Politics Prevents Progress

Cannabis is legal in a handful of states, and gays can now be equally unequal to everyone else! But the public didn’t want to throw anyone in jail for weed 20 years ago, and where I reside in the northeast hasn’t given a crap about stopping gays from being together for at least as long. So why are these things hailed as political victories?

It takes the government way longer to catch up than the public. And in the mean time gays are marginalized, kids are thrown in jail for possessing a plant, and countless other atrocities occur just waiting for the government to stop being so stupid and repressive.

The government has all the advantages in the public discourse. They can repeal some ridiculous law that THEY put in place, and everyone hails the government as having solved the problem! Are you freaking kidding me? Don’t give the government credit for removing a ridiculous law that they put in place in the first place, causing countless innocent people to be locked in cages!

The government stalls progress, and should never be given credit when they finally catch up to the wishes of the public. The public actually gets along pretty well. And if the government didn’t stand in our way, we would solve these issues way before the idiots on Capital Hill ever get around to it.

Another way of saying WE would solve these problems without government obstruction is to say the market would solve these problems. Who would arrest pot-smokers if not the government? Murderers would still be arrested, because there would be a market for it: we would all want to solve the problem of crime. So we would spend our money, and figure out a fair trial system to make sure we take criminals off the street. Not many people will pay to police “crimes” where these is no victim. There would be no special treatment for government cronies, and enough competing agencies to hold the other ones accountable!


Having government educate children is like a death sentence for humanity. We can be sure they will never make kids smart enough to know they don’t need government! In this modern era, we can easily figure out how to educate kids for very cheap, and in a way that doesn’t make them hate their lives in a classroom for six hours a day. Humanity is ready for the next generation of education where the possibilities are endless, government is holding us back.

And another thing, the people of America aren’t at war with the people of where-ever. We might not like their government, just like most of us don’t like our own government. But don’t let our scumbags in charge convince us that the people of those countries mirror their scumbags in charge. If anything, we are worse in America, because at least we ELECTED our scum to office. Most of the people we condemn got their leaders by outright force (or by the U.S. installing them)!

So again, without the bumbling government machine, we would already be hanging out with Iraqi’s and North Koreans.

And without the government ruining lives over victimless crimes, and arbitrary laws, we would all be sitting around the campfire singing Kumbaya.

Government is why we can’t have nice things. End rant.

Wars are Started by Governments

droneIts amusing but sad that people always seem to come from the same perspective for “solving problems”. Everybody wants to use a top down approach when dealing with borders. People just assume that we need to group people together, even if they don’t like it! So in the U.S. we have parts of Colorado that want to form a new state, we see a piece of California trying to secede, and Texas was once its own country, and entered into the U.S.A. from the position that it could leave if the population so desired. The Kurds never really wanted to be part of Iraq, and borders within the United Kingdom have shifted countless times over the past 2,000 years. So we see these problems and think, how do we divide up who controls this land? But control is the very problem.

I think a hundred years from now people will look back on the debate about whether or not part of Colorado or California or whole states should be allowed to do their own thing, and laugh because of how ridiculous it seems that anyone would try to force people to remain under their jurisdiction, like subjects or serfs. I hope the prevailing notion of that day a century from now will be that of course people have the freedom to move as they like, associate as they like, and live as they like, as long as they aren’t hurting anyone.

Because isn’t that really the issue, that governments want to force people under their control? If the Kurds hadn’t been stuck between Iraq and a hard place, they could have just continued their society and lived their lives in relative peace. But Iraq and Iran made promises, broke their promises, lied, and Saddam Hussein gassed an entire city of “his people”. They couldn’t just be left alone?

Or how ridiculous that Denver or Sacramento want to hold onto their population in the outer districts in order for the capital to extract money and labor to fund the government programs, expenditures, and extravagance which mostly takes place in the capital. I think there is a book like that…

Then there’s Crimea, and Palestine, and Israel and it has never occurred that people don’t need to be controlled, or told what to do, or where the borders are, or to whom they are supposed to pay protection money—or taxes if you prefer. It seems immature as a species that whole groups of people routinely use their military strength to force others into their way of life, or their way of thinking, or within their borders.

Who would fight wars if not for governments? Who would enforce borders, and collect taxes, and make up laws that you can lose your life and liberty for breaking, even if there is no victim? Here’s the thing: the guy that starts the war, never fights in it. Sure, sometimes he overplays his hand and kills himself in a bunker, or gets hanged or slaughtered by his own people, but these are more like exceptions to the rule. So in whose best interest is a war? Tell me, who is going to start a war, and who is going to fight a war, if we don’t have government relations to sour, and government force to muster, and government controlled populations to enslave?

War is only in the best interest of those who have something to gain from it, and nothing to lose from it. Only those who can use force without retribution are in that position, and only governments can use force without retribution. Who would be sending men off to die if people were truly free from the initiation of force? What mutually beneficial transaction includes death and destruction?

I’m not going to get into right now how a society could be organized without government, I’ve written enough about that to give you a good idea. I just want people to reflect on the dynamic that we have always seen on earth, governments starting wars with governments and pretending it is in the best interest of the people: the people who die on the battlefield so that the government can say, “see, this is the border” or “these are my subjects” or “no, no, this set of victimless crimes is legitimate, theirs was not!”. And yes, we have certainly had better governments than others; the American government as defined in the Constitution was pretty good, but not perfect.

I once thought of ways to design the perfect government, with the perfect restraints, and checks on its power. I thought of ways to design elections, to form opposing powers, and to decentralize control. This is the “government is evil but necessary” philosophy. Then it occurred to me that nothing evil should ever be necessary. Why keep a beast in your house that would devour you if its chains are too loose, or break?

Would a lion be a great deterrent to crime at your home? Yes, but it might also eat you and your family. A big dog can be just as good a deterrent to crime, and you have control over it. Your dog loves you because you feed it and pat it; you trade food and affection for protection. Protection that will never be turned on you and your family, even though your dog can go anywhere in the house. The lion you feed so that it doesn’t eat you, and it dictates where you can safely walk in your own home. And the lion provides protection only if its chain is long enough, which also puts you in danger. But if the chain is too short, it won’t be able to stop an intruder.

Right now we are a society of lion keepers, and we should be a society of dog owners.

Does Gun Ownership Deter Invasion?

There is a quote often used by gun control opponents attributed to Japanese Admiral Yamamoto citing the reason that Japan did not invade mainland U.S. because “there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass”. Unfortunately it appears that this was never actually said by the Admiral, as the quote flourishes mostly on message boards, and is generally absent in any credible source. But the idea rings true, and the Admiral did in fact make the same point using different words.

According to Scraps of paper: the disarmament treaties between the world wars (1989) by Harlow A. Hyde, Admiral Yamamoto said, “The fiercest serpent may be overcome by a swarm of ants”. But again, I have to be honest, that the Admiral said this in reference to Japanese plans to build a real big bad-ass war ship. In the end he was right, as 3 were built and were all sunk by “swarms” of U.S. planes and submarines.

But I think this quotation rings just as true as a reference to why it would be impossible to invade mainland America. Today the threat of invasion is not posed by Japan, but arguably China needs to be watched closely in that respect, especially if a coalition was formed with Russia and some hostile middle eastern countries. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst; gun owners are a very real deterrent to invasion, and would actually help crush an invasion in the unlikely event.

Consider the fact that the U.S. sent rifles to civilians in the United Kingdom during WWII to prepare them for an invasion by Nazi Germany—we had to send them rifles because theirs had already been outlawed by the government. There is a million reasons why gun control does not work and should not be pursued, but deterring invasion may be a new idea for many.

So a lot of people’s reaction will be, “Yeah okay, a few farmers with shotguns are going to keep away an invading army”. But in fact about 39% of U.S. households now contain firearms, and usually more than one. Thats about 45 million houses with guns that would have to be cleared before an invading force could claim any sort of victory and assert its control. We would be even more prepared if it wasn’t already illegal for law abiding citizens to acquire large magazines and more powerful firearms, but still, 45 million households is quite the swarm.

Do I think China would invade the U.S. right now? No, not really. But they have recently shown aggression in asserting their ownership of islands that Japan, backed by the U.S., considers theirs. And who knows what will happen ten or twenty years down the road? It was the Weimar Republic in Germany that initiated gun registration, though only once the Nazi’s came to power was this used for sinister purposes. You never know what type of people will take control of a government, or what type of frenzies citizens can be whipped into under the right circumstances. But with China’s military force numbering close to 1.5 million, it doesn’t seem like a bad idea to be prepared for an unlikely but possible scenario.

Syria: Not the USA’s Problem

Is it just me, or does it seem like the only thing congress can agree on is bombing foreign nations? Somehow republicans and democrats are now both leaning towards intervening in Syria. Rand Paul stands firmly against military intervention since it does not clearly support US goals abroad. Furthermore as I have discussed at length before, the USA has a history of supporting people who will soon be our enemies.

The rebels in Syria are most likely affiliated with al-qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood who are not US friendly groups. The US supported al-qaeda affiliates before when Russia invaded Afghanistan, America later fought those same people we supplied with weapons. But this time if America wants to intervene in Syria, we have the very real risk of World War III being started, or at least another Vietnam. Russia and China have suggested they would support Syria if America gets involved, and Iran is with them.

But now we have our Nobel Peace Prize winning President suggesting that the USA bomb Syria, because Syria bombed Syria. Eric Cantor and John Boehner are either pushovers, or they think they would lose votes from the base if they didn’t seem tough on national security issues. But in reality attacking Syria will put the US at much more risk than leaving the regional battle alone. What is America going to contribute to the middle east turf wars that it has not already? Has US intervention in the past helped the situation? I cannot see any net positives which have come from our military operations in middle east countries.

Nation building is a bankrupting endeavor which inevitably creates more enemies than it destroys. If the USA is serious about being safe, we will drastically pull back our troops from most of the world, and commit to protecting the Mexican border which currently allows regular access to the US by drug cartels. But somehow politicians convince us that we need to do something about civil wars across the world, and all that can come of it is new enemies, dead American soldiers, and more debt.

China, Russia and War

Although the U.S. has never officially been at war with China or Russia, it is not too long ago that U.S. forces were fighting the Chinese in Korea and Vietnam. It has also been only a couple decades since the Cold War ended, and Russia withdrew from Afghanistan, who the U.S. provided weapons for in order to repel the Soviets. It feels nice to think of the U.S. as immune to invasion, but unfortunately the threat from China and Russia is not gone. In fact over the next few weeks China and Russia will be participating in the largest joint military drill in each nation’s history.

China has long been a key customer for Russian military hardware, but only in the last decade have their militaries begun taking part in joint exercises.

China’s defence ministry said on Tuesday that its navy would send four destroyers, two guided missile frigates and a support ship for the exercises, which start on Friday in the Sea of Japan and run until 12 July.

“The joint drill conducted by the two militaries of China and Russia do not target any third parties. Their aim is to deepen co-operation between the two militaries in the training field, boost capacity in co-ordinating military activities, and serve the purpose of safeguarding regional security and stability,” Fang said.

Many countries conduct military drills, so there is nothing necessarily sinister about this one. Something that is of concern however, is the way Russia talks about the U.S. as an adversary, essentially in a “Cold War” context.

According to the Russian official, military reaction times are much shorter than in the past, and the United States “adversary” has shown its capabilities against foreign militaries with precision strike weapons.

Russia is analyzing the situation,” he said. “We are creating a weapon that could be called a superweapon. This is a weapon that will allow us to see the enemy sooner than he will see us and to inflict a blow on him, in retaliatory measures, that will be irreversible for him.” He did not elaborate.

That same article from the Washington Times talks about a joint venture by China and Russia to make a space weapon for “space defense tasks”. The Chief of the NSA has already publicly stated that China is the most aggressive world power in terms of stealing U.S. cyber security and cyber military secrets, as well as participating in other forms of cyber-espionage. So while America cuts back its defenses, and suggests disarmament, Russia and China appear to be pretty serious about capabilities which could dominate the world. But the Cold War of cyber-weapons appears to be just heating up.

And another threat from Russia, brought on by our own officials, is that Russian forces will be providing security at U.S. events in the future, which could even include the Superbowl. Russian Emergency Situations Military has teamed up with FEMA to agree to assist each other in emergency situations, and at large events. It is a violation of our Posse Comitatus law to allow U.S. military to conduct policing activities on U.S. soil, let alone a foreign military. And the ominous suggestion from this is that the U.S. wants Russian troops to do things that U.S. troops would not be willing to do.

As Mac Slavo writes, “Rumors have circulated for years about the possibility of foreign troops being deployedon U.S. soil in the event of a widespread declaration of a national emergency. For quite some time there have been anecdotal reports to support the claim that the U.N., Russia and other nations would be used in a policing capacity should some critical event befall our nation.”

“The fear should such a scenario take place has been that these soldiers would act under the banner of their own flags, ignoring the fundamental protections afforded to our citizens, leaving Americans under the jurisdiction of people who don’t speak our language or respect our fundamental rights to self defense, to be secure in our homes, and to be presumed innocent in the eyes of the law.”

Concerns about foreign troops being used on US soil have lingered ever since the release of State Department Publication 7277, which is a blueprint for the harmonization of US and Russian forces under a framework of United Nations-led global government.

It is a very scary thing which threatens innocent civilians if the police state continues to ramp up, especially if foreign troops will be used. The fact that the NDAA includes language “allowing” the U.S. to indefinitely detain citizens “suspected of terrorism” is another reason for us to reject the idea of foreign troops operating on U.S. soil. I still don’t think American troops would be willing to kill or imprison innocent Americans, I cannot be so sure about foreign troops. But how has it even gotten this far?

America as a whole needs to stop supplying countries with the means to murder and imprison innocent civilians. According to Diana West in her book “American Betrayal”, the U.S. provided a staggering amount of military support and financial aide to the Soviet Union in the years leading up to, and after WWII. That means America provided the means for millions of civilian murders by the USSR. This brings to mind aide that we supply all over the world today to the tune of about $37 billion annually, including military assistance. Egypt has gotten jets recently, Syrian rebels were gifted with arms, and even China still gets some foreign aide, despite their hostility towards America, and forced labor camps for their civilians. We need to end all foreign aide. The conditions in many parts of the world that receive aide are not conducive to the production of necessities, therefore America is allowing them to continue their destructive practices, while still staying afloat. The freedom to produce and turn profits in the west has been allowing foreign nations to oppress their people for too long–if America stopped giving its wealth away, then countries would be forced to adopt models of government that allow the production and retention of wealth.

And America would be safer because it would not be funding its aggressors, or a government which one day may prove a serious military threat to America. I found it unbelievable that in the early years of the Cold War, America was giving entire pre-fab factories to Russia. Wealth has been leaving the U.S. for too long, only to be aimed back at us in the form of missiles and guns. Governments still want to start wars, just because we are half a century removed from the last “major” one does not mean another more catastrophic one couldn’t occur. China and Russia would be quite interested in expanding their power still, and we would be wise to recognize the threat for what it is.

Anyone Anti-War Should Also Be Anti-Tax

Anyone who is anti-war should also be anti-tax, yet it seems like a large majority of those who are anti-war have no problem with high federal taxes. Gary North claims in a recent article that “[t]hree factors have made possible the modern world’s wars: graduated taxation, the central bank, and the abolition of the gold coin standard”. He essentially goes back in history to just before WWI when in 1913 the 16th amendment authorizing an income tax was ratified, and the Federal Reserve central bank was created, stepping away from the gold standard. And this is why these things made massive spending on wars possible: with the cash flow created by the income tax, the government would have more money to spend on wars, but not just the amount raised in tax revenue. Now the government could borrow money and go into debt, because the creditors knew that the taxpayers could back up that debt. This allowed deficit spending to rise, because the government could always just take more of the citizens money in the form of income taxes to pay it back.

Since the central bank is the one printing the money, the government knew that money borrowed in 1914 would be worth more than when it had to be payed back years later, because money would be printed in the meantime, causing the value of one dollar to decrease. Debt could therefore be payed back with inflated dollars. This worked for the government because the amount of value lost in inflation, was placed in the government coffer, because they are the ones who controlled the money supply. This back door tax known as inflation was necessary for the levels of spending over the last century, because it allowed the government a secret tax that did not have to be approved or voted on, simply printing more money would extract the value from people’s bank accounts, and place the value in the newly printed bills which the government controls.

So this is why I don’t understand the people who have no problem with taxes, but criticize all the things the government does around the world with their tax dollars. It is as if people think that the taxes they pay will only go toward the government programs they want. But we don’t get to choose where the government spends the money it takes from us, so what we should be focusing on is limiting the amount of money the government has available to work with in order to force prioritization. I don’t want the government to be able to sit around and think of things to spend my money on, so I would prefer that they have just enough to do the necessary responsibilities of the federal government as laid out in the Constitution. Remember most states have income taxes, but individual states cannot start wars with other countries. By limiting the money, and therefore power of the federal government, they would have to focus on defending America rather than using force and intervention overseas to expand American interests globally. And that is why the Constitution was designed to give states more power than the federal government, so that a militarized society with a strong central government would be prevented.

America would be just as powerful as a whole with 50 powerful states. The difference would be that the states would have individual interests which do not always match up, so all the money, and therefore power, would not be in the same place. Certainly 50 strong militias would be able to repel an invasion, but unlikely to agree that sending troops to the middle east would be beneficial for each individual state. Even if ten states thought they could get some benefit from intervening overseas, they would need the resources of the rest of the states to do it. They would be unable to force other states into doing something not in their best interest. Today, all 50 states have decisions made for them in Washington D.C., so if a foreign intervention could benefit a few, they just need to know the right people to make it happen. Sometimes people criticize decentralized power because “nothing can ever get done”. Sometimes that is the point.

By spreading out the power that the federal government currently has, it would be harder to bring together enough people who agree that war or overseas intervention is the solution to problems. If the money was not so easy for the government to get, instead of the President sending troops here and there, he would have to appeal to congress for the funding because the financial decisions made at the federal level would have to be prioritized. If there is no “infinite” source of federal money–the income tax–than there would be no infinite lending to support deficits, and therefore prioritization at the federal level would be a necessity. And since any reduction in legitimate things that the federal government funds could be replaced by the state governments, there is really no down side to a scenario where the federal government answers to the states, instead of the federal government dictating to the states. The original Constitution had it right with respect to who should hold the power; the states should be more powerful than the federal government.

War is Peace

big-brotherIt is always amusing, and unsettling, when politicians mimic what happens in books that were written to warn the populace about such politicians. A California democrat has introduced a bill in the house to create a new department complete with a new cabinet position: The Department of Peace-building. Being a fan of George Orwell’s 1984, I could not help but think of Oceania’s Ministry of Peace. In the novel about a dystopian society, the Ministry of Peace is in charge of keeping Oceania in a perpetual state of war, in order to use up the excess resources of society, therefore keeping people in a constant state of struggle, which leaves them little time to learn about the true nature of their government.

The Ministry must maintain a delicate balance in its wars against East Asia and Eurasia (depending on the day) in order not to tip the scales in favor of one country, or against another. War is fought in a no-man’s-land Africa, with Oceania propaganda reporting constant battle victories, all attributed to their fearless leader, Big Brother. The name of the department makes sense in the novel, because citizens have been taught doublethink. Doublethink is the practice of holding and whole-heartedly believing two contradictory ideas, such as war is peace, which allows the department to be called the Ministry of Peace.

If the bill is passed, and the U.S. gets its very own Department of Peace-building, it will be tasked with developing policies and strategies to prevent violence, according to the Daily Caller article.

The department would work with other agencies, sharing peace findings and assisting the international community in peace endeavors, including fostering conflict resolution initiatives.

The department would also create a four-year Peace Academy in the model of the military service academies, and offer grants and incentives for peacebuilding initiatives. The Secretary will also encourage Americans to observe and celebrate “Peace Days.”

I think this department could easily set the stage for the Department of Defense to team up with the Department of Peace-building to keep us in a perpetual state of war. Currently it takes a bit of doublethink to believe that the offense strategies of our military provide us with a good defense, so we are already moving in an Orwellian direction. The only problem is that people are growing tired with our perpetual wars in the middle east, so what better way to keep the wars going than with a Department of Peace-building. This way, once the American populous becomes tired with war, we can send in the peace-builders who will employ their peace strategies. These strategies will involve disarmament, which will set the stage for the next strongman to come in and wield his power. At this point we are ready to pull back the peace-builders, and send in the defenders. Rinse and repeat, and we will be in perpetual war.

Don’t believe my analysis? Check out the consequences of peace-building before WWII, according to Thomas Sowell.

An even larger array of the intellectual elite in the 1930s opposed the efforts of Western democracies to respond to Hitler’s massive military buildup with offsetting military defense buildups to deter Hitler or to defend themselves if deterrence failed.

“Disarmament” was the mantra of the day among the intelligentsia, often garnished with the suggestion that the Western democracies should “set an example” for other nations — as if Nazi Germany or imperial Japan was likely to follow their example.

As a result of this failure to prepare for war, American pilots needlessly died in the beginning stages of WWII, because of inferior aircraft. Likewise many more American tanks were destroyed, and their inhabitants killed, than German tanks, because Germany had built up their armory, while the peace-building policies of America meant scaling back their arms. In the age of tanks and planes, this meant more soldiers losing their lives. In the age of Nuclear bombs, it could mean whole cities being destroyed before a counter attack can halt the carnage.

This could be achieved if the Department of Defense and Department of Peace-building work lockstep to ensure that the scales are not tipped to one side by too much. If we build up too much military might, we risk winning the wars outright, and there will be no other way to destroy the nations resources in order to keep the proles from rising. If we completely disarm ourselves, then other countries will take over, and the people in power will have lost it. The best plan for the leaders of America to emulate Oceania, is to keep one side fighting for war, and the other fighting against it. Never too weak, never too strong. Never victory, never defeat.

“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” -George Orwell, 1984