Monday, November 30, 2009

Government isn't Free

I’m in Bermuda this week: lush green everywhere and people really take care of the place.  The houses are all whitewashed or painted bright pastel colors.  Trash is nowhere to be seen.  I went with my friend Michael to a trash collection and recycling facility to throw out an old cabinet.  Trash is burned and produces electricity–a really great thing.

I asked whether there was regular trash collection in Bermuda or if people were obliged to bring it in.  Michael said that there was regular trash collection, free, provided by the government.  I started to chuckle and he realized what he’d said, acknowledging that no, it wasn’t really free, you paid the government to do it.

This was no “aha moment” for either of us.  Whenever the government provides services, people pay for it.  But it does seem to be a strange notion for too many Americans these days.

It’s a lesson we forget at our peril.  Perhaps one reason we forget is that it’s not like going to the grocery store.  There, as anywhere in the free market, we hand over our money and we get the goods.  This simple transaction is the result of choice on the part of both parties.  You look at your receipt and you know what you’ve paid for.

When the government gets involved, it’s more complex.  In the first place, someone has made the decision that (for example) collecting the trash is something that needs to be done and secondly, that government is the agent that should do it.   In a republic like ours that means that the people’s elected representatives have made that decision because the majority of the people want it that way.  Then, to carry  out this “mandate” of the people, government collects money from taxpayers and uses that money to collect and dispose of the trash.

This is where is has already gotten complicated.  Even though a majority of people may have wanted things this way, everybody gets their trash collected whether they want it or need it or not.  This is called tyranny of the majority because the majority force their will on the minority.  Generally we accept it because although it constrains our liberty we have agreed to majority rule:  That’s the Social Contract.  We accept the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number–an idea which is called utilitarianism.  You go along to get along.

The more subtle thing that has happened is that costs have been transferred.  A majority of citizens may have wanted the government to take action but the taxpayers paid for it.  The Founders were smart guys who knew their history and they knew that when there was a large pool of citizens and a small pool of taxpayers, the citizens could use the government to transfer the wealth of the taxpayers to themselves.  Think Roman Empire.  Think bread and circus.  This is why in the Constitution there was a provision that you had to have a certain amount of property in order to vote.  The bar was pretty low but the point was that in order for you to participate in voting for representatives who would determine taxes and spending you had to have some skin in the game.

All that has changed.  The majority of voters in the USA pay no taxes and some even get money from the government, the so-called Earned Income Credit.  Any voting requirement other than breathing has been declared unfair by the courts–and in some places even breathing is optional.  Obama and the Congress not only support this wealth transfer but actually think wealth transfer is a good thing.   They want to do it on a huge scale with health care.

When government acts on a small scale with wide agreement,  such as trash collection, we lose a little liberty but society as a whole gains and we think it’s a fair trade.  When government acts on a huge scale such as health care and most people don’t want in the first place, everyone loses.

Government isn’t free: the cost of government is liberty.

[Via http://reclaimtheblue.us]

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

How to Destroy the Republic – 1792

Please take note of NC Freedom who has 100% of my support

by NC Freedom

http://triangle.ncfreedom.us/2009/11/25/how-to-destroy-the-republic-1792/

 

Thomas Jefferson started the National Gazette newspaper to present his views on our fledgling republic that were in direct conflict with the views of Alexander Hamilton. Philip Freneau was the editor who wrote an editorial in 1792 titled: RULES FOR CHANGING A REPUBLIC INTO A MONARCHY. Of course today, monarchies are known as dictatorships. John Ainsworth directed me to item number 6 of the 15 points detailed  in the editorial:

6. But the grand nostrum will be a public debt, provided enough of it can be got and it be medicated with the proper ingredients. If by good fortune a debt be ready at hand, the most is to be made of it. Stretch it and swell it to the utmost the items will bear. Allow as many extra claims as decency will permit. Assume all the debts of your neighbors — in a word, get as much debt as can be raked and scraped together, and when you have got all you can, “advertise” for more, and have the debt made as big as possible. This object being accomplished, the next will be to make it as perpetual as possible; and the next to that, to get it into as few hands as possible. The more effectually to bring this about, modify the debt, complicate it, divide it, subdivide it, subtract it, postpone it, let there be one-third of two-thirds, and two-thirds of one-third, and two-thirds of two-thirds; let there be 3 percents, and 4 percents, and 6 percents, and present 6 percents, and future 6 percents. To be brief, let the whole be such a mystery that a few only can understand it; and let all possible opportunities and informations fall in the way of these few, to clinch their advantages over the many.

I have provided the definition of the word “nostrum” below since I believe this word is not taught in our public school systems.

1. A medicine whose effectiveness is unproved and whose ingredients are usually secret; a quack remedy.

2. A favorite but usually ineffective remedy for problems or evils.

I think I will using this word often in the future when talking about Climate Change, Healthcare and Stimulus Plans.

I encourage you to read the entire editorial by clicking here.  The analogies to our current economic status are easily seen. I wonder if Cloward and Piven read this editorial and were just plagiarizing “old news”.

David DeGerolamo

[Via http://randysright.wordpress.com]

Monday, November 23, 2009

You Should Know About Harry Reid’s Government-Run Health Care Experiment

1. $493 Billion In Tax Increases On Health Insurance, Medical Innovation, Payroll And Small Businesses Would Pay For The Bill. (Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)

2. Americans Won’t See Benefits Of This Health Care Experiment Until 2014, But They Start Paying For It In 2010. (Page 13, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)

3. Reid’s Bill Allegedly Reduces The Deficit By $130 Billion In Ten Years, But The Obama-Reid-Pelosi Spending Agenda Produced Deficit Of $176 Billion Last Month Alone. (Table 3, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)

4. $465 Billion In Medicare And Medicaid Cuts Would Pay For Two New Unsustainable Entitlements. (Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)

5. Health Care Costs For The Federal Government – And Your Family – Would Increase, Not Decrease. (Page 16, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)

6. A New Medicare Commission Of Unelected Bureaucrats Would Ration Care.(Sec. 3403, H.R. 3590, Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute, “Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act,” Introduced 11/18/09)

7. The “Doc Fix” Provision That Would Add $250 Billion To The Deficit Is Not Included In The Democrats’ List Price For Their Health Care Experiment. (Page 17, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)

8. Taxpayer Dollars Would Fund Abortions. (Sec. 1303(a), H.R. 3590, Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute, “Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act,” Introduced 11/18/09)

9. A New Entitlement Program For Long-Term Care That One Democrat Senator Called “A Ponzi Scheme” Would Be Created. (Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09; Shailagh Murray & Lori Montgomery, “Centrists Unsure About Reid’s Public Option,” The Washington Post, 10/28/09)

10. States Burdened With $25 Billion In Unfunded Mandates From Medicaid That Would Force Them To Increase Taxes. (Page 7, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)

[Via http://shawnwilson.wordpress.com]

Friday, November 20, 2009

Scrubbed CRU Data Hacked, Recovered And Released

Remember when England’s CRU scrubbed all its temp data in response to Steve McIntyre’s FOIA requests? I, like many, concluded they did so because the data supported Steve and not their Mann-Briffa, hockey stick Thermageddon scenarios requiring Waxman-Markey type “Solutions.” I likened the whole affair to the plot of a spy novel, with moles and secrets. It appears I failed to account for some of the characters. Apparently a hacker with a passion for scientific truth has entered the storyline.

Today, some of the “missing” data (a 61 meg file of data, code and emails) began appearing in the comments at skeptic sites like Jeff Id’s Air Vent. Anthony posted some of it while traveling.

So, what were they hiding?

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers

Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

(Emphasis mine)

Keith is Keith Briffa, of the (single) Yamal tree core(s). Mike is Michael Mann, who first came up with the “hockey stick”–which Briffa’s (now thoroughly discredited) tree proxy rescued for a time.  It would appear, to me at least, the CRU was manufacturing data to support its position that a massive tax scheme was needed to save us from heat death by CO2.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

"Liberty and Justice for all" is a Myth

Will Phillips, a ten-year-old Arkansas boy is refusing to stand for the pledge of allegiance. Will is refusing to stand, because he says the words “liberty and justice for all” are not true in a nation that discriminates against gay people and tolerates racism and sexism. In the aftermath of Will’s decision to exercise his legally-protected right to refuse to stand for or say the pledge of allegiance he has been ridiculed by many of his peers and the substitute teacher who is running his class.

It will not come as a surprise to readers of this blog, but I support Will’s right to refuse to participate in the pledge. The reality that America provides “liberty and justice for all” is a mythical one. America never has nor will it ever be a place that equally dispenses justice and offers all the same amount of liberty. To believe otherwise is to be delusional. If anything supporters of the pledge should be telling people that the words “liberty and justice for all” are mere words of aspiration which encourage all Americans to do what we can to create a union that comes closer to adhering to those worthwhile goals than does the America of today.

Unfortunately, the debate around Will’s brave stand has become focused on his support of same-sex marriage rather than remaining a discussion of the correctness of his general sentiment. By getting so angry that they are willing to trash a ten-year-old boy those who disagree with Will are proving the truth behind his stance. If America truly was a place where “liberty and justice for all” was the norm everyone would support Will’s right to abstain from the pledge of allegiance. By criticizing him too many are showing us how far our nation has to go on the road to the idyllic society so many falsely believe we already have. If more Americans were willing to join Will and do more for their nation than stupidly reciting a pledge without ever contemplating the truth behind it and working to live up to the creed it espouses our society would be a more perfect union.

Monday, November 16, 2009

Ritual public humiliation: the staple programme of GramscoFabiaNazis...

David Davis

First, persuade Teh Masses (which you have de-educated on purpose, by ruining the schools and then saying that Television is all that matters) that it is harmless fun. You do this by paying fingered and bribed members of the Enemy-Class to partake in simulations using insects etc. Then set up proper Stalinist Show-Trials, for those whom you really fear and want dead.

Aztecs knew what to do with celebrities. We are not only the same and no better, but our “masters” use them to further degrade us as a people.

Bye, Bye Bartley

Luella Bartley, the winner of last year’s British Fashion Award as Designer of the Year, had ceased operations after a financial backer decided it could “no longer invest in the relationship.”

A fave of celebrities such as Gwyneth Paltrow and Lily Allen, Bartley’s bold prints, whimsical cut outs and poufy but posh skirts personified a look known as “English Ecccentric.” She was also the first designer for Target’s Go International series of capsule collections. Most recently, she “guest-edited” Liberty of London’s Christmas Windows.

Bartley is the third big-time designer – along with Yohji Yamamoto and Christian Lacroix – who closed up shop this year.

Via The Guardian.