As I write this fat check to Uncle Sam, I've always wondered... What if elections were held immediately after we paid our tax bill every year?
What if taxes weren't withheld from everyone's paychecks every year and they had to come up with thousands each April? What if my tax bill was itemized every year? Rapper Cardi B famously noted that when she gives millions to private charities, she gets emails showing the schools she's helping to build and the kids she's assisting, why doesn't Uncle Sam? What if your tax bills were itemized? Of the XXX you owe: $251 goes to Egypt for foreign aid $14 goes for treadmills for shrimp $149 goes to govermental printing costs that could be avoided by changing font $110 goes to Air Force One for unofficial vacations $.48 on an unused monkey house $29 fraudulent tax reimbursements to prisoners $410 on 'improper payments' or fraudulent payments due to lack of financial controls $1.89 on a 3-week long FAA party $42 NSA and other gov't use of World of Warcraft as collections platform $4 U.S. Census commercial that appeared during the Super Bowl $.22 On a laundry-folding robot $17 On a study about baby names (and "The astounding conclusion: Popular names are popular with parents.") Do you think people would be more active in holding politicians/bureaucracy accountable?Who cares more about your money? You or the Government? Of course it's you. Looking at the list above, would you better invest that money in your life or are you glad it went to countries where they openly burn our flag? 50 Examples of Government Waste The six categories of wasteful and unnecessary spending are:
See also, 13 Silliest Uses of Taxpayer Money
Since you made it this far down the post, I'll let you in on a little secret. This 4th of July, we're going live with a new website www.Liberty.wiki. We're building out the infrastructure at the moment and learning wiki markup from scratch! Please bookmark it and, once up and running, contribute of your own free will, with an article or two on something that you're an expert at! Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot
0 Comments
Perspective is everything and facts are important in the gun debate. Unfortunately, after tragedy strikes, facts are cast aside in favor of emotionally-based pleas that 'We Must Do Something!'
The graphs below are provided with little to no commentary as it is unnecessary.
1. There are more guns than ever in the United States and there are now more guns than people.
2. Americans can more freely carry guns on them now than ever before.
3. But with this increase in guns, accidental fatalities from firearms has continued to decrease...
4. Additionally, homicides from firearms has also decreased...
5. Suicides aren't on the rise, either. Rates among men and women have been statistically similar going back multiple generations.
6. As suicides go, "Suicide by gun" has actually decreased as well.
7. After each tragedy, our politicians politick, our late night comedians weep, and we leap to social media to re-hack all of our side's talking points. But these tragedies don't actually change anyone's mind.
8-9. So what HAS changed?
10. Gun Regulation doesn't reduce homicides, quite the opposite.
So, why then the push for more regulation? Most who push for "common sense gun reform" aren't even aware that most of the regulation they push for has already been enacted into law...
Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot
The video below is making the rounds on social media and claims that...
"Russian meddling is the biggest attack on our democracy since 9-11. Here's how it works and what we can do about it." The problem with over-simplified videos like this is that they are able to embed a lot of spin when they apply broad-stroke simplification to a complex issue. The listener doesn't have the time to evaluate each simplified declaration as true or false before moving on to the next talking point. This video is no different. If you’ve ever gotten into a heated argument in the comments section of Facebook, chances are you’ve come across a paid Russian troll. Really? Half my Facebook friends are Russian trolls since we get in heated arguments all the time?
In reality, Facebook has been extremely cooperative in the handing over of data to prosecute the ‘Russian trolls’. If Russian trolls were the problem, do not doubt that Facebook would have provided extensive, accurate data that would support this claim. The media would kill for confirmation of that narrative, yet no supporting data has surfaced.
Instead, the larger picture could never be more clear. The goalposts surrounding the Trump-Russia Collusion Narrative Have Moved Again
Looking at the 2016 election, it's interesting to note that their main goal wasn't exactly to help Donald Trump win the Presidency. Russia's bigger goal has always been to create chaos and distrust within American society. Wait what? See below for an inextensive, quick first few pages of Google results pushing the narrative of Collusion, Collusion, Collusion before the Mueller Indictment and the VP for Facebook Ad destroyed that narrative!
It also, doesn't stop them from lathering their base with hopes of collusion which could still occur. Why hasn't the collusion message dissipated?
Why isn't this widely reported as a scarlet letter of failure on mainstream media outlets that pushed the narrative so hard for so long? First off, it's a complex story and can't be discussed perfectly in 3 minute soundbites that steer cable TV news segments.
While there are allegations that it was actually the Democrats who colluded with the Russians, there is no concise and perfectly packaged smoking gun that proves so. Hillary didn't directly write a check to the Russians for dirt on Trump. Instead:
Without a direct smoking gun, the only outlets that will push the narrative of direct Democratic collusion with the Russians turns out to be Fox News and Alex Jones. The real crime isn't discussed by any Media outlets, though.
A dossier which was paid for by one political party was being used by the government to spy on that candidate's opponent*. This precedent is dangerous especially as we see many within the FBI organization were acting in a blatantly partisan manner while on the taxpayer's dime.
If I was Carter Page, I'd be looking into a civil suit against the government's wrongful intrusion into my 4th Amendment Rights by politically motivated federal law enforcement officials within the FBI. Who has influenced the public more? The Russians or the Media pushing a fake narrative?
I have to re-stress this point, there's not yet any evidence to prove any 'collusion' narrative. Indeed, after more than 18 months, the Comey-Mueller FBI investigations of alleged Trump collusion with Russia have come up bone dry. I stand by my previous remarks:
If evidence exists of collusion between Russia and Trump to rig or hack the election, let's get the proof out there and hang him for it. Instead, the readily apparent media goal is to pack television shows, social media timelines and article titles with half-truth reporting in order to muddy the picture. If you don't really take the time to look into the "Trump-Russia Collusion" narrative, you'll likely just assume it true based on the volume of reporting thrown in your face daily. What's increasingly apparent is that the Robert Mueller investigation, which was kickstarted in 2016 by the Trump Dossier, has turned into a continuation of the Democrats' failed 2016 political campaign against Trump, with vague insinuations of misconduct or outright criminality but never any proof. Now that the goalposts have shifted, I urge you to take every opportunity to point out that we were lied to and the media should have zero credibility going forward. How do we go back and tell every person who read the previous list of articles, or quickly scrolled past them in their social media timeline that they were patently false and created with an agenda in mind? We can't. Those people went on living their lives unable to hold an adult conversation on the topic because they've been effectively influenced. We're never able to right the wrong that has taken place. This is the real crime. Hundreds of millions of Americans read headlines or quickly browsed articles and walked away from that interaction knowing that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election.
You speak to them around the water fountain and they can't explain why, they've seen no evidence, but it must be true. They are naive to believe the media is pure in it's intentions. They are ignorant to the fact that the media could be complicit in pushing a narrative.
For more, go read Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator by by Ryan Holiday marketed as 'the cult classic that predicted the rise of fake news—revised and updated for the post-Trump, post-Gawker age.' You'll quickly understand that the media is no longer the unofficial fourth branch of government which attempts to check government power with truth. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot
When it comes to U.S. foreign policy challenges, four countries really stand above the rest: Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China. While we stumble from one dysfunctional episode to the next here at home and create leadership vacuums by retreating further from the global stage, those countries are consolidating their power--and their challenges to American interests.
(1) Iran is now more powerful than it has been since it was known as Persia. No longer balanced by Iraq, Iran is able to project influence all the way to--and through--the Levant. Iranian influence pervades the Iraqi government and society and is paramount in Syria and Lebanon. They're engaged in a successful proxy war against Saudi Arabia in Yemen, pose a severe threat to Israel via Hezbollah, and are now even looking east to a place where American troops are directly involved: Yes, Iran now appears to be providing support to the Taliban in Afghanistan.
(2) North Korea is closer than ever--perhaps mere months away--to having a nuclear warhead that is small enough to fit onto the tip of a ballistic missile and to having the delivery system to carry that warhead all the way to the U.S. This is the first time that a country has both directly threatened to use a nuclear weapon against the U.S. and been so close to having the capability to do so. Though not certain, it is not unreasonable to think that North Korea could complete its nuclear deterrent before 2019.
(3) Emboldened by having successfully interfered in our 2016 elections (and having not been punished for doing so) and preparing to do so again in this year's elections, Russia is rapidly consolidating a new sphere of influence that extends into the Middle East, Central Asia, and Eastern Europe in ways not seen since the days of the Soviet Union. Like Iran (and Pakistan), Russia also appears to now be providing assistance to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Its military involvement in Ukraine is no closer to a resolution than it was years ago. Now Russian President Vladimir Putin appears set to be overwhelmingly reelected in an election that the Kremlin would never allow him to lose in the first place. He is, in effect, a lifetime autocrat; carefully managed elections are allowed in order to maintain a veneer of "democracy." Make no mistake though: should a majority of Russian voters ever desire to remove Putin through the ballot box, they would not be allowed to do so.
(4) The greatest strategic challenge of all comes from China, however. They pose the greatest threat to our allies, to our economy (jobs, etc.), to global norms, and so on, and they are one of the few remaining expansionist major powers. While we've had our heads turned, Xi Jinping has gone from merely the next Chinese President to the first Chinese dictator in decades. Like Putin, he is an autocrat. Unlike Putin, he is increasingly unconcerned with maintaining any veneer of democratic processes. China's rubber-stamp National People's Congress has formalized Xi's status as a lifetime ruler, and all indications are that one of Xi's top priorities will be to use his and China's growing power to ratchet up challenges to U.S. interests. These aren't abstract interests either: they directly affect American "Main Streets'" jobs and security. The days when China spoke often of its "peaceful" rise appear to be behind us.
These are some of the toughest problems we face, but they are far from the only problems we face. The global commons is incredibly complex and increasingly hostile and volatile. This is not the time to disengage from allies and/or to fall into total dysfunction at home.
We should get our house in order at home so that we can present a strong, united front. Then we should robustly re-engage with our allies abroad. Shrinking in the face of growing challenges isn't strong leadership. It isn't, in fact, leadership at all. The days when the U.S. could simply retreat into itself and prosper as before are over. We no longer have the preponderance of power that we once did and, like everyone else, are partially dependent on other countries in order to maintain our security and our standard of living. It's time for us to rise to the challenge. Editor's Note: I'm a Liberty Lover that believes we shouldn't be actively countering foreign powers that aren't currently undermining our national security or liberty. What are your thoughts on the geopolitical mandate that requires the United States to continually slay dragons to ensure we stay on top? Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot In the wake of the tragic school shooting in Parkland, FL, I've been thinking a lot about the issue of guns in this country, which is really, in some ways, unique. I'd like to say something first to conservatives and then to liberals. For ConservativesIt's time to take our positions in this argument to the "next level." So many of us relegate ourselves to grossly oversimplified clichés and conspiracies that range from misleading to wrong to simply unhelpful. They don't actually do anything to further healthy debate. For example, how many times have we or someone around us said something like, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people"? There's a kernel of truth to this--but only a kernel. That's why it's misleading. Kernels of truth don't bring us closer to solutions. There are logical fallacies with all of these clichés too. For instance, to the extent that guns don't kill people, nuclear bombs don't either. As with guns, nuclear bombs don't harm anyone until people decide to use them. Should this then be an argument that all 325 million Americans should have their own nuclear arsenals? Of course not. There's more to it than these little clichés indicate, so stop undercutting our own arguments by tossing these soundbites around. Frankly, it's simpleminded to begin and end your argument with an overworked cliché. Another common one: "Guns are the private citizen's fundamental protection from an overbearing government." Saying this makes you immediately sound as though you have no credibility to the very people you're trying to convince. Practically, the government kills FAR fewer Americans than private citizens kill. More often than not, the government--via the intelligence community, law enforcement, the military, etc.--is in the business of saving lives, not taking them. There's also a stone cold practical reality here: When the Second Amendment was written, the arms that the citizens owned were the same ones that the government owned. When you joined the military, you may well have simply grabbed your own musket and headed off to fight. In case we've failed to notice two centuries of changes, things are a little different now. If the government decided to come for you today, you wouldn't be facing muskets. The balance of power of weaponry between government and citizenry has changed dramatically--in the favor of the government. Guns no longer offer us protection from the government. No matter how many rifles, shotguns, pistols, or AR-15's you own, you'd be powerless against tanks, heavy armor, missiles, jets, 50-caliber armor-piercing machine guns, and various types of chain guns that can lay down over 80 pieces of lead every single second in your direction. Your best bet would simply be to lay down your guns and surrender. So, seriously, let's drop this impractical, conspiratorial argument. The days when it applied have come and gone. (Besides, considering all the murders and terrorism that take place today, there are probably more important threats to protect ourselves from than a federal government that kills almost no one, so let's stop defeating ourselves by repeating this conspiracy theory.)
Finally, we call ourselves "strict constructionists"--meaning that we see ourselves as the side that literally interprets the constitution, relative to the liberals who take all sorts of liberties with it.
Let's look at that through the lens of our prior nuclear weapons example. The Second Amendment simply says that we have the right to keep and bear "arms." It doesn't define that term, however, and never mentions "guns," which are just one type of arm. Therein lies the difficulty in always strictly applying something written in the 18th Century to events in the 21st Century. Most of us conservatives agree that private citizens should not be able to own nuclear weapons--or cruise missiles or any other arms like these. How many of you have a confrontational relationship with your neighbors but would still be perfectly happy with their having nuclear bombs, cruise missiles, and tanks sitting in their backyard pointed at your house? I didn't think so. We also agree that people who've committed mass murder with a gun shouldn't be able to buy anymore guns. (Yes, one mass murder each is probably enough, right?)
Wait though: In agreeing to prevent private ownership of nuclear weapons and to prevent mass murderers from buying anymore guns, we're taking a less-than-strict interpretation of the Second Amendment. It simply says "arms," not guns.
It also says that our right "shall not be infringed"; it doesn't say "shall not be infringed UNLESS..." So, by default, we're already not strictly interpreting the Second Amendment. It's intellectually dishonest to say that restricting gun ownership in any way is a violation of the Second Amendment but that restrictions on nuclear bombs, felons, children, etc. aren't. Let's be honest about that: It's our interpretation. It isn't an objective fact. The truth of the matter is that we have no idea how people like George Washington would have reacted to nuclear bombs, mass shootings of children in schools, etc. We can have a more effective place in this debate if we begin by being honest with each other and with ourselves. Where does this leave us? Frankly, it probably leaves us with the reality that some sort of restrictions are justified and, regardless of justification, are coming. That should be clear: both at the state and federal levels, restrictions in some form or fashion are coming. If we scratch and fight against ALL reforms, then all we're doing is simply locking ourselves out of having any influence in the discussion since public opinion has turned so decisively against us. Policymakers are going to start responding to that change in opinion. If we drop our clichés and shaky, convenient Second Amendment arguments, then we could earn ourselves a seat at the table in these debates and have real impact on the types of reforms that are eventually enacted. For Liberals
Get off your moral high horses. I mean, seriously, what's wrong with you?
The current gun debate highlights very well why so many conservatives have given up trying to discuss difficult issues with you: you turn every issue into both an indictment and a conviction of someone's morals. Christian opposition to gay marriage? Immoral and homophobic. Republican support for corporate tax cuts? Immoral and corrupt. GOP efforts to reduce the cost of our welfare system? Immoral and cold. Conservative concerns about abortions--especially certain types of abortions? Immoral and sexist. Anyone who disagrees with you about anything at all? Immoral and unethical. (I mean, there couldn't possibly be any other reasons for any of these positions, could there?) The same goes for Second Amendment rights. Those who support them? Immoral--murderers even. The NRA? They're murderers. (Because of course they are.) Marco Rubio? He's a murderer too. (Didn't you know?) Anyone who receives NRA donations? You guessed it: murderers. (Because the cash that most of us use is harmless, but NRA cash is that rare kind that kills people. New cliché for us: "People don't kill people; NRA cash kills people." Quick! Someone put that on a sign and go march around outside in the street with it!) How can you expect anyone to engage you in a healthy discussion when you're asking them to wade through a bunch of water that you've already poisoned? If they make it through, then they still have to yell up at you on top of your ivory tower. That's no way to have a productive discussion. Stop it. When you encounter clichés and conspiracies from the Right, you have an opportunity to listen, to try to understand, and to address them factually as I've just done. Instead, you ridicule and belittle. It's time for some real soul-searching on this. As I said above, I agree that something must be done. Should we take away everyone's guns? Absolutely not. That is indisputably unconstitutional, and even if the government ordered us to turn them over, I and many others would refuse. Are there some reasonable, less Draconian restrictions that may be helpful though? Yes, absolutely. Be intellectually honest about it though: The cold, hard reality is that none of the restrictions under discussion are likely to have much impact on shootings. --Enact a "waiting period" after gun purchases? (Most people who shoot another person have had guns for months or even years. A waiting period won't make much difference.) --Ban bump stocks? (Sure, but how many shootings involve the use of bump stocks? Las Vegas? Which others? Not many. It also isn't clear how much difference not having a bump stock would have made in Las Vegas. The shooter would have fired fewer rounds for sure, but his fire would also have been more accurate.) --Prevent mentally ill people from buying guns? (I agree it should be done, but let's be honest: How many shooters have mental illness diagnoses? Very few.) --Limit gun buying only to those over the age of 21? (Most shooters are over 21. Las Vegas anyone?) --Ban semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15. (Sure, but how many shootings involve semi-automatic weapons? Most don't.) That's really where we are. There are 350 million guns in this country, so restrictions like those can really only nip around the edges. They can't fundamentally change the reality here. There's this mythical idea floating around that if we just "ban guns," then we'll all live happily ever after, perhaps even while holding hands. Some things aren't very clear, but this is: That wouldn't solve the problem. Sure, it might help some, but it won't solve the problem completely or even come close. One unfortunate reality of going too far with restrictions can be seen in your (liberals') own arguments on another issue: legalizing certain drugs. The argument goes that legalizing these drugs undercuts black markets for drugs and increases government tax revenue. That can be applied to guns as well: banning them would lead to the creation of a healthy black market for guns and would deprive governments of some revenue. So the issue really is complicated. Let's stop pretending that it's as simple as just defeating conservatives and getting some sort of severe restrictions on gun ownership. It wouldn't work out quite like that. For everyone
Our focus right now is on "supply side" (gun) solutions. Too many guns? Too few? Too many restrictions? Too few? This is understandable. Guns drive ratings, so the media has much incentive to harp on them. The Second Amendment mentions arms (which we limit to "guns" today), so it makes sense to talk about guns. These mass murderers are using guns, so, again, let's talk about guns, right? Wrong. I do believe that some restrictions on gun ownership are overdue. We should expand background checks. We should bar mentally ill people from buying guns. We should ban bump stocks. That said, those reforms would have only a very, very small impact. Is it worth it? Of course. I'd never tell a parent that his murdered child was only one and that one wasn't worth saving. All are worth saving. Something feels missing though. Is saving just a few the best we can do? Well, if we're only focused on "guns," then, yes, it is. Saving only a few is the best we can hope for. Our focus should be on the other side: defense. Another cliché goes like this: "The best defense is a good offense." In real life, that usually isn't true. That best defense in most things in life is simply good defense. (Gosh, we humans love our clichés though! It's hard to let go of them.) The truth of the matter is that regardless of what we do with guns, schools will remain extremely soft, high visibility, undefended targets for people who have a bone to pick with society. An AR-15 isn't necessary to wreak havoc. A calm person with a revolver could walk into a school with six bullets and leave six young bodies in his wake. It would be small comfort to those parents to say, "Yes, but you should feel better. We banned AR-15's, so thankfully only yours and five others were killed. It could have been more. Pat me on the back now please." That wouldn't go over well, but that's, in effect, what some the proposals mean. My proposal Yes, enact reasonable restrictions on gun ownership like those I just mentioned. Don't kid yourselves though: It's time to focus on defense. The only way to stop these things on school campuses is to defend school campuses. The way to prevent a soft target from being attacked is to make it no longer a soft target. This is, quite honestly, very basic. I don't know the right way to handle this, but I do know that this is where we should be looking. You could arm a certain proportion of teachers. You could hire contracted security officers. You could have local police and sheriff's departments pick up security duty at schools. You could set up trained volunteer security units (like trained volunteer fire departments). You could send all kids, teachers, coaches, etc. through metal detectors before they're allowed onto campuses. There are any number of proposals with varying costs and other pros and cons. Some may not work at all. Some may work quite well. Some may not be feasible, while others certainly are. This is were we have to look though. We have to make schools harder targets. Is it sad that we need to do this? Of course it is, but it would be even sadder to refuse to do this either for ideological reasons or simply because we don't think we ought to have to "in this country." The fact of the matter is that this country has a problem with gun violence, and the best way to combat it is to make common targets much more difficult to hit. No matter the restrictions placed on gun ownership, if someone really wants to carry out a shooting at a school, they'll be able to do so--unless they can't. They'll be able to do so unless schools' defenses are such that it's just far too difficult. We can't completely keep dangerous people from getting guns, so we have to make sure that when--yes, when--they do, they're not able to attack our schools with them. That's where real solutions lie. No, it won't win ideological fights. No, it won't drive media ratings. It will save lives though. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot Second federal judge blocks move to end DACA; Judicial Activism against an Unconstitutional Law2/14/2018 Only in America could the mainstream media call those who want strengthened borders "Racists" and "Xenophobes" while those who are here illegally are referred to as "Dreamers". If you aren't real sure why the courts keep blocking the Trump Administration's attempts to shut down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, let me catch you up. The entire DACA debate in a nutshell - It's not that the courts believe the Trump Administration can'tend the program. The courts believe the administration does have this right, this ability. The courts just want to make sure there's a good reason behind it. As if, the executive branch has to all-of-a-sudden provide justification in form of a White Paper, hand-deliver this to the judicial branch and wait around for permission to be given. Just as the Framer's intended. No, this is not one of those 'checks and balances' we learned about in 5th grade Civics class. "Defendants indisputably can end the DACA program," Garaufis wrote, referring to the Trump administration. "The question before the court is thus not whether defendants could end the DACA program, but whether they offered legally adequate reasons for doing so. Based on its review of the record before it, the court concludes that defendants have not done so." The judge goes on to cite a "recurring, redundant drumbeat of anti-Latino commentary". To be fair, Trump definitely capitalized on the drug problem, the gang problem and national headlines of illegals killing Americans (after being deported many times). This is politics. This is a candidate firing up a base. Now, if you read a lot of CNN, you might think that "We're getting a lot of drug dealers and gang members from Mexico; They're not sending us their best and brightest" is anti-Latino. It's not. "Today's ruling shows that courts across the country agree that Trump's termination of DACA was not just immoral, but unlawful as well," said Karen Tumlin of the National Immigration Law Center. So the Justice System is also the Morality Police, now? Oh yeah, Federalist Papers Essay #82 regarding the authority of the judicial systems. I'll have to refresh myself up on the morality section. When you have judges who legislate morality from the bench, your judicial system is screwed. They are supposed to be partial only to the Constitution. The Justice Department said it maintains that the administration acted "within its lawful authority" in deciding to end DACA and will "vigorously defend this position." Just to recap, the government has very few purposes in our life. It's purpose is to defend Life, Liberty, and Property. If the President decides that droves of foreign nationals, who don't share our western ideals of liberty and freedom, are a threat to "Life, Liberty, and Property", then it's incumbent upon his oath of office to make that decision. This week the Supreme Court is set to meet behind closed doors to discuss whether to take up the Trump administration's appeal of the related case. Spoiler Alert: They Won't. The Supreme Court is very selective on which cases it takes. And when it does take a case of national importance, you will be sure that the legal argument examined will be some tiny nuance within the case, not the hallmark of the case itself. With obstructionist judges who act upon partisan lines, the future is bleak for the Trump Administration. If you feel very passionate about DACA, let's rally support and create the law, legally. Last September, Economic Freedom of the World was released, which was sort of like Christmas for wonks who follow international economic policy. I eagerly combed through that report, which (predictably) had Hong Kong and Singapore as the top two jurisdictions. I was glad to see that the United States climbed to #11. The good news is that America had dropped as low as #18, so we’ve been improving the past few years. The bad news is that the U.S. used to be a top-5 country in the 1980s and 1990s. But let’s set aside America’s economic ranking and deal with a different question. I’m frequently asked why European nations with big welfare states still seem like nice places. My answer is that they are nice places. Yes, they get terrible scores on fiscal policy, but they tend to be very pro-market in areas like trade, monetary policy, regulation, and rule of law. So they almost always rank in the top-third for economic freedom. To be sure, many European nations face demographic challenges and that may mean Greek-style crisis at some point. But that’s true of many developing nations as well. The Humans Freedom Index. Moreover, there’s more to life than economics. Most European nations also are nice places because they are civilized and tolerant. For instance, check out the newly released Human Freedom Index, which measures both economic liberty and personal liberty. As you can see, Switzerland is ranked #1 and Europe is home to 12 of the top 16 nations. And when you check out nations at the bottom, you won’t find a single European country. Instead, you find nations like Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Indeed, the lowest-ranked Western European country is Greece, which is ranked #60 and just missed being in the top-third of countries. Having now engaged in the unusual experience of defending Europe, let’s take a quick look at the score for the United States. As you can see, America’s #17 ranking is a function of our position for economic freedom (#11) and our position for personal freedom (#24). For what it’s worth, America’s worst score is for “civil justice,” which basically measures rule of law. It’s embarrassing that we’re weak in that category, but not overly surprising. Anyhow, here’s how the U.S. score has changed over time. Let’s close with a few random observations. Other nations also improved, not just the United States. Among advanced nations, Singapore jumped 16 spots and is now tied for #18. There were also double-digit increases for Suriname (up 14 spots, to #56), Cambodia (up 16 spots, to #58), and Botswana (up 22 spots, to #63). The biggest increase was Swaziland, which jumped 25 spots to #91, though it’s worth pointing out that it’s easier to make big jumps for nations with lower initial rankings. Now let’s look at nations moving in the wrong direction. Among developed nations, Canada dropped 7 spots to #11. Still a very good score, but a very bad trend. It’s also unfortunate to see Poland drop 10 spots, to #32. Looking at developing nations, Brunei Darussalam plummeted an astounding 52 spots, down to #115, followed by Tajikistan, which fell 46 spots to #118. Brazil is also worth highlighting, since it plunged 23 spots to #120. P.S. I don’t know if Moldova, Ukraine, and Russia count as European countries or Asian nations, but they all rank in the bottom half. In any event, they’re not Western European nations. P.P.S. I mentioned last year that Switzerland was the only nation to be in the top 10 for both economic freedom and personal freedom. In the latest rankings, New Zealand also achieves that high honor. Reprinted from International Liberty. Daniel J. MitchellDaniel J. Mitchell is a Washington-based economist who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review. This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
I can't help it: I just have to say something about the "Tide Pod Challenge."
Look at all of those lawmakers prancing around in front of the cameras proclaiming that Proctor & Gamble (the company that makes Tide) is at fault because their Pods look too much like candy. Seriously? Think about that for a moment... (1) We literally have lawmakers who think that the government should be involved in pressuring or even forcing companies to make their laundry detergents look a certain way. Kim Jong-un and Josef Stalin would be proud.
(2) This is part of the blame-corporate-America-first crowd. Only people who live at the very top of the proverbial ivory tower--not just in it but on the very top floor--could believe that the Tide Pod Challenge is linked to a corporation's desire for profit. "Hey, marketing guys, I have a great idea for profit: How can we convince people to eat our laundry detergent so as to sell a few more of these?" Ridiculous. (Plus, since when did "profit" become a dirty word in this country? In an attempt to profit, I may found my own company one day and see no need to apologize for that. Even so, the hypocrisy of rich politicians who profit handsomely from their offices while criticizing others' market-based profits isn't lost on me.)
(3) We have lawmakers who seem to be trying to score political points from the deaths of people who've eaten detergent. (4) The implications of what these lawmakers are saying is really preposterous when you think about it. By default, they're arguing that some seemingly normal people who are in their teens and even early 20's cannot help eating poisons if those poisons look like candy. I mean, seriously, how can we expect teens to know that they shouldn't eat soap when that soap just looks so darn delicious? ("Hey, honey, before we head out on vacation, I just want to make sure that you put the antifreeze where the dog can't get into it--oh, and that you put the Tide Pods where little Johnny can't get into them.") I must consider myself fortunate, I suppose; I don't know any otherwise-normal/healthy 20-year-old people who gobble up everything that's colorful out of a mistaken belief that they are getting a yummy piece of candy. One wonders how these people survived exposure to Crayons in kindergarten. If this describes you, then you have bigger problems and should probably refer to the image above. I mean, seriously, don't eat soap. I'm pretty sure that that isn't rocket science and am equally sure that, in any event, people who eat detergent "candy" don't have future careers in rocket science--nor should they. The last thing an astronaut needs to hear before blasting off into space is that his mission controller was the 2017 runner-up in the Tide Pod Challenge. Houston, we have a problem, and it isn't the way our detergent looks. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
What is the purpose of Government?
Imagine a time before kings, presidents, or prime ministers, before the formation of society and civilization. This is what philosophers call a "state of nature". In this thought experiment, people lived freely, without rules or formal laws. But what exactly does this state look like? For 17th century philosopher Thomas Hobbes the state of nature is a war of all against all. Mankind’s basic nature is fear, insecurity, death, and turmoil. And from this constant terror, People decided to surrender some basic rights to a sovereign entity, or what he called The Leviathan. If one was, say, fed up with the theft of his potions, the state could pass laws to protect his goods or help him receive some sort of reparation. This protection is important for a number of reasons, but the most significant is that laws, and their enforcement, keep constant anxiety at bay. For 18th century Swiss-born french philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the state of nature is rather different than that conceived by Hobbes. Rousseau sees natural man as independent, solitary, and peaceful. Rousseau thought people were much better off without government. With the creation of agriculture, private property, and the division of labor, however, came inequalities. Unequal access to resources created tension, enmity, and envy. People started to become aware of their limited material situation and lack of upward mobility. They became aware of their 'unfreedom'. This led Rousseau to claim that “Man is born free and is everywhere in chains.” While both philosophers describe the state of nature as a sort of beastly existence absent any morality, they disagree on some fundamentals. Rousseau sees the Hobbesian model as leading to despotism, in which people have no choice but to turn to a third party to secure basic needs. Consequently, they do not freely choose their leaders. Rousseau argues that rather than choosing leaders out of fear, people choose to give up some power and rights, at least so that citizens can be equal. Rousseau dictated that decisions ought to be made for the sake of everyone, instead of a few. This would require that people follow a rule of law that they would follow on their own anyway. For Rousseau, people are better without government because society means unfreedom and oppression. Whether out of fear or for the sake of equality, the consent to be ruled is called the social contract. So listeners I ask, “Who has it right?” Do people need to be kept in line or should they remain free to do as they wish? Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
Here's something to consider regarding the U.S. economy.
The pace of job creation slowed dramatically in Obama's last year, and it slowed even more during Trump's first year. (I point this out to show that job creation generally has very little to do with a President's policies even though all Presidents will take credit for gains and blame someone else for losses.) These days, we are constantly bombarded with one politician or another claiming that his or her new policies, regulations, or tax plans will "create new jobs." Why should we renegotiate trade deals? "Create new jobs." Why should we cut taxes? "Create new jobs." And on and on.
While creating new jobs isn't a bad thing, of course, a lack of jobs also isn't a problem facing our economy right now. There are more than 5 million unfilled jobs in our economy--employers literally cannot fill them all. The problem, therefore, isn't too few jobs; rather, the problem is too few workers. There simply are not enough participants in our labor force to fill even those jobs that are currently available.
Cutting tax rates and reducing regulatory burdens are important (though spending should be cut as well in order to keep these things from piling up more debt for us), but these will not solve the labor force problem. What can we do then? One avenue is to enact policies that increase the labor force participation rate. This is frequently cited as one justification for the need to reform our welfare system. Indeed, our welfare system does need to be reformed: it is too expensive and does not do enough to encourage its recipients to reenter the workforce. That said, increasing the labor force participation rate is a short-term solution--a Band-Aid. Why? Because that means increasing the number of workers out of the population that currently exists. Therein lies the real problem: regardless of our labor force participation rate, the absolute size of our potential labor force is now shrinking. In order for the labor market to continue growing organically, each American woman must have MORE than 2.1 children. That hasn't been the case in this country in a long time, and as of today, each American woman has an average of only 1.5 children. That means that our organic labor force is shrinking--more and more older people and fewer and fewer younger people.
For a while now, the overall size of our labor force has been growing because of immigration. Americans no longer have enough babies to keep it growing, so we've used immigration to grow. Now immigration is quickly falling off as well, so not only will our labor force resume its overall shrinking, but our population as a whole will begin to shrink. This will mean slower economic growth (perhaps even stagnation eventually), lower government revenue, more debt (all else equal), and standards of living that either don't rise or that rise only very slowly.
If we want to lower our debt, increase our standard of living, increase the rate of economic growth, and increase government revenue without increasing tax rates, then we must ensure that our labor force continues to grow. (This is especially true when one considers how much larger China and India's labor forces are than our own, something that could give them a considerable advantage over us over the long term.) Thus, there really are only two types of policies that we should be pursuing to this end: those that encourage families to have more babies and those that encourage more immigration.* *Caveat: "More immigration" doesn't mean no-holds-barred, beat-down-the-borders immigration. It means tailoring immigration quotas annually to the needs of our economy and issuing visas based on these needs. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
|
Search the
libertyLOL Archives: Archives
December 2020
Search and Shop on Amazon.com!
Tom Wood's Liberty Classroom"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day...."
At Liberty Classroom, you can learn real U.S. history, Western civilization, and free-market economics from professors you can trust. Short on time? No problem. You can learn in your car. Find out more! |