San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, October 17, 2014

Another Reason To Not Vote

Yesterday I argued that you should not participate in the state sacrament of voting because doing so only increases the tremendous burden of additional laws and regulations placed upon the subjects of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  Maybe you found yourself saying, "So what?  I like laws.  Especially when those laws take money from other people and give it to me and causes I support."  That is what I want to write about today.  Another reason to avoid the election process at all costs is that participation in the process by the act of voting makes you an accessory to theft.  In other words, it is an immoral action.  How, you ask?  Allow me to explain.
It was Mencken who is credited with saying that, "every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods."  He understood the process perfectly.  In the old days (maybe, I don't actually know if elections ever really were simply a way to appoint statesmen who would endeavor to protect the minority interests of the citizens of the United States) an election did not have to involve the transfer of money from one group to another.  Before the United States turned into a democracy and became the Socialist Democracy of Amerika it was possible you could have voted and not engaged in a sinful activity.  That is true no longer.  A democracy is, by definition, a process of voting whereby the majority forces its will on the minority.  The quaint old notion that we are a constitutional republic where the life, liberty and property of the minority is protected by elected representatives was lost when the constitution was abolished.  No, today elections are simply the way to determine who gets what share of the loot.
The federal government of the SDA reported 3.9 trillion dollars in revenue last fiscal year.  2.2 trillion dollars were extracted from the citizens via the income tax.  Another 1.1 trillion was removed from your control via the various payroll taxes that finance Social Security and Medicare.  Finally, another 600 billion dollars was "borrowed."  If you understand the process by which the federal government borrows money you realize that means the Federal Reserve and the Treasury conspired together to create an additional 600 billion counterfeit dollars which were then spent by the federal government.  3.9 trillion dollars is a lot of money.  It buys a lot of votes. It pays off a lot of political promises.  And, most importantly, it is what every voter is attempting to get a piece of.
Do you listen to the political ads?  Every single politician informs us that we should vote for him because he will give us something for nothing if we do.  Nobody ever campaigns on the promise of cutting government spending.  Nobody ever says she will, if elected, abolish one piece of the federal budget.  There is a simply reason for that.  We are a democracy.  One does not get elected by not spending money.  One becomes a career politician by out-promising your competitor and delivering more of the booty to those who vote for you.  Let me give you an example.
The senate race in Colorado is between Udall and Gardner.  It has garnered national attention and you might have heard about the two candidates.  Udall is the Democrat and the incumbent.  There is a vicious war of words going on between the two camps as millions of dollars of campaign money has been flowing into the state to try and influence the outcome of the election.  When not slinging mud at each other and trying to dig up dirt in each other's personal histories, the candidates actually talk about what they will give to those who vote for them.  Udall loves to talk about how he will take money from evil, profit-seeking corporations and give it to women to pay for abortions.  Women who have had abortions love him.  He also promises to take money from the upper 49% of the income population (which pays all of the federal income taxes in this country) and give it to various women's groups.  You should see how misty-eyed the women in the commercials become when they talk about their personal savior.
Gardner is the Republican, although you would never know that from what he promises to give to those who vote for him.  He has created what he calls the "four corners plan."  His plan will deliver money to those who vote for him that has first been taken from the minority of people who make the most money in this sad land.  He believes, among other things, that the upper 49% should be forced to pay for gifts to Colorado flood victims, a new form of socialized medicine to replace Obamacare, an expansion of Social Security and Medicare, subsidies to wind energy companies as well as a huge expansion of wind turbines in Colorado, increased funding for the National Energy Research Lab, continued subsidies for college students via student loans and grants, subsidies to companies that are involved in the process of water storage and transportation and increased funding to save endangered species.  If you just look at what Cory wants to do you would be convinced he is a Democrat.  He isn't.  He is a new Republican, which is pretty much the same thing as a Democrat. The Republicans have figured out that they have to steal from the minority of highest earning citizens of this country and then promise to deliver that money to liberal causes in order to become career politicians.  So that is what they do.
This blog post is not to criticize politicians.  All politicians are immoral people who lie, cheat and steal as a part of their day to day existence.  This blog is about your part in the process of stealing from the high income minority in this envy filled land.  Anytime you vote for a candidate that promises to take income from the upper 49% and give it to someone else you become an accessory to that act of thievery.  It is pretty simple actually.  You would never go over to your neighbor's house with a gun and take 30% of his annual income in order to fund a wind turbine in Colorado but you accomplish the exact same goal when you vote for a career politician who promises to the dirty work for you.  Just because the politician says it is legal does not make it moral.  Just because you have hired a career politician to steal for you do not mean you are not guilty of theft yourself. 
So when it comes time to vote in a couple of weeks and you are making your decision about who to vote for based upon what he has promised to do for you just remember that the money he is using to support you and your causes has first been stolen from someone else who can't protect himself from the voting process because he is in the minority.  In the absence of the coercive power of government you would never see a nickel of your neighbor's money.  But thanks to the power of the majority to tax the minority into oblivion you can get something for nothing.  But at what a price?

Thursday, October 16, 2014

One Reason Not To Vote

The mid-term elections are coming.  Had you noticed?  Of course I jest.  Anyone who is exposed to any media source knows that we have been suffering under a barrage of political advertisements for many months now.  We will have no relief until the election is over.  Perhaps you are looking forward to exercising your right as a citizen of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika to vote next month.  I think you need to reconsider your position.  I think you need to at least think about not voting next month, or ever again for that matter.  Let me tell you why.
As a non-voter I am frequently the subject of scorn and ridicule.  Well, that is not entirely true.  Since I tell very few people about my voting habits very few people scorn and ridicule me.  But whenever I do inform someone that I do not vote I am immediately subjected to scorn and ridicule.  The most frequent arguments I hear in opposition to my position to not vote are these:  1)  If you do not vote you have no right to criticize the next career politician who is elected to office, 2) You need to vote even if you believe your choice is for the lesser of two evils, 3) You have a patriotic duty to vote.  Let's consider these straw men for a moment.
Where does it say that I can't criticize a career politician if I have not first voted for him?  Just asking that question shows how stupid it is.  The simple fact that I decided to not vote for a particular career politician is already an act of criticism.  Why should my first act of criticism preclude me from ever being able to issue another?  The entire argument is childish nonsense.
Where does it say that I should be compelled to engage in an evil act?  If we grant, and many people do, that the act of voting is the act of making a choice between two evil people, then it necessarily follows that the act of voting will be evil.  There is no way around that truth.  Why should I be compelled to do something that is evil?  Anyone who has ever used the lesser evil argument needs to immediately stop engaging in evil actions and cease voting.
Where does it say that a patriot must vote?  The answer to that question, of course, is related to the definition of patriot.  If patriot is defined as a lover of the state, then voting is a moral requirement.  If patriotism is defined as a lover of government, then voting is a moral requirement.  However, if patriotism is defined as a lover of country, then sometimes (and I believe we are in one of those times today) the act of not voting is clearly the only patriotic action to be taken.
Despite what I have written above, today's blog post is not about countering arguments why I should be compelled to vote.  It is about one reason why I should not vote.  And neither should you, by the way.  Let me make my case.
The greater part of the entire body of electoral contests that take place during the election cycle are in regards to assigning office holders to the executive and judicial branches of government.  Certainly the amount of money spent on political advertisements is in direct regards to offices that are either executive or legislative in nature.  As I listen to the advertisements by the fools, idiots and power mongers who are seeking those offices I hear one common refrain.  That refrain is something along the lines of, "elect me and I will do this for you."  I am also told that the opponent for that office should not be elected because he will do things that I do not want him to do.  In other words, I am expected to vote for someone in order to get them to do something for me.
Now what is it that members of the executive and legislative branches do for me?  I think we all know the answer to that question.  The career politicians who staff the executive and legislative branches of government in the SDA are responsible to make and execute new laws.  Once those laws are made and executed a bevy of bureaucracies takes those laws and creates an exponentially larger body of regulations to enforce them.  Allow me to ask you a simple question.  Do you believe we do not have enough laws and regulations in this country?
Amazingly, some people will answer that question in the affirmative.  Some people believe we need more laws and more regulations.  The one presupposition that these people have in common is the ridiculous belief that the creation of a law and a regulation will inevitably result in spontaneous moral behavior.  Let me give you an example.  I was listening to a radio interview with the mayor of Denver immediately after that football player was seen knocking out his future wife in an elevator.  The mayor proudly announced that he had passed a law making that type of abuse illegal in Denver and that is why it does not happen around here.  The interviewer was efflusive in his praise for the wisdom and foresight of the mayor in crafting a law to make sure that domestic abuse does not occur in Denver.   I wondered which planet they both live on.
For those of us who are not worshipers of the state and governmental power, it is abundantly obvious that creating a law does not solve a problem.  In the real world it is the case that the creation of one law inevitably creates two unintended circumstances each of which now requires a new law to fix.  The process never stops.  That explains how we have come to be the most regulated country in the history of the universe.  That explains how we have lost all of our rights that were originally granted in the Bill of Rights.  That explains how we have all become slaves to the state.  And that explains why those who love government believe that making more and more laws is the way to salvation.
One very good reason to not vote is that by engaging in the political process you become an accessory to increased regulation.  By sending people to positions in the executive and legislative branches with a mandate to create more laws and regulations to govern us you become a part of the problem.  We will never reduce the burden of law and regulation on us if we continue to send people to office with the mandate to create more laws and regulations.  And that is one good reason why you should not vote.

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Militant Lesbian Mayor Attacks Houston Pastors

If you think I am making this stuff  up, go here.  Annise Parker is mayor of Houston.  She is a militant lesbian who hates the God of the Bible and Christians.  She is using her office to intimidate and harass Christian ministers into not speaking out about the sin of homosexuality.  She is attempting to fine and arrest Houston area pastors for preaching sermons against homosexuality.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says this, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  Which part of that statement does Mayor Parker not understand?
Let's get a couple of things clear up front.  It is unconstitutional to create a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion.  It is also unconstitutional to create a law that prohibits freedom of speech, especially when that speech is related to matters of religion.  Houston's militant lesbian mayor and her lackey city council passed a non-discrimination ordinance that has become known nationally as the "bathroom bill" because it allows transvestites and other sexual perverts to choose to use either the men's or women's public bathrooms.  The bill is designed to give gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals and transvestites special protection under the law.  By asserting that it is illegal to "discriminate" against these perverts, the Houston career politicians have given themselves a legal right to fine and imprison anyone who speaks out against sexual perversion.
Shall we admit it?  The First Amendment was abolished years ago.  When career politicians created what were then known as "free speech zones" near the places where they were delivering their propaganda to the ignorant masses who worship them and their power, the slippery slope was established to allow the forfeiture of many different group's First Amendment rights.  I remember the first time I witnessed a free speech zone.  It was a fenced off area in a cold and lonely part of a highway over a mountain pass.  Apparently some people who still believe in the Bill of Rights were saying things and distributing literature at that location that offended some career politician.  Next thing I knew they were being herded into their pens where they could not offend anyone.  It was only a matter of time until Christians were attacked.  That time has arrived.
If you didn't click through to the link carrying the original story let me show you the first paragraph from that report.  It says, "The city of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor. And those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court."  Punishment for being in contempt of court is either a fine, imprisonment or both.  Under the direction of this militant lesbian mayor five Houston pastors are now legally required to turn over their sermons to the mayor and the city council for their approval.  If the mayor finds any acts of discrimination in those sermons, and she most certainly will, those five pastors are in big trouble.
Mayor Parker is a heterophobe.  That is, she is a lesbian who is pathologically terrified of heterosexuals.  As a heterophobe she is using her office to try and suppress the free speech of heterosexuals.  She is discriminating against them in the most serious fashion, despite the fact her ordinance requires that people not be discriminated against for their sexual orientation.  She is in violation of her own ordinance and should be removed from  office.  She is a sexual orientation bigot of the worst possible sort.  She is everything she accuses the Christian pastors of being.  She is a hypocrite and a fool.  And, unless she repents of her powerful hatred for the God of the Bible, she is a reprobate bound for the Lake of Fire.
I have wondered how long it would take before Christians in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika were to be subjected to laws about "hate speech".  Hate speech, if you do not know, is anything that is distinctively Christian in nature that opposes the immoral system of the world.  When a Christian speaks out in favor of spanking, it is hate speech.  When a Christian speaks out against foreign wars of aggression, it is hate speech.  When a Christian declares that the Law of God should be the law of the land, it is hate speech.  When a Christian declares all other gods to be idols, it is hate speech.  And now, when a Christian conveys God's opinion about homosexuals to the world (ie. that homosexuality is immoral and worthy of the death penalty), it is hate speech.  It does not matter that the alleged hate speech is found in the texts of the Bible.  It does not matter that the alleged hate speech is consistent with historic Christian doctrine as it has been taught and accepted for thousands of years.  All that matters is that some sissy homosexual has had her feelings hurt because she had to hear someone tell her she is wrong.
I never cease to be amazed at how thin skinned these heterophobes are.  Go here and here and here if you want to read more.  They can say and do anything they want but if a Christian so much as looks at them with a jaundiced eye it is a federal offense.  What a bunch of whiners.  If their moral position and intellectual arguments for the propriety of homosexual behavior are so strong, why do they need the protection of government and the suppression of all arguments against their position?  If militant lesbians like the mayor of Houston are so morally superior to the rest of us, why are they incapable, like squealing little infants, of standing up and defending themselves against the allegedly impotent biblical arguments we are advancing?  Simply put, how can Christian ministers be such a threat to the well being of militant homosexuals if we all know the Christians are wrong?
The answer to that question, of course, is that we do not all know that the biblical position on lesbianism is wrong.  In fact, just the opposite is the truth.  Everyone, despite various levels of denial, knows for an absolute fact that homosexual behavior is sinful.  The mayor of Houston is screaming that truth from the rafters of the city council every time she calls for the head of another Christian pastor who has the audacity to speak biblical truth.  Get used to these assaults upon the First Amendment rights of Christians.  There are two classes in this country that you are allowed to legally persecute, Christians and smokers.  There will be more to come. 

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Jean Tirole Is An Idiot And Nobel Prize Winner

Here is the lead paragraph from a story in Bloomberg News today, "Frenchman Jean Tirole of the University of Toulouse won the 2014 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on how governments can better regulate industries from banking to telecommunications."  Let's consider Jean's $1.1 million award for a moment, shall we?
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, in announcing the award, stated that "Regulators can use Tirole's research to encourage powerful companies to become more productive, while preventing them from harming competitors and customers."  Isn't that special!  Do you see any of the massively stupid presuppositions under girding this insipid drivel?  Allow me to point out a couple of them.
First of all, who crowned the "regulators" as the supreme rulers of the universe?  Notice how government bureaucrats are somehow immune from the many foibles of sinful human behavior and simply assumed to be omniscient and morally perfect.  Equipped with Tirole's "research" they are able to use their moral perfections to overcome the greed of profit seeking businessmen.  Praise be to the government!  Praise be to the career politicians!  Praise be to the career bureaucrats!  What would we do without them?
Second, why do "powerful companies" need to be encouraged by government to be "more productive"?  In fact, what does any of that mean?  A company becomes powerful because it is highly efficient at meeting the needs of the consuming public.  That is the very definition of productivity.  How can a government regulator improve upon that?  That process is never described.  It is simply assumed that profit-seeking businesses are somehow unproductive if they are successful and government regulations are needed to improve their productivity.
The assertion that powerful and productive profit-seeking businesses somehow harm competitors and consumers in their pursuit of serving the desires of the public is nothing but pure socialism. The idea that a larger body of government regulations will make it possible for businesses to serve the consumers better is downright dumb.  Regulations increase the cost of doing business and make it more difficult for a company to provide the goods and services consumers demand at a price they are willing to pay for.  Increased regulation never increases efficiency.  Never.  Increased regulation increases the size of government and the number of government jobs available for the morally perfect among us but they never aid or help the economy or the consumer in any way. 
In Tirole's kinder and gentler business environment brought about by his wonderful new regulations he envisions productive companies that do no harm to their competitors.  What an idiot.  The entire point of being in business is to out compete the competition.  Consumers are a demanding group. They want what they want and they want it now.  They want what they want for a price they are willing to pay.  If my company does not provide that good or service right now for a price the consumer is willing to pay he will jump ship and buy it from another company.  It is logically and economically necessary that I will be financially harmed when my competitor out competes me.  And that is a good thing, despite what Tirole believes.  By showing me that I cannot produce the goods and services I am producing as efficiently as my competitor can I am freed up to take my investment capital and put it to work somewhere else.  Tirole's idea that the business world is a non-competitive environment in which everyone wins reminds me of my son's soccer team where everyone gets a ribbon for superior play, despite having lost every game during the season.
Tore Elllingsen, chairman of the judging committee that awarded the prize to Tirole, said this about Tirole's work, "The question is what sort of regulation and competition policies do we want to put in place so that large and mighty firms will act in society's best interest."  It is fitting that this award is being given by Sweden, a land utterly crippled by socialism and incapable of a free market thought to save its collective economic soul.  Let's consider his comments for a moment.
Who is the "we" in the above quote?  I don't want to put any government regulations on the free market.  Many of the people I know agree with me.  So who is the "we" that so adamantly wants to regulate?  The answer, of course, is omniscient and beneficent career politicians and government bureaucrats.  They are all so much better than we are, and smarter too!  They will know what to do.  Just trust them.
Furthermore, what is "society's best interest?"  Ellingsen and Tirole both believe that profit seeking businesses have a moral obligation to act in society's best interest, whatever that means.  I don't believe that.  I believe that a corporation has the moral obligation to act in the best interest of its shareholders.  That means the corporation should be constantly working to improve the goods and services it provides to the consumer.  The more successful it is at providing goods and services to the consumer at a price the consumer is willing to pay the more it will realize profits and benefit the shareholders.  That is the moral responsibility of a company.
I am a member of "society" and I have lots of interests. Strangely any time bureaucrats and career politicians start talking about society's best interest I find myself on the outside looking in.  I never agree with what they say, and yet I am a member of that society.  How can this be?  Could it be that society's best interest is really nothing more than the best interest of the career politicians who rule us?  Me thinks so.
When interviewed after the award was announced, Tirole said that, "strong regulations are needed but regulation needs to be light enough not to kill entrepreneurship, yet strong enough to prevent banks from gambling with taxpayer money."   There is so much wrong with that statement I hardly know where to begin with my stinging criticism.  Still, I will try.
According to Tirole, the best model for the modern business world is that of the golden goose.  The job of government is to steal as many golden eggs as possible before the goose gives up and stops producing.  The underlying presupposition in all of this is that government activity is supreme and business activity is expected to support the government.  Note also that Tirole simply assumes that if some Swede wakes up one day and takes a job with the government he is morally pure.  On the other hand, if that same Swede wakes up one day and takes a job with a profit seeking company, he is morally impure.  By definition all government work is pure and all business work is evil.  What an idiot.
The phrase about banks "gambling with taxpayer money" is an interesting one.  No bank that I am aware of takes in deposits from the public treasury.  Banks seek deposits from the free market, not the government.  Where does this "taxpayer money" come from that allegedly finds its way into the banks?  Tirole does not say.  It just magically appears there.  Of course we all know the answer to that question.  The taxpayer money that ends up in banks finds its way there only after career politicians vote to put it there after some sort of economic crisis, that they created, has erupted.  Tirole manages to get away with blaming the patient for his disease while, at the same time, making the virus appear noble.  What a scam.
Tirole deserves his award.  He is the perfect man for the times.  He will be extraordinarily popular with career politicians around the world because he tells them exactly what they want to hear about themselves.  Now our rulers can use the idiotic ravings of a Noble Prize winner to justify their tyranny.  Wonderful.

Monday, October 13, 2014

Coming Out Of Retirement

Michael Jordan did it.  George Foreman did it.  Bret Favre did it. And now, the Mad Welshman is going to do it.  Yes, I am coming out of retirement.  I know that, unlike Jordan, Foreman and Favre, nobody cares.  Still I felt a powerful need to announce my return to this blog.  The reason I first started writing my blog was to reduce my blood pressure.  I believe writing this blog is far more effective than any drug treatment for high blood pressure.  Since ceasing daily postings to this blog my blood pressure has skyrocketed.  For the sake of my health I have decided to return.
It was almost four months ago that I decided to stop the daily postings to this blog.  Since then a lot of really stupid things have happened.  Career politicians have continued to do and say amazingly stupid things.  The media that plays willing lapdog to the career politicians have continued to fan the flames of fear and trepidation, doing their level best to convince the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika that we must be afraid, very afraid.  More constitutional rights have been lost and more immoral behaviors have been enshrined as moral.  Practically every day I have had to fight the urge to sit down at the computer terminal and type up a blog post.  Well, I am going to fight that urge no longer.  It does not matter that my daily readership to this blog is declining.  I must do it for my own health, if nothing else.
So, starting tomorrow, I will be back.  I will endeavor to do a post to this blog each weekday that I am in town.  Since I take frequent vacations there will be entire weeks where nothing will be posted.  Still, my goal is to put up five quality blog posts a week as often as possible.  You can determine if what I write is of good quality or not.  And, as always, you are free to ignore everything I write.  Although I like receiving comments from those who read these posts I know from experience that most people are not interested in making a comment.  I like to tell myself that readers are afraid to comment on my posts because my logic is so air-tight they have nothing to say but, "you are right."  Of course I know that isn't true.  I suspect most folks don't comment either because they already agree with me or they believe me to be too dense to understand a critical comment from them.  That is probably true but I am too dense to know what to do about it.
We are in the middle of mid-term elections and I am being subjected to a daily barrage of political ads on the television.  They anger me beyond belief.  They are filled with nothing but lies.  They treat me like I am an intellectual infant, incapable of doing anything but emoting in response to their false messages.  Expect some comments on those ads.  We are also in the middle of a stock market crash (it is not really a crash but that is what the financial gurus who write the columns about the stock market call it) that has ever investor afraid, really afraid.  I will show how stupid that idea is as well.  And, as usual, we are surrounded by a never ending stream of socialist and Keynesian economic propaganda designed to make us willing servants to the government.  I will expose that garbage as well.  See you tomorrow.