All or Nothing

I have a friend, a native Texan, who is a pretty staunch republican. He's lived in Australia for the past few years. He really likes living in Australia, but he often rants against the socialist nature of the country. I've always found his cognitive dissonance somewhat amusing, and informative. He likes the people of Australia, he likes the country, he likes the way things are run, but he stumbles when he sees the taxes he pays, and when he hears the word "socialist" applied to the government. Now this is not a man who is hurting for money - he makes a lot of it. Even after the socialist taxes he pays, he makes a lot more money than most of the people that I know. So the taxes may look ugly on the pay stub, but he's not having any trouble paying the bills.

Unemployment in Australia is comparable to the US. Poverty levels in Australia are lower than they are in the US (though one does have to account for the different systems of determining "poverty"). By and large, people live well and happily in Australia. And the country does have a working safety net for those who are poor. So what is wrong with socialism? It seems to not be an undue burden for the wealthy, and it provides much needed services for the poor.

Tax rates in Australia range from 18% - 45%. Tax rates in the US range from 15% - 35%. So, ya, we're a little lower here. Rush Limbaugh actually claimed that residents of New York City pay more taxes than Europeans. (See Story #7 on this link). So the question is, if we are going to pay all those taxes - taxes which turn out to be not dramatically lower than the "socialists", what are we getting in return?

The US is the wealthiest country in the world. So even with lower tax rates than some counties, the government must be pulling in much more tax revenue. But for all that revenue, we have only the weakest social safety net. We have absurd degrees of government involvement in private business and private lives. So the way I see it, we pay taxes at a socialist rate and we have big brother watching us. Those are the bad parts of socialism. What are the good parts of socialism? Free or cheap health care, employment security, unemployment benefits. The US is a lot weaker in those areas than those counties we call "socialist".

I would gladly do away with many of the "services" that the government offers us. But I propose that if we must suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous tax rates and government intervention, we should have the benefit of a comfortable safety net - or rather, a hammock, on which to rest.

If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

- Samuel Adams

Health Care

The thing that pisses me off on the medical debate is that the conservative side of the argument is, intentionally or not, disingenuous. If I may take some broad strokes here:

• The liberal argument is that the government should at least help out, and perhaps even take over the health care system.
• The conservative argument is that the free market is the best solution.

I am not really hip to a socialized medical system. But the problem with the conservative argument is that it implies that we have a free market system in health care (which we don't), or that their solution would restore a free market system to health care (which it won't). We have a highly regulated health care system. "Free market" means you can sell anything I want to buy, and I can buy anything that you want to sell. But I can't buy my medical care from you, unless the government has (though various agencies and extra-governmental bodies) "approved" you. It doesn't really matter how good or knowledgeable you are as a surgeon, nor how much I trust you - you cannot practice your craft without the government saying you have met their credentials.

Crazier still, the federal government (in defiance of the tenth amendment) has the notion that it has the right to decide what substances you can and cannot put in your body for medical purposes, nutritional purposes, or entertainment purposes. And even if we were to accept that contention, the federal government goes on to make stupid decisions about it. Alcohol (dangerous to both individual and society) is legal, yet marijuana (relatively safe to both individual and society) is illegal. Even when states provide a legitimate approval of the use of marijuana for medical purposes, the federal government inexplicably threatens to step in and arrest people for using it.

It pisses me off, not that conservatives claim that the free market is the best path to the best health care, but that they appear to be completely ignorant of the fact that the free market does not control the health care industry. We can all find anecdotal evidence that the socialized systems of health care in all the pinko countries are useless, and everybody dies. We can also find anecdotal evidence that the socialized systems of health care in all the pinko countries work wonderfully, and no one ever dies. Interestingly, I don't know when I've heard anything other than the anecdotal "Sue-Anne had to wait over 300 years for a heart transplant in Canada, so she came to the US", vs "Auntie Mae couldn't afford to refill it here, so she went to Canada to get a cheap refill on Uncle Joe's Viagra prescription". To whatever extent any of the anecdotal evidence applies to the general case, it really doesn't matter. Because the conservative argument is a philosophical, not a pragmatic argument. The conservative argument is that the free market is the best way to get the best medicine. But if they refuse to unshackle the health care industry from the zillions of crazy regulations about who can buy what service or medicine from whom, then they have no right to simultaneously refuse to help people who have to pay the ridiculous costs of health care that are kept high because (among other reasons) the government restricts free trade in the industry.

My position is that if the government is going to restrict free trade in health care, it should pay for it, too. Private medicine in a free market just might work. Socialized medicine just might work (and from what I've seen of it, it does work pretty well for the vast majority of cases in Europe, despite the problems that do arise). But when the government provides "protection" for the business of health care, then leaves it to private financing, something is quite wrong.

Three Little Pigs

The behavior of the market is simply the sum of the thousands or millions of individual decisions made by all the people playing the market. Were it not for the natural heard instinct of human beings, and the willingness to believe that the market actually means something, none of this would be of any consequence. To suggest that the market "should behave this way or that" is to buy into the idea that the market is anything more than a neighborhood of make believe, a game of monopoly.

The real wealth in this country, and anywhere in the world, is not in paper instruments issued by governments and central banks. It is not in silver and gold, which have only as much value as people assign to them. Real wealth is ingenuity, labour and natural resources - the raw materials required to feed, cloth, shelter, heal, and amuse human beings, the machinery of civilization.

Petty crooks steal money and goods which can be traded for money. Sophisticated crooks seize power over human beings and control over the machinery of civilization.

Ayn Rand famously said

If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose- because it contains all the others- the fact that they were the people who created the phrase "to make money." No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity- to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created.

Money was designed to simplify the process of trading goods. Money was a way of representing work done or goods produced. In fact, before money existed as such, everyone understood quite well the fact that "wealth has to be created". It was only with the invention of money that the understanding of "wealth" was lost. As the financial system has become more complex, money has become completely divorced from that which it represents. No work must be done, no goods must be produced in order to "make money" in the modern markets. Money itself is traded. If no work is done and no goods are produced, yet we continue to make money, our money is necessarily subject to the powers of inflation. We have postponed the inevitable outcome, the dramatic devaluation of the dollar, by moving it around so fast that it appears to be in many places at the same time. We have borrowed from ourselves, we have borrowed from other countries, and we have sold off assets to other countries, all in the effort of preventing the collapse of our currency and our economy.

We've built an economy out of nothing. We've build a house of straw. The big bad wolf is coming, and he's bringing his friends. It is time to let the banks and markets fall. Tear down the house of straw and build a house of brick on the firm foundation of the US Constitution and the greatness of its people.

When Chicken Little cries that the sky is falling, tell him to stop listening to the silly little pig who built a house of straw. It is only his straw house that is falling, and it shouldn't be our problem.

Rabbit Proof Fence

Last night I watched “Rabbit Proof Fence”, a movie about the systematic kidnapping by the Australian government of aboriginal children that occurred for an entire century – between 1869 and 1970. I remarked to my wife that it seemed WWII marked a change in western history, how could such an arrogant policy have continued through to 1970. My wife reminded me of the recent abduction of 460 children by the State of Texas for reasons that are not much different from the reasons that led to the “Stolen Generations” in Australia.

I know little of the details of what happened leading to CPS taking children from the FLDS compound. I don't condone behavior that is harmful to children. However, one of the concerns of CPS (Child Protective Services) was that there were nine girls aged 16-17 who were listed as “wives” in the groups records. According to Texas law, the minimum legal age for marriage is 14, with parental consent. While you and I might think 14 is crazy, that's what the law says. If the speed limit is 70mph, should you get a ticket for driving 70mph? If we consider marriage before 18 (or whatever age we choose) to be harmful to children, we should change the law, not abduct those who are complying with it.

Texas is a great state, much more respectful of personal freedom than many states are. An appeals court has ruled at least some of the children returned. CPS undoubtably think that they are doing the right thing. But it is the very meaning of freedom that people can make stupid decisions and suffer the consequences. Unless there is clear, sever and imminent danger, neither CPS nor any other agency or organization has any moral authority to take a child from its parent.

Raid on FLDS compound in Texas:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/052308dntexfldsappeal.1b22ef5f.html

Marriage Age Requirements:
http://law.jrank.org/pages/11840/Marriage-Age-Requirements.html

Stolen Generations in Australia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generation

More about Farmers

I want to tell you a little about a program that is being pushed by the Federal Government through the USDA. The program is called the National Animal Identification Program, or NAIS. A real quick summary of the program is this - every property on which roams one or more of any common farm animal should be registered with the government. Every animal on every registered premises will be registered with the government. Every time an animal is born, dies, enters or leaves a registered premises, it will be reported to the government.

This may not seem like a big deal to those who don't run a farm. But it doesn't take long to realize that this is indeed a big problem for a small farmer. Suddenly, a farmer has to worry not only about maintaining financial records of every animal he buys and sells (in order to properly report his income and expenses to the IRS), he also has to track the movements of the individual animals so NAIS knows what animals are on or off his property.

From a practical perspective, this is a major problem. Remember, a small farmer works outside with his animals, not in an office. But NAIS says he's got to add a load of new paperwork to his job to track the movement of his animals. As an example, let's say I have 100 head of cattle, and I need to reduce the herd to 75. I go out to my pastures and move the animals to sorting pens. I select 25 of them to go to the auction. However, these are living creatures that weigh 1000 lbs. Sorting them is not a science. I end up culling a few that I intended to keep and keeping a few I intended to cull. So now I bring them to the auction, sell them, and keep careful track of my receipts so I can tell the IRS how much money I made.

But wait - before I can take them off my property, I have to write down the "tracking code" of the animals that I sell, so I can tell NAIS that I've moved them off my premises. Ah, but I don't have any tracking codes, I just let the animals graze, and sell them when I am ready. No longer, my friend - I must implement a tracking code system, because I have to report the animals to the government. And since I have to be able to track the animals individually, I have to have equipment in place to mark the animals individually. So I have to buy and/or build some equipment for managing and marking (brand/tag/RFID) the animals so I can tell the government what I'm doing. Every time an animal is born, dies, enters or leaves my propery, I am supposed to tell the goverment within 24 hours.

Imagine it this way:

You are a computer programmer. Here's a new rule: Due to the danger of computer viruses, if you write software, you have to register any property on which you write programs with Homeland Security. So if you have a home office, and a vacation home in which you occasionally work, and your parents home and your in-laws home - they all need to be registered with DHS as "places where software is written". You don't have to register your computers, as long as they never connect to the internet. Any computer that connects to the internet must be registered. And you don't have to register any code that you write, unless it leaves your computer. If it goes from your computer to another computer, you have to report it. It doesn't matter if it is going from your computer to your friends computer, or your computer to a private customer's computer. The fact is, it is "commingling" with other computer and software, and we need to be able to track it. And imagine that this reporting requires resources that you don't have at your disposal. You work at your computer all day, but at the end of the day you have to go out to a field, find a horse, brand it with a message to the government that tells it about your activities for the day, and pay someone to haul it to the DHS information center. (Remember, farmers and ranchers work in fields and paddocks, not at desks).

But more important than the practical difficulty of the program is the philosophical problem. It flies in the face of any concept of freedom for a government to demand that free citizens report that level of detail of the goings on of their business. It is a practical problem indeed, but it is far worse that it is an infringement on the freedom of Americans.

Now here's the kicker - this is your food supply. This is just one of the many ways in which the government is forcing producers to comply with difficult, expensive, and ineffective regulations that dramatically impact what food you can buy. It is nearly impossible for small farmers who provide food for themselves, friends, and local markets to comply with this program. But it turns out that the whole program fits in just fine with the factory farming operations. It doesn't seem like too big an inference to suppose that the NAIS may have been designed for the purpose of helping agribusiness control the food supply, and ensuring that the food supply cannot be controlled by the consumers or small producers.

Oh, and another kicker - remember who your history books always tell you fought the revolution? Farmers. Can you imagine farmers fighting against "taxation without representation" only to be told that they would have to report to the government whenever they bought or sold an animal?

And one last kicker - I'd like you to note how a program like NAIS gets implemented. It is implemented through the USDA. The USDA was created by congress and has significant power to control our food supply without any laws being passed. In other words, your congress people can claim to have clean hands, while an agency that they authorize, fund, oversee, and endorse robs you of your freedom.

Here are some links to read up some more about this fascist program implemented by the government of "the freeest country in the world". Note that to be fair, I am including a link to the USDA site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Animal_Identification_System
http://nonais.org/
http://www.newswithviews.com/Hannes/doreen5.htm
http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/

Related stories:
http://www.alternet.org/story/82632/

Invitation To The Blues but I Will Rise Up

On the liberal side of America, we worry that freedom is in danger because the poor can't afford nice cars.

On the conservative side of America, we worry that freedom is in danger because the rich pay too much in taxes.

And I say freedom is in danger because a farmer can't sell milk to willing customers without permission from the government. And we the people don't do anything about it.

This blog is the beginning of my effort to renew the cry for freedom in America. I hope that I am able to find a more powerful and effective way to do so, but perhaps this little blog will make make some impact for now.

Here are some sites where you can read about the sorry plight of a free American being arrested for exercising his right to engage in open commerce with other free Americans. If you aren't outraged, as the saying goes, you aren't paying attention.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_11896.cfm
http://www.counterpunch.org/cohen04262008.html

And related:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1598525,00.html

Title of this post is taken from titles "Invitation to the Blues" by Tom Waits and "I Will Rise Up" by Lyle Lovett (two great songs by two great artists). I hope that if you at first get the blues, you eventually will rise up and do something about it.