Our representatives, trying to touch up an ogre to look like a prince by changing the existing minefield of tax regulations with a sales tax. Regardless of how much they change it, all they will do is change the human eating ogre into a human eating tiger, but it will be accepted because tigers are so much cuter, aren’t they?

The debate should be about how to reduce the size of government and the extent of domestic and international welfare that tax payers are forced to support. This was alluded to, if one can call it that:

  • The suggestion that the legions of IRS and tax preparer employees tied up in non-productive activity would be forced to seek productive employment elsewhere (the word parasitic was even used!);
  • The naive conclusion that a generation growing up face-to-face with the costs of government with every transaction they make will become individually minded adults who will reduce the size of government.

It’s strange. Some of our representatives have actually been productive before their term/s in DC, yet they don’t have the sense to understand that hardship and unhappiness do not lead to rational thought. It is only ideas, encompassed in a rational philosophy, that will lead to a general move to restrict government to it’s proper roles. That the debate is about whose head the IRS gun will be pointed at instead of how to remove the gun indicates clearly that rationality is not a characteristic of our representatives nor the voters who sent them there. That they put forward a sales tax as a fair tax because one will voluntarily pay it when buying goods and services is nonsensical! How can telling people that they can’t buy something without paying a tax be considered any more fair than taking it out of profits and salaries? The mind continues to boggle.

Hours and hours of legal argument, because we live in a democracy where the tyranny of the majority is possible, instead of a republic based on the principle of individual rights. The California Proposition 8 vote is a microcosmic example of the vast majority of laws that are made in this country.

As a teenager, I read about the Rock Island Bridge case in the 1850s. Abraham Lincoln focused in on showing that people have as much right to cross the Mississippi River as to navigate along it. My reaction was, “of course”. Not to equate the complexities of that case with Proposition 8 (complexities that would not have existed in a society of private ownership of all land and water), in fact to just make a simplistic comparison to it, my view of the statement that homosexual couples have as much right to choose the same legal stature as heterosexual couples is, “of course”.

Yet, here we are in a society where those who want to protect their turf, whether it be in concrete or in the abstract, can band together and infringe on the rights of others. Proposition 8 an affront to simple common sense. It is one that should never have progressed even to the signature verification stage. Proposition 8 is an indictment, not so much of regression, but of how far we have to go before individual rights are secure in this country. The Founding Fathers were not perfect, but they were excellent at portending the future possibilities and warned against political tyranny.

The legal texts are full of anti-individual rights’ laws that need to be stripped away, a task that the current culture will not permit.

Footnote: The legal arguments included many references to the California terms Constitutional Amendment and Constitutional Revision. The California Constitution can be modified in two ways. Firstly, Constitutional Amendments, representing minor changes that do not require a vote in the legislature. Secondly, Constitutional Revisions, which are pertinent for major changes and must pass a 2/3rds vote in both State houses. This system is flawed on two counts. Not only is the notion that a vote, no matter by how much of a majority, can be used to destroy the rights of others, antithetical to individual rights, but, in practice, all it takes is a Constitutional Amendment to do so.

A clear indication of people’s lack of understanding of individual rights is the number of articles I’ve read that consider the passing of this Amendment as tyranny of the majority, but claim that this would not be the case if it had been, instead, enacted through a Revision. I roll my eyes in horror – destruction of rights by a simple 50%+1 vote is not acceptable, but by a super majority in the legislature is! The “separate, but equal” nature of Proposition 8 smacks of the “separate, but equal” Apartheid laws enacted in South Africa. It is simple tyranny, regardless of how enacted.

This is the Merriam-Webster definition of capitalism – an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

Nowhere in the concept capitalism is there any reference to government involvement, neither in the ownership of capital or investments, nor in the area of regulation. Yet our economic system has been tethered by government for almost 100 years. Long before the current economic meltdown, capitalism was discarded as the guiding force of our economy, being replaced by a mixture of capitalism and government control and interference. Yet, capitalism is blamed for the current situation, not only by our pissy politicians and media, but also by the average Joe. Case in point: I was out playing tennis earlier this afternoon, and between sets, while discussing the economy, one guy went and said it – capitalism has failed us. For an excellent debunking of this myth, read George Reisman’s clarification of government’s leading role in creating this crisis.

We had a president who made a big to-do about the meaning of is, so I’m not surprised that there’s hardly anyone who knows the meaning of capitalism. Concepts are considered fluid; meanings can change to suit the mood. Clinton’s game didn’t and couldn’t change the future of the world, but letting the world think that capitalism has failed us means that it will be almost futile to try and get people to give it a go again.

Capitalism, or rather the system that was close to it over 100 years ago was what catapulted the USA to world leadership. It was the remnants of it that continued to prevent our economy from turning bad for ever. But the current mess up has shown that that is now in jeopardy. With every crisis, we get more regulation. The capitalistic aspect of our society is on its deathbed. Each crisis has had its root cause in government regulation, interference and activity. Each crisis has been bigger than the one before. Each crisis has required exponentially larger amounts of resources to prevent total collapse, resources that the government steals or makes (produces would be an insult to those who do produce) out of thin air, the result of which is the erosion of wealth and the debasement of our currency.

As I write this, we are still in a very tenuous position. The odds are probably 50/50 whether we spiral into an economic morass or whether we proceed into another growth (and I use that word lightly) phase induced by government mismanagement and misallocation of resources. Regardless, on the current course we will hit the proverbial brick wall sometime, one that will make the 1930s look like a party. Maybe not this time, and hell, because there are still innovative and entrepreneurial people in the country who manage to succeed and produce regardless of government, we could even experience the growth spurt to beat all others, before we crash and burn. If it happens, take the opportunity to get your finances in order – essentially, own real assets free and clear and have no debt.

If you are looking for a real stimulus to the economy, you aren’t going to find it. It would require the government to stand up and admit that that institution has ensured America’s demise and that to prevent that running to conclusion, all government regulations are going to be rolled back and government will eventually revert to its correct role, that of protecting the rights of individuals. Capitalism requires the separation of the State and the economy, something so foreign to current culture that even the mention of it results in blank stares. A pity! It’s going to be a long, hard struggle to even get to the point where people respond by saying, Oh really, tell me more.

Octo-Mom is just one of millions of spongers and opportunists that flourish in our culture of entitlement and lack of responsibility. Our schools teach us that altruism is the epitome of value, that it is only when we are altruistic that we can be happy. Add to that the fact that many (understatement!!!) come out of school unable to think, what do we expect to get but a bunch of moochers sucking producers dry.

The sad part is that the producers manage to think clearly enough to be productive, but not clearly enough to breach the social programming to realize that altruism is immoral. To be charitable is one thing; to not cry out against a system that deems it necessary to steal from producers and give to the moochers is another. Having your money taken away from you and used for purposes that you do not expressly agree to or with, is not in your best interest, financially or emotionally. And, regardless of current social norms, what is not in the rational best interest of even one individual, is immoral.

So why the outcry in Octo-Mom’s case? Put it down to a slow news day. The only difference between her and the mass of her ilk is not that she is more irresponsible or a bigger moocher; she isn’t. It’s simply that she came to the fore because of her unique pregnancy. The media does not have the will or even the intellectual ability to identify the link between her case and all those that she represents.

The subject of altruism will get a lot more typing time on this blog. Without general acceptance of the immorality of altruism, the mantra that it is better to give than receive will create an ever expanding crowd of takers.

A bit later than expected, as posting here was planned to start in January. So there will be a few posts that are not timely, but are pertinent and will help to set the tone.

I’m going to cover a wide spectrum of subjects, including race, religion, revolution, global warming, politics, stupidity, sex, education (and sex education) and pretty much any other subject that causes angst in the news. Why? Because most of the time it is just bullshit… 2, 3, maybe even more sides squaring off against each other, expressing what they feel without rational principle, because of an education system that taught them to add 2 and 2 but not to put 2 and 2 together. OK, so you now know where I’m coming from on education, and I was tempted, while noting this list, to give you an indication of what I broadly think in each case, but decided to rather let you find out as I address each one in my posts.

If you’re on the left, you’ll cheer me, sometimes, and other times you’ll smear me. Same with the right. My views are held by a very small minority of Americans, and an even smaller relative minority in the rest of the world. If you find you largely agree with me, then welcome, you will be one of the few.