That's such a curious phrase: "lesser of the evil." It's been in my head a lot over the passed few days, and I've been finding it rather sickening.
We choose our political leaders via this sophisticated methodology, and then we watch as our government murders other people of the world, directly or indirectly.
But we don't REALLY watch, do we? If I vote for someone I deem the lesser of the evil, and they enact new military laws, or sell weapons, or bomb a land, I am willing to look the other way. I have government programs, I have a cleaner domestic conscious. The violence doesn't bother me as much as it might otherwise.
What is the otherwise? The evil I consider greater is elected. Dammit! I worked so hard to get the less evil guy in, and now this! The greater evil murders many more people, lets many of my programs degrade, and man it sucks! I'm gonna work extra hard next time and get a better leader in there!
I find myself far more disturbed by the first scenario. It is very sociopathic, and very disturbing. With the "lesser of the evil" paradigm, we create a moral complicity for the atrocities of the state. We are willing to look the other way as long there are merely less murders and more domestic government services.
If we are willing to sacrifice lives for single pay health care, or a department of education, then we should volunteer to pick who dies. But would we really do that? Of course not. We elect people for that.
Is the state ALWAYS murderous? In some countries, not necessarily. Is the state ALWAYS violent? Absolutely. And violence begets violence, in some fashion or another, giving us our wars and discord.
So when we choose the lesser of the evil, we choose evil. The worst part is that we submit willingly under a series of shallow guarantees from our masters, who in turn wreak havoc on the poorest and the weakest, and we subsidize it all under the "moral obligation" of paying taxes. We even tell ourselves we're being charitable.
In short, the more power we are willing to give to the state, the more it will be abused, if not now, then in the near future. When we use violence to achieve our goals, it boomerangs back at us in some way or another. The reason is because at its core, the state is rotten. We reap what we sow. It's in our hands.
Let's sow some peace, eh?
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
The Progressive Problem
Here I am, sick for the passed 3 days, up early in the morning to give my poor fiancee a break from my sweating and grunting. The flu sucks.
So why not write a new blog? Awesome proposal, brain, thanks!
Ah, progressives. God bless 'em. So noble, so painfully misguided. Now I'm as liberal as they come (no drug laws, open immigration, health care for all), it's just that I don't think we should be pointing guns at one another to accomplish our noble ideals.
A gun? Who said anything about guns?!
If you and I are walking down the street, and we see a homeless guy asking for food, arguably the moral thing to do is give him food. Now, if I point a gun at you and tell you to feed him, and we'll assume you do because you don't want to get shot, have you acted morally, or under duress?
Here's the point: none of us pays taxes voluntarily, we pay under duress. If there's any question as to whether or not that's a fact, then stop paying your taxes. Eventually, men with guns will come and take you to a cell, and if you try and escape, you'll be shot. Again, since most of us don't want to be shot, we give the thugs their money.
The progressive will argue that we just need to get a really NICE aggressor into office, then they will use their criminally acquired revenue to provide services we liberals want.
This is a VERY high risk venture. For if one is willing to grant the state this kind of power, then one must be willing to allow the state to murder people. Yes, kiddies, I said murder. I can guarantee that if Obama wins the election, people in other countries will be murdered, and WE will be funding it. But, hey, as long as we have some services here at home, that's a price worth paying, right?
A system built on the threat of and/or the initiation of violence is one that begets murder. Always. That is the price of "progressive" politics. These are individuals who are willing to expand state power (and pay the aforementioned price for their expanded state), so that they can have services provided for their populace. And while, again, it is noble to want everyone to have health care, security, etc, it is not so noble to accomplish said goals through violence.
The notion of how to provide services without violence I'll leave for a later blog.
If you progressives want your government programs, then I better not see you protesting wars, because your whole methodology is based in violence. And violence begets violence.
Remember, it is not individuals that wage war, it is governments. And governments often acquire their power through the desires of many well meaning voters.
If you are willing to grant ever more power to the state for some notion of "the commons" then be ready for Patriot Acts, wars, and the like.
Be ready to support murder.
Sleep tight.
So why not write a new blog? Awesome proposal, brain, thanks!
Ah, progressives. God bless 'em. So noble, so painfully misguided. Now I'm as liberal as they come (no drug laws, open immigration, health care for all), it's just that I don't think we should be pointing guns at one another to accomplish our noble ideals.
A gun? Who said anything about guns?!
If you and I are walking down the street, and we see a homeless guy asking for food, arguably the moral thing to do is give him food. Now, if I point a gun at you and tell you to feed him, and we'll assume you do because you don't want to get shot, have you acted morally, or under duress?
Here's the point: none of us pays taxes voluntarily, we pay under duress. If there's any question as to whether or not that's a fact, then stop paying your taxes. Eventually, men with guns will come and take you to a cell, and if you try and escape, you'll be shot. Again, since most of us don't want to be shot, we give the thugs their money.
The progressive will argue that we just need to get a really NICE aggressor into office, then they will use their criminally acquired revenue to provide services we liberals want.
This is a VERY high risk venture. For if one is willing to grant the state this kind of power, then one must be willing to allow the state to murder people. Yes, kiddies, I said murder. I can guarantee that if Obama wins the election, people in other countries will be murdered, and WE will be funding it. But, hey, as long as we have some services here at home, that's a price worth paying, right?
A system built on the threat of and/or the initiation of violence is one that begets murder. Always. That is the price of "progressive" politics. These are individuals who are willing to expand state power (and pay the aforementioned price for their expanded state), so that they can have services provided for their populace. And while, again, it is noble to want everyone to have health care, security, etc, it is not so noble to accomplish said goals through violence.
The notion of how to provide services without violence I'll leave for a later blog.
If you progressives want your government programs, then I better not see you protesting wars, because your whole methodology is based in violence. And violence begets violence.
Remember, it is not individuals that wage war, it is governments. And governments often acquire their power through the desires of many well meaning voters.
If you are willing to grant ever more power to the state for some notion of "the commons" then be ready for Patriot Acts, wars, and the like.
Be ready to support murder.
Sleep tight.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Anarchy VS Planning in...LOST!
LOST is the greatest television show...ever. I'm not kidding. It rules. If you wanna know why, watch it. It's cool, it's mysterious, it's thoughtful, and it's philosophical.
If you watch LOST and are have not caught up with season 4, then you might encounter spoilers, so beware!
Now, on to the issue at hand. My question is this: who is the anarchist, and who is the planner? You were wondering the same thing too?! No way! Well, here's the answer.
Sawyer is the Anarchist.
Jack is the Planner.
How so? you ask. And what is with the 4-toed statue?!
One thing at a time, good readers, one thing at a time.
1. The Anarchist: In the effort of honest blogging, I gotta say: Sawyer was a dick in season 1 and 2, a little dickish in 3, and was pretty much heroic in season 4. But he was an ass a LOT of the time. However, did he obey the principle of non-aggression and voluntary exchange? Yeah, pretty much.
The first thing to keep in mind before we go further is that Sawyer was a con-man prior to the island. He made his living out of defrauding people out of their property. That's bad. Off the island he frequently defied the principle of non-aggression and voluntary exchange.
(By the way, Detractor, a person cannot be said to have made a voluntary exchange if they have been conned into making the exchange. Since they have been defrauded, they are making a decision they likely wouldn't make if they knew what was happening.)
On the island, however, he changes a bit. (That's kind of a thing in LOST.) He doesn't generally come into other people's camps to steal their stuff, and if you want something he has, you have to pay for it. If you are REALLY in need, Sawyer will give it to you, as when Hurley asks for the manifest. While he is an individualist, he acts very selflessly later in the show. After some time of being a prick, the community has an effect on him, and as it is natural for humans, as social creatures, to organize and cooperate, he eventually does very heroic things like: Getting shot trying to protect Walt, protecting Claire and the baby, keeping a close eye on Hurley, and jumping of a fucking HELICOPTER for Kate.
While quite flawed, Sawyer embodies some of the more authentic heroic moments in the show.
2. The Planner: Jack Shephard is a bad ass. No lie. He performs an INSANE spinal operation while under duress. He gets his appendix out and actually tries to direct the operation while it's being done to him. He makes it his priority, nay, his modus operandi, to make sure everyoone and everything is under his control. His intentions for such an approach are simple: to make sure everyone is safe, and to get them off the island.
These are very noble intentions, and are a big reason why his character is so important. But, alas, while the Planner is able to help a few, most die or are left behind on the island by the end of season 4. His painstaking, and exhausting work only got 6 of the original passengers (including himself and Aaron) off the island.
It has recently been argued that there is a statistical happiness gap between liberals and conservatives. This has been debated endlessly, of course, but check out http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/the-politics-of-happiness-part-2/ to check it out.
Basically, think about all the times you've seen Jack, bug-eyed and freaking out, when he can't maintain control, when his central planning clearly is only really going to work for a small few. He wants it to work for everyone, but alas, it doesn't, which makes him go kinda crazy sometimes. The fact is, central planning can only really benefit a few, because the planner is forced, by the nature of their position, to make choices as to who gets what, and is forced to make people's decisions for them. Jack, unfortunately, cannot force anyone to do anything on the island, so again we watch him go bug-eyed and crazy because he cannot control the population.
In conclusion, I'd say that Sawyer's individuality eventually leads to a natural cooperation with others, whereas Jack's approach as planner makes for polarization and leads to many deaths and only a few escaping the island. I'd say that Sawyer is more authentically helpful in the end, as it is by his sacrifice that the Oceanic 6 are able to stay in the air and find the boat.
Think Jack would have jumped? Me neither.
If you watch LOST and are have not caught up with season 4, then you might encounter spoilers, so beware!
Now, on to the issue at hand. My question is this: who is the anarchist, and who is the planner? You were wondering the same thing too?! No way! Well, here's the answer.
Sawyer is the Anarchist.
Jack is the Planner.
How so? you ask. And what is with the 4-toed statue?!
One thing at a time, good readers, one thing at a time.
1. The Anarchist: In the effort of honest blogging, I gotta say: Sawyer was a dick in season 1 and 2, a little dickish in 3, and was pretty much heroic in season 4. But he was an ass a LOT of the time. However, did he obey the principle of non-aggression and voluntary exchange? Yeah, pretty much.
The first thing to keep in mind before we go further is that Sawyer was a con-man prior to the island. He made his living out of defrauding people out of their property. That's bad. Off the island he frequently defied the principle of non-aggression and voluntary exchange.
(By the way, Detractor, a person cannot be said to have made a voluntary exchange if they have been conned into making the exchange. Since they have been defrauded, they are making a decision they likely wouldn't make if they knew what was happening.)
On the island, however, he changes a bit. (That's kind of a thing in LOST.) He doesn't generally come into other people's camps to steal their stuff, and if you want something he has, you have to pay for it. If you are REALLY in need, Sawyer will give it to you, as when Hurley asks for the manifest. While he is an individualist, he acts very selflessly later in the show. After some time of being a prick, the community has an effect on him, and as it is natural for humans, as social creatures, to organize and cooperate, he eventually does very heroic things like: Getting shot trying to protect Walt, protecting Claire and the baby, keeping a close eye on Hurley, and jumping of a fucking HELICOPTER for Kate.
While quite flawed, Sawyer embodies some of the more authentic heroic moments in the show.
2. The Planner: Jack Shephard is a bad ass. No lie. He performs an INSANE spinal operation while under duress. He gets his appendix out and actually tries to direct the operation while it's being done to him. He makes it his priority, nay, his modus operandi, to make sure everyoone and everything is under his control. His intentions for such an approach are simple: to make sure everyone is safe, and to get them off the island.
These are very noble intentions, and are a big reason why his character is so important. But, alas, while the Planner is able to help a few, most die or are left behind on the island by the end of season 4. His painstaking, and exhausting work only got 6 of the original passengers (including himself and Aaron) off the island.
It has recently been argued that there is a statistical happiness gap between liberals and conservatives. This has been debated endlessly, of course, but check out http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/the-politics-of-happiness-part-2/ to check it out.
Basically, think about all the times you've seen Jack, bug-eyed and freaking out, when he can't maintain control, when his central planning clearly is only really going to work for a small few. He wants it to work for everyone, but alas, it doesn't, which makes him go kinda crazy sometimes. The fact is, central planning can only really benefit a few, because the planner is forced, by the nature of their position, to make choices as to who gets what, and is forced to make people's decisions for them. Jack, unfortunately, cannot force anyone to do anything on the island, so again we watch him go bug-eyed and crazy because he cannot control the population.
In conclusion, I'd say that Sawyer's individuality eventually leads to a natural cooperation with others, whereas Jack's approach as planner makes for polarization and leads to many deaths and only a few escaping the island. I'd say that Sawyer is more authentically helpful in the end, as it is by his sacrifice that the Oceanic 6 are able to stay in the air and find the boat.
Think Jack would have jumped? Me neither.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Political Irresponsibility and You!
For the anarcho-capitalist voting is kind of stupid. Democracy in the context of a coercive state is moot. When we vote, we are merely proceeding with the logic that we must work to get a much NICER person to point the gun at us.
Again, it's stupid.
But, I say one can participate in the system, and yet continue to exist within the philosophical framework of anarcho-capitalism.
1. Never vote politically, it is coercive in nature. For the anarchist, everything we do must be with the intent of advancing the ethics of liberty. Voting philosophically means voting for people who don't win elections. And that's ok. The Ron Paul movement was never about winning, it was about ideas. Occasionally, we have the opportunity to give statistical credence to the idea of liberty, and while those folks who run don't win elections (again, not the point anyway), they allow us to advance a philosophical framework within the context of the state machine. And while I disagree with RP and others on certain details of their platform (they are minarchists, I am not), I started down this philosophical road because of the idea of the minimal state, therefore the possibility exists for others to do the same when we influence the state against itself to advance the philosophy of liberty.
2. Not voting is voting! Yay! Seriously, it is. When you opt out of the state machine you are making a powerful statement. Now, many will tell you how irresponsible it is for you to not vote (although, if we employ the method of #1, then usually we'll end up voting for what statists see as "spoilers," and they will call us irresponsible then too). Opting out of the system brings it ever more to the public awareness that there are many in the population who see the state as nothing but a leviathan of bureaucracy, and therefore ultimately ineffective against social ills. This, coupled with all the state's wars that are so costly morally and economically, drive many to oppose the whole mess by opting out completely. If nobody shows up to vote, then how can elections be won? This, again, is influencing the state (albeit ironically) against itself.
3. Volunteer, Bond-style! If there is actually a person running for public office that you can mostly get behind, then volunteer and take every opportunity to spout your enlightened philosophy at the candidate. Maybe they'll get pissed and fire you, that'd be awesome. Maybe they'll bend their ears to you and start talking about some of those things in the public. Again, any anarchist activity within the state machine must always be about the advancement of philosophy, and never about legislation. Granted, if the state is dismantling in a healthy manner, then "legislation" would likely be created to foster that. Nobody ever said that it'd be easy to create a free society from one that is utterly possessed by the state. Plus, you must never get paid because taking a salary from taxes collected by violence is morally wrong, and you want to be sure to tell this everyday to the candidate you work under. They should not be getting paid through violence. They should work for free. They'll probably be STOKED at the suggestion! It's a weird dance, I know, but the whole point is not to use the state for more coercion, it's to influence the state against itself in order to bring about its peaceful dismantling.
Ok, I'll be honest with myself. None of the above is pretty, and is likely wrought with ethical dilemmas. But cut me some fucking slack, the state is a wicked, slathering, growling, hairy, stinky beast.
In short, it's dirty. Like wet dog dirty. And any peaceful methodology we employ will also have flaws and issues. Let's face it, if the free society is coming, it'll be here in about 100 years if we start right NOW. My good friend Frank said that right now we are laying the groundwork for the development of the future free society, and perhaps we are. Maybe history will look back and find my blog and its two subscribers (one of which is my main Detractor), and say, "Whoa! This is old-school!"
But really, I take solace in the fact that the state doesn't have my mind anymore, and there are more freed minds to come.
The Beez
Again, it's stupid.
But, I say one can participate in the system, and yet continue to exist within the philosophical framework of anarcho-capitalism.
1. Never vote politically, it is coercive in nature. For the anarchist, everything we do must be with the intent of advancing the ethics of liberty. Voting philosophically means voting for people who don't win elections. And that's ok. The Ron Paul movement was never about winning, it was about ideas. Occasionally, we have the opportunity to give statistical credence to the idea of liberty, and while those folks who run don't win elections (again, not the point anyway), they allow us to advance a philosophical framework within the context of the state machine. And while I disagree with RP and others on certain details of their platform (they are minarchists, I am not), I started down this philosophical road because of the idea of the minimal state, therefore the possibility exists for others to do the same when we influence the state against itself to advance the philosophy of liberty.
2. Not voting is voting! Yay! Seriously, it is. When you opt out of the state machine you are making a powerful statement. Now, many will tell you how irresponsible it is for you to not vote (although, if we employ the method of #1, then usually we'll end up voting for what statists see as "spoilers," and they will call us irresponsible then too). Opting out of the system brings it ever more to the public awareness that there are many in the population who see the state as nothing but a leviathan of bureaucracy, and therefore ultimately ineffective against social ills. This, coupled with all the state's wars that are so costly morally and economically, drive many to oppose the whole mess by opting out completely. If nobody shows up to vote, then how can elections be won? This, again, is influencing the state (albeit ironically) against itself.
3. Volunteer, Bond-style! If there is actually a person running for public office that you can mostly get behind, then volunteer and take every opportunity to spout your enlightened philosophy at the candidate. Maybe they'll get pissed and fire you, that'd be awesome. Maybe they'll bend their ears to you and start talking about some of those things in the public. Again, any anarchist activity within the state machine must always be about the advancement of philosophy, and never about legislation. Granted, if the state is dismantling in a healthy manner, then "legislation" would likely be created to foster that. Nobody ever said that it'd be easy to create a free society from one that is utterly possessed by the state. Plus, you must never get paid because taking a salary from taxes collected by violence is morally wrong, and you want to be sure to tell this everyday to the candidate you work under. They should not be getting paid through violence. They should work for free. They'll probably be STOKED at the suggestion! It's a weird dance, I know, but the whole point is not to use the state for more coercion, it's to influence the state against itself in order to bring about its peaceful dismantling.
Ok, I'll be honest with myself. None of the above is pretty, and is likely wrought with ethical dilemmas. But cut me some fucking slack, the state is a wicked, slathering, growling, hairy, stinky beast.
In short, it's dirty. Like wet dog dirty. And any peaceful methodology we employ will also have flaws and issues. Let's face it, if the free society is coming, it'll be here in about 100 years if we start right NOW. My good friend Frank said that right now we are laying the groundwork for the development of the future free society, and perhaps we are. Maybe history will look back and find my blog and its two subscribers (one of which is my main Detractor), and say, "Whoa! This is old-school!"
But really, I take solace in the fact that the state doesn't have my mind anymore, and there are more freed minds to come.
The Beez
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
A (somewhat) Fantastic Voyage!
I change my mind.
Seriously. I mean, what was I thinking? How could I have thought? What was my major malfunction?!
Lemme think back!
I was hanging out, minding my own business, perhaps doing some laundry, mayhap I was tending to the cattle. Or better yet, maybe I was playing video games like an asshole! I don't know. Maybe it was all of the above, maybe it was none.
I digress. Here's what I'm saying.
I read Murray N. Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty. And now I kind of think we should abolish the State, peacefully and through persuasion, but, yeah, ABOLISH. It sucks to think I ever bought into the validity of the State, but it is also a bit refreshing. It's like a headache that finally went away after 30 FRIGGEN YEARS!
The State is a machine of aggression, a wicked scion of violence and force. And while I basically think those two words mean the same thing, I'm REALLY trying to emphasize here: the State is a systemically corrupt machine, and we must ever bend our minds to to it elimination.
But this is a peaceful revolution. It is one of ideas, of philosophy. Our evolution will never come with violence toward each other. It will come through peace. Peace cannot be achieved by the State. It can through individuals.
And from here on out I intend to prove this. And I've changed my name and the title of my blog just to prove the IMMENSITY of my awakening.
So there.
The Beez
Seriously. I mean, what was I thinking? How could I have thought? What was my major malfunction?!
Lemme think back!
I was hanging out, minding my own business, perhaps doing some laundry, mayhap I was tending to the cattle. Or better yet, maybe I was playing video games like an asshole! I don't know. Maybe it was all of the above, maybe it was none.
I digress. Here's what I'm saying.
I read Murray N. Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty. And now I kind of think we should abolish the State, peacefully and through persuasion, but, yeah, ABOLISH. It sucks to think I ever bought into the validity of the State, but it is also a bit refreshing. It's like a headache that finally went away after 30 FRIGGEN YEARS!
The State is a machine of aggression, a wicked scion of violence and force. And while I basically think those two words mean the same thing, I'm REALLY trying to emphasize here: the State is a systemically corrupt machine, and we must ever bend our minds to to it elimination.
But this is a peaceful revolution. It is one of ideas, of philosophy. Our evolution will never come with violence toward each other. It will come through peace. Peace cannot be achieved by the State. It can through individuals.
And from here on out I intend to prove this. And I've changed my name and the title of my blog just to prove the IMMENSITY of my awakening.
So there.
The Beez
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Polygamy: The New Testament Version!
Oh, those fundamentalist Mormons and all their wives. Those AWESOME colonial dresses that the women wore in The Village are so VOGUE in Mormon cults.
Ah, cults. So strange, so cut off. So wrapped up in religious dogma, with a healthy splash of superstition. Not to mention brainwashing.
Sounds yummy!
But hey, it's none of my business. And that's what's key in the recent story of the raid on a Mormon sect in Texas. We are knee deep in a very slippery slope.
The allegation that underage girls were being forced into sex and marriage is valid if there is evidence to support it. And if there is evidence, the State has a right to intercede and protect those who are being acted upon against their will. If the people of a state have set a legal age of consent and this law is broken, punishment can ensue.
BUT.
The bigger issue is the State's "moral" stance against polygamy. In 1878 the supreme court ruled it illegal on the grounds that polygamy was ""almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and African people," and that it was "contrary to the spirit of Christianity"" (Falk 11). I don't need to tell you all that the Christian bible oozes polygamy, but I will say that the State has no place regulating marriage. While creating laws that decide on an age of consent is acceptable, interfering with consenting adults making non-violent decisions that affect only themselves is NOT the domain of the State.
This is, indeed, the larger issue, not statutory rape. The State outlaws polygamy and seeks to quash it where it can. We also saw the same behavior over the non-issue of same sex marriage.
If women are being raped and beaten, the State plays an important role in protecting these individuals. But it serves no role in non-violent, consenting decisions made by adults.
The State's involvement in yet another social issue is, again, the result of a systemic issue within the framework of a "planned society" that we see our ever expanding government moving toward. It has no place, ever, in the private lives of consenting adults.
The term is Liberty. And the State seeks ever to dismantle it before our very eyes.
TL
Ah, cults. So strange, so cut off. So wrapped up in religious dogma, with a healthy splash of superstition. Not to mention brainwashing.
Sounds yummy!
But hey, it's none of my business. And that's what's key in the recent story of the raid on a Mormon sect in Texas. We are knee deep in a very slippery slope.
The allegation that underage girls were being forced into sex and marriage is valid if there is evidence to support it. And if there is evidence, the State has a right to intercede and protect those who are being acted upon against their will. If the people of a state have set a legal age of consent and this law is broken, punishment can ensue.
BUT.
The bigger issue is the State's "moral" stance against polygamy. In 1878 the supreme court ruled it illegal on the grounds that polygamy was ""almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and African people," and that it was "contrary to the spirit of Christianity"" (Falk 11). I don't need to tell you all that the Christian bible oozes polygamy, but I will say that the State has no place regulating marriage. While creating laws that decide on an age of consent is acceptable, interfering with consenting adults making non-violent decisions that affect only themselves is NOT the domain of the State.
This is, indeed, the larger issue, not statutory rape. The State outlaws polygamy and seeks to quash it where it can. We also saw the same behavior over the non-issue of same sex marriage.
If women are being raped and beaten, the State plays an important role in protecting these individuals. But it serves no role in non-violent, consenting decisions made by adults.
The State's involvement in yet another social issue is, again, the result of a systemic issue within the framework of a "planned society" that we see our ever expanding government moving toward. It has no place, ever, in the private lives of consenting adults.
The term is Liberty. And the State seeks ever to dismantle it before our very eyes.
TL
Work Cited:
Falk, William, et al, eds. "Married to the Mob." The Week. 16 May 2008: 11.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Got Pork?
Being right has a downside. I know, it feels awesome knowing the political philosophy I eschew proves correct TIME and TIME again.
It's almost tiring.
But, alas, it has a downside: I wish I wasn't right.
But WHAT, you ask, could have me so down?
Pork Spending!
The short definition is that pork spending is "the congressional habit of using taxpayer money to reward or benefit a specific constituency, company, or campaign contributor" (Falk 13). The money is doled out according to earmarks set out by congress, which sets up the budget to include provisions that direct funds to specific persons/places (13).
What are some of these persons/places? GREAT question!
A.) In 2005 there was Republican Senator Ted Steven's "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska that cost 223 million dollars (13).
B.) Hillary Clinton recently put a million bucks into a Woodstock museum (13).
C.) Republican Rep. John Peterson put 500 grand into buying 21 train cabooses to be repurposed for a "caboose motel" (13).
D.) This one is my favorite: Democratic Rep. James Clyburn sent 3 million smackers to "an organization called the First Tee, whose mission, according to its website, "is to promote character development and life-enhancing values through the game of golf"" (13).
Now is all pork spending bad? No. It can be used by members of congress to assist their districts. They may try and help small businesses, or start up some local social programs.
But here's my beef with pork:
It's doled out in favor of the ruling political party. Again, we have a clear as day example of statist government at work. Our hard earned money is at the whim of whoever rules.
We have no say. They make us dependent on them by taking ever more of our money, and yet encouraging us to fuel the status quo.
I have a small, humble suggestion:
I am in no way opposed to taxation. It is taxes that fund our infrastructure, our government. But why not massively reform our foreign policy in favor of non-interventionism, bring our troops home, stop nation building, and waging war, and take the resultant resources saved and give it back to the people?
Each county in each state should have the money on hand to truly tackle their own unique issues, whether it be drugs, bridges and roads, education, etc. Only then will the complexity and diversity of America be addressed. It is safe to say that my mayor knows the issues facing my county much better than Washington DC.
By working toward an end to the income tax, and allowing us more control over the money we earn, we allow ourselves to build stronger communities. EVERY community would be stronger with more money on hand locally. Does that mean some areas would struggle? Yes. They struggle NOW.
But let's all be honest with each other: having extra casholla is always cooler than being broke and helpless.
There shouldn't be any need for things like federal pork spending. By eliminating the income tax, you help provide local governments the chance to do far better than the Fed could ever hope to do. Eliminating this tax is far more socially responsible than any entitlement program.
And now I shall retire to my chamber of rightness wherein I eat grapes and ponder my own personal Lost theories.
TL
Work Cited:
It's almost tiring.
But, alas, it has a downside: I wish I wasn't right.
But WHAT, you ask, could have me so down?
Pork Spending!
The short definition is that pork spending is "the congressional habit of using taxpayer money to reward or benefit a specific constituency, company, or campaign contributor" (Falk 13). The money is doled out according to earmarks set out by congress, which sets up the budget to include provisions that direct funds to specific persons/places (13).
What are some of these persons/places? GREAT question!
A.) In 2005 there was Republican Senator Ted Steven's "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska that cost 223 million dollars (13).
B.) Hillary Clinton recently put a million bucks into a Woodstock museum (13).
C.) Republican Rep. John Peterson put 500 grand into buying 21 train cabooses to be repurposed for a "caboose motel" (13).
D.) This one is my favorite: Democratic Rep. James Clyburn sent 3 million smackers to "an organization called the First Tee, whose mission, according to its website, "is to promote character development and life-enhancing values through the game of golf"" (13).
Now is all pork spending bad? No. It can be used by members of congress to assist their districts. They may try and help small businesses, or start up some local social programs.
But here's my beef with pork:
It's doled out in favor of the ruling political party. Again, we have a clear as day example of statist government at work. Our hard earned money is at the whim of whoever rules.
We have no say. They make us dependent on them by taking ever more of our money, and yet encouraging us to fuel the status quo.
I have a small, humble suggestion:
I am in no way opposed to taxation. It is taxes that fund our infrastructure, our government. But why not massively reform our foreign policy in favor of non-interventionism, bring our troops home, stop nation building, and waging war, and take the resultant resources saved and give it back to the people?
Each county in each state should have the money on hand to truly tackle their own unique issues, whether it be drugs, bridges and roads, education, etc. Only then will the complexity and diversity of America be addressed. It is safe to say that my mayor knows the issues facing my county much better than Washington DC.
By working toward an end to the income tax, and allowing us more control over the money we earn, we allow ourselves to build stronger communities. EVERY community would be stronger with more money on hand locally. Does that mean some areas would struggle? Yes. They struggle NOW.
But let's all be honest with each other: having extra casholla is always cooler than being broke and helpless.
There shouldn't be any need for things like federal pork spending. By eliminating the income tax, you help provide local governments the chance to do far better than the Fed could ever hope to do. Eliminating this tax is far more socially responsible than any entitlement program.
And now I shall retire to my chamber of rightness wherein I eat grapes and ponder my own personal Lost theories.
TL
Work Cited:
Falk, William, et al, eds. "Pass the pork, please." The Week. 25 April 2008: 13.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)