China has much of our debt. There has been much angst about this. What I want to know is this???
How in the hell would China EVER collect if we were to default. Can you really see China's military coming over here and taking it????? No. If we default, then China is screwed. Any attempt by China to come over here to take anything would result in nuclear war. China knows this as does the USA. THIS is why China is scolding us.
China is in a rough spot. If they keep buying our debt and then we default - China is screwed.
If they stop buying our debt and it crashes our economy and we default, China is screwed.
Now I do not advocate the USA defaulting. It would destroy the USA as a secure and safe financial haven. Also, it would cause huge upheavals in this country. We would be unable to import goods for anything other than cold hard cash. It would cause enormous hardships for the citizen. This hardship would continue until our manufacturing and farming capacities were restored and back online. This country CAN be self sufficient. We do not NEED any of the rest of the world. We have the ability and resources to provide for ourselves.
This brings me to another point. This is a conspiracy theory. Could we be waging a sort of economic war?? We are going into debt. We went ever so slowly at first and each administration has slowly accelerated the pace.....the lone exception MAY have been Clinton. Are we using China and others to buy our debt...Using them and their resources .....sucking them dry....then telling the Sorry - We can't pay you. Then as stated above, China and the others cannot do anything about it without a nuclear strike against us....which will insure their own demise.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
On the Public Option in Healthcare
This is an emotionally charged issue for many. Many hope that a government health care plan with a public option becomes law. Many of these people are people unable to get insurance due to their health, or they have friends or family in such a position. A couple that I have known much of my life have cancer - both of them. Their insurance costs are rising all the time. They may not be able to afford the insurance much longer. They are fervently hoping for the passage of a bill with the public option. I can really understand. I really feel for this couple. I HATE seeing them in dire straits. Is the public option the answer????
Lets look at the pros and cons of a public option.
Pros...
1 - Everyone is covered regardless of condition or income.
2 - No 'out of pocket' costs
Cons
1 - While the coverage is equal, the tax burdens for it are not.
2 - No one can opt out of paying for it - even if they opt out of participation in it.
3 - This will have the effect of establishing government control of medical personnel's pay. This will very likely deter many of the brightest young people from entering the medical field.
4 - This is a precedent for any numbers of ever more invasive 'for the public good' legislation.
5 - If something is perceived to be 'free', then there will be no disincentive for frivolous visits to the doctor or the hospital. This will increase the traffic into medical facilities. If we have more traffic and fewer providers, then we have waiting lists and lines.
6 - A large part of the taxes that WILL be levied to pay for a public option will be absorbed by the bureaucracy established to oversee the whole thing. If demand reaches a certain point, then money becomes an issue. When money becomes an issue, there are two choices. 1 - run at a deficit. 2 - Start rationing of health care. Choice 1 is unsustainable - See medicare and social security. Choice 2 will be implemented. See Canada's, Britain's, and France's health care systems.
The above are the technical pros and cons.
Yet there is a very fundamental issue not yet discussed. That issue is the constitutional one and the systemic one.
Our financial system is a capitalistic one. The basic tenant of that system is that those with more ability are rewarded accordingly. Another way to look at capitalism is thus : 2 parties trade - each to his or her own benefit. Where that benefit does not exist for one of those parties, no trade occurs. OR - If you go to the store to buy a loaf of bread and you deem the price too high, then you do not buy the bread. If you deem the price of the bread fair - you buy the bread.
A socialist system has this as it's tenant : From each according to ability , To each according to need. Our current tax system is socialistic in nature. As an individual climbs the income ladder, he or she pays more taxes. Yet, the individual paying more does not get more from government than the individual paying less. Actually, the individual paying less or none receives the most from government. An example of this is the health department services available to those below a certain income level.
The fault of the socialist system is that it is ignorant of human nature. If someone of exceptional ability has no incentive to utilize that ability - he or she won't. This will retard the progress of our advances in every field.
The fault of a socialist system is that one person's need becomes a mortgage upon another person's life. AHA!!! You say. "How is a system socialistic when EVERYONE pays and EVERYONE benefits!!!" That would be a good point IF ...IF it were true. Everyone will not pay. Those who do pay will not pay equally. Yet all participants will get the same medical care as good or as bad as it may be. It is quite likely that it will eventually be illegal to obtain health care outside the system.
Thus arises another question. Will the public option become the only option? I think it will have to. Let me list my reasons for this belief.
1 - A public option can undercut private insurance on out of pocket costs. (Public Option has no out of pocket costs.)
2 - A public option does not have to show a profit.
3 - Everyone will pay for the public option, so why not use it.
4 - Insurance companies will shift to insuring the public option...a large group plan spread among several insurance companies...the rest go out of business.
5 - As a result of #4, Insurance companies will become essentially a government department.
The result of the points above is to make private health insurance unavailable.
NOW...This will not all happen all at once. This will slip in slowly over a period of years. The legislation to come may not even mention a public option - or it will use obfuscating language to disguise it.
Finally, we come to the constitutional issue.
NOWHERE in the constitution or the Bill of Rights is there any authority whatsoever given to the federal government to involve itself in health care. As a further matter of fact, the federal government has already FAR exceeded it's authority as laid out in the constitution and Bill of Rights.
As I have said before. The fundamental issue is just how much personal responsibility do you wish to transfer to the government? Do understand that with the transfer of responsibility comes a transfer of privacy, control, and liberty.
Lets look at the pros and cons of a public option.
Pros...
1 - Everyone is covered regardless of condition or income.
2 - No 'out of pocket' costs
Cons
1 - While the coverage is equal, the tax burdens for it are not.
2 - No one can opt out of paying for it - even if they opt out of participation in it.
3 - This will have the effect of establishing government control of medical personnel's pay. This will very likely deter many of the brightest young people from entering the medical field.
4 - This is a precedent for any numbers of ever more invasive 'for the public good' legislation.
5 - If something is perceived to be 'free', then there will be no disincentive for frivolous visits to the doctor or the hospital. This will increase the traffic into medical facilities. If we have more traffic and fewer providers, then we have waiting lists and lines.
6 - A large part of the taxes that WILL be levied to pay for a public option will be absorbed by the bureaucracy established to oversee the whole thing. If demand reaches a certain point, then money becomes an issue. When money becomes an issue, there are two choices. 1 - run at a deficit. 2 - Start rationing of health care. Choice 1 is unsustainable - See medicare and social security. Choice 2 will be implemented. See Canada's, Britain's, and France's health care systems.
The above are the technical pros and cons.
Yet there is a very fundamental issue not yet discussed. That issue is the constitutional one and the systemic one.
Our financial system is a capitalistic one. The basic tenant of that system is that those with more ability are rewarded accordingly. Another way to look at capitalism is thus : 2 parties trade - each to his or her own benefit. Where that benefit does not exist for one of those parties, no trade occurs. OR - If you go to the store to buy a loaf of bread and you deem the price too high, then you do not buy the bread. If you deem the price of the bread fair - you buy the bread.
A socialist system has this as it's tenant : From each according to ability , To each according to need. Our current tax system is socialistic in nature. As an individual climbs the income ladder, he or she pays more taxes. Yet, the individual paying more does not get more from government than the individual paying less. Actually, the individual paying less or none receives the most from government. An example of this is the health department services available to those below a certain income level.
The fault of the socialist system is that it is ignorant of human nature. If someone of exceptional ability has no incentive to utilize that ability - he or she won't. This will retard the progress of our advances in every field.
The fault of a socialist system is that one person's need becomes a mortgage upon another person's life. AHA!!! You say. "How is a system socialistic when EVERYONE pays and EVERYONE benefits!!!" That would be a good point IF ...IF it were true. Everyone will not pay. Those who do pay will not pay equally. Yet all participants will get the same medical care as good or as bad as it may be. It is quite likely that it will eventually be illegal to obtain health care outside the system.
Thus arises another question. Will the public option become the only option? I think it will have to. Let me list my reasons for this belief.
1 - A public option can undercut private insurance on out of pocket costs. (Public Option has no out of pocket costs.)
2 - A public option does not have to show a profit.
3 - Everyone will pay for the public option, so why not use it.
4 - Insurance companies will shift to insuring the public option...a large group plan spread among several insurance companies...the rest go out of business.
5 - As a result of #4, Insurance companies will become essentially a government department.
The result of the points above is to make private health insurance unavailable.
NOW...This will not all happen all at once. This will slip in slowly over a period of years. The legislation to come may not even mention a public option - or it will use obfuscating language to disguise it.
Finally, we come to the constitutional issue.
NOWHERE in the constitution or the Bill of Rights is there any authority whatsoever given to the federal government to involve itself in health care. As a further matter of fact, the federal government has already FAR exceeded it's authority as laid out in the constitution and Bill of Rights.
As I have said before. The fundamental issue is just how much personal responsibility do you wish to transfer to the government? Do understand that with the transfer of responsibility comes a transfer of privacy, control, and liberty.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
American Individual, Its Decision Time!!!!
OK,
Let us drop all the Obama and Bush bashing for the moment. The question of Obama or Bush is a symptom not the root of an issue.
This is the root of the issues....this is the root of a great many issues.
Are you ready????? Here it is!!!! What is the role and responsibility of the individual adult and what is the same for government??
Can we agree on the following: Your money is compensation from an entity for time from your life and labor traded to that entity. Generally, everything you own is purchased from that money that you have earned. Therefore your property represents parts of your life.
Resultingly, any tax is the involuntary taking of part of your life by the various levels of government.
It is proper and right that we pay taxes for the maintenance of the government itself, common defense, policing and enforcing of constitutional law, etc.
Now the sticky point. What is the role of government in taking care of the individual? Is the answer None? Is it Retirement and Old age medical care?? (Social Security and Medicare) Is it full medical care from birth to death? Should government provide all the necessities of life that are the primary pursuits of primitive man??
First: If None, then those who are proven unable to meet the challenges of existence will be at the mercy of the charity of others. Those most able will live in luxury.
Second: If government is to provide for all basic needs, then we will have to be willing to pay 70% of all of our income right off the top. We will almost all have the same house, the same everything regardless of individuality. We will also have to be willing to let the government assume a parental role in our lives. The idea of private property will have to go in this case.
Those are the two most polarized choices.
Just know that human nature will not allow the second choice to succeed for any period of time.
Let us drop all the Obama and Bush bashing for the moment. The question of Obama or Bush is a symptom not the root of an issue.
This is the root of the issues....this is the root of a great many issues.
Are you ready????? Here it is!!!! What is the role and responsibility of the individual adult and what is the same for government??
Can we agree on the following: Your money is compensation from an entity for time from your life and labor traded to that entity. Generally, everything you own is purchased from that money that you have earned. Therefore your property represents parts of your life.
Resultingly, any tax is the involuntary taking of part of your life by the various levels of government.
It is proper and right that we pay taxes for the maintenance of the government itself, common defense, policing and enforcing of constitutional law, etc.
Now the sticky point. What is the role of government in taking care of the individual? Is the answer None? Is it Retirement and Old age medical care?? (Social Security and Medicare) Is it full medical care from birth to death? Should government provide all the necessities of life that are the primary pursuits of primitive man??
First: If None, then those who are proven unable to meet the challenges of existence will be at the mercy of the charity of others. Those most able will live in luxury.
Second: If government is to provide for all basic needs, then we will have to be willing to pay 70% of all of our income right off the top. We will almost all have the same house, the same everything regardless of individuality. We will also have to be willing to let the government assume a parental role in our lives. The idea of private property will have to go in this case.
Those are the two most polarized choices.
Just know that human nature will not allow the second choice to succeed for any period of time.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
A letter to Nancy Pelosi
Ms Pelosi,
Although I am sure you are a well intentioned person, I find it very hard to have respect for your ideas. The major faults in your outlook are
1) that our government should be in the business of providing charity to it's citizens,
2)That global warming is a real issue and not part of the Earth's natural cycle. Carbon Dioxide is exhaled or absorbed by all living things. If you want to reduce carbon dioxide, plant vegetation that heavily utilizes it.
3)Big business is the enemy of the US citizen - Ms Pelosi, Big Business is comprised of US Citizens. Handicaping American business with onerous regulation will only benefit other countries at the expense of our own.
4)Waterboarding is NOT torture. it isn't when compared to people getting their heads hacked off with a dull blade. If it comes to the safety of my family or myself, I will do vile things. Here is the catch, I WOULD NEVER DO THESE THINGS UNLESS THE RECIPIENT OF THE 'TORTURE' PLACED ME IN A POSITION WHERE HIS OR HER ACTIONS PUT IN DOUBT THE SURVIVAL AND SAFETY OF THOSE I LOVE.
5)GAy Marraige - actually, I am going to surprise you on this one. The problem is not whether or not gays can marry. The problem is marraige is a religious institution. Why is government in it? The answer - TAX Purposes!! Go to a civil union system for all citizens. You will have to allow polyamory etc. under the civil rights statutes. For tax purposes go to a base 2 system. IE if two get a civil union, they get the same tax breaks as the current married couples. If 3 get a civil union, 2 get the tax break, one files single. If 4 get a civil union, then they all get the tax break....and so on. Then if Barney wishes to 'marry' Chris, then they go to a church for the marraige, and the church has the right under seperation of church/state to either marry them or not.
6)Card Check - Right Now, the secret ballot protects the employee from pressure from the employee and the union. Removing the secret ballot opens the individual to pressure from BOTH sides. - This is why UNIONS wanted the secret ballot and got it so many decades ago. Now because the votes are often not as they want them to be, they wish to remove the secret ballot. Why? The only answer I can see is to intimidate workers. Well, the union ought to remember that the employer can pull the same tricks through proxies.
7)ALL money that operates the federal and state governments comes from the citizen. Money represents life. If I make $1.00 an hour, and you take a $1.00 from me, you have taken an hour of my life. Please keep this in mind when you take part of my life to give to others that will not do on their own.
8)The common defense and major infrastructure are the obligations that you have to me. Social security is also an obligation to me as you have taken part of my life to fund it. These other things are serious overstepping of bounds by generations of those in government.
9)I will only bend so far under a load and then I wil Quit. Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged. Some characters in that book follow the philosophies you embrace. Do you think they are the good guys or the bad??
Finally, I must point out that although I am not a California voter, I will do what I can to encourage the electing of those that oppose your philosophies as you have practiced them so far.
You have the ability, Ms Speaker, to turn this whole thing around. You have the ability to be great if you will honestly examine your beliefs and follow them to their ends as dictated by human psychology - and change your ideas to benefit and encourage rather than to defeat the spirit of man.
I bid you a good day Ms Speaker. I hope you find it within yourself to change the mistaken ideas that you hold dear.
Sincerely, David Falls
Although I am sure you are a well intentioned person, I find it very hard to have respect for your ideas. The major faults in your outlook are
1) that our government should be in the business of providing charity to it's citizens,
2)That global warming is a real issue and not part of the Earth's natural cycle. Carbon Dioxide is exhaled or absorbed by all living things. If you want to reduce carbon dioxide, plant vegetation that heavily utilizes it.
3)Big business is the enemy of the US citizen - Ms Pelosi, Big Business is comprised of US Citizens. Handicaping American business with onerous regulation will only benefit other countries at the expense of our own.
4)Waterboarding is NOT torture. it isn't when compared to people getting their heads hacked off with a dull blade. If it comes to the safety of my family or myself, I will do vile things. Here is the catch, I WOULD NEVER DO THESE THINGS UNLESS THE RECIPIENT OF THE 'TORTURE' PLACED ME IN A POSITION WHERE HIS OR HER ACTIONS PUT IN DOUBT THE SURVIVAL AND SAFETY OF THOSE I LOVE.
5)GAy Marraige - actually, I am going to surprise you on this one. The problem is not whether or not gays can marry. The problem is marraige is a religious institution. Why is government in it? The answer - TAX Purposes!! Go to a civil union system for all citizens. You will have to allow polyamory etc. under the civil rights statutes. For tax purposes go to a base 2 system. IE if two get a civil union, they get the same tax breaks as the current married couples. If 3 get a civil union, 2 get the tax break, one files single. If 4 get a civil union, then they all get the tax break....and so on. Then if Barney wishes to 'marry' Chris, then they go to a church for the marraige, and the church has the right under seperation of church/state to either marry them or not.
6)Card Check - Right Now, the secret ballot protects the employee from pressure from the employee and the union. Removing the secret ballot opens the individual to pressure from BOTH sides. - This is why UNIONS wanted the secret ballot and got it so many decades ago. Now because the votes are often not as they want them to be, they wish to remove the secret ballot. Why? The only answer I can see is to intimidate workers. Well, the union ought to remember that the employer can pull the same tricks through proxies.
7)ALL money that operates the federal and state governments comes from the citizen. Money represents life. If I make $1.00 an hour, and you take a $1.00 from me, you have taken an hour of my life. Please keep this in mind when you take part of my life to give to others that will not do on their own.
8)The common defense and major infrastructure are the obligations that you have to me. Social security is also an obligation to me as you have taken part of my life to fund it. These other things are serious overstepping of bounds by generations of those in government.
9)I will only bend so far under a load and then I wil Quit. Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged. Some characters in that book follow the philosophies you embrace. Do you think they are the good guys or the bad??
Finally, I must point out that although I am not a California voter, I will do what I can to encourage the electing of those that oppose your philosophies as you have practiced them so far.
You have the ability, Ms Speaker, to turn this whole thing around. You have the ability to be great if you will honestly examine your beliefs and follow them to their ends as dictated by human psychology - and change your ideas to benefit and encourage rather than to defeat the spirit of man.
I bid you a good day Ms Speaker. I hope you find it within yourself to change the mistaken ideas that you hold dear.
Sincerely, David Falls
Sunday, June 14, 2009
My Political Truisms
If you want to decide whether you favor the passage of a piece of legislation or not, or You wish to decide whether you really support a candidate or not, you only need consider two things. I call these things my two political truisms. They will work for you no matter where you stand on the balance of government vs the individual.
1) Any time that the government is tasked with managing some aspect of life, the individual loses control or has less control of that aspect of life.
2)Any law, legislation, regulation, executive order, etc, will eventually be used to it's worst possible effect no matter the intentions behind it.
---a post script to this is that generality in a law makes it much easier to twist said law.
A lesser note to the two truisms above is that precedent is a powerful thing.
So to decide where you stand on something,
- First consider the control you will lose as an individual.
- Second take that something and try to twist it to put it to the worst use you possible could if you were corrupt and wanted to increase your power. In the case of legislation, try to look at the language of the legislation. Any gross generalities are dangers.
An example of a generality is 'for the public good.' This in itself says nothing. It is open to interpretation and abuse.
Also open to abuse is the word 'Fair.' There is only one piece of legislation I know that uses the word 'fair' and does not choke on it. That is because the word fair is in the name of the proposal and the 'fairness' is spelled out in detail in the body of the proposal. Still, I would prefer that these types of phrases and word we left out of the legislative lexicon.
Precedent is another danger of laws open to interpretation.
If one thing is done for the public good......it makes it easier to do another thing for the public good......
So if you are ok with the individual control lost, you are ok with any possible twisting of a certain piece of legislation, and you are ok with the precedent set - then favor the legislation. If you are not ok with any one of these aspects, the you must oppose the legislation.
In choosing whether to support a candidate, look at his voting record and his/her stated stances. Do the two align?? If not, is the candidate a liar?? Does the voting record and stances indicate a preference for more individual control or more government control? If you agree with the candidates stances overall and his overall voting record, then vote for him or her. It is usually not good to judge a candidate on a single issue. If a candidate aligns with you on 90% of the issues that will be good enough.
Now for me, there is an issue that determines my way of voting. This is an issue that affects all other issues and completely shifts the balance of the relationship between the individual and the government. I will leave it to you to figure out what that issue is.
1) Any time that the government is tasked with managing some aspect of life, the individual loses control or has less control of that aspect of life.
2)Any law, legislation, regulation, executive order, etc, will eventually be used to it's worst possible effect no matter the intentions behind it.
---a post script to this is that generality in a law makes it much easier to twist said law.
A lesser note to the two truisms above is that precedent is a powerful thing.
So to decide where you stand on something,
- First consider the control you will lose as an individual.
- Second take that something and try to twist it to put it to the worst use you possible could if you were corrupt and wanted to increase your power. In the case of legislation, try to look at the language of the legislation. Any gross generalities are dangers.
An example of a generality is 'for the public good.' This in itself says nothing. It is open to interpretation and abuse.
Also open to abuse is the word 'Fair.' There is only one piece of legislation I know that uses the word 'fair' and does not choke on it. That is because the word fair is in the name of the proposal and the 'fairness' is spelled out in detail in the body of the proposal. Still, I would prefer that these types of phrases and word we left out of the legislative lexicon.
Precedent is another danger of laws open to interpretation.
If one thing is done for the public good......it makes it easier to do another thing for the public good......
So if you are ok with the individual control lost, you are ok with any possible twisting of a certain piece of legislation, and you are ok with the precedent set - then favor the legislation. If you are not ok with any one of these aspects, the you must oppose the legislation.
In choosing whether to support a candidate, look at his voting record and his/her stated stances. Do the two align?? If not, is the candidate a liar?? Does the voting record and stances indicate a preference for more individual control or more government control? If you agree with the candidates stances overall and his overall voting record, then vote for him or her. It is usually not good to judge a candidate on a single issue. If a candidate aligns with you on 90% of the issues that will be good enough.
Now for me, there is an issue that determines my way of voting. This is an issue that affects all other issues and completely shifts the balance of the relationship between the individual and the government. I will leave it to you to figure out what that issue is.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Darkness within
I am tired. I worry about the clowns running or is that ruining the country at the moment. Yet, I don't really feel like getting into that.
Over on facebook, a friend brought up something about an old movie. This lead to me thinking about myself. Every one of us has a capacity for good and for evil. I firmly believe that the greater the capacity for one, the greater the capicity for the other. Most of the time the capacities seem to cancel out, and there we go right down the middle of the road.
Take me. I have enormous compassion and empathy, yet I can be selfish and cruel. Sometimes my assets are liabilities. Look at a fictional character that I felt an incredible affinity for....Anakin Skywalker. Anikan eventually evolves into Darth Vader. Anikan is an incredibly good boy and man that has his fear of losing those he loves most used against him to twist him into evil. I can almost put myself into his place and say I would have been just as good and evil as he was had I been in the same circumstances. Yet, the single difference that would have made all the difference. I could not have killed the padawans.
Another fictional character is the Goblin King from the movie Labyrinth. I always felt badly for him and felt that the girl was a bit callous in her regard of him.
Anyhow, there are a few songs that kind of explain or exemplify the mood that I am in.
Within You - David Bowie
How you turned my world, you precious thing
You starve and near exhaust me
Everything I've done, I've done for you
I move the stars for no one
You've run so long
You've run so far
Your eyes can be so cruel
Just as I can be so cruel
Though I do believe in you
Yes I do
Live without the sunlight
Love without your heartbeat
I, I can't live within you
I can't live within you
(sigh)
I, I can't live within you
Tears and Rain - James Blunt
How I wish I could surrender my soul;
Shed the clothes that become my skin;
See the liar that burns within my needing.
How I wish I'd chosen darkness from cold.
How I wish I had screamed out loud,Instead I've found no meaning.
I guess it's time I run far, far away;
find comfort in pain,
All pleasure's the same:
it just keeps me from trouble.
Hides my true shape, like Dorian Gray.
I've heard what they say, but I'm not here for trouble.
It's more than just words:
it's just tears and rain.
How I wish I could walk through the doors of my mind;
Hold memory close at hand,Help me understand the years.
How I wish I could choose between Heaven and Hell.
How I wish I would save my soul.
I'm so cold from fear.
I guess it's time I run far, far away;
find comfort in pain,
All pleasure's the same:
it just keeps me from trouble.
Hides my true shape, like Dorian Gray.
I've heard what they say, but I'm not here for trouble.
Far, far away; find comfort in pain.
All pleasure's the same: it just keeps me from trouble.
It's more than just words: it's just tears and rain.
Story of Isaac - Leonard Cohen
The door it opened slowly,
my father he came in,
was nine years old.
And he stood so tall above me,
his blue eyes they were shining
and his voice was very cold.
He said, "I've had a vision
and you know I'm strong and holy,
I must do what I've been told.
"So he started up the mountain,
I was running, he was walking,
and his axe was made of gold.
Well, the trees they got much smaller,
the lake a lady's mirror,
we stopped to drink some wine.
Then he threw the bottle over.
Broke a minute later
and he put his hand on mine.
Thought I saw an eagle
but it might have been a vulture,
I never could decide.
Then my father built an altar,
he looked once behind his shoulder,
he knew I would not hide.
You who build these altars now
to sacrifice these children,
you must not do it anymore.
A scheme is not a vision
and you never have been tempted
by a demon or a god.
You who stand above them now,
your hatchets blunt and bloody,
you were not there before,
when I lay upon a mountain
and my father's hand was trembling
with the beauty of the word.
And if you call me brother now,
forgive me if I inquire,
"Just according to whose plan?"
When it all comes down to dust
I will kill you if I must,
I will help you if I can.
When it all comes down to dust
I will help you if I must,
I will kill you if I can.
And mercy on our uniform,
man of peace or man of war,
the peacock spreads his fan.
Over on facebook, a friend brought up something about an old movie. This lead to me thinking about myself. Every one of us has a capacity for good and for evil. I firmly believe that the greater the capacity for one, the greater the capicity for the other. Most of the time the capacities seem to cancel out, and there we go right down the middle of the road.
Take me. I have enormous compassion and empathy, yet I can be selfish and cruel. Sometimes my assets are liabilities. Look at a fictional character that I felt an incredible affinity for....Anakin Skywalker. Anikan eventually evolves into Darth Vader. Anikan is an incredibly good boy and man that has his fear of losing those he loves most used against him to twist him into evil. I can almost put myself into his place and say I would have been just as good and evil as he was had I been in the same circumstances. Yet, the single difference that would have made all the difference. I could not have killed the padawans.
Another fictional character is the Goblin King from the movie Labyrinth. I always felt badly for him and felt that the girl was a bit callous in her regard of him.
Anyhow, there are a few songs that kind of explain or exemplify the mood that I am in.
Within You - David Bowie
How you turned my world, you precious thing
You starve and near exhaust me
Everything I've done, I've done for you
I move the stars for no one
You've run so long
You've run so far
Your eyes can be so cruel
Just as I can be so cruel
Though I do believe in you
Yes I do
Live without the sunlight
Love without your heartbeat
I, I can't live within you
I can't live within you
(sigh)
I, I can't live within you
Tears and Rain - James Blunt
How I wish I could surrender my soul;
Shed the clothes that become my skin;
See the liar that burns within my needing.
How I wish I'd chosen darkness from cold.
How I wish I had screamed out loud,Instead I've found no meaning.
I guess it's time I run far, far away;
find comfort in pain,
All pleasure's the same:
it just keeps me from trouble.
Hides my true shape, like Dorian Gray.
I've heard what they say, but I'm not here for trouble.
It's more than just words:
it's just tears and rain.
How I wish I could walk through the doors of my mind;
Hold memory close at hand,Help me understand the years.
How I wish I could choose between Heaven and Hell.
How I wish I would save my soul.
I'm so cold from fear.
I guess it's time I run far, far away;
find comfort in pain,
All pleasure's the same:
it just keeps me from trouble.
Hides my true shape, like Dorian Gray.
I've heard what they say, but I'm not here for trouble.
Far, far away; find comfort in pain.
All pleasure's the same: it just keeps me from trouble.
It's more than just words: it's just tears and rain.
Story of Isaac - Leonard Cohen
The door it opened slowly,
my father he came in,
was nine years old.
And he stood so tall above me,
his blue eyes they were shining
and his voice was very cold.
He said, "I've had a vision
and you know I'm strong and holy,
I must do what I've been told.
"So he started up the mountain,
I was running, he was walking,
and his axe was made of gold.
Well, the trees they got much smaller,
the lake a lady's mirror,
we stopped to drink some wine.
Then he threw the bottle over.
Broke a minute later
and he put his hand on mine.
Thought I saw an eagle
but it might have been a vulture,
I never could decide.
Then my father built an altar,
he looked once behind his shoulder,
he knew I would not hide.
You who build these altars now
to sacrifice these children,
you must not do it anymore.
A scheme is not a vision
and you never have been tempted
by a demon or a god.
You who stand above them now,
your hatchets blunt and bloody,
you were not there before,
when I lay upon a mountain
and my father's hand was trembling
with the beauty of the word.
And if you call me brother now,
forgive me if I inquire,
"Just according to whose plan?"
When it all comes down to dust
I will kill you if I must,
I will help you if I can.
When it all comes down to dust
I will help you if I must,
I will kill you if I can.
And mercy on our uniform,
man of peace or man of war,
the peacock spreads his fan.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Absent Friends
I am getting older now, and I am sure many have lost friends. I lost my best friend. I lost the friend that was by far the most intelligent. That is a pretty profound thing to state when you look at those I call friends. Intelligent all. First of all, I would like to post the lyrics to a song. This is for you my friend, wherever you may be.
Far Behind - Candlebox
Now maybe I didnt mean to treat you bad
But I did it anyway
And not maybe
Some would say your life was sad
But you lived it anyway
And now maybe
Your friends they stand beside they watch you crumble
As you falter to the ground
And now maybe
Your friends they stand beside as you were flying
Oh you were flying oh so high
But then some day people look at you for what they call their own
They watch you suffer
Yeah they hear you calling home
But then some day we could take our time
To brush the leaves aside so you can reach us
But you left me far behind
Now maybe I didnt mean to treat you oh so bad
But I did it anyway
Now maybe some would say youre left with what you had
But you couldnt share the pain
No, no, no
Couldnt share the pain they watch you suffer
Now maybe I could have made my own mistakes
But I live with what Ive known
Yes maybe we might share in something great
But wont you look at where weve grown
Wont you look at where weve gone
But then someday comes tomorrow holds a sense of what I fear for you in my mind
As you trip the final line
And that cold day when you lost control
Shame you left my life
So soon you should have told me
But you left me far behind
Now maybe I didnt meant to treat you oh so bad
But I did it anyway
Now maybe some would say youre left with what you had
But you couldnt share the pain
No, no, no
Now maybe I didnt mean to treat you oh so bad
But I did it anyway
No maybe some would say youre left with what you had
But you couldnt share the pain
I said times have changed your friends
They come and watch you crumble to the ground
They watch you suffer
Yeah they hold you down
Hold you down
Maybe brother maybe love I didnt mean to treat you bad
But you left me far behind
Left me far behind
Left me far behind
____________________________________________________
Now I am not going to name his name, but those of you who know me can guess who I am talking about. Some of you may well think, 'Good Riddance.' I can understand that for those who did not know him well. After all, he was an alcoholic bum...right? Yes, he was. Alcohol can do things to people. Yet the choice was ultimately his. After all, he tried to shoot a cop and the turned the gun on himself. (I still have reservations about this version of the events. After all, the dead tell no tales. The officer involved was a participant in other incidents.... But in any case, lets go on the official story.) The choice to pull his weapon was his. I condemn his choices regarding alcohol and his final choice. These things are those that anyone from his and my past knows. Now let me tell you about the man I knew, the one that most of you do not know. The one you never knew existed.
The man I knew was a loyal friend who expected loyalty in return.
The man I knew was a hurt soul wishing desperately for approval.
The man I knew was a student of history and was adept at seeing the trends in current events. He prediced all the things that have come to pass since he died.
The man I knew was a very astute observer of human psychology.
The man I knew was fiercely an individualist who wore his god given rights upon his chest and gave no quarter to those who wished to deprive him of any of those rights.
The man I knew would forgive many things, but betrayal was not among them.
The man I knew had an awesome sense of humor and irony.
So how did so many contradictory things exist in one person? These things were no more contradictory than the varying influences in his formative years. Most of the good came from his grandparents. Most of the bad came from his father. His difficulty in cultivating a romantic relationship came from his parents. I feel bad for his father now. I think his father now is trying to make up for his faults...waiting for an absolution that will never come. The whole thing hurts me horribly.....it never heals.
What failings were his fathers? Easy access to alcohol, disrespect for authority, denial of warmth, denial of approval. What were the failings of his mother?? Weakness. The inability to focus on more than her own pain left from her husband's abandoning of her.
Don't get me wrong. They did things for him. They helped him in their own ways. I don't think either of them ever meant to be cruel. The father should have known better, though. Providing kegs for an underage kid's 16th birthday party is irresponsible....especially one already veering into alcoholism.
I think if his Grandfather could have spent about five more years with him, he would have been fine.
Towards the end, he had started to get frightening. He was enormously strong, and when he was drunk he could get wild. I think back and try to figure what I could have done differently. I know I am not in fault in his death, but I still wonder what I may have been able to do to save him.
In all but fact, he was my brother. His death has left a jagged hole in me that 11 years has not filled. He held my firstborn. I remember him holding her looking at her in amazement and wonder. He bought her a book for her to read when she was old enough. It was, 'Common Sense' by Thomas Paine.
I miss you my friend.
Far Behind - Candlebox
Now maybe I didnt mean to treat you bad
But I did it anyway
And not maybe
Some would say your life was sad
But you lived it anyway
And now maybe
Your friends they stand beside they watch you crumble
As you falter to the ground
And now maybe
Your friends they stand beside as you were flying
Oh you were flying oh so high
But then some day people look at you for what they call their own
They watch you suffer
Yeah they hear you calling home
But then some day we could take our time
To brush the leaves aside so you can reach us
But you left me far behind
Now maybe I didnt mean to treat you oh so bad
But I did it anyway
Now maybe some would say youre left with what you had
But you couldnt share the pain
No, no, no
Couldnt share the pain they watch you suffer
Now maybe I could have made my own mistakes
But I live with what Ive known
Yes maybe we might share in something great
But wont you look at where weve grown
Wont you look at where weve gone
But then someday comes tomorrow holds a sense of what I fear for you in my mind
As you trip the final line
And that cold day when you lost control
Shame you left my life
So soon you should have told me
But you left me far behind
Now maybe I didnt meant to treat you oh so bad
But I did it anyway
Now maybe some would say youre left with what you had
But you couldnt share the pain
No, no, no
Now maybe I didnt mean to treat you oh so bad
But I did it anyway
No maybe some would say youre left with what you had
But you couldnt share the pain
I said times have changed your friends
They come and watch you crumble to the ground
They watch you suffer
Yeah they hold you down
Hold you down
Maybe brother maybe love I didnt mean to treat you bad
But you left me far behind
Left me far behind
Left me far behind
____________________________________________________
Now I am not going to name his name, but those of you who know me can guess who I am talking about. Some of you may well think, 'Good Riddance.' I can understand that for those who did not know him well. After all, he was an alcoholic bum...right? Yes, he was. Alcohol can do things to people. Yet the choice was ultimately his. After all, he tried to shoot a cop and the turned the gun on himself. (I still have reservations about this version of the events. After all, the dead tell no tales. The officer involved was a participant in other incidents.... But in any case, lets go on the official story.) The choice to pull his weapon was his. I condemn his choices regarding alcohol and his final choice. These things are those that anyone from his and my past knows. Now let me tell you about the man I knew, the one that most of you do not know. The one you never knew existed.
The man I knew was a loyal friend who expected loyalty in return.
The man I knew was a hurt soul wishing desperately for approval.
The man I knew was a student of history and was adept at seeing the trends in current events. He prediced all the things that have come to pass since he died.
The man I knew was a very astute observer of human psychology.
The man I knew was fiercely an individualist who wore his god given rights upon his chest and gave no quarter to those who wished to deprive him of any of those rights.
The man I knew would forgive many things, but betrayal was not among them.
The man I knew had an awesome sense of humor and irony.
So how did so many contradictory things exist in one person? These things were no more contradictory than the varying influences in his formative years. Most of the good came from his grandparents. Most of the bad came from his father. His difficulty in cultivating a romantic relationship came from his parents. I feel bad for his father now. I think his father now is trying to make up for his faults...waiting for an absolution that will never come. The whole thing hurts me horribly.....it never heals.
What failings were his fathers? Easy access to alcohol, disrespect for authority, denial of warmth, denial of approval. What were the failings of his mother?? Weakness. The inability to focus on more than her own pain left from her husband's abandoning of her.
Don't get me wrong. They did things for him. They helped him in their own ways. I don't think either of them ever meant to be cruel. The father should have known better, though. Providing kegs for an underage kid's 16th birthday party is irresponsible....especially one already veering into alcoholism.
I think if his Grandfather could have spent about five more years with him, he would have been fine.
Towards the end, he had started to get frightening. He was enormously strong, and when he was drunk he could get wild. I think back and try to figure what I could have done differently. I know I am not in fault in his death, but I still wonder what I may have been able to do to save him.
In all but fact, he was my brother. His death has left a jagged hole in me that 11 years has not filled. He held my firstborn. I remember him holding her looking at her in amazement and wonder. He bought her a book for her to read when she was old enough. It was, 'Common Sense' by Thomas Paine.
I miss you my friend.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
A Closed Mind
I am very distressed right now. After many years, I had found a childhood friend online. I was very happy to have found him. While we were never close friends, I had always liked him. I still do. He is a member of a social networking website. He made a comment. I had a different opinion and made that comment. There was no nastiness whatsoever. I knew from his posts that his ideas on government and mine were different. What really threw me off my rocker is that after one conversation with no rancor, I am suddenly minus one friend on the social networking website. His statement is that he has no time or energy for those who do not share his views.
HOW?? How does one broaden one's mind? How does one ever discover new positions that make more sense than the ones currently held?? If I am a redneck and I only consort with rednecks, how do I ever find that maybe others that are different than me are ok??
I was deeply shocked. This friend is part of a demographic that screams for open mindedness from other demographics. Yet, one conversation where you do not hold the same opinion of a couple of men the he does - and zip - you are out of there. What closed mindedness!!! If these men about which we disagree were so horrible, show me why. I might change my mind about them. Such slamming of doors in faces is what leads to so much strife in this world.
What distresses me most is, If two individuals cannot get along without one cutting the other off completely, how can we ever expect our world to ever be at peace?
HOW?? How does one broaden one's mind? How does one ever discover new positions that make more sense than the ones currently held?? If I am a redneck and I only consort with rednecks, how do I ever find that maybe others that are different than me are ok??
I was deeply shocked. This friend is part of a demographic that screams for open mindedness from other demographics. Yet, one conversation where you do not hold the same opinion of a couple of men the he does - and zip - you are out of there. What closed mindedness!!! If these men about which we disagree were so horrible, show me why. I might change my mind about them. Such slamming of doors in faces is what leads to so much strife in this world.
What distresses me most is, If two individuals cannot get along without one cutting the other off completely, how can we ever expect our world to ever be at peace?
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The Root of All Evil??
Thank you Ayn Rand!!!
"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Aconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor – your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?
"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions – and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.
"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made – before it can be looted or mooched – made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.
"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except by the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss – the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery – that you must offer them values, not wounds – that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best your money can find. And when men live by trade – with reason, not force, as their final arbiter – it is the best product that wins, the best performance, then man of best judgment and highest ability – and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?
"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality – the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.
"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants; money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth – the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
"Money is your means of survival. The verdict which you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?
"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?
"Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is the loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money – and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.
"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another – their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.
"But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride, or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich – will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt – and of his life, as he deserves.
"Then you will see the rise of the double standard – the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money – the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law – men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims – then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.
"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.
"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it becomes, marked: 'Account overdrawn.'
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world?' You are.
"You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while you're damning its life-blood – money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves – slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer. Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers – as industrialists.
"To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money – and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being – the self-made man – the American industrialist.
"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose – because it contains all the others – the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money'. No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity – to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted, or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.
"Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters' continents. Now the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide – as, I think, he will.
"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns – or dollars. Take your choice – there is no other – and your time is running out."
"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Aconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor – your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?
"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions – and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.
"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made – before it can be looted or mooched – made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.
"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except by the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss – the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery – that you must offer them values, not wounds – that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best your money can find. And when men live by trade – with reason, not force, as their final arbiter – it is the best product that wins, the best performance, then man of best judgment and highest ability – and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?
"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality – the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.
"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants; money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth – the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
"Money is your means of survival. The verdict which you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?
"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?
"Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is the loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money – and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.
"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another – their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.
"But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride, or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich – will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt – and of his life, as he deserves.
"Then you will see the rise of the double standard – the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money – the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law – men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims – then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.
"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.
"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it becomes, marked: 'Account overdrawn.'
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world?' You are.
"You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while you're damning its life-blood – money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves – slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer. Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers – as industrialists.
"To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money – and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being – the self-made man – the American industrialist.
"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose – because it contains all the others – the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money'. No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity – to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted, or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.
"Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters' continents. Now the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide – as, I think, he will.
"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns – or dollars. Take your choice – there is no other – and your time is running out."
It is a Difficult Thing to Believe
There are those average citizens out there that actually believe that government programs are the answer to the issues. What happened to, "How can I solve my problems?" There are those who actually believe that a socialist type economy is the answer. The premise of socialism is that everyone works to the best of their ability and is compensated on basis of their need. Who decides the extent of everyone's need? Do the people that believe in this type of economic system really believe that the best will keep giving the best when they do not receive the rewards of their labors? If I am the best technician, engineer, laborer out there, Am I going to keep doing the best when I get a pittance for my efforts while someone who is barely competent gets far more for his efforts because his need is greater according to some measure? Why would I continue to do the best? Would it be love for my fellow man, love of the job, or patriotism that would compel my best efforts even though I was not to get the fruits of my labor? Am I to be compelled at the point of a gun to match my previous efforts? The reason Capitalism works is because it does not conflict with human nature. Socialism will NEVER work for long. I suppose a bastardized existence can be ecked out under socialism. A socialist system will never match a capitalist system in any good metric all other things being equal.
When you ask government to take care of an issue, you are relegating that issue over to a socialist type approach. I know medical and insurance costs are sky high, but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water.
When you ask government to take care of an issue, you are relegating that issue over to a socialist type approach. I know medical and insurance costs are sky high, but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
The Rebellion against the Evil Galactic Empire
Well Folks, More and more of the old republic is being swept away. This is not about democrats and republicans either. I look to the elephants and the asses and there is nary a difference. Maybe they are all asses with long memories for perceived slights and selective amnesia where history is concerned. Regardless, the more the federal government does, the less responsive it is to the voters. We do not matter. We have been divided and conquered. Unfortunately, many people vote on the basis of a single issue. Many times, the vote is cast based on personality, looks, or for some other superficial reason.
There is nothing wrong with capitalism, individual liberty, or individual responsibility. These things always work without fail. They are immutable. It is when government meddles with these things that they falter. I am trying to decide now whether I need to defend the statement I just made. I don't think I will right now. If you are intellectually honest, you will see these things for yourself. If you are deluded in any way, then I don't know that anything I write can help you.
Now::
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
The above is excerpted from the Declaration of Independence. To attempt to do as it says will brand you a traitor to the government of the United States of America. What I wonder is are we at the point where this is all that is left to us? I truly hope not. To avoid a rebellion and bloodshed at some future point whether near or far, the following things must happen. I will list the very basics and then go into detail.
The Basics.
1 - Change the political system so that it stops rewarding behavior by the elected members of the government that is detrimental to the health of the country
2 - Realize and effect changes that remove governmental responsibility for individuals.
3 - Realize and effect changes that will require a minimal knowledge of the candidates stands on the issues before allowing a vote.
4 - Realize and effect changes that shift most of the power back to the state and local governments.
5 - Realize and effect changes to the tax system that eliminate the IRS and enforce fiscal responsibility upon the government.
I imagine I can come up with more, but what we have is a good beginning.
Now, the details.
1) Currently, our politicians are controlled by special interest groups. You may be a member of one or more of those groups. How responsive is the leadership of that group to you? How much do you depend upon others to form your opinions for you? Our political leadership tends to be organized into parties. Over time, these parties are so polarized that if a congressman agrees with 7 out of 10 positions established by the party, he is ostracized by the party as not being a true democrat/republican/martian/etc. I propose eliminating ALL group funding of candidates. The elected officials are elected to serve 'We the People' not any group entity. I propose eliminating political parties as recognized entities within our political system. The elected officials are to serve 'We the People' and not any political party. The current system of political parties and special interest groups tends to use human nature in such a way as to damage our country. Donations and gifts, legal and illegal, pour in to the individual members of congress making them beholden not to us as individuals but to them as groups. Another interesting thing that goes on is in the forming of legislation. A proposed bill does not have to be about a single thing. In other words, a bill can have multiple things in it. Lets say that there is a proposed bill to restrict smoking in workplaces. Within that bill may be wording that will also allocate money for a park in Utah. Also within that bill is wording that will allow certain types of wire tapping without a warrant. This proposed bill is the 'Clean Workplace Air Act.' That title gives no clue as to the park in Utah or the wiretapping does it. This 'bundling' of acts is bad in multiple ways. The legislative process loses transparency. Legislators can claim to dislike the bill and yet vote for it or vice versa because of myriad things in it, and no legislator is pinned down on his real positions on the issues. I propose that the legislature not be able to bundle proposals under a single bill. This will have the effects on the process of transparency and accountability.
2) Currently, the federal government is taking more responsibility for your own well being than it ever has in the past. It wishes to do even more. Question the motivation. I am sure there are many who mean well. But heed me when I say this!! ANY piece of legislation will eventually be perverted to it's worst possible usage. (I can demonstrate this quite easily. Take the separation of church and state. It was placed into existence to prevent our government from saying ,"All American citizens must belong to and practice religion X." It has been twisted to mean no government employee is allowed to express any religious view or tendency while on government property or while conducting government business. Those government employees are United States citizens with rights regarding freedom of expression. If a judge wants the 10 commandments hung in his courtroom, I don't see the problem as long as a Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or Scientology judge can hang their own versions. I won't get offended. The presence of such an artifact does not constitute the establishment of a religion by government. Now if I am a Muslim and the judge uses that against me, then there is an issue.) Government now taxes us heavily to provide education and retirement benefits. It wants to tax us further to provide medical care. It wants to bail our entities out when they make bad business decisions. These are all noble minded things. The problems with these things are legion. 1 - They diminish peoples Independence and make us rely on government. 2 - They can be used to coerce and virtually enslave. Unfortunately, Social Security and government schools are already here and to eliminate it all would be very painful because these things have already brought fundamental changes to our society that are almost impossible to reverse. The way to get around this is to force government to privatize education and social security, but maintain certain oversights. Give the individual the ability to direct the tax dollars for his social security and his children's education. The government's oversight on schools should not take into fact any sort of ideology, but only objective standards. Math, Literacy, Objective History, and Objective Science. Ideology should be left out of schools and taught in the homes. Social Security is more problematical. The issue is that the money you pay in is in no way related to that which you will receive. The fact is that any private business that operates in the way that Social Security operates would have it's owners brought up on fraud charges. What is going to have to happen is the age for getting benefits is going to have to slide up in the same way that lifespans have increased. When the average age of death was 61, a 65 year qualification was logical. If the average lifespan is now approaching 80, the entrance age for full benefits needs to slide on up to about 75 - 80. Another component of this mess is with the government policies on illegal aliens. I propose that in order to be born a US citizen, your parents must be US citizens at the time of your birth. I propose that Social Security and Medicare benefits only be available to US Citizens. The illegal alien population places an enormous strain upon our infrastructure. I realize that our businesses need them for jobs that the average US citizen won't do, but there is no reason why these people cannot be here legally via work visa. Currently, our government is selling our great grandchildren into slavery to finance massive bailouts of companies that have made poor decisions. Many of these poor decisions were encouraged by government. I propose this - let businesses succeed or fail on their merits. Government should have no role in selling or marketing a product.
3) Currently, I can vote in an election without knowing a thing about the candidates or their positions on the issues. I would be voting on charisma or looks or some such superficial thing. As others have pointed out, THERE IS NO RIGHT TO VOTE IN A FEDERAL ELECTION. I propose this solution. There should be a quiz given at the polling place about each candidate and each piece of legislation on the ballot. You can vote in any section in which you score a grade of 80 out of a 100. If you fail a section and want to vote, you can review a summary on that section that details the candidate and their positions or details the proposed legislation. You may then retake the test on that section. If you pass with a grade of 85 out of a 100, you may then vote on that section. It is a great responsibility to vote. You should know who and what you are voting for and why.
4) The framers of our government intended the federal government to provide for a common defense, a court system to arbitrate issues between states and of constitutional legality, and perhaps be in charge of certain infrastructure that is too big in scale for the states to handle. All other things were to be given to the states and local governments. Why was this?? Local governments tend to be more responsive to the electorate. Instead, the federal government has taken more and more unto itself and responds poorly to the electorate. I propose that most powers be reverted back to state and local governments where our voices are much louder.
5) Our tax code is obscene. No one person can know it in it's entirety. Many parts of it are open to interpretation. It is so complex that even the agents of the IRS often cannot state what it all means with any certainty. Let us realize the following truths. 1) - Corporations and collective entities do not pay taxes. Only individuals pay taxes. Any 'Corporate Taxes' are passed along to you the individual in the sale price of the product in question. 2) - Our tax system is progressive. This means that the more successful you are, the more you pay - not only in absolute terms but also in proportions. I believe in an absolute flat sales tax on goods sold to the end user. Yes every one of us would pay 20%, 30% etc. on everything we buy. It seems awful doesn't it?? I got news for you. You are already paying it. Half of it is already embedded into the price of the goods you buy. If the Corporate taxes and the taxes on goods between businesses are removed, then the prices will fall to reflect the savings. A tax on consumption is the only truly fair tax. If the millionaire consumes much more than the person making 30K a year, he will be taxed on that consumption. If this consumption(sales) tax is enacted and the rest of the income and embedded taxes are eliminated, then the IRS can be virtually eliminated. This will also have the effect of eliminating sneaky tax increases.
If the federal government is reverted back to the limited role that was envisioned by the framers, then it's budget needs shrink tremendously. In any case, the fact that we pay over half our income to the federal, state, and local governments is obscene to say the least.
There are many more things to address. A few of these things are government intrusion into matters of individual morality, trade policies that put our industries at a disadvantage, and a legal system that punishes beliefs instead of or in addition to actions among it's other faults.
There is nothing wrong with capitalism, individual liberty, or individual responsibility. These things always work without fail. They are immutable. It is when government meddles with these things that they falter. I am trying to decide now whether I need to defend the statement I just made. I don't think I will right now. If you are intellectually honest, you will see these things for yourself. If you are deluded in any way, then I don't know that anything I write can help you.
Now::
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
The above is excerpted from the Declaration of Independence. To attempt to do as it says will brand you a traitor to the government of the United States of America. What I wonder is are we at the point where this is all that is left to us? I truly hope not. To avoid a rebellion and bloodshed at some future point whether near or far, the following things must happen. I will list the very basics and then go into detail.
The Basics.
1 - Change the political system so that it stops rewarding behavior by the elected members of the government that is detrimental to the health of the country
2 - Realize and effect changes that remove governmental responsibility for individuals.
3 - Realize and effect changes that will require a minimal knowledge of the candidates stands on the issues before allowing a vote.
4 - Realize and effect changes that shift most of the power back to the state and local governments.
5 - Realize and effect changes to the tax system that eliminate the IRS and enforce fiscal responsibility upon the government.
I imagine I can come up with more, but what we have is a good beginning.
Now, the details.
1) Currently, our politicians are controlled by special interest groups. You may be a member of one or more of those groups. How responsive is the leadership of that group to you? How much do you depend upon others to form your opinions for you? Our political leadership tends to be organized into parties. Over time, these parties are so polarized that if a congressman agrees with 7 out of 10 positions established by the party, he is ostracized by the party as not being a true democrat/republican/martian/etc. I propose eliminating ALL group funding of candidates. The elected officials are elected to serve 'We the People' not any group entity. I propose eliminating political parties as recognized entities within our political system. The elected officials are to serve 'We the People' and not any political party. The current system of political parties and special interest groups tends to use human nature in such a way as to damage our country. Donations and gifts, legal and illegal, pour in to the individual members of congress making them beholden not to us as individuals but to them as groups. Another interesting thing that goes on is in the forming of legislation. A proposed bill does not have to be about a single thing. In other words, a bill can have multiple things in it. Lets say that there is a proposed bill to restrict smoking in workplaces. Within that bill may be wording that will also allocate money for a park in Utah. Also within that bill is wording that will allow certain types of wire tapping without a warrant. This proposed bill is the 'Clean Workplace Air Act.' That title gives no clue as to the park in Utah or the wiretapping does it. This 'bundling' of acts is bad in multiple ways. The legislative process loses transparency. Legislators can claim to dislike the bill and yet vote for it or vice versa because of myriad things in it, and no legislator is pinned down on his real positions on the issues. I propose that the legislature not be able to bundle proposals under a single bill. This will have the effects on the process of transparency and accountability.
2) Currently, the federal government is taking more responsibility for your own well being than it ever has in the past. It wishes to do even more. Question the motivation. I am sure there are many who mean well. But heed me when I say this!! ANY piece of legislation will eventually be perverted to it's worst possible usage. (I can demonstrate this quite easily. Take the separation of church and state. It was placed into existence to prevent our government from saying ,"All American citizens must belong to and practice religion X." It has been twisted to mean no government employee is allowed to express any religious view or tendency while on government property or while conducting government business. Those government employees are United States citizens with rights regarding freedom of expression. If a judge wants the 10 commandments hung in his courtroom, I don't see the problem as long as a Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or Scientology judge can hang their own versions. I won't get offended. The presence of such an artifact does not constitute the establishment of a religion by government. Now if I am a Muslim and the judge uses that against me, then there is an issue.) Government now taxes us heavily to provide education and retirement benefits. It wants to tax us further to provide medical care. It wants to bail our entities out when they make bad business decisions. These are all noble minded things. The problems with these things are legion. 1 - They diminish peoples Independence and make us rely on government. 2 - They can be used to coerce and virtually enslave. Unfortunately, Social Security and government schools are already here and to eliminate it all would be very painful because these things have already brought fundamental changes to our society that are almost impossible to reverse. The way to get around this is to force government to privatize education and social security, but maintain certain oversights. Give the individual the ability to direct the tax dollars for his social security and his children's education. The government's oversight on schools should not take into fact any sort of ideology, but only objective standards. Math, Literacy, Objective History, and Objective Science. Ideology should be left out of schools and taught in the homes. Social Security is more problematical. The issue is that the money you pay in is in no way related to that which you will receive. The fact is that any private business that operates in the way that Social Security operates would have it's owners brought up on fraud charges. What is going to have to happen is the age for getting benefits is going to have to slide up in the same way that lifespans have increased. When the average age of death was 61, a 65 year qualification was logical. If the average lifespan is now approaching 80, the entrance age for full benefits needs to slide on up to about 75 - 80. Another component of this mess is with the government policies on illegal aliens. I propose that in order to be born a US citizen, your parents must be US citizens at the time of your birth. I propose that Social Security and Medicare benefits only be available to US Citizens. The illegal alien population places an enormous strain upon our infrastructure. I realize that our businesses need them for jobs that the average US citizen won't do, but there is no reason why these people cannot be here legally via work visa. Currently, our government is selling our great grandchildren into slavery to finance massive bailouts of companies that have made poor decisions. Many of these poor decisions were encouraged by government. I propose this - let businesses succeed or fail on their merits. Government should have no role in selling or marketing a product.
3) Currently, I can vote in an election without knowing a thing about the candidates or their positions on the issues. I would be voting on charisma or looks or some such superficial thing. As others have pointed out, THERE IS NO RIGHT TO VOTE IN A FEDERAL ELECTION. I propose this solution. There should be a quiz given at the polling place about each candidate and each piece of legislation on the ballot. You can vote in any section in which you score a grade of 80 out of a 100. If you fail a section and want to vote, you can review a summary on that section that details the candidate and their positions or details the proposed legislation. You may then retake the test on that section. If you pass with a grade of 85 out of a 100, you may then vote on that section. It is a great responsibility to vote. You should know who and what you are voting for and why.
4) The framers of our government intended the federal government to provide for a common defense, a court system to arbitrate issues between states and of constitutional legality, and perhaps be in charge of certain infrastructure that is too big in scale for the states to handle. All other things were to be given to the states and local governments. Why was this?? Local governments tend to be more responsive to the electorate. Instead, the federal government has taken more and more unto itself and responds poorly to the electorate. I propose that most powers be reverted back to state and local governments where our voices are much louder.
5) Our tax code is obscene. No one person can know it in it's entirety. Many parts of it are open to interpretation. It is so complex that even the agents of the IRS often cannot state what it all means with any certainty. Let us realize the following truths. 1) - Corporations and collective entities do not pay taxes. Only individuals pay taxes. Any 'Corporate Taxes' are passed along to you the individual in the sale price of the product in question. 2) - Our tax system is progressive. This means that the more successful you are, the more you pay - not only in absolute terms but also in proportions. I believe in an absolute flat sales tax on goods sold to the end user. Yes every one of us would pay 20%, 30% etc. on everything we buy. It seems awful doesn't it?? I got news for you. You are already paying it. Half of it is already embedded into the price of the goods you buy. If the Corporate taxes and the taxes on goods between businesses are removed, then the prices will fall to reflect the savings. A tax on consumption is the only truly fair tax. If the millionaire consumes much more than the person making 30K a year, he will be taxed on that consumption. If this consumption(sales) tax is enacted and the rest of the income and embedded taxes are eliminated, then the IRS can be virtually eliminated. This will also have the effect of eliminating sneaky tax increases.
If the federal government is reverted back to the limited role that was envisioned by the framers, then it's budget needs shrink tremendously. In any case, the fact that we pay over half our income to the federal, state, and local governments is obscene to say the least.
There are many more things to address. A few of these things are government intrusion into matters of individual morality, trade policies that put our industries at a disadvantage, and a legal system that punishes beliefs instead of or in addition to actions among it's other faults.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)