rock the vote 08

KEYNES

To the young voters in last years election (Addressed to no one in particular) Ok Cool-aid drinkers. I think the real symbolism here is the fact that many of you went to a theatre to experience the coronation event in a communal setting. (Oh we don't have a working TV antenna... blah blah blah) As many have already noted, and I'm only repeating, about herd of "independent" minds, and the need for collective Obama reveling - you know sermon on the mount - er capital hill. Think back in history - the mob is almost always wrong (a tenet of populism). What freedom loving independent minds congregate in mobs? Think French Revolution. Yeah they escorted out monarchy to bring in a dictator. Think post Wiemar Republic Germany and the National Socialist rallies (abbreviated Nazi or something to that effect). Think the May Day rallies on Red square in front of the Kremlin. Think present day Hugo Chavez promising all to hungry impoverished mobs, subsidizing fuel Oil in Massachusetts, making no real changes for the hungry impoverished mobs of Venezuela. Even Mob rousing greats like King and Gandhi, had overt Marxist (anti-individual) leanings. Yes they were pure in their ideological advocacy for nonviolence. In practice both were violent in a metaphorical sense. King with his extramarital affairs, Gandhi with his demeaning and sub human views of Native Africans while in South Africa. Well now we have Hope instead of Fear, yet Fear of consenting adults engaged in Capitalism is Fear No 1 of the day (Sodomy thats OK - but Capitalism - Surely no free person would choose that). Well now we have a president who "believes" (key word btw) in "science" - yet is dusting off the old Keynesian Bible long ago written off by these people who do real work in the economic sciences (people with unfamiliar names (to Krugman) like Hayek, Friedman, Von Mises, and of course Sowell). Change must mean forgoing common sense, and the very underpinnings of western civilization (Then again, the easiest way to make the world an egalitarian place, is to make all equally poor). Outlaw Farm machinery and we can return to full employment!!! Well its good to know at least someone is supporting an evil multi nation corporation - Kimberly Clarke (the maker of Kleenex). Thank you for your support. I'm sure when the house of cards inevitably comes down (Kennedy's accountability was transferred to Johnston - Camelots great escape) and Keyenes is discredited yet again (if only for one generation) Kimberly Clarke will be gainfully employed again by slightly wiser liberal mobsters, returning to reality, but with only the "vast right wing conspiracy" to blame - aka Providence (or for secular PC slaves to ill-liberalism - a loose concept to be called: the opposite of deconstructivism). PS you still have until 30 to use your brain in addition to your heart, as some drunken idiot (Churchill?) from England once said

UPDATE: The Tea Party is a mob of freedom loving individuals undercutting my main point.

life liberty property decimation

STATES RIGHTS

The new slave masters, as opposed to their 19th century brethren, are opposed to states rights. The depths of these socialists thoughts are revealed in their actions. For universal single payer? Fine - do it on a state-by-state basis. Whats the hold up? Certainly many states are currently socialist run. Massachusetts, California and others have beginner health socialism plans, stunted only by reality. State budgets are lacking in the key ingredient for universal coverage to take off. States don't have a green tone printing press that can create small peaces of paper with dead white aristocrats and associated numbers on them. The U.S. congress does have one of these. And thus only ridiculous ponzi schemes can be inflationaly sustained at the federal level. The new slave masters know this, and if one is going to rob the rest of humanity of the ownership of their labor, best to do it incrementally, as has happened over the last century.

The next faze will be expanding S-Chip to cover the middle class. Then offering a government alternative to private health plans that will be subsidized by participants in private plans. Then after enough people join, government will set drug prices (in a process to be called negotiating). Why is their goal universal coverage rather than better health? For beginners in economic matters a brief aside: Only a committee of the smartest can completely ruin the life of the dumbest among us worse than they could have themselves. Humans are far from perfect but at least the individual directly experiences the results of their actions and can attempt to make corrections based on this feedback loop. The committee of the smartest is isolated from these feedback loops by the nature of their eliteness. So the same type of bureaucratic structures that underestimated Saddam's weapons programs in the first gulf war and then overestimated them in the second will be adept at making health decisions for all? The same mentality that started a pension scheme for the then 50:1 worker to retiree ratio should buckle in the near future 3:1. Evidently that's where that printing press comes in.

How about a states right to opt out of federal programs? How about making these things optional and give a lump sum of cash to residents of states that do not participate? If the heavenly benefits of socialism truly do accrue, would not people be free to move to that state to experience nirvana? The new slave masters know the answer and thus their national plan. Socialism is never free. Cubans defect from their free health care when their sports teams play in the free world. The new slave masters will not tolerate a free choice.

what is mine can be yours

TAXES

The personal income tax code is largely immoral. Properly put the IRS as an entity is not immoral itself, being inert, but rather the majority of congress that passed the laws and the president who signed the laws. It is immoral to take income and redistribute it to politically embraced majorities. That is what happens in this Nation. The middle class majority has instituted a progressive income tax that taxes the minority rich too much. These taxes are then spent on all kinds of benefits to the middle class and the poor. This is stealing and it is wrong. (For all the anti-war fanatics - think if the actual costs of war were passed to all equally not just the rich) If one held a gun to the head of a wealthy person, took their watch and gave it to some hobo under a bridge, that would also be wrong. The difference is that in the first instance it is the law and in the second it is against the law. Yes some populist / progressive "reformers" properly amended the constitution for the 16th time a ways back. That only permits the Federal government to collect income taxes - it does not force it to. Virtue is having the power to do wrong, even a popular defense for doing wrong, yet showing the fortitude to resist earthly temptation (aka being politicaly popular / PC). Mike Huckabee may be a smooth talking, Bible thumping, gadfly from Hope, but goddamnit - he is right about eliminating unequal tax on income and going to taxing consumption!

keep the amt

TAXATION

The fair tax has been getting a fair hearing as of late, at least within the GOP. Like most things, in theory it is all pristine - on the surface the premise appears good, but beyond the facade lies hidden dangers. The proposal: Repeal the 16th amendment, abolish the IRS, add a VAT or national sales tax of 30% on all goods and services. Simple enough, taxing consumption rather than income would be more benign to economic prosperity, but such a procedure would have to go through the U.S. Congress where the chances of passage unmolested are nil. Does any one really believe that 30% would be levied on all things? How would the tax code not become more complex with near certain additional exemptions and allowances. The outcry would be too great for most politicians to ignore, of the supposed negative effects on the poor - and before you knew it, it would mirror our present day progressive system. A better remedy would be to not abolish the alternative minimum tax in our present day income tax code - but rather use it as a backdoor way to achieve a defacto flat income tax. However the debate shapes out, one thing is certain that NYT propagandist Paul Krugman will so distort the issue that reason and logic will go on permanent sabbatical.

third party foul

COERCION

Evidence points to inequality of decision making. Some people routinely make good choices as judged by society while others routinely shoot themselves in the foot. The scientific management model of modern liberals assumes rough genetic equality with observed differences explained mostly by environment. Using a diminishing marginal utility model, they can explain lazy unmotivated peoples behavior. How some people actually accomplish things like having transportation to and from this thing called a job to pay for their food and shelter is explained away as benefiting from past wealth/opportunistic chance. Problems of society are posited as though a solution exists rather than an eternal plague of humanity. Wealth redistribution (theft) is a favored solution of the modern liberal progressives. With a little articulate moral gymnastics they don't see this as stealing nor coercive. Classical liberals on the other hand assume genetic inequality (some are dumb) but have the hubris to know that third parties (even the elite minds) make even stupider decisions than stupid people would have made for their own lives. This is because third parties are often isolated from any negative feedback loops that the individual more directly experiences and use to adjust their behaviour. Human evolution since the dawn of civilization has only been 10 thousand years - only a blink of the eye in evolutionary time. Humans ultimately only have hunter/gatherer brain power. Classical liberals often appear looking foolish by acknowledging societal problems often have no government solution, but modern liberals throw out answers and remove all doubt.

progressives fight progress

OWNERSHIP SOCIETY

Liberal progressives can be downright bulwarks against change. They favor mostly the unstabilitating kind of change - social change. This change in effect leads to humanities long natural history of self-efficacy to diminish into state oppression, with all the promises of government to help the broken family actually removing all incentives for nuclear family formation. Once upon a time the 'downtrodden' aspired to improve their lot - or were at least too proud to take handouts - now these transfer payments are seen as an entitlement by both giver and receiver. Other than the initial civil rights movement most of this has been disastrous. The so called 'conservatives' are a force for change by preserving the historical institutions that allow rapid material progress without upheaval. When it comes to free-trade, retirement/pensions, school-choice, lawsuit restraint, and other market driven ideas, progressives fight to protect the status quo and thwart change. Somehow the progressive Democrats are labeled liberals (FDR stole this term) even as they fight for union-jobs by preventing the de-institutionalization of individuals with disabilities. They also fight sprawl which only results in home prices going up, and alas, we need government solutions to affordable housing. The so called 'conservatives' ownership-society is a revolutionary vision that is a much too frightening change for the progressives. If the populace is on-its-own (in Hillaryspeak) then what need have they for governing elites? This liberal policy most be stopped.

dont ask your doctor

HEALTH CARE

Spiraling health costs can easily be reduced by curtailing all the new medicine and procedures that cost so much. Big Pharma is our enemy driving up costs - we should take the European model and not let them advertise the benefits of their drugs. That way consumers are kept in the dark over what potential ailments they have and do not see their doctor to learn more. This is the fault of the ownership society - the poor benighted do not have the volition to direct their own heath care. That is best managed by Hillarycare - an all-knowing benevolent concept of shared responsibility. The rich are responsible for sharing their wealth (giving back) through taxes to subsidise everyone else's unlimited health care wants. To control costs waiting lists can be introduced and drug prices will be fixed to discourage Big Pharma from developing new expensive drugs. Life is inherently unfair - so say the naysayers - but through coercive government action, everyone can be made equally ill - the egalitarians wish. This is societies choice: single payer statism or individualistic opportunity.

jimmy leaving for caracas

SOCIALISM

Why is everyone leaving? The Democratic Republic of Germany (communist newspeak for socialism) had to build a wall around West Berlin to keep all of east Germany leaving for West Germany. More people left Vietnam after the fall of Saigon then immigrated there. North Koreans are trapped deep inside an isolated totalitarianism. Rafters are leaving Cuba in droves - don't they know about the free health care? In a free society - even the most capitalistic - a group is free to go off by themselves and form a commune, but in a socialist regime the same is not true of a group of market liberals. Now Venezuela is looking to join the club of elite humanitarian disasters by removing the most basic of human rights - property. Jimmy Carter should move there permanently seems how his organization found no fault with the elections of Chavez. One problem Venezuela will not have is millions of people teaming to get in! A lot will be leaving.

college for everyone

IMMIGRATION

Marxists talk as though people where living an idyllic country life and then rounded up - almost against their will - forced to move to the cities and work in factories. They mention the squalor and suffering of the cities, but most likely this was occurring in the country side - just concentration in the city made the problems more acute, less diffuse. Then Henry Ford came along, cash on hand, not trusting the Jewish banking community, and offered workers a $5 dollar day. So factory work - even if mundane - become harder to leave with the pay so lavish. So if, as the Marxists fantasize, of workers dreaming to return to the country, (there may be some truth behind this) they certainly could not easily accept such a lower standard of living to do so. So to insure a stable workforce, most large companies have paid above market wages to reliable employees. These employee wages can be easily undercut by mass illegal and legal immigration of unskilled workers. One can live quite cheap on rice and beans, bunking with coworkers - yet a more lavish lifestyle than possible south of the border. Advocates of open borders and amnesty must yield on these points. The unskilled American worker will be undercut by mass immigration. Markets always clear - there is no such thing as a job Americans are not willing to do. Mass immigration will largely benefit middle and upper class skilled wage and professional salary earners because prices will go down. Modern progressive liberals insert talking points here: (worker re-training programs, college tuition assistance, universal heath care, living wage) Just never mention the standard distribution of intelligence - if you ignore it, it will go away!

soup lines for everyone

UNIVERSAL RIGHTS

There are only two certainties in life - death and taxes. Despite this, a lot of people believe in universal positive rights. Everyone has a right to health care, a home, a decent paying job, a good education (material rights) the socialists say. Not just the right to pursue these things but rather they must be given to everyone on earth even if they are capable but unwilling to get things on their own (due to systemic dicrimination of course). And to achieve this 'material security' they propose taking away other's negative rights (liberty of action, the right to own property, freedom of thought). Progressives dictate that it is everyones legal responsibility to make sure everyone else has these material rights through paying taxes to the state which then provides all these benefits - and if you refuse to subsidise the materially challenged, you will be imprisoned. And that sums up the problem with positive rights in the first place. How can they exist across time? Did they apply when humans lived as hunter-gatherers? Will they apply when the earth goes out of balance due to global warming in ten years? If positive rights don't have this continuity of existence, then when were they created and by whom? If one willingly chooses to do nothing, is the rest of society still obligated to provide them with positive rights though government? Does one have the right to willingly harm themselves? If one expects "from all: what one is capable" then who judges what ones capabilities are? (or is the assumption that human nature is altruistic when removed from the capitalist rat race?) The same problem arises in determining "to all: what one needs." Legitimate governments are created to protect individuals' negative rights not to bestow positive rights on select groups. The only thing universal in socialist mantra is suffering.

removed from accountability

FEDERALISM

Sitting at the bar, hat with sunglasses on the bill - cell phone plopped down on the table (to be spun occasionally), Joey contemplated all the injustices in the nation. You see, the states are cash strapped - their peoples don't tolerate large tax increases, and state government is often limited in open ended borrowing. Inbetween cell phone calls at the top of his lungs to Friends, Joey decided that the true culprit was the U.S. concept of federalism. He agreed that the federal government already ran roughshod over the states, but he thought the whole concept should be thrown out completely. The federal government should just open up its pocket book and shovel cash to the states - that way local politicians could talk about all the new programs they have proposed and enacted without having to show the price tag. Headstart, medicaid, cops-on-the-street, homeland (pork) security, job training, and college tuition should all be lavished with more federal funding, Joey thought. With the direct election of senators the pork flows pretty good, but certain concepts of federalism still stood in the way. For instance, schools are funded mostly at the state level, and even though education dollar per pupil is tops in the world, no child left behind remains an unfunded mandate. He also lamented the Gingrich revolution taking away the federally mandated speed limit of 55. After stating his whole agenda for the day to the waitress - and describing his car and official job title in exacting detail, Joey left determined to undermine limited government and peoples natural rights - he despised the tenth amendment. He totally disagreed with the statement that "a government powerful enough to promise everything to everybody is powerful enough to take it away", because he knew that with a little slight-of-hand, the only thing being taken away was wealth from the rich.

religious fools

RELIGION

The chief characteristics of religion throughout history are (1)belief in a deity, (2)a doctrine of salvation, (3)a code of conduct (4)the use of sacred texts and (5)religious rituals. Also religion requires a leap of faith to explain some things that are not explained by science or are in contradiction to science. The Global Warming Religion fits this bill, a branch of the commi-enviro religions. Practitioners believe in the earth, pre-civilization, unmolested by humans as the supreme deity. Their doctrine of salvation is to take humanity back to the time before industrialisation. To do this, all sins against the earth must be recanted such as - so called -polluting CO2 greenhouse gasses (water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, btw). Recycling and energy reduction also weigh heavily in their code of conduct, as well as keeping developing nations undeveloped. Their sacred texts are many but the most authoritative would be the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. Their rituals include advocating policies of human sacrifice of technological progress, by abandoning hydro-carbons, and all human activities that change the earth. Followers of this religion may be know as Greens or EcoFreinds, and follow their prophet Al Gore. They label as heretics any Global Warming Religion deniers, and excommunicate scientist from the climate change community if they worship false idols or are skeptical of the computer models (enlightenment advances such as the scientific method have not caught on yet with the Debate is Over Crowd). The leap of faith they take is that man-made CO2 causes global warming and that global warming will make life on earth less habitable. With the great prophet predicting only ten years to act, it should not be too long before a giant pitcher of Kool-Aid is mixed up at Davos.

indian alliance

INDIA

The most important alliance of the 21st century is the fledgling Indo-American. India has recently shed its Fabian cocoon and is now developing, ready to join the anglosphere as the first non West member (Anglosphere as defined by having English language and common law traditions). Fused together by technology and islamic militants, this alliance will be the force of the foreseeable future. Witness the nuclear fuel deal, and f-16's to Pakistan can be rectified with f-15's or f35's to India. China may be a manufacturing mule force but India has greater high technology potential as long as they don't slip back into Fabianism. With their English tradition intellectual property rights will be enforced unlike copy fanatic China. There are no name brands in China - they will have to purchase western re-treads. With over a billion people India should give up on any egalitarian pipe dreams - because no matter what there will always be human suffering - its a precondition of human life. The cycle is stopped by achievement of Moksha.

drunk on grain alcohol

RENEWABLE ENERGY

A lump of coal in ones stocking is a great gift and even more valuable lesson. It reminds us of how rotten we have been using non-renewable fossil fuels which will run out in ten years. Renewable energy such as wind, sun, hydro, and bio-fuels will provide progressive society with a sustainable clean energy source. Never-mind the naysayers who point out that it takes more energy to make ethanol, than the end product has, or that if all the corn in the U.S. were converted to fuel, the dent in fossil fuel use would be negligible. Critics mention increased demand for bio-energy will have negative consequences across many economic sectors. If feed for livestock goes up then the cost will rise and people will buy less - less consumption is good! People should be eating free-range meat if they have not yet converted to veganism. Also a fossil fuel tax could be assessed to help subsidize the poor of the world to purchase corn tortillas - and the tax could be ratcheted up until by law non-renewables were made illegal. A special committee of experts should be appointed to regulate energy and all human activities that involve energy. We need a Manhattan project for bio-fuels, and an Apollo program to reduce energy consumption by 1% a year - over the next 100 years - it could reach zero! Absolute poverty is very sustainable.

clash of history

LIBERALISM

Fukuyama was wrong in the End of history after the Berlin wall fell. It is not accurate to critique him on the Huntington Clash of Civilizations front - each could be true independent of the other - but rather an overreach, just as Hegel did in interpreting Waterloo. The end of history, on earth, will be when human life flickers out. Fukuyama proclaimed "an unabashed victory of economic and political liberalism" in 1989. Well some of us are still waiting on the spoils of this win. Are smoking bans, trans-fat bans, fuel efficiency standards, suburban sprawl restraints, and mandatory HPV vaccinations a victory of liberalism? What about nationalized health care, seatbelt/helmet laws, minimum wage laws, living wage laws, and toilet tank size restrictions? Is banning an outside group from mentioning a candidate for office within 60 days of an election a victory for political liberalism? What about taking property from one private individual, and giving it to another private individual via Kelo, or transfer payments? If he was referring to an end to large scale conflict over ideology, then he would be wrong on that count as well. Clinton bombed Kosovo without UN security council approval. Iran, Syria, and Jack Murtha are actively undermining a liberal movement. Europe blocks GM crop imports, many countries limit U.S. cultural imports. An effort is underway to create a global carbon regime. The EU and UN are always looking for the next illegitimate, undemocratic, totalitarian power grab. All theses things could lead to the next round of global conflict and chaos. Could not a loose coalition of anti-liberalism (anti-U.S./ anti nation state) be formed among decaying European societies, third world dictators, islamic militants, environmentalists, political economic populists and American progressives? This has already happened and history never stopped.

dehumanization of foes

DEBATE

If one can't win a debate or make a rational statement of logic to persuade opinion to their view, they can always attempt to discredit their opponent by claiming unhumanity. So if a president has an ideology which is coarse to ones good sensibilities, it would be worth mentioning that he looks like a monkey. That way when a policy proposal is advanced to reform social security or introduce more market forces to healthcare, one does not have to argue over actuary statistics, but rather just point out the non human features. The same applies to those who are of the laissez-faire persuasion. It is far easier to denounce the obvious benefits of capitalism if the characeture of pig is assigned to its practitioners. In rare circumstances when ones human opponent is clearly human, one can question the legitimacy of their birth, as in the case of the wealthy (rich bastards). One can also question their policy adversary's psychological sanity, feelings and emotions about caring, or intelligence due to religious beliefs, to avoid a debate over the facts. Do not leave it to chance, while arguing the finner points of the perpetual fight over inequality, but rather make certain that your opponent is seen as a less equal member of humanity.

thinking highly of oneself

MININUM WAGE

The poor benighted people cannot think for themselves - they have no conscious, not even aware of their own existence. We can't trust them to be able to look out for themselves (only selfish bastards act in self interest). Two individuals do not possess all the knowledge needed to negotiate a fair wage - for that we need Washington's many florescent minds to irradiate for the dim minded. People need the protection of altruistical geniuses if there is going to be social justice. One can tell how much one cares about humanity by how high they think minimum wage should be. In a previous post I advocated for $10 an hour, but now I believe this to be to stingy (and I wish to advance my ranking among the compassionate). My new statement of self felicitation: Minimum wage should be $12.50 an hour with guaranteed health benefits. The price of everything has been going up: gas, healthcare, college tuition, corn tortillas, and raising minimum wage will help people buy more things (increasing economic output Keynes style). Walmart would have to pay more to employees which would raise their unfair prices, helping mom and pop shops, and reducing the trade deficit with China at the same time. Its a win / win situation (except for human reason).

evil coke

GLOBAL WARMING

Barney opened his bottle of coke and heard the fizz, but it was too late. The deputy sheriff could not believe what he had just done - warmed the globe. Yeah that was a carbon emission, but he knew what he had to do next - revealing his inner passions. "Andy! Andy! we've got to put a stop to capitalism!" Barney exclaimed having had always considered himself a sort of watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside) "Now why would you want to do a stupid thing like that?" Andy replied. Barney proceeded on his rant that he had been practicing and rehearsing inspired by late night celebrity talk show guests. Big business is out to destroy the earth via fast food, discount retail chains and fossil fuels. A secret capitalist/jewish cabal controls all levels of government and they are hell bent on not letting the truth come out. The only thing preventing a massive populist uprising is the disenfranchisement of the downtrodden by theo-con politicians, using religiously based wedge issues, threatening the eternal fires of hell to all who don't obey their commandments. Barney than ran out of the police station to save the world from itself only to come peeling back in seconds later. He could hardly get the words out of his mouth he was nearly hyperventilating "Where's my bullet? I don't think people can be persuaded peacefully..."

spock's insurance scam

HEALTH CARE

One can imagine Spock the insurance actuary's lament. After retiring from star fleet, he went into the health insurance industry, to promote living long. At first he went about his job diligently, but then he began to unravel what he thought was sloppy bookkeeping. Spock noticed that the HMO account he was working on was paying out claims even though they were known to reoccur monthly. See he was under the impression that he worked for an 'insurance' company, that is: people bought a policy to defray unexpected costs. When he began to inquire about his discovery among his coworkers they all treated it as no-big-deal issue that policy holders were receiving coverage for costs they were planning on. This led Spock to promptly resign, he didn't want to work for a communal transfer payment scheme posing as an insurance company.

idiots best elites

KNOWLEDGE

Knowledge is diffuse rather than acute - most knowledge is communal. One individual can master a particular sub specialty, but cannot know very much other than that. A lot is made about great discoverers in the past who mastered many subjects, but this is misleading because they knew so little back then. A college preparatory curriculum in high school will teach more less all the knowledge in the world into the beginning of the enlightenment. After just a few years in college one can know everything Newton knew and then some. Todays intellectuals know only a small sliver of technical knowledge, and it pays off in high productivity to specialize. On the other hand, one can still get by pretty reasonably without much knowledge, often being too smart will alienate one from the masses. It would be better to be governed by people randomly picked out of the phone book than by intellectual elites. Socialism failed because a mass of nitwits acting in self interest can out think a committee of high intellects acting altruistically.