this be interpreted but that government claims ownership of all property and all people within its territory? And since government claims to be the ultimate owner of everything and everyone in their jurisdiction, a logical objection to "illegal immigration" is that the immigrants will try to receive government benefits without paying into the system that provides them. So, naturally our citizens believe that "illegal aliens" are encroaching on benefits that they could have received otherwise. This is like the slave who objects to the beggar because the slave might have received the master's gift to the beggar for himself. We are in a bad way when we argue over the benefit of goods that were stolen from us in the first place. One solution to our current immigration difficulty is to stop all government theft and transfer payment schemes. Then with no dole for anyone to lust after, we could honestly welcome every peaceful and productive person to join us in a free market and create an increasingly prosperous and peaceful society. Our immigration policy could then be "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free", as it once was.

But, until we the people of the united States begin to resist the culture of public theft and redistribution we will accelerate in circling this toilet, and proceed down the sewer to socialism.

Census not forgotten

I'm still angry about the census. The federal government had no right to ask most of the questions that were asked on the census forms, and if anyone were to refuse or, heaven forbid, not tell the truth in their answers, he would be subject to the full body slam of the King Kong Code of Federal Regulations. I, for one, answered all of their questions, even the illegal ones, but noted on each one that was not explicitly authorized by the Constitution that the question was illegal and they had no right to ask that question.

I have no intention of sacrificing myself before the runaway freight train of the general government, but I did write to my State Congresswoman and State Senator. I told them that they had a responsibility to defend the civil rights of the citizens of our State and to defend us from illegal encroachments by the general government. I got a 50% favorable response, which is very encouraging.

Then today I read an article by Michael Rozeff (here) and I had an idea:

What if the following were sent Fed Ex Overnight to the Congress of the United States from every State in the Union?

Were-as, the general government of the States united in the North American Union has violated the terms of the Constitution forming that government by forcing the citizens of the States to answer unauthorized questions in pursuit of the decennial census, and

Where-as the States retain their right to refuse their consent to actions by the general government which violate the agreement by which the general government was formed by the States,

Therefore, the States of the North American Union withhold their permission for the general government to conduct the census of 2020 and all census thereafter, and

The States pledge to conduct a legal census in compliance with the Constitution which formed the North American Union, asking such questions as the several States shall decide to be appropriate for their own purposes, and

The States shall withhold annually from the general government's tax general levies an amount adequate for the purpose of conducting such legal census.


What a delight that would be:
1. The States would be standing up for the Constitutional rights of their citizens
2. The general government would be slapped down by the only ones capable of doing so
3. The States would exercise their right to resist illegal acts by the general government and
4. The precedent would be set that the States could control the general levies (Income Tax) to the extent that they believe the general government has violated the Constitution.

And if you didn't like how a State treated you, you could move to a better State, at your preference.

The Colorado State Petition is here.

Feel free to create one for your own State!

Baseball Umpires

07/16/2010, Rockies vs. Cincinnati Reds. Top of the ninth, Batter hit by a pitch (not called) and two obvious balls called strikes. Seriously, they were inside by a good foot.

Umpires in professional baseball are either incompetent, or they are on the take.

Choose your poison...

And I hate when the officials decide the game with bad calls, either way.

Apple's App Store

Maybe I'm being too sensitive, but can someone explain to me why I am badgered by Apple's App Store to validate my credit card number and validation code so I can download a FREE APP?

The aggravation factor of owning Apple hardware is making me rethink the total monetary and non-monetary cost of ownership.