who's your nanny?

'Who Here Wants Some Seamen!?'

Navy to allow women to serve on submarines.

(Via Brutus)

Let the Round-ups Begin

Arizona's new immigration law has granted the police even more draconian power, essentially legalizing the detention of anyone simply thought to be an illegal immigrant. That is, if your melanin count happens to be higher than that of your average WASP, watch out.

Our friend Aretae asked an interesting question yesterday, pointing out that the new AZ law will lay the foundation for a significant expansion of state authority over everyone, not mere illegals.

Funny to read comments around the blogoshere from folks reacting to this putrid law. The vast majority approaches it from the left-right paradigm -- where "illegals" either do or do not have the right to live and work peaceably in the United States -- but all the while implying that the government has a right to rule on the issue in the first place.

Eliminate (i.e., privatize) public property and abolish citizenship requirements and watch the "illegal immigration" issue disappear literally overnight. Until we do that anything else is just window dressing, where the bigots amongst us duke it out to determine whose side can use the state most effectively to impose its will on the other.

UPDATE: Arizona sheriff Clarence Dupnik has gone on record saying he will instruct his officers to ignore this new law.

"We are not immigration officials," Dupnick vowed Thursday. "We fight crime. The state put us in this position."

Of course, Dupnik's opposition could be motivated by purely pragmatic reasons if not moral ones -- "Our jails would be filled in a day" -- but better to come down on the side of liberty for the wrong reasons than contribute to its erosion for reasons you believe to be right.

On Second Thought, Tea Partiers Are "Extremists"

They are extremely dense. James Bovard recently wrote an article for the Christian Science Monitor about the Tea Party. The article began:

Many “tea party” activists staunchly oppose big government, except when it is warring, wiretapping, or waterboarding. A movement that started out denouncing government power apparently has no beef with some of the worst abuses of modern times.

He also pointed out that

Many of the attendees seemed to hate liberals far more than they loved liberty. A CBS/New York Times poll conducted in April showed that two-thirds of tea party members have a favorable opinion of Sarah Palin, and 57 percent have a favorable opinion of George W. Bush. Denouncing big government while approving of President Bush is like denouncing immodesty while sunning oneself on a nude beach. After all, it was Bush who championed the prescription drug benefit for seniors that adds $7 trillion to Washington’s unfunded liabilities.

And he concludes

America needs real champions of freedom – not poorly informed Republican accomplices. Either tea partyers should become more principled or they should ditch their Gadsden flags and wear T-shirts of the lobbying group that organizes the rally they attend.

Bovard came to essentially same conclusion I did. The Tea Party activists are basically dissatisfied Republicans with a handful of liberty lovers and potential radicals among them. The party is pretty much split into two camps: the Ron Paul faction that is serious about liberty and the Sarah Palin faction that is serious about getting Republicans back into office. Based on the most recent speakers at Tea Party events, the Sarah Palin faction is the majority so libertarians cannot take movement seriously as a party of liberty.

The Case against Government Health Care

This morning my buddy snapped a photo of this sign, which hangs in a small airport in PA and quite clearly explains why state-run health care is destined to be a disaster. Props to all citizen reporters.

You'll definitely have to click on the photo to enlarge in order to read it.

Environmentalist 'Logic'

Writes a friend:

I went to the county to try to get a permit to cut down a tree that is about to fall into the water and take a bunch of land with it, causing more erosion and silt into the water. Thought they would be thrilled that I was trying to prevent this from happening. Wrong... they wanted to charge me $385 for the permit to cut down the tree. I then asked them if it is free to let it fall. They said it was. So I said that is what I am going to do. How ridiculous is that?

Yep, the government's just here to look out for our rights.

Environmentalists don't care about the environment. They, like every other pro-state activist, care about bossing other people around.

You Read It Here First

General Motors has recently come under fire for its most recent TV spot. In this ad the company boasts: "We have repaid our government loan in full, with interest, five years ahead of the original schedule."

The controversy over this statement is the source of the money GM received to pay back its loans. The money did not come from selling cars. Nor did the money come from any private investment. In fact the money to pay off this government loan came from the same government that lent GM the money. Iowa Senator Chuck Grassely has accused GM of misleading taxpayers about the loan repayment, saying the struggling auto giant was able to repay a $6.7 billion bailout loan only by using other bailout funds in a special escrow account. In a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Grassely wrote

The bottom line seems to be that the TARP loans were "repaid" with other TARP funds in a Treasury escrow account. The TARP loans were not repaid from money GM is earning selling cars, as GM and the administration have claimed in their speeches, press releases and television commercials...

Neil Barfosky, watchdog for TARP, has backed up the senator's allegations:

I think the one thing that a lot of people overlook with this is where they got the money to pay back the loan. And it isn't from earnings. ... It's actually from another pool of TARP money that they've already received," he said Wednesday. "I don't think we should exaggerate it too much. Remember that the source of this money is just other TARP money.

But the folks who read this blog regularly are already ahead of the game. I wrote about this in November 2009 when GM began to pay back its $6.7 billion loan. Even a spokesperson for John McCain noticed this legerdemain. If the management at GM would read this blog more often, they could create much better propaganda than their most recent ad.

Is It Illegal to Be Gay Now?

Almost everyone is aware that it's nearly universally illegal for gays to marry or have their marriages recognized by most state governments, but in Calvert County, Maryland, one wonders if it's actually illegal to act gay now.

I'm going to keep the actors in this post anonymous for now because a good friend of mine is currently addressing this very disturbing issue with the sheriff's office, but an incident that took place on Friday, April 16 during Tiki Bar Opening on Solomons Island should be enough to give even some anti-gay bigots pause.

In years past I've written fairly extensively about the local, state, and federal authorities' fascist overreaction to Tiki Bar Opening, an annual ritual here in Southern Maryland that signifies the opening of the island for business during the summer months. Yes, we like to kick it off with a bang -- the island is usually jam-packed with tourists and local partiers for the opening weekend -- but in our defense there's not a whole heckuva lot to do down here in the sticks throughout the course of the year. But that's no excuse for a variety of militarized police units to be dispatched for this event, pre-emptively stationed to oversee a peaceable crowd comprising mostly well-to-do, young to middle-aged adults.

While the state's collective, gratuitous displays of force and attempted intimidation of ordinary folks are outrageous in their own right, ironically it only took the actions of one deputy sheriff last week to clearly illustrate what the police really think of us Mundanes.

My friend told me of a party she was at on Solomons Island during Tiki Opening festivities when the Budweiser Clydesdales, in town for the event, strode by. My friend's friend, a gay male, apparently blew kisses at the horses. His tragic misstep was to then direct some affection toward a couple police officers walking along the sidewalk (admittedly, not all officers are stationed on the gunboats).

Immediately the officer entered private property -- the driveway of the property where the party was located -- and demanded the gay man come down to talk to him. When the man initially refused, the cop said he either come down or he was coming up to search the entire building (for what and on what authority is anyone's guess).

Once the gay man acceded to these absurd (and almost certainly illegal) demands, the officer spun him around, shoved him against a wall, and asked if he had any marijuana on him. To the gay man's credit he immediate shot back, "No, do you?" -- a hilarious if potentially life-threatening retort to the putrid Untouchable. I'm actually quite surprised the gay man didn't find himself beaten to a pulp for failing to render immediate respect and obedience to the assaulting officer, but thankfully the incident was defused in fairly short order by the man's friends, who insisted he was simply enjoying himself if acting a little flamboyantly.

My friend is rightly incensed over this episode because a gay friend was forcibly removed from a private party and harassed by a cop trespassing on private property for blowing kisses to horses and police officers. The blatant disregard of simple human decency and civil liberties here is palpable.

Yes, folks, this is what we're getting for all our hard-earned tax dollars. Welcome to America in microcosm, where although in this instance a pusillanimous cop initiated violence against an innocent man for "threatening his manhood" (or whatever the supposed infraction), there is no shortage of excuses proffered by the police these days for running roughshod over our liberties at the slightest perception of our disregard for their authoritah!

You can just smell the freedom in the air!

When the "Gotcha" Moment Disappoints

One of my goals when debating the truth of libertarian political philosophy is getting my opponent to realize that he is an advocate of aggression. That is, I want my opponent to realize that his policies necessarily require that the State not only threaten innocent people with physical violence but also that State agents must beat, jail, and even kill those who are unwilling to obey State dictates. My hope is that my opponent will see the wanton immorality of his position and rethink his political philosophy. The reason I think that such recognition will lead to an epiphany is because the people I debate claim to be peaceful people who abhor violence. In my mind, I imagine my opponent realizing that he cannot claim to value peace and abhor violence while defending an institution that is inherently aggressive and violent. This moral contradiction would lead him to see the error of his ways and instantly renounce violence. He then reads Mises.org and LewRockwell.com regularly and begins the long process of learning true history and true economics. But this has yet to happen in my experience.

Instead some of my opponents cling to the notion that we must have a monopoly of violence to prevent even more violence. In one recent debate my opponent conceded that the State does indeed reduce material wealth, but he was fine with this because the State also reduces wealth inequality. Why income inequality should be a moral concern was not addressed in this debate. But what really disappointed me in this exchange was that my opponent also claimed to value peace and nonviolence as I do. This is simply false; libertarians are the only people who value peace and nonviolence. We are the only ones who apply the same moral standards to both private and government actors. Theft is theft; murder is murder; fraud is fraud. It does not matter if the thief is a petty-pickpocket or an IRS agent. If both parties did not consent to the exchange, this is theft.

The Racist Roots of Gun Control

No guns for Negroes

My Summer Reading List

Every summer I pick a few books to buy that I plan on reading. It's always a crapshoot when it comes to whether I actually finish them or not, but I suspect the three I got in the mail the other day will more than hold my interest.

For starters, at the strong suggestion of Laurence Vance, I picked up Pat Buchanan's Churchill, Hilter, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. I'm only a couple chapters in but this looks like it will be both very interesting and a quick read.

I also picked up Ludwig von Mises's Socialism, a book I probably should've already read given that I'm a student of Austrian economics, but hey, I already knew socialism was bunk. But nothing like learning why from the master.

Finally, I bought Mises's Human Action. Its subtitle is A Treatise on Economics, but as any Austrian knows, it's really the treatise on economics. And because you're probably not a legit student of the Austrian school until you've digested this one, I figured I had to get on it. I just wish someone would've told me it's a four-book set!

But hey, I shouldn't have too much trouble squeezing these in between working a full-time job, managing an upstart, entrepreneurial distribution company, raising a two-year-old and another on the way, blogging, following local police/prosecutorial corruption/incompetence cases, doing household chores, and showering every now and then. So I'm psyched!

Oh, and P.S.: since I've linked to these books through LewRockwell.com, our good friends at LRC should get a cut of the proceeds in the event you decide to purchase any of them.

The Forgotten Men

The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man....

They therefore ignore entirely the source from which they must draw all the energy which they employ in their remedies, and they ignore all the effects on other members of society than the ones they have in view. They are always under the dominion of the superstition of government, and, forgetting that a government produces nothing at all, they leave out of sight the first fact to be remembered in all social discussion — that the state cannot get a cent for any man without taking it from some other man, and this latter must be a man who has produced and saved it. This latter is the Forgotten Man.--William Graham Sumner

The Washington Times is reporting that almost 4 million middle-class Americans may have to pay an average penalty of $1,000 for not having health insurance.

Almost 4 million total Americans will have to pay the penalty when the plan is implemented in 2016. About 3 million of those people will have incomes below $59,000 for individuals and $120,000 for families of four, the CBO says. Another 900,000 people who must pay the fine will have higher incomes.

Americans who don't get qualified health insurance will be required to pay penalties starting in 2014, unless they are exempt because of low income or religious beliefs, or because they are members of American Indian tribes. The penalties will be fully phased in by 2016.

The purpose of the mandate is ostensibly to make the costs of health care coverage lower for uninsured Americans. Said White House spokesman Nick Papas,

The new law will make health insurance affordable for everyone, and CBO's analysis confirms that the vast majority of uninsured Americans will find health care affordable and choose to participate...

Let's break this statement down.

How to Ruin a Guy's Day

After enjoying a relatively decent morning toiling away at the old salt mine, I had the wind knocked out of me by an offhand comment that dribbled from the greasy pie hole of a particularly obnoxious co-worker of mine.  This guys is known for being a blow-hard, and has apparently found a way to climb the corporate ladder without providing any real value to the company (nor, I presume, to society in general).  I've learned to brush off most of what I hear from this fool, but his latest humdinger literally had my hands shaking with rage, and I had to get up and leave the building to avoid opening the proverbial can of whoop-ass on him.

So what did he say, already?  Well, after setting the stage by parroting a few talking points he picked up from the LCD propaganda machine in the break room about how the economy was recovering and how he would soon be able to reactivate his home equity ATM machine, he went on to laughingly (no shit, he actually laughed when he said this) comment on how his stocks would rise when Israel gets around to bombing Iran.  Just repeating it is revving me up again.  That the prospect of yet another unnecessary war, including the requisite tens of thousands of civilian deaths by way of "collateral damage," would make anyone chuckle is revolting, particularly in the context of gaining financially from it.  But that's a neocon for you.

What makes this kind of thing so hard for me to stomach is that the guy professes to be a "conservative," obviously conflating the neoconservative ideology that has its roots in Woodrow Wilson-style progressivism with actual conservative values.  Not only that, he's a devout Christian, or so he says.  Now, I recently had to convert to agnosticism after looking up the definition of "atheist" in the dictionary, so I really don't have much room to criticize people on the grounds of religious inconsistency.  But to hear a guy who claims to follow the Ten Commandments--one of which I believe says something about not worshipping false gods--so consumed by statist propaganda that he would gleefully revel in the idea of unilateral aggression based on the flimsiest of justifications (Iran is trying to build a nook-u-lar bomb, don't you know, Bill O'Reilly told me) just rubs me the wrong way, in the worst way.

God grant me patience, and DO IT NOW!!

Please Welcome WYN's Newest Blogger

Please join me in welcoming Who's Your Nanny?'s most recent addition, Cal Bittersmore. An ardent opponent to the state and its malicious ways, Cal has jumped into the fray today with a fantastic first post illustrating the bellicosity of Western "civilization." You really must read it for yourself to appreciate it, and I'm already loving Cal's wit and sarcasm.

When I started this blog a few years ago, I never really envisioned inviting guest bloggers to join me. That is, until this guy "Brutus" sent me an email one day after reading one of my articles in the Examiner. What can I say? I can tell an outstanding writer when I see one.

Same goes for Cal. He's been an active reader and commenter at WYN in recent months and almost instantly I got the same gut feeling about him as I did about Brutus. I think Cal's first post has vindicated me and I'm looking forward to reading his insightful commentary, as I hope you are too.

So welcome aboard, Cal. I trust there are good things ahead for this new three-headed monster that goes by the acronym WYN.

How Do You Like Your Freedom: Cage or Coffin?

During a rare detour away from worthwhile reading material and into the hallowed halls of the MSM, I found this little nugget from the LA Times, detailing a flaccid mea culpa issued by NATO after a handful of its best and bravest ventilated a car full of kids on the way home from a soccer game, "the second such lethal episode [to be disclosed, that is] in just over a week."

NATO had initially described two of the four occupants of a car that was fired on Monday night by troops in Khowst province as "known insurgents." The soldiers, whose nationality was not disclosed, unleashed a fusillade of bullets after the vehicle accelerated toward a military convoy, according to alliance officials' account.

How did they "know" that two of the four occupants were insurgents? Their fingerprints were in a military database, which apparently contained records of not only insurgents, but "friendlies" and civilians. So just having your name and fingerprints in the same database that houses those of real bad guys is enough to get you riddled with bullets on your way back from a little recreation? Actually, no--unless the shooters were somehow able to collect fingerprints and cross-check them as the vehicle executed its menacing velocity change. No, this information could only have been known after the smoke cleared and the bodies examined. So it wasn't the passengers' dubious insurgent status that got them killed. Apparently, all you have to do is alter your rate of speed in a menacing fashion to wind up on the receiving end of a volley of 7.62 NATO. So, what's the take-away here? Don't speed up around military convoys in Afghanistan. To be safe, you should probably not maintain a constant speed in the direction of a military convoy either, nor turn away, lest you be guilty of suspiciously fleeing from almighty Western authority; nor pull over to the side of the road, lest you be suspected of planting a road-side bomb; nor drive around in circles, lest you be mistaken for some fanatical dervish hyping himself up to earn "the martyr's prize." The safest and smartest thing to do when you see a NATO convoy in Afghanistan is to simply teleport yourself out of there.

It's hard to say what is more disgusting: that such a "war" is being fought at all, that the MSM is so happily complicit in this barbarism by constantly glossing over the bloody details of these all too frequent tragedies, or that in the frenzied rush to foist Western-style democracy on the backwards rubes of the world, the most treasured gems of Anglo-American legal tradition--the requirement of intent to be found guilty a crime, the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, due process, habeas corpus--are scattered by the wayside like the charred hulks of family cars that happened to be at wrong place at the wrong time.

But don't let me give you the wrong impression, it's not like blunders like this one don't weigh heavily on the minds of the Machiavelian blow-hards who have been dispatched to every far corner of the globe to throw Unkle Sam's weight around. They're really, really sorry, look:

"We sincerely regret this tragic loss of life," said Maj. Gen. Mike Regner, the coalition's deputy chief of staff for joint operations. "Commanders at all levels are increasing efforts to protect the Afghan people affected by our operations."

Well, I don't know about you, but I'm convinced. All you anti-war types should take note of the fact that these professional murderers are trying very hard to avoid killing civilians as they occupy, bomb, and burn the ancestral lands of tribal peasants who have the temerity to insist on maintaining their legal sovereignty and resisting the global ambitions of Leviathan.

I'm reminded of the words of Murray Rothbard, who hit the nail on the head by saying that wars are declared and waged by states against states, but that the dirty work is done by and to individuals caught up in the hype and hysteria generated by manicured politicians far from the battlefield. If it hasn't occurred to you yet, take note of this: the state is an abstraction, something entirely imagined. Countries can't attack countries, as this would simply be a battle between ideas. The physical manifestation of the state resides in its agents, the swelling ranks of professional busy-bodies, bureaucrats, and armed thugs who invoke petty nationalist sentiment and bigoted paranoia to gull their subjects into conducting or supporting these pointless acts of wholesale slaughter. Thus, in the name of freedom (as I type this, I can feel the vomit rising in my throat), otherwise sensible and decent people become slaves to a misguided notion, toiling away at their own destruction, and ultimately taking lives or giving theirs as the state's sycophants line their pockets with blood money.

As events like this continue to come to light, as surely they will, do yourself a favor and consider what is really going on over there. In the words of Randolph Bourne, "war is the health of the state." The state is a purely destructive, purely coercive institution, capable of nothing but selectively impeding the progress of humanity. Therefore, the condition of perpetual war that seems to be the greatest ambition of the D.C. monster serves no end but to confine the free people of the world to a cage or a coffin. Don't be fooled into thinking that any of this has anything to do with defending freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth.

A Salt with a Deadly Weapon

Yes, the title is cheesy, but I have to find some humor while the US Federal Government continues to control every facet of our lives.

The FDA, ever concerned about the health of the general public, believes that Americans are getting too much salt in their diets. Normal people who do not have access to a monopoly on violence would have to actually make an argument and persuade people to ingest less salt. However, since the FDA is part of the State and benefits from the monopoly on violence, it has no reason to use persuasion. I completely understand. Persuasion takes a lot of time and effort. You have to do research and make coherent arguments. People might not find your arguments convincing and make counterarguments. Or they could simply ignore you. And we can't have people ignoring their protectors in a free society.

In contrast, people like me generally take the time to research and make arguments. I have been writing for almost two years now on this blog to convince people that the State is a criminal gang and our lives would be much better without it. It's an exhausting job because even if my arguments are logically unassailable, my opponent can just ignore me or say "Well, we'll have to agree to disagree." Yes, I have proven my point that the State is a band of criminals and all of its actions are necessarily backed by violence, but we should just agree to disagree and all live as happy political slaves. But I digress.

Since the FDA has no need to participate in civilized discourse to persuade people to change their behavior, the agency will do what government regulatory agency does: threaten violence against innocent people to get its way.

Re: The "Extremists" Known As the Tea Party

Brutus, I also get a kick out of how some media talking heads and politicians are beginning to compare Tea Partiers with Tim McVeigh, as if at any moment one of these "anti-government" protesters would just up and take out a federal building. As if kids who constantly skip school out of hatred of authority or simple mind-numbing boredom are to be conflated with those who decide to go on shooting sprees in the hallways.

However, as you pointed out rather nicely, would that the Tea Party was a viable opponent of the state! While I'm happy to see a faction of the public draw airtime in protest of unlimited government, the vast majority of these folks clearly are not anti-government. Of course, it does seem like most members are at least open-minded and willing to learn and consider new ideas, and the inclusion of Democrats and interest from anti-war activists is a sign that not everyone in this country can be bought and paid for, so perhaps there's a real possibility of turning them on to libertarianism.

That said, I suppose I should point out for the censors and snoops that I am not anti-government either -- I would be ambivalent toward any non-coercive government -- I am anti-state. Perhaps we should be happy if our masters don't yet understand the difference.

The "Extremists" Known as the Tea Party

Here's a funny article from Robert McCartney on the Tea Party. He went to a rally and was surprised that he found no racists since liberals have painted the Tea Party as the second coming of the KKK. The people he interviewed thought government was too big and wanted to work within the system to reduce its size. This is why the Tea Party is doomed as a political movement; as long as the majority of Tea Partiers believe freedom can be advanced through the democratic process, they will only be grist for the State's mill. However, I do believe that some of these people are opposed to the State itself and they can be radicalized.

 

Here are some excerpts followed by my commentary.

Based on what I saw and heard, tea party members are not seething, ready-to-explode racists, as some liberal commentators have caricatured them.

Some are extremists and bigots, sure. The crowd was almost entirely white. I differ strenuously with the protesters on about 95 percent of the issues.

This is a poorly written paragraph. I'll give McCartney the benefit of the doubt here, but he implies that if a crowd gathers on the mall that is almost entirely white, it is guaranteed to have extremists and bigots. But since this refers to white people, it's OK. Had the writer been present at the the Million Man March and wrote "Some are irresponsible and have criminal backgrounds, sure. The crowd was almost entirely black," he would have been burned in effigy.

Although shrinking government is their primary goal, many conceded that the country should keep Medicare and even Social Security. None was clamoring for civil disobedience, much less armed revolt.

These are two of the most expensive entitlement programs and both are already broke. Yet these particular Tea Partiers want to shrink the Federal Government. Economics FAIL!

One Giant Leap for the State

Brutus, clearly this is why we need NASA!

"We Are All Niggers Now"

Uberheroic post by Robert Wicks on The New Slave Masters aka the police. An excerpt:

Police, for all practical matters, have rights far beyond those which ordinary citizens enjoy. Police may request identification from people, detain people, beat people, and even kill innocents, with little or no fear of the negative repercussions which any of us would expect were we to do any of those things. My father described similar experiences in Birmingham in the 1950s. Welcome to the new, more egalitarian America: we are all niggers now. Just as in the past, convictions were difficult to obtain against people who were clearly guilty of assault and murder, so today is it difficult to obtain such convictions. Just as in the past, blacks had nearly no ability to exercise self-defense without severe negative repercussions, so today do people of all races have nearly no ability to defend themselves against thuggery from the elite class.

The 'No Trans Fat' Joke

I love the fact that government and "advocacy" groups like the Center for Science in the Public Interest badmouth trans fats to the point where companies can get away with advertising trans fat-free products as healthy.

Case in point: I'm getting ready to shovel about half a dozen Krispy Kreme doughnuts into my face* after writing this, and I notice that the box says "0 grams TRANS FAT! per serving."

Phew!

I wrote about how trans fats became the new "taboo" ingredient in the first place here.

* - Hey, I bought a dozen Krispy Kremes to benefit a Relay for Life team that set up shop outside the grocery store where I held a spice mix promo this morning. So not eating them would just be rude!

The Government: Working for You While Millions of Kids Suffer

Is it really too much to ask in the 21st century that parents can buy over-the-counter cold medicine and decongestants for their kids?

My wife had to sit in the pediatrician's office for over two hours yesterday just so we could buy cough medicine and decongestant for our son, who's been sick with a bad cold the past few days.

It's one thing if grocery stores and pharmacies aren't necessarily open 24/7, but it's another thing entirely that you can't just run out and buy cough medicine on a whim for your baby or toddler when he can barely breath at night.

Instead of being able to treat our kid immediately, my wife and I (like millions of other parents on any given day) were forced to wait an entire day for an appointment with the pediatrician so we could get a stupid prescription for the same medicine we could buy at any time two years ago -- all while our child suffered through the night. But hey, all these medicinal regulations and FDA "recommendations" are here for the benefit of "the children."

Yes, you can stock up on prescription cold meds (assuming they don't expire before your kid needs them again), or you can head to the doctor's at the first sign of trouble just to be safe. But what I assume most parents will do is simply give their kids limited doses of adult medicines instead when their kids come down with ailments, setting the table for a heck of a lot more overdoses, I would assume, than most children's cold medicines ever would.

NASA and Nationalism

There has been some hand-wringing over President Obama's plan to cut NASA's budget. Many people are upset that the US will no longer be the leader in space travel and exploration. I cannot say that I am upset about this situation. I agree with Wanda Sykes's opinion that NASA is welfare for smart people. But NASA not only benefits these science nerds; the State benefits as well. LRC blogger Ryan McMaken points out that two of the arguments used to defend the space program are sentimentalism and militarism. He writes:

Arguments in favor of the space program are based on two things: sentimentalism and militarism. The militaristic argument is the more sophisticated one. The space program, behind its veneer of civilian purpose, has always been a military program founded to improve rocket technology, and eventually, to provide the United States with military superiority over space itself. The sentimentalism is the rationale that most Americans subscribe to as they get misty eyed over fantasies about “the human spirit” and “destiny” and all those other concepts from Hollywood adventure films.

In this post I will focus on sentimentalism and how the nationalism that animates this emotion benefits the State.

Our Generous President

The President and his wife made about $5.5 million and paid $1.8 million in federal taxes in 2009. This does not include an estimated $59,639,899 in benefits that he receives annually for being president. Being the generous couple that they are, they gave $329,100 to 40 charities. That’s an average of $8,227.50 per charity. Moreover, $329,100 is also about 6% of their total income for 2009. He did donate the $1.4 million he won for the Nobel Peace prize, although it's debatable whether he really earned that reward. Nevertheless, Obama had no problem pledging $100 million of taxpayer money to help Haiti. He also pledged $475 million of taxpayer money to rescue the Great Lakes; $3.5 billion of taxpayer money to help Africa; $1.5 billion of taxpayer money to help underwater homeowners and the unemployed; $900 million for schools; $8 billion of taxpayer money on high speed rail; and as much as 3% of GDP, which is about $415 billion of taxpayer money, on scientific research. Perhaps this is why he only donates 6% of his own income. Why be generous with your own money when you can be magnanimous with other people's money?

 

Remember when President Obama told Joe the Plumber: ”I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody”? The President was not talking about his wealth.

More Maryland Boating Authoritarianism

In one of the latest encroachments on civil liberties in Maryland, Gov. Martin O'Malley has signed into law a bill requiring all chilidren under the age of 13 to wear a personal flotation device (life jacket) while aboard any vessel that is underway.

Back in 2006 I wrote an article criticizing the Maryland legislature's attempt to force everyone, including adults, to wear a life jacket while they're out on the water. Thankfully that measure failed to pass, but what you see today is the incremental approach the state takes to the erosion of civil liberties. Politicians know it's rare that the sheeple will consent to the immediate abolition of their rights, but if they hack away at them over time? A-OK!

Remember when the government told us it "only" wanted to ban smoking on airplanes? In that same light, over the next few years you can expect to see Maryland gradually increase the age at which one must be shackled with a life jacket on a boat, until ultimately all adults will be required to wear one. Fun times!

I think the best way to react to this new law is to respond blow by blow to some of the more inane comments by state politicians and bureaucrats.

Gov. Martin O'Malley: "As a State, nothing we do is more important than protecting the lives of our children."

TB: Well, of course you knew this law was all for the children. Thank goodness all you stupid parents have the gubmint to look after them for you.

O'Malley: "By raising the age at which a child is required to wear a life vest and improving boating safety education, this legislation will do just that."

TB: Let's not forget all the revenue the state will rake in via fines for violations, or kickbacks from boat accessory manufacturers following their increase in sales.

[Natural Resources Police] Superintendent Colonel George Johnson: "A life jacket is the single most important piece of safety equipment, but it doesn't work unless you wear it."

TB: What about the 10-year-old who's a perfectly good swimmer who acidentally falls overboard and can't dive out of the way of an oncoming motorboat because he's wearing his "safety" vest?

[Dept. of Natural Resources] Secretary John Griffin: "We firmly believe this new legislation will help us prevent boating fatalities."

TB: It doesn't matter what the czars "believe." It only matters what they can sell to a gullible populace. The government also "believes" that forcing drivers to wear seatbelts will prevent automobile fatalities; that sobriety checkpoints prevent drunk-driving accidents; and that government police protect citizens. Certainly there could never be ulterior motives at play in all this legislation!

Griffin: "Even one boating-related death is unacceptable."

TB: I think it's time to ban boats. Or boating. Or, at the very least, acceleration! After all, it's all about living a risk-free life, no?

Happy Tax Day!

Today is the deadline to pay our taxes and keep the fed thugs from breaking into our homes and beating us for not giving the State its tribute. Celebrate this day with me and enjoy the best description of government as robber that I have ever read by Lysander Spooner.

The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: "Your money, or your life." And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.

The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a "protector," and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to "protect" those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful "sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords you. He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

Maryland Police Brutality Victim Is Grandson of Retired Judge

John J. McKenna, the innocent University of Maryland student who was pummeled by police and then charged with crimes only the cops committed, is the grandson of J. James "Jim" McKenna, a retired Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge.

"They should go to jail," McKenna said. "And my opinion is: it was assault with intent to murder, or assault with intent to maim -- both of which are felonies in the state of Maryland."

No disrespect to the elder McKenna, as I'm unfamiliar with his career on the bench, but I wonder if he was this quick to condemn abusive cops while he was a sitting judge. It really doesn't matter, of course, because his assessment in this case is both courageous and on point. Sadly, however -- and notwithstanding the video evidence of John McKenna's unprovoked attack by government thugs in riot gear -- I just can't help thinking that in the event justice prevails here, it will be due in large part to the victim's family connections.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that Jim McKenna's influence shouldn't be relied upon by his grandson to see that the perpetrators are charged with their crimes and, with any luck, fired and incarcerated swiftly; it's just a shame that the majority of us don't have this benefit in a day and age when justice is hardly automatic. This isn't to say, either, that an impartial judge wouldn't (and won't) draw the same conclusions as Jim McKenna has. But whereas all of us should be able to expect fair trials and protection from renegade cops, it's far from the order of the day in a country where we're all subservient to the state.

As for judges, they are afforded far too much respect by the common citizen even though, like the police, they're just another tax-feeding arm of the state, all too willing to impose extrajudicial authority, disregard illegal and immoral behavior by other state employees, and enforce unconstitutional legislative diktats. For quick proof of this, just consider the fact that every single judge who heard evidence in the recent John Edison non-rape case in St. Mary's County, Md., saw fit to condemn a teenager to a government cage for nearly half a year prior to his trial despite a wholesale lack of evidence suggesting Edison committed a crime.

Incidentally, during my cursory research on Jim McKenna I came across another McKenna -- John Peter McKenna, Jr. -- who currently is a judge in the Anne Arundel County District Court. He almost certainly has to be closely related to the victim in this case, though at the moment I'm unsure how.

For now, I'm just enjoying the fact that, while judges too frequently condone excessive force and authoritarianism, in this instance the cops involved should finally pay for their disregard of those of us who inhabit the inferior caste.

UMD-Style Beating Is the Rule, Not the Exception

Three Prince George's County police officers are under investigation for beating unarmed and defenseless University of Maryland student John J. McKenna, 21, following a basketball game last month after a video of the attack surfaced suggesting that charging officers fabricated a story to cover up their misconduct.

The video shows McKenna on the sidewalk as he skips and throws his arms in the air. He stops about five feet from an officer on horseback, the video shows. In the video, McKenna's arms appear to be in front of him, but he does not appear to touch the officer or the horse. His hands are empty.

McKenna backs up, then two county police riot officers rush toward him from the street, the video shows. The officers slam McKenna against a wall and beat him with their batons. McKenna crumples to the ground.

As McKenna falls, a third county police riot officer strikes his legs and torso with his baton. The video shows the officers striking an unresisting McKenna about the head, torso and legs -- more than a dozen blows in all.

Feel free to judge the incident for yourself.

The sad fact of the matter is that it's incredibly difficult to hold police officers accountable for unjust behavior absent photographic evidence of their malfeasance, leaving us to wonder just how frequently these criminal abuses take place across the country without our knowledge. Any wonder, then, why the cops so vehemently oppose the videotaping of their own actions?

I get a particular kick out of the reaction of P.G. County Gestapo Chief Roberto L. Hylton, who in response to the attack claimed, "I'm outraged and disappointed after viewing the video. [...] That's not the type of professional conduct we promote. Any employee who uses excessive force will be held accountable."

Oh, really? This from the head of the very same police outfit that entrapped and terrorized Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo and his family, invading their home and executing their dogs, almost two years ago. The same criminal gang that has a history of police brutality and corruption; that almost certainly employs murderers and criminals; and that is well-known for violating the civil liberties of the people it's allegedly supposed to protect.

If anything, I'm inclined to believe that Chief Hylton is more "outraged" and "disappointed" that his officers were actually caught breaking the law than he is that they engaged in criminal misconduct.

Talk is cheap. If Hylton and his ilk are really bothered by civil liberties abuses at the hands of their officers, we wouldn't have these videos available for our viewing pleasure in the first place.

Slavery as Red Herring

Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell's proclamation to recognize April as Confederate History Month without referencing slavery has angered many people. These people still seem to believe that the North was a better place for blacks because many Northern States had abolished slavery before 1861 when the war began. They also believe that Lincoln fought the war in order to end slavery.

Casey Gane-McCalla has a lenghty article on the Governor's proclamation and even has the effrontery to denigrate Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute, all heroic champions of liberty: 

Ron Paul is also closely tied to the Ludwig Von Mises institute. The SPLC labels the Ludwig Von Mises a neo-confederate organization. Ron Paul’s former chief of staff, Lew Rockwell, Paul’s close friend and former chief of staff heads the organization. Of the Civil War, Rockwell said it “transformed the American regime from a federalist system based on freedom to a centralized state that circumscribed liberty in the name of public order.” Ludwig Von Mises publications have been very supportive of southern secession.

Several members of the racist League of The South, which credits Rockwell as a founding member, have spoken and give presentations at the Von Mises Institute. The SPLC labels the League of The South as a hate group and that they believe the “godly” nation it wants to form should be run by an “Anglo-Celtic” (read: white) elite that would establish a Christian theocratic state and politically dominate blacks and other minorities.”

Paul has also been publicly endorsed the works of Thomas Dilorenzo. Dilorenzo is a senior faculty member at the Von Mises institute and also an affiliated scholar of the racist League Of The South. Dilorenzo has published several books about the civil war. In “The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War,” Dilorenzo argues that the Civil war was a war to prevent southern independence and blames Lincoln for the war while defending the Confederacy. Ron Paul would use that book to back up his claim that the Civil War was an unnecessary war that Lincoln was to blame for on MSNBC.

The problem with Ron Paul, Joe Wilson and the many neo-confederates who support or work in the Republican party is that you can not separate slavery and the Confederacy, once you defend one, you defend the other. That is like separating Nazis and the holocaust.

I can't stand this stuff. The quotation from Mr. Rockwell doesn't even reference slavery. The SPLC's problem with Mr. Rockwell is that he does not worship the omnipotent Federal Government. Ron Paul is the most consistent voice of liberty in the Federal Government, and is arguably the most libertarian politician ever. Lew Rockwell and the Ludwig von Mises Institute are in the forefront of advocating liberty today. They recognize that our true enemy is the Leviathan State and they are uncompromising in their radical assertion that the State is a criminal gang.  I will continue to donate money to both LewRockwell.com and the Ludwig von Mises Institute, even if that makes me a sell-out.

MD Medical Marijuana: Better But Not Even Close to Good

The Maryland senate has passed a bill legalizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes. While such a measure is undoubtedly an improvement over an outright ban on pot, freedom advocates should keep in mind that government regulation of drug use is unjust. This bill still won't prevent nonviolent marijuana users from being jailed or even murdered simply for choosing to ingest a leaf. It won't limit, much less end, immoral drug raids that often end in the deaths of completely innocent and unintended victims.

The tacit public approval of government regulation of marijuana use is nearly as bad as the tyrannical prohibition of the drug in the first place, even if at times it seems like the laws protect civil liberties. But the plain truth is that any law that regulates is a law that ultimately destroys -- freedom, liberty, relationships, lives, you name it.

You want marijuana freedom? Get the state out of the equation altogether.

My Son Was Free for Two Weeks

I'll never forget the day my first child got his social security card in the mail. Born Oct. 5, 2007, he was sent the card a couple weeks later, causing me to lament the fact that he was officially and forevermore "on the grid" as an American citizen.

Citizenship to most people -- especially here in the esteemed "land of the free" -- is viewed as a privilege, something to be cherished and revered. To me, however, it largely represents oppression. Why anyone should have to seek permission from an arbitrary third party simply to live within the confines of a particular territory is peculiar. Indeed, the very fact that taking up residence in an area of one's choosing is a legal issue vis a vis the state to begin with is perverse, and serves as the genesis of "illegal immigration" as a political issue.

In short, no government mandate is a benefit to anyone but the government itself. Building a house or gaining employment should be nobody's business but that of the parties contracting for goods or services. Yet because the vast majority of people believe they have a right to prevent others from enjoying the same rights and benefits they do -- itself a form of bigotry and protectionism -- the state finds its citizens to be willing participants in their own subjugation. This is axiomatic, folks: The more power the state has, the less we have.

Witness the Obama administration's intent to force all citizens and non-citizens alike to possess unconstitutional biometric ID cards. The federal government scapegoats "illegals" by passing off the plan as a means of putting undocumented workers on a fast-track to citizenship. But if this program is actually meant to address the citizenship status of non-citizens, why force this new ID card on everyone? To ask this question is to answer it, and it should be apparent that the only reason the government seeks to impose this latest monstrosity upon our so-called civil liberties is because it will allow it to track and control us more easily than it does right now.

To be sure, this ID scam is no different than the recent health care "reform" bill that ostensibly was aimed at providing health insurance for the uninsured but nevertheless imposes all sorts of new rules, regulations, and restrictions on everyone -- even on those who are already insured -- and outlines stark penalties for those who refuse to sacrifice their current level of service to the costs of collectivism.

My son was free for the first two weeks of his life. After that he joined the rest of us who are victims of the omnipotent state. He never voted for all the inane laws he will henceforth be forced to observe. And it all officially started the day he got his social security card.

The 'Loonie' Isn't 'Strong,' the Dollar Is Weak

A story in today's Buffalo News notes that Canadian shoppers are flocking to the Buffalo region to take advantage of the purchasing power of a Canadian dollar that is now on par with the U.S. dollar.

My, how times have changed since the mid-'90s, when I literally used to see bartenders in Buffalo burn Canadian two dollar bills that were left as tips -- mostly because you wouldn't be caught dead putting the far less valuable Canadian paper in a stripper's garter, and it just wasn't worth the trip to the bank to exchange the money for U.S. currency.

In short, Canadian dollars were seen as a slap in the face by most American bartenders in Buffalo back in the day. Not so much anymore, apparently, as the U.S. dollar has continued to lose so much value that it's now worth less than its Canadian counterpart.

Many economists, both in the United States and in Canada, are predicting that the surge in the Canadian dollar, which has boosted its value by 29 percent over the last year, will have staying power, unlike the 2007-08 spike that pushed the loonie to almost $1.09 but lasted less than 11 months.

"If the recovery holds, everything is pointing in the direction of the Canadian currency strengthening," Melnik said.

The strong Canadian dollar, likewise, will make visiting Canada more expensive for Americans, potentially keeping some of those tourist dollars on the U.S. side of the border.

Economists would be wise to note that the "loonie" isn't so much strengthening as the U.S. dollar is weakening. That said, it's always a good idea to take advantage of any purchasing power your currency has. But we should all long for the day when statist regimes and their central banks give way to sound money policies, where one currency backed by commodities like gold and silver could be traded equally with any other; and where the extent of our wealth was determined by those who've earned it, not the grubby hands of bureaucrats and petty tyrants.

Liberals to Blacks-"Either You Are a Liberal or a Sell Out"

One of the advantages liberals have with a black president is that they can decry any opposition to him or his policies as "racist". Do you disagree with the health care bill? Clearly you are a racist. So you oppose Obama's bailout plan? You must be a racist. Do you think McCain should have been president? You must be a member of the KKK. But what do you call black people who oppose Obama? They must be sell-outs.

Many blacks have been joining the Tea Party and some are paying a personal price for doing so:

"I've been told I hate myself. I've been called an Uncle Tom. I've been told I'm a spook at the door," said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government.

"Black Republicans find themselves always having to prove who they are. Because the assumption is the Republican Party is for whites and the Democratic Party is for blacks," he said....

"I've gotten the statement, 'How can you not support the brother?'" said David Webb, an organizer of New York City's Tea Party 365, Inc. movement and a conservative radio personality.

Since Obama's election, Webb said some black conservatives have even resorted to hiding their political views.

"I know of people who would play the (liberal) role publicly, but have their private opinions," he said. "They don't agree with the policy but they have to work, live and exist in the community ... Why can't we speak openly and honestly if we disagree?"

Liberals have labeled the Tea Party as racist because it comprises mostly middle-aged white men. And we all know that all middle-age conservative white men are racists. No, I'm just joking. But I can understand why liberals take the moral high ground regarding race because they are such great friends to black people. They continue to support public schools that destroy black education; welfare and public housing that destroy black families; the drug war that turns black neighborhoods into war zones; minimum wages that discourage employers from hiring black youth who lack job experience; high taxes that hinder blacks from keeping what money they do earn; and estate taxes that impede blacks from passing wealth to the next generation. They also have a savior-complex that compels them to believe black people owe their improved conditions to their policies and that blacks who have the temerity to think for themselves are ungrateful fools who do not understand that without the liberal, they would still be under Jim Crow. But racist they are not.

I am happy to see some black people finally thinking outside of the liberal/Democrat paradigm that we are taught to see as the way blacks should think about politics. Nevertheless, we must realize that the Tea Party has suffered a major coup by the Republicans who have suddenly discovered that appeals to liberty and free markets increase their popularity when they are out of power. Should the Republicans regain power, however, they will continue their wars, probably start new wars, and spend more money than the Democrats.

Black people in the US have been miseducated about who the real enemy of liberty is. If we genuinely desire freedom, we must come to realize that the true enemy of freedom is not the Democratic Party nor is it the Republican Party. It is the criminal enterprise we know as the State.

The Cost of Blasphemy Against America the Idol

Fourteen years ago, former NBA basketball player Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf set off a firestorm of controversy by refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. He refused to stand for the national anthem because "the flag represents tyranny and oppression" and he added that standing for the anthem was a form of nationalistic worship forbidden by his religion. He was suspended by the NBA, but served only a one game suspension. He worked out a compromise in which he would stand, but he could close his eyes and look downward. He was booed and jeered by fans in a March 1996 game against Chicago. The former No. 3 overall pick never quite recovered from this:

Abdul-Rauf was traded to Sacramento in the offseason and played for the Kings for two seasons. He then played in Turkey in 1998-99 before returning for his final NBA season with Vancouver in 2000-01. The anthem stance seemingly taken a toll as his numbers declined each of his final three years in the league, and he never quite lived up to the expectations of being a No. 3 pick.

He now plays in Japan.

Some may wonder why I blog under a pseudonym. Abdul-Rauf is one reason why. One thing to realize in the US is that one can be a Democrat or Republican or a liberal or conservative. One can even be an independent. One can discuss politics and even have strong views as to how the State's power should be used. But one should never under any circumstances question the legitimacy of the State by refusing to honor its flag or sing its hymns or pointing out its tyranny. Such blasphemy is unacceptable and the zealots who worship America can use their collective power to destroy you. They can ostracize you and refuse to engage in trade with you. You will be a pariah and you could lose everything you have worked for because you refuse to bow down and worship this Golden Calf. The NBA is a private organization, but its revenue comes from the average citizen -- people who are the State's disciples. Even if the NBA commissioner agreed with everything Abdul-Rauf said, the commissioner would still have to worry about boycotts to his product because the State's disciples can simply refuse to stop coming to games.

While I'm not a Muslim, I agree with Abdul-Rauf that the flag of the US represents tyranny and oppression. I believe that the US Federal Government is one of the most evil in history. It clearly is not as murderous as Nazi Germany under Hitler or the USSR under Stalin or China under Mao and it has not yet crushed all our liberties. But its wars of aggression have murdered millions of foreigners and such wars have also led to war on the domestic population. During wartime the Federal Government has taken over any industry it has needed; it has taxed every productive activity it can think of; it has inflated as much as the markets could stand; and it has even enslaved millions of young men to fight its wars. Moreover, the US was ostensibly born in the name of freedom so to see this government accomplish what it has while its citizens cheer it on reveals the deep hypocrisy of proclaiming "land of the free, home of the brave" while its laws continue to oppress its own citizens and it continues to bomb foreigners in distant countries.

If I were to make my opinion known publicly using my real name, it could cost me dearly. It might be hard for me to continue to be employed or get a new job. Sellers might refuse to sell to me because my opinions are heretical. Some of my friends might not want to continue their friendship with me. This is actually more harmful than just being on some government watch list because now my day-to-day existence is at stake. And it is not the State that would doing this, but its disciples who freely choose not to associate with me because this is what their religion demands. This is the cost of blasphemy against America the Idol.

Government 'Stimulus' Is Impossible

Brutus, I find it funny that Obama blathers about how the government provides the conditions for economic prosperity when the direct opposite is true. Yet how many Americans realize this? The state exists solely to enrich and embolden itself, not private industry. And where it does encourage conditions that favor private sector investment, it only does so to the benefit of rich and powerful special interests who will return the favors to their political cronies come election year.

Last week I was at the softball field hanging a banner advertising my chili spice mix, and afterward I headed over to a hot dog cart for a quick bite to eat. I noticed the vendor's food license number posted right on the front of the cart and asked him if a hot dog cart counted as a commercial kitchen when it came to procuring a county food license. The guy said no, that you still have to have either your own licensed commercial kitchen or access to someone else's -- even though every hot dog cart I've ever seen comes with a heat source and running water. 

The reason I inquired in the first place is because I've been mulling over the idea of buying a hot dog cart for use during my chili promos -- I'd like to start selling chili and chili dogs instead of merely giving away free samples when marketing my spice mix. But no dice. I can't simply decide to be a productive member of society and provide goods and services to hungry customers -- I'd first have to comply with gobs of cost prohibitive licensing regulations just to sell hot dogs.

The helplessly naive believe that such regulations exist to "protect" consumers from evil entrepreneurs like myself who are just out to poison the general public (because that's the way to build and retain a customer base that will keep you in business). The truth of the matter, however, is that these roadblocks are in place expressly to limit private sector competition. Restaurant owners who already have commercial kitchens can take their business on the road, selling and advertising outside the confines of their storefronts. No sense having to compete with independent vendors who don't have all that overhead to contend with!

There's only one way the government can help to stimulate an economy, and that's by butting out of it.  

Government Action Means Violence

The economy gained 162,000 jobs for the month of March and the President, of course, has attributed this success to his stimulus package. He was in Charlotte, North Carolina today discussing the economy at a manufacturing company that received $50 billion in stimulus money to expand one of its facilities and open another elsewhere in the State. Regarding the future of the economy, the President said:

"Government can't reverse the toll of this recession overnight, and government on its own can't replace the 8 million jobs that have been lost," he said. "The true engine of job growth in this country has always been the private sector. What government can do is create the conditions...for companies to hire again."

Just how government can create these conditions for companies to hire again is left unsaid. I seriously doubt the nationalization of the banking sector and the government takeover of GM counts are favorable conditions for the private sector. In fact, if Robert Higgs is correct about regime uncertainty, these government actions create unfavorable circumstances for investors. Investors who are unsure that their private property rights are going to be respected in the future are loathe to invest in any long term-projects. If the government is willing to take over an entire sector of the economy by passing such legislation over a weekend, clearly investors would be fearful that the government might takeover any sector it wishes in the future. This lack of real investment means that there will be less jobs in the future and ultimately less consumer and producer goods. Our standard of living will fall.

The Bill Has Passed. Now Let's Get Support for It

Since Obama's health care bill passed last week, I have noticed a couple of headlines that essentially say Obama is now hitting the road to sell his health care plan. Here is one on CNN and here is another on USAToday. He has an uphill battle ahead of him since a majority of people still oppose the health care bill according to this USAToday/Gallup poll. This is an interesting ideological development. Usually politicians try to get enough public support before passing a bill. Even if the bill is unpopular, they at least make sure that enough people have just resigned to its inevitability and that there is not outright anger. But since the first Bush bailout bill passed that was so unpopular the House originally voted against it, it seems that politicians have become more bold. Now the rule appears to be "do whatever is necessary to pass a bill, then go out and get support for it". If this is now the case, we can expect more deeply divisive and unpopular legislation to be passed in the future. Perhaps one of these bills will be a tipping point.