Letter to the regulatory proponent

More regulation is not helping America

“Despite the long term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policies of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they had otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.” – 07/12/2002 (in House, Congressman Ron Paul, R, TX)

The economic problems we are experiencing now are a result of regulation, and we actually wanted them to happen, so that we could have an excuse to propose more regulation. We predicted this recession would happen way back in 2002. We knew it would happen all along, and we were actively warned about it, and we listened, and we decided to let it happen anyway. The Democrats knew it would happen, and so did the Republicans, and they could have stopped it. They didn’t because, quite frankly, they don’t give a sh** about you or me, or anyone else in this country that doesn’t directly help them gain or retain power, or help propagandize people like us. If you think regulation is the answer, read up on Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek, because you’ve been relying on the “news” for economic information, and they’ve got you painfully brainwashed. Americans now live like feudal serfs, working all of their lives, and never controlling their directions. Socialism is more similar to the tyranny of the past than to the prosperity of the future.

Other things you should know, in your infinite economic wisdom, before you take over the free market and start planning the economy: medical care is only expensive because it is overregulated. any economist will tell you that competition brings down prices, and the government is helping big health/drug companies keep competitors out. the market mechanism actually works pretty well with very little regulation, as long as collusion and monopoly are avoided wherever possible.

And lastly, the reason people work all of their lives at a grueling job for little pay is because the government makes it really hard for them to offer their services at a marketable price, by creating artificial labor surpluses. Workers also give a sizeable percentage of their earnings to government. They also have difficulty using their skills for their own profit because starting a business requires them to fill out long, expensive licensing forms, and they often are discouraged by the added tax burden. Many feel like they can’t go out on their own because they do not know the tax laws well enough, and are afraid they will break the law while trying to help themselves. However, all of these situations help the corporation for which they endlessly slave away, because it keeps the upstarts down. Hooray for taxes.

Advertisements

Stealth bailouts and the Washington Mafia

You’ve been hearing about the Bush/Paulson plan for “streamlining” or “revamping” the “outdated” regulatory system.  Let me take the spin off of this story for you:

 The plan is to allow the Fed to do whatever the hell it wants to, injecting taxpayer money into whatever irresponsible bank needs it for the time being.  After the liquidity pressures in the market subside, the Fed will use its newfound power to stop banks from doing anything stupid again; this is basically a nationalized banking system without a mask.  The unthinkable conclusion of Bush and Paulson is that the only reason we have this recession is because the Fed doesn’t have enough control over our finances, when in fact it is a result of government coercion.  The same federal government that encouraged irresponsible lending is now denouncing it, but offering to pick up the tab.  We should elect people like Ron Paul, or become familiar with the fact that the aristocracy will always win, and the people will always lose.  The people will remain at the mercy of corporation, which hides behind a pretend government.

The more I study this, the more I realize nearly all politicians are scum, and that the federal government is much more similar to a criminal organization than a service organization.  In fact, I can think of no difference between what organized crime does and what the federal government does, except that the federal government has more power, and involves millions of people that only want to do honest business.  To look at what our government does, and want to be a perpetuating force in that process, is a lot like wanting to be made in the Italian mafia.  It’s all about power, prestige, and money, and at its core it is merely a group of thieves who force others to work for them, hiding behind expensive suits, slick haircuts, and a team of grunts with automatic weapons.  I can live with the Sopranos; they don’t steal from me.  I can’t take the Bushes and Clintons anymore.  All the nationalist and/or socialist mobsters can go to hell.  America is for liberty, so get your hands out of our pockets.

Republican Nationalism + Democrat Socialism = U.S. Nazism

National Socialism, better known as Nazism, is Clintobamonomics  combined with Bush-McCain Diplomacy and Secrecy.  When the Democrats and the Republicans do agree to terms, they usually both get what they want.  Democrats get more social planning boards and funds, and Republicans get more spy-on-the-citizens powers and nifty 007 gadgets (which will be sold to overseas dictators as well).  The two parties are hardly distinguishable at this juncture.  American Nazism is nearly upon us.  We are one terrorist attack, or one economic collapse away from martial law.  And we might bomb Iran because they are “proof that evil exists.”  I can’t even intelligently criticize such filth.

Dear Bush,

We have a saying in Tennessee.  It’s “fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.”  I think there’s one in Texas too, but it’s said very uncertainly, and doesn’t make as much sense.  Will the American people (or their Congress) be fooled twice?  I am not sure the Americans are that stupid, but clearly you think they are.

Sincerely, me.  P.S.: you can fly.  Jump out the window.  Trust me, it’s true.

Let me get this straight, neoconservative freak

A continuation of my education of the neocon: 

Let me get this straight. You think a tall slender man in the mountains of Central Asia is orchestrating the end of American freedoms. Okay. Assuming that true, we must also admit that Bin Laden has received help in this pursuit from the Bush administration. Are we not losing civil liberties because of Bush’s fear of Osama Bin Laden? Bush and Bin Laden: working together against American freedoms.

I did not mention personal responsibility, but I really don’t see how “the absence of government coercion” can exist without personal responsibility. Personal responsibility should be an assumption in America. There is no need for a nanny state. Also, you forgot the definition of the word “liberal.” I dislike progressives and socialists–not liberals, but liberals gone wild, progressives who seek to correct past grievances by creating more of them (like affirmative action or welfare) in the opposite direction, i.e., Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or just about every Democrat politician. This is why I can’t vote Democrat-because they are not really “liberals” but progressives and socialists. They pay lip service to liberty to get the anti-war and anti-surveillance state vote. The grocery list of complaints belongs to these people, but I can claim none of them–I would request earplugs if I had to spend more than a few moments listening to whatever crap the media has told them to worry about lately. True, they share my discontent with the war, but they have no idea why. I dislike unjust war. They just dislike war.

My guide is nature. “My country is the world, and my religion is to do good.” My common ideal is individualism–the belief that a human is a human, and should be free from government-forced collective ideals. Individual freedoms used to be a Republican Party stronghold. So did claiming that there is no need for the nanny state. Apparently the party now believes individual freedoms are not as important as some greater ideal (this is the opposite of the Reagan conservatism that carried Republicans to Congress in 1994). We have fallen into the trap of believing that, if we become a little bit more like the militants and totalitarians, it will be easier to beat them. But without liberty, what is America? Oh well, this year’s media-anointed Republican candidate is only the straw man anyway. His only hope of winning is if a terrorist attack occurs before the election (he can cross his fingers and hope).

It is unfortunate to read that even our most promising youth recite party ideals instead of practicing personal responsibility and thinking for themselves–that they mangle the meanings of simple words like “freedom” and “liberty,” and misfortune turns to fright on the realization that energy and aspiration are combining with falsehood. What falsehood, you may wonder. Only this: “Americans do not incite violence.” This is your opinion, and it will remain the same regardless of what the facts are. Perhaps you did not read the 9/11 Commission’s report. Perhaps you misunderstand human nature. Perhaps you misunderstand the historic social revelations of the 20th century. But you should understand that your ignorance (assuming not ill will) combines with your democratic influence to “plunder seas and ravage coasts,” and yes, incite violence.

In Iraq’s Diyala province, Specialist Jerry Ryen King wrote, “I thought it was pretty comical that I shot at a guy a long ways out but missed, and later after taking his house and using it as a patrol base, he offered me Chai and rice.” In the insanity of war, this does seem comical, but what if he King had not missed? Might the killing of a gentle, peaceful Iraqi incite violence from his friends, family, and countrymen? Might they even become associated with the dreaded Al-Qaeda? It makes some sense. Such, I realize, are the necessary realities of war, but they are also the reasons unnecessary wars should not be waged.

I would, if I could know the facts, give Bush credit for preventing the attacks since 9/11, but his government is so secretive that I cannot know whether his preventative measures have done much good. Has he saved 5,000 American lives to make up for the 5,000 he has sacrificed? Has he saved only a few? One can only wonder. Moreover, his solution to terrorism is like pulling the leaves off of a tremendous tree, only to see them multiply faster than he can remove them. In order to down the beast, we must lay the axe to the root, and he seems quite unaware of that simple truth. He seems not to even know the root of terrorism-why in the early 1990s Osama Bin Laden and his contemporaries began professing their hatred for America. If the President does know these reasons, he is careful to ignore them and focus on “democracy,” the esteemed political process that gave the coercive powers of government to Stalin, Hitler, Ahmedinejad, and Hamas. Democracy: not the solution. Constitution is the solution.

Your interpretation of Osama Bin Laden’s quote is reminiscent of National Socialist Germany’s claims about their enemies-at least they had the luxury of lying about nations with real military power–the American neoconservatives’ cause is much more difficult, because they are forced to try to convince our nation that an obscure figure living among mountain goats on the other side of the world is our greatest threat to national security. Maybe you forgot that Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia-nearly every nation we now blame for terrorism-also hated Osama Bin Laden before 9/11. Maybe you haven’t noticed the exponential increase in Al-Qaeda’s numbers since we went to Iraq. Indeed, everyone in the Middle East seems to be allied with Al-Qaeda now, when on September 11, their numbers were no more than a few hundred. How, on the battlefield, do we know they are Al-Qaeda? Quite simply, if they are dead, they are Al-Qaeda-excuse me, were Al-Qaeda. Maybe I don’t know the facts on the ground as well as you do, but I think it noteworthy that more troops (who know the situation better than both of us) donated to Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign than to all the other campaigns combined, Democrat and Republican. They must be confused about what is going on in Iraq, right? Perhaps they are only victims of their unfortunate oath to the Constitution-those poor misguided young souls who promised to defend something that their Commander in Chief does not believe in. That’s alright. We showed the troops. They want Ron Paul as Commander? We’ll give them John McCain! May they fight in the Middle East for a hundred years, regardless of the situation on the ground!

It is the claim of the socialist, the fascist, the corporatist, the sycophant, the Democrat, and the Republican that the Constitution is antiquated. “They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong.” They often base this thinking on the fact that many of the framers owned slaves, as if that makes all of those men’s intellects repulsive. It has become too common in this country to disregard all of a man’s principles because of one of his practices, and view politicians as semi-gods, cowering in shock anytime they humanly misstep. I know you only mean well for your country, as nearly all do, but men of your nature, who believed in their country but not in constitutional liberty, were hung at Nuremburg despite their good intentions. If we choose to continue to ignore the Constitution even when we are aware of the results of our errors, the United States of America will soon be compelled to proclaim, in the words of the poet, “a long farewell to all my greatness.”

The response I got from the letter above was something along the lines of, “I don’t have time to think about all this.  I am busy with more important things.  I just want to be a career politician.  Leave me alone.  Please go back to not thinking, like the electorate is supposed to do.  Thank you, and don’t write again.”  If the author makes an attempt at public office, I will sell my condo to donate money to the other guy’s campaign.  I like to think politicians do not know that what they are doing is causing all sorts of problems for their country, but this guy is just an insensitive bastard.

Nationalists on the Right, Socialists on the Left, compromise for a planned economy with Muslims in concentration camps

The following was a response to the letter that appears below it, and I share as proof that neoconservatives are a little confused about reality–too much Fox News perhaps.  The writer of this rudimentary stream of consciousness–if it can be called that–is to remain anonymous.  I would not sacrifice a friend for a political disagreement, regardless of his obvious flaws.  My next entry will be a response to this.

Yes, you are crazy. While you may have a long grocery list of complaints, you seem to be ignoring one of the fundamental truths in life; True freedom, and true patriotism, begin with personal responsibility. Personal responsibility means carrying your share of the load. Think on this for some time before you launch into criticism of others. If every one of us did our part, there would be no need for a Nanny State. However, your laundry list is not linked together by any common ideals, except maybe that you poetically copied liberal talking points (which you also lamented, ironic no?). Personally, I find empty liberal rhetoric to be one of the most repulsive things in our society, if you want to attach values to personal interests.

Americans do not incite violence, but we sure do use it when attacked or when necessary. The deaths of our soldiers is very sad and unfortunate, but so would be the deaths of innocent Americans going about their business in any number of potential terrorist targets. If you are so logical, as you espouse in this letter, how can you not link the conflict in Iraq with the absence of terrorist attacks here, or even in Europe (not since London has there been a large attack). Also, being the true defender of freedom that you are, how do you fail to link the concept of personal responsibility into freedom. Whether or not you agree with invading Iraq, we did it. That cannot change. We must take responsibility and help the country rebuild. Please do not respond to this with the typical empty liberal smears about empire building, controlling the Iraqi government, etc, because we are blatantly doing none of that. We have reaped no huge “oil gains” from the war, and we are not telling Iraq how to run their country any more than we bargain with other world governments. We are providing security, both for Iraq to rebuild, and for ourselves.

Further, you are preaching to the choir about the wastes of big government. Take your song and dance to someone who disagrees about high taxes, bad economic policy (in the whole Bear Stearns mess) if you want to enact change. But remember, change always begins at home.

“Iraq is the perfect stage for the start of Jihad” – Osama Bin Laden. Translated: if we win Iraq, the jihad rolls on.

Letter to the neo-American



I wrote the following to a dear friend and fellow American who will remain anonymous:

When I reflect on our conversations, and consider the compassionate and insightful person I know you to be, I find it hard to believe that you sincerely support the hostilities in Iraq, or that you cannot see through the confines that social planners have built around you. I would like to believe that this world is a bad dream, that the free and prosperous people of our continent could not be so overwhelmed by the narrowness and greed of an unpardonable elite. I would like to think that Americans have always refused to initiate violence–that we, as a nation, have always done what was right for everyone. I would like to wake up tomorrow morning, and be in a country where there are no talking points, no significant news concerning the federal government, no significant power or money in Washington, where the middle class feels accomplished and alive and fearless and capable every single day, and candy bars cost a penny, and freedom really does ring–it is a dream that once was near reality, in the nation firmly built on the philosophical foundations of Adam Smith and John Locke, in the constitution. Instead I will wake up to what, in this nation, should be only possible in a nightmare. I will have to gather my tax information together, and file a 1040, and write a check to the U.S. Treasury, knowing I will never see that money again, and reflecting that it may be spent killing an out-of-work delivery person in a place far away, or bailing out wealthy bankers who got a little too greedy, or throwing more money at a problem no amount could solve, or taking the home of an elderly couple so that it may be bulldozed, and the land granted to some Congressman’s golfing buddy, who specializes in developing strip malls. I will endure the artificially high prices of a market handcuffed by collusion and regulation, and hear about a recession from bank-employed market strategists whose jobs are in no danger; and through all of this, ordinary Americans will come to know the difference between being broke and being impoverished–between being a slave with a generous master, and being a slave with a discontented one–when with all of their honest labor and goodness, the people of this country should have known neither. It is difficult today to read the words of Jefferson or Paine, Goldwater or Reagan, and not become frustrated or saddened by the nuttiness of a nation that has given up on the idea of liberty, only to serve the ever-changing, highly propagandized collective ideal made up by a tiny elite in a city hundreds of miles away. My aim in writing you is only to ease the sadness and frustration I feel for the individuals of our society, and restore my own confidence in my worldly pursuits; I know these things don’t interest you all that much, and I certainly will return the favor by humoring your repulsive stories of creepy crawlies inside dead bodies. But, I feel that if I can awaken you to these issues–that if you, the American _____ ______, in your infinite compassion and enviable wisdom, can recognize the recent errors of our nation’s ways and want to see them corrected before they become our greatest mistakes–liberty may still find a rightful home here. So tell me, am I crazy?

Respecfully,

Partisan economics: no liberals in America

A sticker for every conversation you don't care to have.

The term “liberal” is misused among Republicans.  What they dislike is not true or classical liberalism.  Classical liberalism defends individual freedom, and actually advocates a free market. The Democrats the GOP complains about are far from liberal; they are socialists. The “liberal socialist” Democratic party contradicts its own character, because socialism and liberalism cannot naturally coexist. Socialism cannot be implemented without using methods that deny basic liberties.

Americans widely misunderstand their nation’s socioeconomic problems, which have come about because of monopolization and socialization of industry–the steady dismantling of the free market.  Democrats have economics all wrong, but so do Republicans.  Neither of them actually wants free market capitalism.  Both do whatever the corporate lobbyists want them to do.  Neither reads the corporate-manufactured, bipartisan legislation–legislation that stifles free market competition, and hurts the individual market participant.

Democrats use a superficial argument that has always appealed to the lowest common denominator: they blame the rich. Those who wield power and have not been elected, according to Democrats, cannot have good intentions. To them, there is nothing noble about employing a hundred people if the employer profits from it. This faulty notion is frighteningly crossing party lines, and socialist sentiment is growing among the leaders of both parties now.

If society rejects profit, private business has no reason to exist, and the state must plan the economy.   When profit is stolen by the government, the liberal socialist may momentarily feel triumphant, but this subsides upon the realization that an even larger and more coercive group of elites that were not elected must start forming–this is the group of “experts” that plan the economy private enterprise abandoned.  These experts cannot be restricted by the electorate, because the economy is too complex for the people and legislators to agree on its directives. For a socialist nation to be productive, liberty and democracy must necessarily be sidelined–scoring goals in socialism requires totalitarianism.

Democrats should be heard, but cannot be taken seriously on economic policies. Their disdain for corporations is not irrational, but it is partially misplaced, because collective power is naturally corruptive and malevolent, whether it exists in monopoly or in government.  Blind faith in government only exists because the faithful are too far removed from democratic government’s historic evils. 

Don’t worry, Republicans.  I have not forgotten you. 

Republican herds argue that corporations naturally become powerful monopolies in free market capitalism, but anyone who has observed the lengths to which corporations go to influence public policy, sees nothing natural about these monopolies.  Republicans are but a baby step ahead of socialist Democats; they oppose socialism, but see nothing wrong with corporatism, which may be more productive than socialism, but is perhaps more hostile to individual liberty and almost as destructive to individual prosperity.

Democrat and Republican leaderships should both understand–and we assume they do not, because if they do, we can only conclude that they wish ill upon our nation–that it does not do the nation good to insult the flawed socioeconomic policies of one party, if it is only for the benefit of the flawed socioeconomic policies of another.  They should both do what neither is yet willing to do: reject corporatism and maximize competitive forces of the market.  In doing so, they will have to sacrifice much power–not an easy thing for a politician to do.