who's your nanny?

So You Think YOUR Gas Is Expensive?

Within an outstanding piece chronicling the failure that has been the "American Experiment," failure due in no small part to how the U.S. government squanders valuable resources, Paul Craig Roberts points out that American taxpayers taxsurrenderers are on the hook for $320,000,000 a day just to fund the gasoline burned by the Marines in Afghanistan alone.

At $400 a gallon, the Marines consume some 800,000 gallons a day. This is the same government that a majority of Americans credulously trust to educate their kids and manage their health insurance. In a war waged precisely to conquer and control oil-rich nations, the U.S. state can't even figure out how to get these resources cheaply.

What Depression?

Yesterday I noticed that the two-way road that leads from my house to the highway is riddled with "No Parking" signs. Seriously, like every 100 feet.

I've lived in my current house for more than six years, and I honestly cannot remember seeing a car parked along the side of this road. Ever.

Learning from My Five Minutes of Stupidity

A wise man once told me that everyone is allowed five minutes of stupidity a day. Wisdom is knowing when you have reached your quota. Allow me to share a story of my five minutes of stupidity, how I became wiser through the experience, and how the experience only added kerosene to my fiery hatred of the State.

Several weeks ago I purchased a used 1994 Camry V6 with less than 90,000 miles for $3,000. I purchased it without a warranty and the sale was final. I could not return the car if I found that it needed major work. At this point some of you are saying that this is already a bad deal, but don't get ahead. Some details might help explain my thinking. I was looking for another car with more power than my Corolla. I wanted to pay cash and had budgeted $6,000 for a car. I was looking at Honda Accords, Nissan Maximas, and Toyota Camrys, all with V6 engines, and I wanted to find one with less than 100,000 miles. It is really hard to find any of these cars for under $6,000 and under 100,000 miles. They hold their value very well. When I found the Camry, I knew someone else would get it. So I went to the dealership for a test drive.

The ride was very smooth. The car had some aesthetic problems, but Maaco could take care of these.¹ But after driving the car for about fifteen minutes I noticed the car smoked upon accelerating from a stop. When I got back to the dealer and told him about the problem, he said it was water vapor. I called my dad and he said white smoke was also a sign of water vapor so the dealer's explanation was plausible. My instincts, however, said to me that the smoke was not water vapor. And this is where my five minutes of stupidity begin.

D.C. Police Faulted on Response to Burglaries

D.C. residents living just south of the Potomac Ave Metro stop have been victimized by a rash of burglaries over the last two months. The Post reports:

The bad guys have them worried, but what really irks the residents, they say, is that the officers who handle the calls come with a nonchalant attitude about "property crime."

Some say the muted response has left them wondering: In a city that saw more than 180 people slain last year, what does it take to get the police focused on curbing a rash of break-ins?

The neighbors have written a letter to the mayor, arranged a meeting with their D.C. Council member and complained loudly at community events. Still, they say, the burglaries continue.

If the citizens of Washington, D.C. would read this blog more often, they would know that the police in general, and the Nation's Capital in particular, have no incentive to solve any crimes at all. Since the State is a territorial monopolist of security which receives its income through taxation, it has no incentive to do any thing it says it will do, namely protect its subjects and their property. Its subjects cannot purchase security services from anyone else. And since the State can charge its subjects whatever price it wishes, it will charge as much money in taxes as it can. This is what we would expect from any monopolist: charge as high a price as it can and do as little as it can get away with.

If its subjects object to this treatment and sue the State for failing to protect them or their property, they can only turn to the State for resolution. And the State, being a judge in its own case, will rule in its own favor. This is exactly what the District Supreme Court did in the 1981 Warren v. District of Columbia. In this case, the court ruled that the police had no obligation to protect three women who were sexually assaulted for fourteen hours. Do any of the citizens of Washington, D.C. really think that the police which did not protect the physical bodies of three women from being assaulted, but will use all of their resources to protect residents' laptops, televisions, and X-Boxes?

Also unfortunate is the mindset of the residents in the article. Not one resident suggests purchasing a gun to protect his property. Not one resident suggests that the neighbors get together to watch over each others property. Not one suggests any sort of personal responsibility to protect his own life and property. This omission reflects The Servile Mindset of many Americans. They have been made helpless through the public education system and easily give up their right of self-protection for the fraudulent claims of the State-provided security. They have forsaken the option of self-protection and can only think about compelling the police to defend them although the police have no incentive at all to to this. Unless the people are awakened from their dogmatic slumber, they will continue to be victimized by the private criminals who rob them and State-provided police who do nothing to protect them.

 

The "Services" of the DMV

I purchased a car last weekend and I am not at all looking forward to my upcoming trip to the DMV. I went to the DC DMV website today to find out what papers I needed to receive permission to drive my car. Any time I visit a government agency's website, I like to click on the "About Us" link to read the propaganda said agency uses to justify its robbery and oppression. The ostensible mission of the DC DMV is "to provide excellent customer service and to promote public safety by ensuring the safe operation of motor vehicles."

I am not surprised to read "public safety" as part of the mission. As H.L. Mencken once said the average man does not want to be free, he only wants to be safe. Safety is probably the most popular reason given by the State to justify its violations of our natural rights. According to this history of the California DMV,

The early day "motor wagon" was also considered a dangerous instrument. Several California counties passed ordinances requiring motorists to pull to the side of the road and remain standing when horse drawn vehicles approached. One court decision characterized the new contraptions as "highly dangerous" when used on county roads. Ordinances prohibited operations of the horseless carriage at night.

In 1901 California authorized "cities and counties to license bicycles, tricycles, automobile carriages, carts, and similar wheeled vehicles." The Vermont DMV did not even wait until automobiles arrived in the state before passing laws to regulate them. The laws were passed as a preventive measure. Given that the purpose of the State is robbery, I am not at all surprised that such laws were passed. This account of Idaho's DMV history does not even bother to hide the Idaho government's impudence: "[t]he state of Idaho learned early that there was money to be made in the distribution and sale of vehicles." But when crafting legislation, politicians generally cannot be so candid about their motives. They must cloak their schemes with some plausible rhetoric and safety always compels the masses to give up some of their freedoms.

Shit Outta Luck

Seriously, people, what did you think the "stimulus" money was going to be used for?

WASHINGTON -- The feds are spending tens of millions of stimulus dollars to repair and build toilets across the nation, in an outflow of taxpayer funds that critics have branded "potty pork."

From humble sylvan outhouses to "historic" restrooms, cash from the $787 billion stimulus is going to spruce up or completely replace aging toilets, government releases show.

In New Mexico alone, the feds are spending $2.8 million for toilets in national forests.

Every day the government hoodwinks taxpayers into thinking the money it steals from us is going to be used for our benefit, yet people still act surprised when it's used to further enrich the state and privileged corporations.

Spending these handouts on toilets isn't the problem; confiscating private property from productive citizens in the first place -- and actually thinking the government could put it to better use than its rightful owners could -- is.

I figured this called for a little fun with PowerPoint:

Sheriff "Denounces" Tasering of 72-Year-Old Woman

Travis County Sheriff Greg Hamilton has distanced himself from Deputy Chris Bieze who tasered 72-year-old Kathryn Winkfein. In a statement released June 10, 2009, the Sheriff stated:

On May 11, 2009 the Travis County Constables Office arrested Kathryn Winkfein and charged her with Resisting Arrest. During the incident the deputy constable used his electronic control device, commonly known as a Tazer. The incident was recorded on the officers in car video camera and has since become a favorite video for media to incite responses to their programs.

As Sheriff of Travis County, I want to make two things perfectly clear. First, the deputy constable does not work for my agency. The Constables Office is a separate office with the Constable elected to office by an individual precinct. Second, I do not personally agree with the actions of the deputy constable as they are shown in the video. When I look at the video I am in awe of what happened.

I would feel better about this situation if the Sheriff had condemned this behavior in much stronger terms. There simply is no excuse at all for a male police officer to taser a 72-year-old woman for not signing a ticket. None whatsoever. To say "I do not personally agree with the actions of the deputy" diminishes the brutality of the Officer Bieze's actions. No society which condones such behavior can call itself decent, moral, exemplary or "exceptional."

This Article Doesn't Really Need Comment from Me

I'll just highlight the good parts.

From today's Washington Examiner:

MontCo Reviewing vehicle privileges after drunken driving arrest

Montgomery County officials are reviewing county employees’ driving privileges after police arrested a Department of Economic Development employee who they said was driving drunk at 8 a.m. in a county-owned sport utility vehicle.

The employee, Cynthia Harrison, has six prior convictions for driving under the influence or driving while intoxicated, according to police and court records. Her criminal record also includes convictions for assault, trespassing and violating a restraining order, court records show. 

She is required to have an interlock device, which is designed to block drunken driving, in her personal vehicles, according to a police report.

A county spokeswoman said the county should have been aware of Harrison’s driving record before allowing her access to a county-owned vehicle.

“Clearly, something needs to be strengthened in our policies,” spokeswoman Donna Bigler said.

The county’s chief administrative officer, Tim Firestine, is putting together a work group to consider whether new rules or background checks are needed to prevent a similar incident, Bigler said. The county manages a fleet of more than 2,200 cars and SUVs. 

Bigler said that Harrison, whose job is to help local businesses become more profitable, was permitted to use a county vehicle for business purposes, but had violated county policy by taking a county-owned vehicle home. 

Harrison was arrested in March after cutting off traffic while leaving a McDonald’s drive-through in Damascus, about eight miles from her Mount Airy home. 

Harrison has been on paid leave for a month and could not be reached for comment. Her arrest was first reported in the Gazette newspaper.

Bigler said Harrison makes $79,578 a year and has worked for the county for 10 years.

Harrison’s arrest is the third reported incident in recent months involving county employees who were accused of driving drunk while operating county-owned vehicles.

Former Assistant Fire Chief Greg DeHaven caused a four-car pileup when he was driving back from a Washington Redskins game in a county-owned SUV in November, according to county records. The Examiner first reported the accident, and that a junior police officer on the scene thought he may have smelled alcohol on DeHaven’s breath, but a police sergeant and captain said they did not. The crash and the county’s response have sparked several investigations.

Montgomery County Police Officer Fernando Martinez has been assigned to administrative duties and had his arrest powers suspended while awaiting a July court date for charges that he crashed a marked police car while driving drunk, according to a county spokeswoman.

Now That GM Is Officially Bankrupt

Any chance we can stop pretending the federal government can "bail out" insolvent companies?

Forget for now about the vastly immoral nature of robbing innocent citizens either directly or through inflation to carry out these sorts of scams; it should be abundantly clear that they do not and cannot work.

Hundreds of billions have already been flushed down the toilet by corrupt politicians in order to prop up their high-rolling elbow-rubbers under the guise that we "can't afford" to let bloated companies fail. What we can't afford to do is let ourselves trust anything these statist hacks tell us, much less allow them to pilfer our belongings so they can retain their fat cat status at our expense.

Enjoy Your Graduation Party

Now the fun really begins.

The Social Security Fraud

Many people were rightly angry at Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme which bilked many people out of millions. Unfortunately there has not been similar outrage directed toward the government Ponzi scheme known as Social Security.

Commuters Bad, Imperial Airlines Good

In no apparent sense of irony, Emperor Obama is planning a "green" overhaul of the American automobile industry as his fleet of imperial aircraft soars into southern Maryland this weekend for the NAS Pax River airshow.

The Holy One wants us to believe that those of us left with a job are going to destroy the environment if we drive to work in cars that run on gasoline, all while each of the Blue Angels burns 1,500 gallons of jet fuel an hour as they boast the glory of the state a few hundred feet above mesmerized onlookers.

Military airshows are meant to do one thing and one thing only: distract taxpayers from the true nature of these warplanes. Give a few of them a pretty paintjob and we "Ooh!" and "Ahh!" as they swoosh by. Anything to prevent us from thinking about the JDAMs they drop on women as they change their babies' diapers in some tent in Iraq.

But enough about war. They're just stupid fucking foreigners anyway. They practically deserve to die because they don't speak English, right? Let's talk about something more important, like the environment or money. Seriously, I know it's Friday but let's do a little math. Lots of planes burn lots of fuel during airshows, but we'll stick to the Blue Angels. Like I said they're pretty. And everybody knows nothing can be bad if it's pretty.

Six F/A-18 Blue Angels will fly tomorrow and Sunday. They always bring a spare but we won't even worry about him. The gas he burns during practice barely counts if he doesn't get off the bench on gameday.

So you've got six Blue Angels burning between 1,000 and 1,500 gallons of fuel per hour during normal flight (plus about 10,000-15,000 pounds of fuel per hour (or about 3,000 gallons) in afterburner, which admittedly they'll probably only do a few times to show off). Consdering each of them will also suck down at least 1,000 pounds of fuel (or about 150 gallons) on takeoff and the initial climb, it's safe to say each fighter will consume a minimum of 1,000 gallons of fuel during the airshow if they fly for only a half-hour. Multiply this by six planes and two different shows and you're looking at 12,000 gallons of jet fuel for a weekend show. And this obviously isn't even taking into consideration the fuel they'll burn as they practice or fly back home following the show.

Why do I mention all this? Well, aside from the many thousands of dollars that will be robbed from taxpayers wasted to put on this spectacle -- even at wholesale it costs $3,000 to $4,000 an hour in fuel alone to operate one of these jets -- the state wants us to take full responsibility for polluting the environment while it gets a free pass.

After all, I probably put about 50 gallons a month into my truck. Over the course of one year that's about 600 gallons of gas, or just about half of what one of the Blue Angels will blow through during one half-hour performance. Now, I realize there are many more people like me across the country than there are the Blue Angels, but when you figure the Angels are flying 36 official shows this year in addition to 52 one-hour practice sessions over the course of nine months at Pensacola, you're easily talking over a million gallons of fuel being burned solely by one branch of the military's show squadron.

So, honestly, the next time King Barack deigns to lecture me about my fuel consumption and the "toll" it's taking on the almighty environment, I hope he knows he can put it in his tailpipe and smoke it.

Another Maryland Welfare Program

Sometimes I get so irritated with politicians and the expansion of the welfare-warfare-police state that I go through spells where I refuse even to watch the news or listen to anything but music on the radio.

Perhaps that explains how I missed the story about how Maryland's fascist governor, Martin O'Malley, recently signed legislation giving the state (illegitimate) authority to seize the Preakness Stakes and Pimlico racetrack from its bankrupt owner, by eminent domain if necessary, in order to keep the annual horse race instate. (I inadvertantly saw an ESPN Outside the Lines broadcast about it yesterday.)

The governor and Democratic leaders in Annapolis say the state needs broad powers to ensure that the second jewel of the Triple Crown continues running at Pimlico Race Course. The track's owner, Magna Entertainment Corp., wants to auction off its Maryland assets - including Pimlico Race Course and Laurel Park - under federal bankruptcy proceedings.

Lawmakers passed O'Malley's bill over the warnings of Republicans who said the move threatened private-property rights. If Maryland wants to buy Pimlico and keep running the Preakness, it should compete in the marketplace with other bidders, Republican critics said.

Does the governor plan to use this property to build additional highways or schools? Nope. While that would be an abusive (if legal) measure in itself, it would at least adhere to the rationale governments usually offer when they want to confiscate private property.

However, instead of merely overregulating Maryland's horse industry -- say, any chance oppressive taxes and gambling regulations have anything to do with the track's demise? -- O'Malley now wants to force taxpayers to subsidize an enterprise he's helped to drive out of the state in the first place.

I am shocked -- shocked! -- that Maryland ranks so pitifully in personal and economic freedom.

Obama Administration Terrorizes New York City with Imperial Photo Op

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg apparently is furious that no one in the Obama administration bothered to inform him about an idiotic, classified White House photo op that sent New Yorkers fleeing office buildings in fear of another terrorist attack as a fighter appeared to be chasing a 747 only a thousand feet off the ground.

"We all ran to the window, and I thought, that's it, we're all dead," said Chris Biancamano, 36, who works at a brokerage in Jersey City. "It brought back all the memories of 9/11. I said, 'I have to get out of here now!' "

Notwithstanding the wasteful extravagance of these types of taxpayer-funded exercises in political vanity -- Air Force One apparently costs $40,000 an hour to operate -- this stunt illustrates the complete disregard criminal politicians have for the rest of us. We simply exist for their amusement, as tools to finance their immature exploits and then as pawns to be used for their political experimentation.

As someone who lives and works within close proximity to the Patuxent River Naval Air Station in Southern Maryland, I'm used to hearing and seeing fighters and helicopters flying overhead. My one-year-old son immediately points to the sky and says "pane" whenever he spots one, something I obviously don't discourage as he builds his vocabulary.

But I can recall at least twice in the past month his grandmother grabbing his little hands and telling him "that's the sound of freedom" as they fly overhead (something even I ignorantly believed not too long ago). I immediately respond by calling these billion-dollar contraptions "Pentagon death machines," signaling to anyone within earshot that they can attempt to indoctrinate my kid with this propagandistic rhetoric if they like, but they're not going to get very far.

But back to New York. I suppose we should be grateful that this gratuitous misuse of taxpayer property at least took place while we enjoy a bustling economy. Imagine how absurd it would be to conduct such a profligate exercise during a depression!

More Adventures with the TSSA

I was away on vacation last weekend and was treated to witness even more production of fear by the TSSA. Before we left for the airport, I had planned to bring two books along: The Theory of Money and Credit by Ludwig von Mises and Send in the Waco Killers by Vin Suprynowicz. My girlfriend, who is not as radical as I am, told me that I should not bring Waco Killers. This would be the one day my bag is searched by hand, she said. A TSSA agent would find the book and then I would be detained and questioned. I do my best to be aware of what provokes the State, but even I did not think up this scenario. So I left Waco Killers home. I told her that she was beginning to think like a radical. She thinks that she won't become as radicial as I am. I told her that this may change after some experiences with our protectors.

So we arrive at the airport, check our bags, and then proceed to the submission security checkpoint. Wea pproach the agent and my girlfriend hands her ID and boarding pass to him. I then step up and hand him my ID and boarding pass. He asks, "Are you together?" My girlfriend replies, "Yes." He replies, "Then you should have stepped up together. It would make things easier on me and on you." My girlfriend walks away, visibly irked. "Why did he say that?", she asked. "Why would it matter if we came up together? He still had to check the IDs separately." Since I've taken the red pill, I smiled and said, "His remark had nothing to do with what he said. The point was to condition us to obey our rulers. That's what the entire process of the TSA security checkpoint is." She then said, "Well, next time we might both come up together and then the agent will say 'You should come up separately.'" I said, "Yes, again that's the point. Obedience is what this process is supposed to produce. Perhaps you will become a radical sooner than you think." I can imagine that such arbitrary commands would provoke someone fed up with getting different rules at different airports to becom upset and complain. Such resistance would be crushed immediately and allow the State to flex its muscles, thus scaring more passengers and compeling them to obey.

The TSSA gives the sheep the illusion of safety and as H.L. Mencken pointed out in Notes on Democracy, the masses want safety and will give up anything to get it. The reason why the State took over airline security after 9-11, although 9-11 was clearly a failure of the State, was that it would be a very easy way to condition the masses to obey. Many people will choose flying because it is the fastest method of transportation available. Since they only want to get to their destinations, the people are a lot less likely to resist. Karen DeCoster expounds this point in her latest article:

So why airports? Since airplanes have become flying Greyhound buses, and airports have become ground zerofor the dumbed-down lumpen proletariat, the listenership at airports is ripe for inane propaganda. In a place where people are herded like cattle and searched like criminals, it’s not hard to break down their already unenlightened state and further melt their mindset toward a helpless condition. Similar to the military recipe for breaking down individuality, Homeland Security’s TSA aims to break down any resistance they may face from any individual. Because you have to be somewhere and have little or no alternative to flying on a quasi-governmental Greyhound bus, and because you must pass Go before you collect your $200, you have no choice but to enter through the TSA’s turnstiles of terror. At this point, people are intimidated and uncertain, which leads them to look for something that provides comfort. So the TSA goons ensure you they are working to help you, protect you, and keep you safe. They scare you, make small talk with you, and then pretend to secure you. So suddenly, people feel better and the feelings move from being intimidated to granting approval and thanks. The psychology of the process is quite simple and rather perverted, but it works on the majority of the herd.

After placing her bag in the x-ray machine, she was patted down by the TSSA agent who waves the people through the metal detector because she had wide-leg jeans. She was really heated then. "Why did she do that?" Again, I just smiled.

Another Warning Against Doing Business with the State

A while back I wrote a post warning against doing business with the State. S.M. Olivia at the Mises blog posts an even more egregious example of a corporation being prosecuted for selling goods to the Federal Government. Apparently if the government agrees on a price and signs a contract with you, you might still be hauled into court on anti-trust charges if the government feels you ripped them off.

Ron Paul Rips the President's Spending Plan

More Evidence the State Is a Criminal Gang

From J.D. Tuccille:

Organized crime has a long history of "buying into" legitimate businesses, whether the original owners are interested in acquiring partners or not. Those businesses are then redirected to ends favored by the mob, often at the expense of their long-term viability. The actual owners are pushed aside, of course, with little or no hope of winning back control of their companies.

So, is it too much to compare recent actions by the government to those of organized crime? You tell me.

Back in October, with the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bailouts for banks a hot topic in the news, some reports included the surprising information that many of the banks being "saved" by infusions of cash didn't want the money, but were being arm-twisted to go along with the program.

This is a point I noted last week, but Mr. Tuccille gives a much more thorough account with more sources. Perhaps we should begin studying The Godfather triology so that we may anticipate the State's next move.

The Pigs Continue to Line Up at the Trough

First it was the Wall Street banks. Next came the automakers. Now it is the life insurance industry's turn to slop up taxpayer money.

The Two Faces of Obama

Justin Raimondo writes

Obama ran for president as the spokesman for the underdog – the little guy just managing to make ends meet, whose volunteerism and contributions over the Internet catapulted the Illinois senator into the running. Yet the reality is that Obama was corporate America’s candidate from the very beginning, and they showed it by lavishly financing his campaign: the money emanating from Goldman Sachs was quite impressive, and, together with the DNC, Wall Street buried the Republicans, who were outspent by three-to-one [.pdf] (and out of gas in any event). Unsurprisingly, the top echelons of the president’s economic team are filled with former Goldman Sachs officials – and, not coincidentally, that firm is the primary beneficiary of the AIG/bank bailout.

The ruling elites of this country, confronted by the specter of a rising populist anger, have found in President Obama a subtle and skillful anger-management expert. For years they’ve been frustrated in Washington, as their efforts to fight a spreading war met increasing resistance from the American people. Divine Providence smiled down on them, however, as Obama suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Here was an "antiwar" candidate who said we’ve been fighting the wrong war all along – and, upon taking office, immediately rectified that by sending 21,000 more troops to the wilds of Central Asia.

Read the whole thing.

Dishonest, Insane, and Intolerable

The brazen hypocrisy of the State never ceases to amaze me. The Federal Government is cracking down on mortgage scams. Apparently there is a a group of "criminal actors" who are taking advantage of borrowers in danger of foreclosure by charging them upront fees of $1,000 to $3,000 for help with loan modifications. In a statement which defines chutzpah, Timothy Geithner said,

"These predatory scams callously rob Americans of their savings and potentially their homes...We will shut down fraudulent companies more quickly than before. We will target companies that otherwise would have gone unnoticed under the radar."

This from the same government that has been robbing the American public's savings through taxation and inflation. Statements from government officials such as this remind me of Lysander Spooner's charaterization of the State as a highwayman. But, argues Spooner, the State is actually worse than a plain criminal:

"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.”

You're Not Paranoid If They Really Are Out to Get You

I realize that Trevor and I have been especially hard on the police and our injustice system for the past two weeks. Let me continue to heap odium on "those malignant bastards." Here are two excellent articles on our "protectors."

An excerpt from Brian Cohoon's, "Why Fearing the Police Is Not Irrational":

Every single piece of information the cops need during a traffic stop is contained on your license, registration and proof of insurance. While there are a plethora of reasons why you should not even have to provide those (a huge topic all on its own), in my humble opinion the potential hassle of not complying far outweighs the benefits gained by attempting to circumvent these pieces of documentation. They have no reason to know neither where you have been nor where you are going. It is none of their business and has nothing to do with a traffic stop. So, do not tell them anything. Do not talk to them and do not even open your mouth. Remember they are not your friend. All they want is to find some reason to take you to the station and toss you in a cell, confiscate your vehicle (along with all the contents), put you in a situation that will cost you tens of thousands of dollars to get out of (if you are lucky) or a guilty plea-bargain to avoid jail time (congratulations on the felony record, no more guns for you and good luck finding a new job after you lost your current one during the 9 month legal battle). They will ruin your life if you give them the chance, just to advance their petty careers.

An excerpt from the erudite William Grigg's "DARE and Back Again":

Roughly 120 fifth-grade students had been dragooned into taking DARE and attending the ceremony. Awards and prizes of every conceivable kind were handed out in such volume that one suspected the event was modeled after the Do-do's "Caucus-Race" from Alice in Wonderland, in which everyone wins and everyone gets a prize.

Four students were singled out to read brief essays in praise of DARE's transcendent goals and the supernal wisdom displayed by its creators and facilitators, each of which ended with a pledge to remain "drug and violence free."

This prompted me to wonder what would happen if a "DARE kid" were to use the assertiveness tools taught by the program to resist a school-mandated Ritalin prescription: "No! I won't take that reliably lethal, over-prescribed Schedule II narcotic! I'm a DARE kid! I took a pledge to be drug-free!"

Read them both.

Greener Grass

It's important in life to reach out, to strive for greater achievements, to go for that greener grass that is on the other side of the fence. But one must also be careful. Sometimes you can reach too far.

   

But when you find yourself over-extended and you're stuck in a situation that you can't get out of, there is one thing you should always remember:

 

Your government is here to help.

(Thanks to Paul C.)

Cop Who Detained Football Player Has History...

of being a bit zealous at enforcing the law. Officer Robert Powell who detained Houston Texans running back Ryan Moats in the parking lot of the hospital where his mother-in-law was dying also arrested former Dallas Cowboys linebacker Zach Thomas's wife. On July 27, 2008, Maritza Thomas was pulled over for making an illegal U-Turn. Yahoo! Sports reports that she "was issued five tickets by Powell, four of which were later dismissed. Thomas was handcuffed, placed in the back of a police cruiser, spent about three hours in the Dallas County Jail and was threatened with the possibility of spending the night behind bars."

Mr. Thomas knows that what happened to his wife is not the same type of violation that Mr. Moats was subjected to. Nevertheless, he stated, "But we wanted to tell our story, not knowing how many others have been affected by Officer Powell. We know the vast majority of the Dallas police force are good and professional people, but this guy just seems excessive."

As Trevor pointed out today and as I have pointed out in the past, as long as the State is the ultimate judge of conflicts involving itself, the State may provoke conflict and then rule in its own favor. Officer Powell could use excessive force if he deemed Mrs. Thomas was a threat. However, given that the definition of threat is purely the decision of the officer involved, the threat could be a real threat in which a driver pulls out a weapon or the threat could simply be a person who wishes to be treated like a human being.

Dying Mom? What About Those Expired Tags, Sir?

These last two days have not been good for police performing "routine" traffic stops. Thursday we learned that a police officer in Dallas prevented a football player from seeing his dying mother-in-law to issue a citation for running a red light. On Friday Manuel Lora at the LRC blog linked to multiples sources which report that a traffic stop in Memphis might have contributed the death of the driver's mother. Wayne Ables was rushing his mother to the emergency room when a Shelby County Sheriff's deputy stopped Mr. Ables because his tags were expired. According to this source, Mr. Ables told the officer he was driving his mother to the hospital. He suggested that the officer follow him there and issue the citation when he arrived. The deputy told Ables he could not follow after a traffic stop. The officer chose to check Ables license and insurace and call an ambulance. Meanwhile, Ables' mother's condition worsened. She died in the back seat of the car. Says Ables:

"My mom is gasping, and he wants to see my insurance papers," Ables said. "He went to his car when I gave him my license. This whole time, there is an 83-year-old lady gasping for air, and he's asking for her age and health history."

This source quotes Shelby County Sheriff Mark Luttrell saying,

"Situations like this require extreme judgment," says Sheriff Luttrell,  "and it's very difficult to write a protocol for every judgment-type situation.  So we'll take a look at it and if it's a training issue, we'll emphasize that to our officers." 

Does Luttrell really mean to say that the Shelby County police need to be trained to exercise such uncommon sagacious judgment as, "if you stop a motorist for a routine traffic violation and the motorist or a passenger in the vehicle is dying, the officer should escort the motorist to the nearest hospital before deciding whether to issue a citation..."? Does such common sense really have to be on paper? Have police officers now all become trained monkeys incapable of using any discretion and numb to any empathy of the human condition? Should not concern for others been inculcated early in our lives through families and communities? Does one need to have it written in stone that if the driver needs assistance in order to get to the emergency room after a traffic stop, the officer should then escort the driver to the nearest hospital? If an individual missed such lessons in his upbringing I seriously doubt such character will be instilled in the police academy.

A fact in this story which really irked was the reason why the tags of Mr. Ables' vehicle had expired.

The problem with his car was the expired tag. He had tried to get a new sticker, but a cracked windshield caused him to fail inspection. His mother's previous hospitalization delayed taking care of the problem.

I wrote about a similar experience I had with when I took my father's car in for inspection. It, too, failed inspection due to a "crack" in the windshield. I find the whole idea of car registration and inspection ridiculous and outrageous. I can't think of any legitimate reason to register our vehicles with the State. Police have no incentive to find our vehicles if they are stolen. However, I can think of at least two spurious reasons the State requires us to register our cars. One reason is simple robbery. It charges us a "fee" for the privilege of driving our cars. Just like the mobsters who charges the shopkeeper a "fee" to protect his store from the mobsters. The second reason is that registration is another way for the State to find out where we live.

I'm glad to see the impudent and callous behavior of these police officers exposed for the public to see. I only hope that the analysis does not stop here, but also leads people to question the entire fraudulent system of State-provided protection and the laws our rulers pass and hire police to enforce.

 

A Surprising Source of Road Rage

It appears that people in some parts of the country are fed up with traffic cameras. This WSJ article reports that

"Drivers -- many accusing law enforcement of using spy tactics to trap unsuspecting citizens -- are fighting back with everything from pick axes to camera-blocking Santa Clauses. They're moving beyond radar detectors and CB radios to wage their own tech war against detection, using sprays that promise to blur license numbers and Web sites that plot the cameras' locations and offer tips to beat them."

The methods of resistance have varied. One man attacked a camera with a pick axe. Some people dressed as Santa Clause and covered the cameras with boxes. Some entreprenuers created a spray and a photoshield which are designed to reflect the flash of the camera, making the photo unreadable.

These counties have argued that these cameras are needed to keep people safe. Some are outraged because these cameras are operated by for-profit firms. One must wonder if these same individuals would feel better about the cameras if they were all operated soley by governments. Surely these governments would not use these cameras as a means of generating revenue. Why, the agents of the State only have our best interest in mind and want to protect our lives, liberty and property, correct? Alas, if any quixotic individuals ascribe such motives to the agents of the State, some economists have discovered that the agents' motives do not quite benefit the public:

"But a study in last month's Journal of Law and Economics concluded that, as many motorists have long suspected, "governments use traffic tickets as a means of generating revenue." The authors, Thomas Garrett of the St. Louis Fed and Gary Wagner of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, studied 14 years of traffic-ticket data from 96 counties in North Carolina. They found that when local-government revenue declines, police issue more tickets in the following year. Officials at the North Carolina Association of Chiefs of Police didn't respond to requests for comment."

Who would have thought that the agents of the State would install traffic cameras for the money? But surely these efforts, although misguided, address a real problem. Surely most accidents are caused by people running redlights and speeding. Well, maybe not:

A study of crash causes released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration last July found about 5% of crashes were due to traveling too fast and 2% were from running red lights. Driving off the side of the road, falling asleep at the wheel and crossing the center lines were the biggest causes identified.

Has anyone else other than the libertarian thought perhaps one reason why there are so many bad drivers on the road is because the vassal States regulate the issuing of drivers' licenses? Perhaps if we had competition in the area of issuing licenses, society would benefit from more thorough and rigorous testing. A driving school would want to minimize the number of bad drivers which graduate from their schools and would design tests and traning to minimize the number of idiots on the road. No one would want to learn from a school in which many of its graduates have a lot of accidents.

I'm Your Pusher

I saw a bumper sticker one day which read, "Don't steal, the government hates the competition." We can now create a new bumper sticker which reads, "Don't deal drugs. The government hates the competition." The Examiner reports 

For decades, the government has authorized, funded and lobbied for studies in which otherwise illegal drugs were given to addicts in cities such as Washington, Bethesda, Baltimore, New York, Minneapolis and San Antonio. The studies continue today and have an array of aims, from documenting the ways cocaine warps the brain to the intensity of pain from morphine withdrawal....

Most government officials are not aware of the experiments, even though they have been going on since at least the 1970s.

I wrote yesterday in my post Conspiracies and Conservatives that general public does not really know what the State is doing. There is no such thing as transparency with the State and there can never be true transparency because there is no way to compel the State to provide information. The only reason this story became public was because ex-drug czar John Walters blew the whistle on these experiments. If his conscience had not compelled him to speak up, the public still would not know about this. If it took three decades for this to become public knowledge, what else could this government be up to? If you think our government is a force for good you will see this failure as an exception to the otherwise honest public servants who compose the State. If you think our government is a criminal gang, this is only the tip of the iceberg of malfeasance.

In another Examiner article, an ex-official defended the program. Bertha K. Madras was President George W. Bush's deputy director for demand reduction under the Office of National Drug Control Policy. She said, “It’s an important ethical issue and I’m glad you raise it, but holy cow, there’s so much more important stuff to focus on...Twenty-three percent of people who show up in health care settings are in need of an [anti-drug] intervention. We need a strategic plan for that.” Who knew that the best way to obtain cocaine, heroin, and crystal meth legally was to sign up for a government program? But the program was even better for drug addicts in that not only did they not have to spend their own money for these drugs, but they got paid to get high. And they didn't worry about getting arrested.

One question to ask is where are the government officials getting the drugs. If Michael Gaddy is correct, one source is Mexico. Another source is the "drug raid." Makes you look at those pictures taken by State agents and media members displaying all the drugs they confiscated differently, does it not?

Of course, this story does not shock me nor will it shock regular readers of this blog. Each day Trevor and I discuss the root failures of the State. One of these failures is that the State compels its subjects to obey laws from which it exempts itself because there is no entity to bind the State. This creates a system of dual law; there is one set of rules for the subjects and another set of rules for the agents of the State. This story is simply another example of the systematic failure of entrusting our safety to a territorial monopolist of law and order and ultimate decision making.

More Highwaymen Acting as Police Officers

Bill Anderson at the LRC blog links to a story of an NFL player being pulled over while trying to get to the hospital as his mother-in-law was dying. The absolute arrogance and inhumanity of the police officer is simply amazing and enraging. David Kramer draws our attention to the second paragraph in the article:

"As he rushed his family to the hospital, Ryan Moats, 26, rolled through a red light. A Dallas police officer pulled their SUV over outside the emergency room [emphasis mine] at the Baylor Regional Medical Center at Plano."

Mr. Kramer then comments:

Shouldn't any cop with even half a brain (I'm pretty sure there must be some cops out there who have that) have first assumed that if he were chasing a speeding car that eventually ended up outside the entrance to a HOSPITAL'S EMERGENCY ROOM, that perhaps there was someone in the car who had an emergency--rather than there being a criminal aspect involved in the driver's speeding?

Another disturbing paragraph:

A Dallas police spokesman said that Officer Robert Powell told his commanders that he drew his gun, but did not point it. Lt. Andy Harvey said it is not unusual for officers to draw a gun without pointing it. Drawing a gun is not unusual in traffic stops where officers feel threatened.

As the erudite William Grigg has pointed out, demanding to be treated like a human being rather than a slave is considered "threatening behavior" by some police officers.

This story would not have made the news had it not been for the fact that this happened to an NFL player. When police abuse the average Joe, such stories only get noticed by libertarians and civil liberties groups who monitor police abuses which are legion in this country. Unfortunately, Ryan Moats and his family might place the ultimate blame on racism:

The Moatses, who are black, said Wednesday that they can’t help but think that race might have played a part in how Powell, who is white, treated them.

While it is possible, even likely, that Officer Robert Powell treated the Moats family as he did because they were black, we cannot stop there with our analysis. As I wrote several months ago in my essay The Miseducation of the Negro,

Certainly some police officers are racist and abuse people for this reason. But they could also abuse us because they simply did not like how we looked at them; they did not appreciate our tone when we replied to a question they asked; we did not get out of the car fast enough when asked; we got out of the car too fast when asked; we did not get on the ground when commanded; we did not stand up when commanded; we protested a ticket; we filed a grievance against them with their supervisor; they were just in a bad mood; they wanted to abuse us and knew that they could get away with it.

This is because the State is an territorial monopolist of law and order with an absolute monopoly on violence. It attracts people predisposed to the use of force to resolve conflicts. These people covet the power of the State and enjoy lording its power over the masses. Until the State is abolished and security is provided on the free market as all goods and services should be, such abuse by police officers will not end.

Perhaps the Editorial Writers at the Examiner Read this Blog

An Examiner editorial puts the AIG bonuses into perspective:

There is nothing quite so ridiculous as a bunch of Washington politicians running at break-neck speed to get in front of an American public frothing in a righteous uproar over something in the news. The first casualty in such episodes is invariably a clear picture of who actually deserves the public’s anger, and so it is with $165 million in AIG executive bonuses. Leading the charge now are members of the same Congress that approved the $700 billion bailout and the $787 billion economic stimulus bill that authorized the bonus payments without reading either of the 1,000-page monsters. These same people are screaming to confiscate a bonus amount that equals one-tenth of one percent of the $1.5 trillion total they blindly approved for the bailout and stimulus legislation. The lack of proportion here is staggering. (emphasis added)

Perhaps some of the editorial writers have been reading my posts. Unfortunately, the editorial's math is incorrect. As I pointed out last week, the bonus amount is one-tenth of one percent of the $170 billion that AIG received from the Federal Government. This bonus amount is approximately one-hundredth of one percent of the approximated $1.5 trillion total from the Bush and Obama plans. And that's only the estimate on paper. Some have argued that the actual cost will be around $3 trillion. Given that the Federal Government tends to underestimate the costs of its own programs, $3 trillion is not an implausible guess for the true cost. In fact, $3 trillion might be an underestimate as well.

The editorial points out that this brouhaha diverts attention from the role of Goldman Sachs in this robbery:

Goldman Sachs alumni have been in the forefront of the government’s response to the crisis under both the present and former presidential administrations. Tim Geithner served in multiple roles at the Treasury Department in the Clinton administration when long-time Goldman Sachs head Robert Rubin was Treasury Secretary. Geithner then worked closely with Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, another long-time Goldman Sachs executive, in crafting the $170 billion AIG bailout. Also among the many other Goldman Sachs alumni who have served in key Treasury Department positions under recent presidents is Assistant Secretary of Treasury Neel Karshkari, who heads the Office of Financial Stability.

Moreover, the editorial reports that Goldman Sachs received $12.9 billion of the AIG bailout money.

But this is a conservative paper, and alas, the editorial writers still hold to the naive belief that Congress ought to pay closer attention to Goldman Sachs. I can think of at least 1,035,095 reasons why that won't happen.

The American Mugabe

Because the Zimbabwean economic model has led to unparalleled prosperity, His Highness apparently figures counterfeiting another trillion will help pull America out of depression.

The Obama administration's latest attempt to tackle the banking crisis and get loans flowing to families and businesses will create a new government entity, the Public-Private Investment Program, to help purchase as much as $1 trillion in toxic assets on banks' books.

Hey Barack, if the destruction of the dollar was the answer to our problems, we would've solved them long ago.

If you're interested in the sane approach, here's Ron Paul in an interview with Glenn Beck earlier today (be sure to click on part two after the first segment expires).

What Depression?

New York governor David Paterson, who couldn't tell you something he wouldn't tax if you asked him, is living proof that while the common folk tighten their belts and face unemployment during Great Depression II, it's business as usual for the state, whose tax-eating parasites continue to starve their hosts in order to remain fat and happy.

Obama Shouldn't Have to Return Contributions from 'AIG'

Dan Spencer, my colleague at the Examiner who discusses politics from a right-wing perspective, is finding out today how swell it can be to get a link from Matt Drudge. Spencer's hit parade comes courtesy of his report that Barack Obama received $101,332 in political contributions from AIG, the insurance conglomerate that now finds itself in the president's crosshairs for using bailout money to pay out million-dollar bonuses to company executives.

I'm actually grateful to AIG for being so blatantly obvious in using the public's money for something so socially unacceptable as rewards for perceived mismanagement. If we're lucky, everyone in America will take note of the moral hazard that results when the state robs taxpayers to the benefit of its cronies -- even if all this hyperventilation over these bonuses provides a nice distraction from the real issue, which is that they constitute a veritable pittance compared to AIG's entire bailout package.

But back to Spencer's concern that Obama received a bonus from AIG despite the fact that the company finds itself the beneficiary of taxpayer-provided corporate welfare. Specifically, Spencer asks whether "recipients of A.I.G. 'bonuses,' including President Obama, will give what now ought to be taxpayer money back[.]"

In short, the answer is no. The government shouldn't be in the business of bailing out insolvent private firms, but it nevertheless decided to do so and AIG should be entitled to spend the money as it sees fit. In fact, given that the state engages in this behavior to co-opt private industry in the first place, that's reason enough to enthusiastically oppose its micromanagement.

And as far as Obama goes, I can't stand the guy; I think his economic policies will put the final nail in the coffin of the American economy for at least a generation; and he's every bit the warmonger his predecessor was; but King Barack did not receive this campaign funding "from AIG."

It's illegal under federal election law for corporations to donate money directly to candidates. There are ways around this, of course: Companies can establish political action committees that solicit employees for voluntary contributions, which are then passed on to candidates; and the laws don't prevent corporate executives from hosting private fundraisers. However, it doesn't appear that any of the money Spencer references was the result of anything but private donations from individuals who happened to work for AIG.

If we want to complain about government, great. Nothing would make me happier. But $100,000 of campaign cash is nothing. Complaining about this is no different than when neocons bitch about "earmarks" so they can pretend to be fiscally conservative while ignoring the other 99 percent of a budget used to grow the state.

So it's time to get serious, people, if that's indeed the intent. It's time to forget about treating the symptoms of kleptocratic totalitarianism and instead focus on curing the disease. We can start by withdrawing our support for a fascist federal government, which bankrupts individuals and families as it nationalizes private corporations and banks. We can spill onto the streets to protest the mismanagement of an economy that will only right itself when the government gets the hell out of the way of the market. We can lambaste parasitic politicians who intend to maintain their cushy lifestyles by feeding on their taxpaying hosts as we watch our 401ks dry up.

It seems Americans are finally starting to wake up to Wall Street-government tyranny, but if people truly give a damn about liberty, we've got a lot of work to do before we can afford to sit around and complain about a relative handful of folks who voluntarily part with a little spending money prior to election day.

The Smoke and Mirrors Are Working

MSNBC reports that taxpayers are angry about the bonuses being paid to executives, legitimately according to the very stimulus bill which The Holy One signed. Most reactions are what I thought they would be: These greedy executives are being rewarded for failure! Down with greedy executives! Yes, make sure that kitchen sink is spotless while the rest of house is burning down!

At least one person seems to understand the scam:

"I don't think they should be pumping more money to AIG. I don't think they should flush any more money down the Citibank toilet. I don't think they should flush any more money down any of these toilets. Tell them to 'sink or swim,'" said [David]Ziegler, who is from Thornton, Colo.

Fractional-Reserve Fraud

What's another $500 billion between friends?

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd is moving to allow the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to temporarily borrow as much as $500 billion from the Treasury Department.

Unless the Treasury has half a trillion dollars in gold lying around in its vaults (hint: it doesn't), it doesn't have the means to lend the FDIC this money. So my question is, why not make it a cool trillion? Or 10 trillion? Heck, maybe the Treasury can just mint an actual gazillion-dollar note!

The reason the FDIC is seeking this extra "insurance" is because banks only keep a few cents (a fraction) on every dollar in their reserves in the first place; the rest is loaned out by the banks or invested elsewhere in financial markets.

This constitutes fraud. If you pay for a happy meal, you expect to get a burger, fries, and soft drink; if you're only given half a bag of fries, you've been defrauded.

As Murray Rothbard remarked, fractional-reserve banking is "a giant Ponzi scheme in which a few people can redeem their deposits only because most depositors do not follow suit."

As soon as the majority of depositors realize their deposits are backed by little more than the government's empty promises, we will see the return of the bank run. And there's no amount of fiat paper that will save the banks then.

Federal 'Loans' Looking a Lot More Like Handouts Now

Don't look now, but it appears as if the monstrous government bailout program is proving to be nothing of the sort, as GM auditors have expressed considerable doubt about the company's ability to keep the lights on.

I've gotta tell ya, I'm just shocked. Shocked!

And keep those eyes closed, because those federal "loans" that GM received are looking more and more like flat-out subsidies -- gifts, if you will -- that are simply going to be written off by the feds at our expense.

GM spokeswoman Julie Gibson said there is no clause in the terms of the government loans that places them in default if the auditors raise doubts about GM's ability to keep operating.

"That was not a condition of the loan. It's not in the agreement," she said.

Private lenders expect loans to be repaid. There's a reason GM went begging to Uncle Sam in the first place.

DC to Crack Down on Unscrupulous Businesses

The Examiner reports that the D. C. government is starting to crack down on unlicensed businesses that "prey" on consumers.

“In these tough economic times, every dollar you spend is precious, and we want to be sure you are getting the services you pay for,” said Linda Argo, director of the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, which is leading the consumer protection initiative.

Yes, every dollar the productive public does spend is precious, so shouldn't we ask the question whether we are getting our money's worth for services supplied by the DC Government? Oh, wait a minute. I forgot that the DC Supreme Court in 1981 ruled in Warren v. District of Columbia that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.'' Of course, the DC Supreme Court did not say that the DC government had to give taxpayers their money back or that the DC government should stop collecting taxes. Its ruling implicitly says that the DC government can lay its unscrupulous hands on anything it wants, but not do anything which it says it will do. Perhaps my definition of fraud differs from that of the DC government.

The article ends with a couple of quotes from John Breyault of the National Consumers League:

"Consumers need to do due diligence before they hand over their money,” he said.

And be skeptical. “If a business does not seem on the up and up,” Breyault said, “don’t be so quick to ignore that instinct.”

Let's apply this reasoning to the State.

Suppose businessmen accost you and say, "We will protect your property and you life. Give us half of your property and we will use that half to protect the other half. You cannot own any guns without our permission. And after you sign with us, you cannot choose any other service." Would you contract with these businessmen?

Suppose teachers accost you and say, "We will educate your children. But you must send your child to the school we choose. We will also, unilaterally, decide how much to charge you for this service. If we fail to educate your child, you can send her to a private school, but only one we approve. You can also home-school your child, but only if we give you permission. In either case, we will still bill you for our services, although your child is no longer receiving our education services." Would you contract with these teachers?

Suppose judges accost you and say, "We will arbitrate your disputes. In some cases we will decide the cases ourselves; in other we will use the services of a jury. The jury comprises 12 people randomly summoned from the public. We won't pay them anything, but if they fail to show up we will fine them or put them in jail. Also, if you have a dispute with any of the judges in my firm, you cannot go to another justice firm to arbitrate this dispute. Such conflicts will be resolved internally by another colleague of the judge with whom you have a conflict." Would you contract with these judges?

Do you think that anyone would willingly and voluntarily contract with the State if its business model were this transparent? 

 

I'm So Glad I Surrender Taxes

"Global warming" is really taking its toll on us down here in tropical Southern Maryland, as we started getting sleet around noon yesterday that turned into a snow storm by nightfall and didn't let up until a good foot of snow was on the ground this morning.

Considering I'm originally from Buffalo, I'm used to driving on crappy, slush-laden roads. So after I dug my truck out of the driveway, I decided to head to work. I figured the side roads might require some four wheel drive action but the main highways would be fine, as the State Highway Association surely would have dusted off all its salt and sand trucks and snow plows by 9:00 a.m. and had them out on the roads.

I would figure wrong.

Rtes. 4 and 235 easily had two inches of snow on them, and there may have been one lane's worth of roadway cleared to the asphalt on each of the arteries. I noticed that salt and sand had been dumped earlier in the morning, but it's simply unacceptable that there we no plows making trips back and forth as commuters attempted to make their way into work.

Admittedly, mine was one of the few vehicles on the roads this morning, but I didn't see even one state truck plowing during my drive. I mean, seriously, you can usually expect to see at least a couple freaking government road crews in action after a blizzard. In fact, I only saw two trucks at all -- pickups with shovels that were manned either by volunteers or private contractors.

Before I left the house, my wife told me she heard that the state was having trouble keeping up with road maintenance because the snow never let up overnight. Well, yeah, that's generally the way it goes during a storm. But if the government can't manage to carry out even those responsibilities the vast majority of people tend to accept, why entrust it to perform those duties at all?

The fact of the matter is, no government can perform any task as efficiently as people working for profit in the private sector. It was no surprise to me that my office building's parking lot was plowed much better than any of the government roads I had to drive on in order to make it to work in the first place. After all, if someone gets in an accident or slips and falls on private property, the property owner could be held liable for damages. This is generally not the case when it comes to the state if you harm yourself or someone else as a result of its poorly maintained highways.

I don't doubt that there exist some taxpayer-funded operations somewhere that meet the needs of their communities, at least to an acceptable degree. But the point is, you'll get much better service from people who will go out of business as a result of poor service than you will from governments that can merely steal from others to pay the bills regardless of the quality of so-called services they provide.

Dilbert on Corporate Jets

 

I wish the auto executives had the stones to preach truth to power because you know they could have called out both the Senate and House. Dogbert is the man!

Hat tip Radley Balko. 

Perhaps Math Is Not His Strongest Skill

Trevor commented last week on The Holy One's plan to cut the deficit in half. According to this article on Yahoo!, The Holy One wants to have "'a frank conversation' about the problem and [he] said the deficit, projected to total $1.3 trillion this year, must be brought under control." I love how politicians talk about solving problems that they created. They act as if these problems are like hurricanes or tornadoes; the problems are acts of God and fortunately we have the State to help us through them.

The better question is How does The Holy One plan to cut this deficit in half? According to the article he wants to "reinstate a pay-as-you-go policy on federal spending programs, get rid of programs that do not work and end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas." Pay-as-you-go rules, if they were to actually work, would not reduce the deficit. They simply make sure that the State has X-amount of dollars to pay for Y-amount of programs. Generally this increases the deficit, but for sake of argument, let's say that PAYG rules work. This means that the government breaks even.

He wants to get rid of programs "that don't work." Since the State receives its money through inflation and taxation, it cannot evaluate whether these programs work. The State cannot engage in cost-accounting and does not know if it is wasting scarce resources. If any programs are ended, the decisions will be based on political considerations and not efficiency and certainly not cost. For instance, the two biggest sources of the US deficit, Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security will absolutely not be reduced or cut during this administration because political outcry would be too much. Hence, the idea that this will put a dent into the deficit is illusory.

Finally, The Holy One wants to end tax breaks for companies who ship jobs overseas. If companies decide to keep workers here, this plan will not raise any additional tax revenue. It might encourage some companies to move their entire operations overseas. This would lead to even less jobs in the US and less tax revenue. At best, the deficit will stay the same and at worst it would increase due to the loss of tax revenue.

Moreover, The Apostle, Joe Biden, says that there is a need to reform the health care system and wean the US off of foreign oil. Both of these plans require even more federal dollars and regulations, and will lead to less private prosperity which will lead to less tax revenue. This will lead to an increase in the deficit, not a decrease.

The plans on the table so far require far more federal spending and will lead to less private wealth to tax. Hence, the gap between expenditures and revenue will increase even more. Perhaps addition and subtraction are the Achilles' Heel of our Prophet.

The 'Stimulus' Plan Can't Work

Given that Barack Obama has signed his $787 billion economic "stimulus" bill into law, I thought I'd go on record to say that this federal spending spree not only won't stimulate the economy, but it can't.

Money is simply being shifted around -- imagine watching a shell game at the county fair, only this time at the point of a gun -- from one set of people to another. Therefore, by definition alone, there will be no "additional" spending or investment taking place thereafter; it will merely be done by one set of people at the expense of another.

I'm tempted to say this is nothing but a zero-sum game, where the privileged classes are winners and the rest of us are the losers. But that's not exactly right; it's worse than zero-sum.

Given that the unproductive are being rewarded at the expense of the productive, the productive no longer have as much capital to invest in new business ventures -- which, when done wisely, creates additional wealth.

Forget for a moment the immorality of it all -- the fact that this program constitutes theft on an almost incomprehensible scale. Resources quite literally are being confiscated from people who make sound financial decisions and being given to those who have demonstrated an inability to manage their affairs intelligently in the first place.

So from here on out, poorly run companies won't simply squander their own wealth by malinvesting, caving to union demands, or running up their own debts; they'll now have the pleasure of doing the same thing using money that once belonged to individuals and companies who actually produce wealth.

And this isn't even considering the fact that a significant portion of the spending will be funded using the printing press, further taxing the hoi polloi via inflation and indebting future generations.

Sure sounds like a net loss to me.

Obama to Mayors, "When Massa Says Jump, You Say 'How High'."

The Holy One is letting the serfs know that he is the source of all that is good and just in this world, and if you disagree, you will face his wrath. Obama plans to "call out" mayors who waste stimulus money.

Without a hint of irony, the Holy One told a gathering of mayors at the White House, "The American people are watching...They need this plan to work. They expect to see the money that they've earned — they've worked so hard to earn — spent in its intended purposes without waste, without inefficiency, without fraud."

I think this remark fits the definition of chutzpah. Clearly if the American people were to spend their own money for their intended purposes, it would not include anything that is being proposed in the stimulus package.

The American people can track the location of their looted earnings through the website, Recovery.org. This way you can see exactly which parasites are feasting off of your income and wealth. You know, the income and wealth that you all clearly cannot manage on your own and, thus, need the State to spend the money for you. This website is like being carjacked by your next-door neighbor who has the effrontery to drive your car to his job and park your car in his driveway when he returns home.

The Prophet also remarked, "If a federal agency proposes a project that will waste that money, I will not hesitate to call them out on it, and put a stop to it...I want everyone here to be on notice that if a local government does the same, I will call them out on it, and use the full power of my office and our administration to stop it."

Perhaps I should add the "The Comedian" to the growing list of titles for our current master. If paying 4,000 FCC employees to field phone calls during the transition to DTV is not waste, I really would like to know what The Comedian would deem as wasteful.

One thing that simply amazes me is that I have yet to find anyone in the mainstream who can explain exactly how this stimulus package is going to revive the economy in the long-run. Now, I know that no one in the mainstream press or the government (with one exception) knows any economics. But one would think that the agents of the State or their media lapdogs could at least explain how taking money from one group of people and giving it to another to spend will help the economy. What happens when the money runs out?

While radicals and libertarians already know that this is simply a massive robbery just like Bush the Younger's plan, one would hope that the sheep (at least some of them) are becoming suspicious. The fact that no one has even dared explain exactly how this stimulus package is supposed to work should be a clear sign to the American public that there is something amiss.

The Rise of the "Quangocrats"

William Grigg describes the rise of this class here.

Somewhere in Austria, an Economist Is Laughing

Okay, maybe more like a hundred.

The stimulus package was a huge victory for Obama less than one month into his presidency. But he struck a sober tone and lowered expectations for an immediate turnaround in the severe recession that is well into its second year.

"None of this will be easy," he said. "The road to recovery will not be straight. We will make progress, and there may be some slippage along the way."

Still, he declared, "We have begun the essential work of keeping the American dream alive in our time."

It's not like the bar for president is set very high, but still, I'm not sure any president sewed his fate as a complete failure inside his first month in office.

The Welfare State: the American dream! Rejoice!

By the way, if you have no idea what I'm talking about, get yourself to Mises.org now.

A Summary of Parasites

Those interested in reading the Senate bill which details where the plunder will go can read it here.  A press release from the U.S. Senate Committee on Expropriations Appropriations can be found here. While short, the press release is replete with propaganda designed to hide the fact that the reason our economy is in the tank is solely due to the US government and its vassals, the individual States. It epitomizes Bastiat's essay, What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen, the origin of the broken window fallacy, and disguises the nefarious motives of the State. Here are some examples:

Infrastructure and Science

In order to rebuild our weakening economy, these investments in our physical and cyberinfrastructure will put Americans immediately to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, and will also enable the creation of a stronger and more efficient infrastructure for the 21^st century economy.

There was a time when roads and telegraphs were privately owned (see Thomas DiLorenzo's How Capitalism Saved America). The US government simply took over the building of bridges and roads. Mainstream economists argue that roads and bridges are public goods and that the State must provide these goods to overcome the free rider problem (for a critique of public goods theory, see Hans Hermann Hoppe's Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security.) The real reason for the US government's monopoly on infrastructure is to control the movement of its citizens. Through its road monopoly it can control where citizens may travel. If the State declares martial law, it can shut down the roads as it wishes and trap the people in their homes during a curfew. It could not accomplish this if all roads and bridges were privately owned without a blatant attack on the property rights of the owners of bridges and roads. Private ownership of bridges and roads does not preclude a clear attack on property rights, but such an attack may wake up the masses; they may construe such impudence as an exercise of naked power and rebel.

The US government wants to control cyberinfrastructure for the same reason. Our government hates the internet with a passion. It hates the free flow of commerce and especially the free flow of ideas. Ideas make people dangerous. H. L. Mencken addressed the danger of free-thinking men to the government as follows:

The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are.

Barackonomics: Debt Is Good!

Last night Barack Obama continued his Chicken Little routine, warning that if Americans don't let him stimulate the printing presses -- and quick! -- we the people will be responsible for economic catastrophe.

Seriously, here's what went down:

He said the recession has left the nation so weak that only the federal government can "jolt our economy back to life." And he declared that failure to act swiftly and boldly "could turn a crisis into a catastrophe."

Roll that around in your head for a couple seconds. Only the federal government can bring an economy back to life (even though it's the feds who've killed it). Only a gang of thieves called politicians is capable of ensuring economic prosperity. Not millions upon millions of people who benefit mutually and actually create wealth when engaging in voluntary trade. Not a free market capable of adjusting prices based on supply and demand. Just robber barons in the nation's capital.

And oh by the way, if we "fail" to let these clowns do as they please, we're to blame for the misery. Because as everyone knows, the only way to get out of debt is to continue to incur more and more!

How Much Does a President Cost?

If I asked you how much money the president made, you might be tempted to say "400 thousand dollars," which indeed is the current annual salary of a sitting president -- regardless of whether he bankrupts a country via wealth-destroying "bailout" programs, murders innocents abroad, fails to protect against terrorists attacks, or governs peaceably.

However, a salary of $400,000 is a spit in the bucket compared to the president's overall compensation package. Via the Mises Economics Blog, the blog Dealbreaker has generated a rough estimate of the total yearly and full-term costs of the presidency. (Note: I've accounted for changes to the originally published list.)

Cash Compensation:
Salary: $400,000

Cash Subtotal: $400,000

Room and Board:
55,000 square foot mansion, in historic Washington, D.C.: @ $100/sqft: $5,500,000/yr
Personal Chef / Kitchen Staff: $300,000 / year
Other Servants / Attendants: $500,000 / year

Subtotal: $6,300,000

Discretionary Use Of Private Aircraft:
(One of 2 Boeing 747-200Bs "Air Force One"):
Annual Costs: 700 hours @ $65,000/hr: $45,500,000

Helicopter Fleet:
Annual Costs: 50 hours @ $5200/hr: $260,000
Aircraft Subtotal: $45,760,000

Other Personnel:
Personal Driver On Retainer (Defensive Tactical Driving Trained) @ $300/day $109,500
Personal Body Guards 35 @ $500/day $6,387,500
Use Of Personal Car 60 days @ $2000/day $120,000

Personnel Subtotal: $6,617,000

Annual Benefits Total: $59,077,000

Four Years of Same: $236,308,000

Pension And Related Benefits:
Present value of Pension Benefits ($200,000 per year): $2,251,556

Total Benefits: $238,559,556

Average Annual Benefits: $59,639,889

Also bear in mind that this list doesn't account for various additional perks such as the Camp David retreat, additional spending accounts, all the free meals outside the White House, and Secret Service protection for life.

It's good to be king.

(Thanks to Brutus for alerting us to this list.)

King Obama Limits Executive Salaries Tied to 'Bailout' Money

In a move guaranteed to keep American citizens and corporations dependent upon the state, Our Holy Savior has placed caps on the salaries of senior executives who work for companies and organizations being enslaved "bailed out" by the federal government.

Obama claims that Americans are tired of "executives being rewarded for failure." Far be it from me to question the all-knowing Prophet, but this sort of vapid statespeak is about as accurate as a three-legged dog trying to take a leak on a tree.

I understand that the Obamessiah not only is in touch with the pulse of the nation; he is the nation. But as long as corporate executives don't engage coercive or fraudulent behavior -- you know, like "cooking the books" or, uh, accepting money stolen from taxpayers either outright or in the form of inflation -- it's nobody's business how much they make. In fact, even if they are guilty of "failing" in their leadership capacities, at most it's an issue for their investors and clientele.

As Brutus noted yesterday, the hypocrisy of Obama's comments is both palpable and stunning, even for a sitting president.

As the saying goes, you get what you pay for. Not only will this "maximum wage" have the very real effect of preventing struggling companies from hiring the most qualified executives to come in and fix problems in the first place, but handing out government subsidies is a fine way for politicians to purchase the obedience of the sheeple.

And that's exactly the way the state likes it.

Hypocritical Politicians

I realize the title of this post is a pleonasm, but sometimes redundancy can work for literary effect. The Prophet, peace be upon him, hasn't even been in office for a month and he is already dictating maximum wages for bank executives who receive government money. Regarding this latest assault on the free market, The One Who Will Bring Balance to the Force remarked:

"This is America. We don't disparage wealth. We don't begrudge anybody for achieving success," Obama said. "But what gets people upset — and rightfully so — are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers."

I am at a loss of words to describe such blatant hypocrisy. "[R]ewarded for failure." "[R]ewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers." Cogitate on those points for a moment. This is the same government that failed to protect its subjects from terrorist attacks and then took even more of our money to create the TSA and Homeland Security. This is the same government whose regulatory agency, the SEC, was forewarned about Bernie Madoff but did nothing. This government is destroying our economy and then asks for even more of our money to hire people to fix problems that were all created by the government. Has the Holy One suggested that the SEC should be abolished or its agents receive less money? Has he suggested that the FDA should lose funding for the salmonella scare? When his stimulus package fails to succor the economy, will he take a pay cut or, even better, resign?

The bill goes even further, restricting the compensation packages of banks not receiving government largess. This will make it more difficult to recruit talented executives who might be able to guide the banks out of these troubled waters, but of course the Holy One is not concerned with the long term; he will do whatever will get him elected in 2012, no matter how much damage it inflicts on the economy.

I did not see any restriction on benefits in this Yahoo! article and if this is so, we can then predict how the banks will overcome this law. Indeed the Prophet receives huge benefits that dwarf his salary, all at taxpayer expense. But this opulence should be expected as long as the sheep give their allegiance to a king.

Legal Plunder

The oppressor no longer acts directly by his own force on the oppressed. No, our conscience has become too fastidious for that. There are still, to be sure, the oppressor and his victim, but between them is placed an intermediary, the state, that is, the law itself. What is better fitted to silence our scruples and—what is perhaps considered even more important—to overcome all resistance? Hence, all of us, with whatever claim, under one pretext or another, address the state. We say to it: “I do not find that there is a satisfactory proportion between my enjoyments and my labor. I should like very much to take a little from the property of others to establish the desired equilibrium. But that is dangerous. Could you not make it a little easier? Could you not find me a good job in the civil service or hinder the industry of my competitors or, still better, give me an interest-free loan of the capital you have taken from its rightful owners or educate my children at the public expense or grant me incentive subsidies or assure my well-being when I shall be fifty years old? By this means I shall reach my goal in all good conscience, for the law itself will have acted for me, and I shall have all the advantages of plunder without enduring either the risks or the odium.”

Frederic Bastiat-The State

If you wish to see this quote come to life, S. M. Olivia at Mises blog puts flesh onto the spirit of this quote. He has a lists of all the beneficiaries of this massive robbery economic stimulus bill.

Ain't Fascism Grand?

I often wonder whether there will ever come a time when the majority of American people will realize they're being molested by a federal government disguising its behavior as romance.

I honestly believe there are very few families across the country that would allow armed agents of the state to literally walk through the front door of their homes each night and dictate for them the type of food they were allowed to eat for dinner, the picture quality of their televisions, their means of travel to and from work, the number of times they were allowed to open the refrigerator door, what type of alcoholic beverages they were allowed to consume, how long they were required to cook their hamburgers before serving them, the types of movies their kids were allowed to watch, the means through which they could pour gasoline into their lawnmower, how much water they were allowed to use to water the lawn, the kind of milk they were required to drink, or what types of plants they were permitted to grow in their garden. And I'm virtually certain a confrontation would ensue each time those agents grabbed for purses and wallets as they determined how much money would be physically stolen each day to pay for someone else's food, clothes, housing, and schooling (among many other things).

Peculiar, then, that the vast majority of people allow this exact same thing to take place everyday, just so long as such coercive activity occurs at a distance and arrives cloaked in terms like "compassion," "unity," or "change."

The feds' latest scam is the near-trillion dollar ripoff of every family in America. But as long as FDR Jr. calls it a "bailout" or a "stimulus," it must be OK.

Republican leadership has released a list of what it calls "wasteful provisions" contained within this bill. Among my favorites are $850 million for a train that could be run privately without any assistance, $6 billion to force federal buildings to heat and cool less efficiently, and $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.

Oh, and don't forget a cool billion for the 2010 Census, which apparently has a cost overrun of $3 billion. Must be getting expensive to keep track of taxpayers who are desperately trying to find the least tyrannical states or simply fleeing the country altogether.

The "stimulus package" is nothing -- I repeat, nothing -- more than a make-and-sustain-work welfare program that subsidizes today's employees at the expense of future generations.

And just in case you're tempted to believe the Republican Party might actually be acting with a modicum of fiscal restraint that was so thoroughly abandoned over the past decade (if it ever existed at all), don't be fooled. A quick look at the GOP's list of wasteful spending only accounts for about $20 billion -- or a mere 2 percent -- of the bill's total.

Apparently there's nothing but hope and eternal sunshine to be found in the remaining $880 billion (and counting).