San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, October 23, 2015

A Fishy Tale Of Government Waste

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, or NOAA, is a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars.  NOAA runs on a $5.5 billion budget and gives us such unnecessary things as the National Weather Service and the Marine Recreational Information Program.  I suspect you have heard of the NWS but, if you are like me, you have never heard of the MRIP.  Here is how NOAA describes the MRIP, "The Marine Recreational Information Program, or MRIP, is the way NOAA Fisheries counts and reports marine recreational catch and effort. Driven by data provided by anglers and captains, MRIP produces better information through better science and, equally important, increased transparency, accountability, and engagement.  NOAA Fisheries is entrusted with ensuring the long-term health of ocean fisheries and other marine life in federal waters. One of our most important jobs is working with both commercial and recreational fishermen to count what species are being caught, when, where, and how. This information is used to decide how many fish can be taken recreationally and commercially without negatively affecting the sustainability of individual fisheries. It also ensures appropriate measures are taken to recover fisheries in trouble."
Well there you have it.  The federal government is in the business of counting fish.  I was not aware of this fact but according to international law a sovereign nation has exclusive control of waters extending approximately 13 miles offshore and another region of limited control over the next 13 miles of offshore waters.  Then international law recognizes economic control by a sovereign nation over waters that stretch an additional 200 miles offshore.   So the federal government of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika has the legal right to "manage" the economic resources of whatever exists in the waters up to 230 miles off the coast of this country.  NOAA claims the authority to manage the fish that live in those waters and spends $5.5 billion dollars a year in part on "increasing transparency, accountability and engagement...without negatively affecting the sustainability of individual fisheries," whatever all of that nonsense means. 
A reader of this blog sent me an article about the operation of MRIP in Alabama.  As it turns out, the great state of Alabama also has a taxpayer financed program to count fish.  In particular, both the federal government and the state of Alabama are claiming to be counting the total number of red snapper that are caught in the economic zone off the shores of Alabama.  And therein lies the problem.  According to the report sent to me by the reader, "The final catch numbers for the 2015 Federal Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) again show a significant discrepancy with the numbers estimated by the State of Alabama Red Snapper Reporting Program. This is the second consecutive year that results from Alabama’s program and those of the federal MRIP program have been vastly different. Chris Blankenship, Director of the Alabama Marine Resources Division, said the Alabama program, known as Snapper Check, estimated the red snapper catch for the 2015 season at 1,045,042 pounds. NOAA Fisheries’ Federal MRIP estimated the red snapper landed in Alabama at 2,355,481 pounds."  Although I said I would not give him credit for the phrase, my source described this issue as a clear case of government in-e-fish-ency.  I could not agree more.
How can two different government bureaus, each established to measure the exact same thing, come to such widely divergent conclusions.  The margin of error between the two reports is  greater than 100%, making both of them totally useless.  How much money is being wasted, year after year, incorrectly counting the number of red snappers caught by Alabama fishermen?  And why does it matter how many red snapper are caught?  
The answer to the last question is easy.  Both the SDA and Alabama claim authority over the waters off the shores of Alabama.  They also claim the right to own and manage everything that exists in those waters.  That means that all of the fish swimming in those waters belong to one branch of government or another, or, as in this case, two branches of government.  Now what happens to things owned by the government?  You guessed it!  The tragedy of the commons.
The economic doctrine of the tragedy of the commons asserts that when everybody owns something nobody owns that thing.  When the government, claiming to represent the people, asserts ownership over a bunch of fish swimming in the sea those fish suddenly become the property of every citizen of the SDA.  But when something belongs to everyone it really belongs to nobody and something immediately takes place.  Everyone who has an interest in red snapper immediately goes out and tries to catch as many of them as possible.  Why do they do that?  Because everyone else is doing the same thing.  And why is everyone else doing the same thing?  Because nobody really owns the red snapper.  
This is when government bureaus are set up and government programs are established to manage the red snapper.  The goal is to avoid the tragedy of the commons and the depletion of the red snapper population in those waters.  But how can the government properly manage the fish population when it has no clue how many fish exist in those waters as well as no clue as to how many of those fish are being caught each year?  Answer, it can't.
The solution to the problem, now possible due to advances in technology, is to privatize the economic zone waters off the shores of Alabama.  Sell off plots of ocean to the highest bidders and allow the owners to manage the fish that swim there.  When fishermen have an ownership interest in the fish they suddenly develop a long term perspective and seek the manage the fish population to sustain profits for a very long period of time.  Let the fishermen figure out how many fish they want to catch and get the government out of the expensive business of counting fish, something it is clearly incapable of doing.

Thursday, October 22, 2015

Shocking News: A Non-Profit Goes Bankrupt!

The oxymoronic concept of a non-profit corporation has always mystified me.  Perhaps that is because I understand too much about economics for my own good.  If only I were more ignorant of economics I could join in with the happy throngs as they celebrate the concept and existence of not-for-profit corporations that allegedly serve the needs of all consumers without that evil and greedy profit motive ruining everything.  It seems to be a truism that profit seeking corporations have only their own interests at heart whereas not for profit corporations only care about those they are serving.  Let's consider that nonsense, and a real world example of it, for a while today.
A profit is the best evidence for a corporation that the needs of the consumer it is trying to reach are being met.  In the absence of coercion, a state of affairs most people are completely unfamiliar with in today's Socialist Democracy of Amerika, a consumer will only pay for something that he values more than the money he holds in his hand.  On the other side of the transaction, the producer will only sell something when he can sell his good for more than it cost him to produce it.  In other words, he values the money the consumer is willing to give him more than he values the good he has produced.  In a free market transaction both parties to the transaction are satisfied because each goes away form the transaction with what he was seeking.  In a free market transaction both parties are winners since the buyer has a good worth more than the money he held and the seller has money worth more to him than the good he produced.
Now it should be obvious to everyone, but it rarely is, that a producer of goods cannot long continue to produce goods if the process of doing so causes him to incur financial loses.  When a producer is forced to sell his goods for less than it costs him to produce them it is only a matter of time before he runs out of money.  When he runs out of money it will be impossible for him to produce anything and the good that he had been producing will disappear from the market.  In order to keep any particular good from disappearing from the market it is imperative that some company be capable of producing that good and selling it for a profit.
All that I have written thus far is simple common sense.  It is too bad common sense is so uncommon these days.  Socialists, by definition, hate the free market and voluntary exchanges between free people.  Socialists, by definition, hate profits and the greedy industrialists who garner them.  Socialists, by definition, love, adore and worship the government because the government is routinely involved in the process of forcing buyers and sellers to deal with each other outside of the economic universe of profits and loses.  Socialists love big government because big government creates monopolies that grant monopoly profits to other socialists, thus driving all of those who believe in freedom out of the marketplace.  In a word, socialists hate everyone but themselves whereas profit seeking businessmen seek to serve as many people as possible via voluntary exchanges.
It should be obvious that the idea of a non-profit corporation is nonsense.  How can a corporation ever determine if it is serving the public if it does not have the profit mechanism to give it the feedback necessary to respond to consumer demands?  By deliberately seeking to not earn a profit a business commits corporate suicide.  The decision to eschew profits essentially guarantees that the company will lose touch with its desired consumers and, given enough time, end up going bankrupt.  And that brings me to the topic of Colorado HealthOP.
According to the Denver Post, "Colorado HealthOP will shut down, leaving 83,000 members scrambling for insurance coverage and taxpayers on the hook for about $72 million in federal loans used to start and support the co-op....HealthOP is the seventh co-op in the nation to collapse.  Similar nonprofit insurers have failed in Kentucky, Louisiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Nevada, New York and Tennessee...."  I am shocked!  Imagine this situation....companies that set out to not realize profits are going bankrupt!  Who could have predicted this scenario?  Who could have guessed that 83,000 consumers would be left holding the dirty end of the stick when their health insurance co-op collapsed?  What do you think, will those 83,000 disgruntled consumers of health insurance policies demand that the free market be permitted to serve them?  Ha! Ha! Ha!  We all know the answer to that.  Those envy-filled socialists will clamor for another taxpayer financed government program to give them subsidized rates on their policies.  There is no way they will be willing to pay for their own health insurance when they can force the "rich," whoever they are, to pay it for them.
How did this bankruptcy come about?  The story continues, "Colorado HealthOP's financial health was rocked this month when the federal government said it would not make the full 'risk corridors' reimbursements promised by Obamacare to help insurers take on the sickest, most expensive members.  The risk corridors program is intended to limit how much money an insurer can lose or gain on policies sold through state health insurance exchanges.  The government will reimburse some losses but also expects plans that make money to pay into the program.  In 2014, insurers paid about $362 million into the program but asked for $2.87 billion to cover losses."   So let me get this straight.  One of the many giveaways in Obamacare was one that allowed nonprofit health insurance co-ops to be reimbursed with federal taxpayer dollars for the losses they suffer when they issue policies to people who are really sick.  The various co-ops around the country, desperately seeking to never make a profit, jumped at the chance for federal taxpayer financed subsidies (paid for by the top 49% of the income population by the way) and within one year they were a staggering two and a half billion dollars in the red.  Now Obamacare, to the surprise of no one, has declined to pay those subsidies and the co-ops are going belly up.  Who could have seen that one coming?  Quick!  Call for a federal investigation of this disaster!  Certainly there is some profit-seeking insurance company operating somewhere that can be blamed for what has happened.

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Two Examples Of Salvation By Government

The fact that most of the idolatrous people who populate this sinful country actively engage in State worship is a common theme in this blog.  People who worship the government are easy to recognize.  Whenever they perceive a problem to exist, and when there is usually no problem in the real world, they faithfully turn to political action first in order to solve the phantom problem.  Current examples of this type of worship are found in the alleged problems of the glass ceiling and income inequality.  But State worship involves much more than frenetic worshipful activity around the most popular big ticket issues.  It is a way of thinking that dominates all of life and sees the government as the source of all good.  It attributes to the government the ability to do things that only God Himself can do, if He wanted to.  Two examples of this sort of worship came across my desk yesterday and I would like to share them with you here today.
Colorado career politicians passed a law, Senate Bill 10-042, "based on the finding that exploitation of at-risk adults is an area of significant concern," according to a letter I received from a local banking institution.  Apparently the career politicians who rule over me in this state decided that certain people are not able to handle their financial affairs properly.  In particular, some people were being robbed by charlatans and other unscrupulous types.  Even more particular, the class of people that sometimes experiences this act of theft consists of folks over age 60.  So, since some people over age 60 occasionally had their financial resources stolen it was determined that a law needed to be created to help those folks who are now classified as being "at risk," whatever that means.
The "at risk" moniker is an interesting one.  There are several presuppositions behind it that serve as a perfect illustration of how government is worshiped in this idolatrous land.  Life is filled with risk.  Indeed, risk is an integral part of life and impossible, no matter how hard one might try, to eliminate.  I am faced with thousands of potential risks at every moment of every day.  Right now my aorta could explode.  Right now an asteroid could tear through my roof and crush me.  Right now I could fall out of my chair and break my hip.  Right now I could do something really stupid that would end up costing me money.  Why just this afternoon I dropped a bottle of wine in the parking lot of the liquor store as I was engaging in the amazingly simple act of getting into my car.  I guess I was at risk for dropping a bottle of wine.  Where were my government protectors when that happened?  Why is there no law mandating break-proof bottles for wine when the wine is being purchased by someone at risk of dropping them?  I think you get the point.
Government, and our elitist anointed rulers, believe that they can eliminate risks that cannot be eliminated.  Further, they believe that the mere creation of a new law will accomplish their goal of eliminating the risk and making us all safe.  Those who worship government can be identified by the fact they believe the government's lies.  The Colorado law mentioned above is a perfect example of this mindset.  The law allows bank customers to sign a form that is then given to the bank that allows all sorts of government agents free and unfettered access to the person's bank records, without probable cause that a crime has been committed and without notification of the account holder.  Ostensibly this is being done because the government is here to protect them from their own stupidity but it does not take a genius to realize that signing a paper to voluntarily relinquish my 4th Amendment rights to security in my papers and possessions is not a good idea.  But in this country filled with worshipers of civil government, it seems like a right splendid idea.  I wonder how many worshipers have signed up?
Astute readers will recognize that the federal authorities have had the right to invade our bank accounts for years.  The Bank Secrecy Act and the activities of the IRS have long ago pierced the shield allegedly provided by the 4th Amendment.  This new law in Colorado allows state, county and city authorities do do the same thing.  We can now worship anywhere in the country!
My second example of salvation by government is provided by US Representative Diana DeGette.  For those of you who do not know, Diana represents Denver in the SDA House.  Just think Nancy Pelosi of the Rocky Mountains and you will know all you need to know about Diana.  She wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post today in which she expressed her dismay at the fact that the newspaper did not endorse her "Tobacco to 21 Act" on the grounds that regulation of tobacco products should be done at the state, and not the federal, level.  Diana compares tobacco to alcohol and declares, "tobacco regulation is much more straightforward, with the FDA being the principal entity to address the public health problems that tobacco brings.  In the case of tobacco, where federal involvement is well established, leaving an important public health policy to the states makes no sense when a more direct approach is readily available with my federal bill."
Diana makes an interesting argument, if one can call it that.  She writes glowingly of how "federal policymakers threatened to cut off highway funds for states unless they raised the legal drinking age to 21, and over several years, this policy took effect nationally."  Apparently the deities like to fight among themselves for supreme authority.  As a member of the federal pantheon, Diana wants the lesser deities to toe the line and bow down to her.  She exults in the fact that she has the power to force the lesser deities to do what she wants them to, all in the name of the public good of course.  Diana's threat to cut off federal funding to states that do not conform to her new tobacco law is a perfect example of why the founding fathers of this country argued that the federal government had no power except that which had been delegated to it in the Constitution.  Since we live in a post-constitutional society, that safeguard no longer exists.
Most important to me is the way Diana concluded her letter.  She wrote, "If we act, we can prevent hundreds of thousands of unnecessary and premature deaths."  I don't know who the "we" she refers to happens to be.  Do you?  I know she has not consulted me about this proposed new law.  I also know she has not consulted with anyone that I know about her proposed new bill.  I wonder who makes up the "we" she writes about?  Regardless, if the saviors of the universe who make up the "we" decide to "act" the rest of us can be assured that hundreds of thousands of lives will be saved.
Read her concluding sentence again.  Diana really and truly believes that the mere writing of a new law giving the federal government the right to "regulate" tobacco use in this sad land will bring about a state of affairs in which hundreds of thousands of people who would have been dead will now be alive.  She really and truly believes that a piece of paper with words on it will save an enormous number of human lives.  She really and truly believes that the federal government has the ability to save lives.  Sadly, millions of the citizens of this land share her religious beliefs.   Sheeple, what is that if not adoration and worship?  Praised be the federal government, from whom all blessings flow.  Praised be given to the government from those of us who are down here below.  Praise the federal government above all the heavenly host.  Praise federal, state and local government for ever and ever, amen.

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Telling Others What To Do With Their Property

I do not believe anyone can disagree with the proposition that the Socialist Democracy of Amerika is a post-Christian society.  Neither do I believe anyone can disagree with the proposition that the SDA is a post-Constitutional society.  Nor can anyone disagree that the great majority of the citizens of this destructive and sad land are worshipers of civil government, seeing the civil government as the source of all power, all knowledge, all ability to do good, all comfort and all protection.  Furthermore, most folks believe that the way to share in some of the god-like power of the State is to become a participant in the process of democracy.  Once you can get a majority of those who participate in the political process to agree with you about something you are able to plunder your neighbor's property without any fear of punishment.
That introduction brings me to the topic of the day....historic preservation districts.  I am sure you are all familiar with what these things are.  Some do-gooder busybodies get the idea into their heads that someone else's home should be preserved forever as a historic monument to the past.  City councils approve laws creating historic preservation districts which essentially make the declaration that any home within that particular geo-political boundary is now the property of the government, to do with it whatever it pleases.  This activity is justified by career politicians and people who have no concept of how to mind their own business as necessary to protect "our historic buildings."  How those buildings went from belonging to an individual to belonging to the collective is never explained.  Nor is it ever explained why "we" should suddenly have the right to own someone else's personal property.
The Anderson house is a case in point.  Go here for the story.  The Anderson house is a privately owned home in downtown Denver that a group of politically active people with connections to Denver city government has decided should belong to them.  The link above takes you to their propaganda page on which they list the three reasons why they should be legally permitted to steal the home of a private citizen.  Let's consider them, shall we?
The first reason given for forcibly confiscating the real property of another citizen is that "the Anderson House is a reminder of the Denver and state’s culture and heritage."  I wonder who made that decision?  Apparently some fellow who lived in the home in the past gained some notoriety because he got himself involved in a fistfight and ended up shooting someone.  My goodness, if that is sufficient cause to declare a home to be a "reminder of Denver's culture and heritage," as the thieves are trying to tell us, then why is every other home in that part of the city not also being stolen?  There are hundreds of homes in that area right now that are riddled with bullet holes from drive-by shootings.  Fistfights break out in front yards every night.  Why not just declare the entire area a historic preservation district and throw all the gang members out of their shanties?  The answer to that question is best determined by following the tried and true maxim to follow the money.
The second reason given for stealing a man's real property is, "the Anderson House’s significance will lead to financial gain for the owner."  How kind and generous of these crooks to inform the person they are robbing that their act of robbery will result in significant "financial gain" for him.  Could it be any more obvious that the people attempting to use the law to steal this man's house are trying to absolve themselves for the sin of theft?  They know what they are doing is wrong so they try to convince themselves and others that their behavior is really moral because their victim will make some money on the deal.  I really love this touch and think it should be applied to life in general.  Imagine walking around the neighborhood where the Anderson house is at night.  Before long you will either be lying upon the ground, unconscious, because you were a victim of the "knockout game" or you will be accosted by some gun wielding thug who will inform you that stealing your money is financially good for you.  All you have to do is trust the people who are assaulting you since they always know what is best for you.
The petition to put this home under the dreaded historic preservation rules goes on to say that, "residents of Jefferson Park are asking the property owner to preserve his home for present and future generations and to sell the property to a developer interested in preserving the rich history and character of his historic Queen Anne style home instead of to a developer one who plans its demolition."  Please answer one question for me.  Why is this anyone's business but the owner of the home?  Who cares what the other residents of the area think?  I would like to have all of the people on my block paint their homes hot pink.  If I can get enough people together and convince a career politician to create a special district for my street I can get my way.  Isn't socialistic democracy grand?  I wonder....do all the residents of Jefferson Park agree with this strong-arm tactic, as the article suggests, or are they using "residents" in the same way "we" or "our" is always used?  I bet many of the homeowner's fellow residents want to leave the poor fellow alone.
The final reason given for using the coercive power of government to steal a man's home is, "Demolition of the Anderson House is an irreversible demolition of our history."  First of all, it is not a demolition of my history.  I have no idea who the "our" is in that statement.  I also suspect that it is not a demolition of the history of most of the folks who live in Jefferson Park, unless they were alive when that fistfight and shootout took place.  Furthermore, what does it mean to demolish history?  How can history be demolished?  And if history can be demolished, why shouldn't it be?  I know for a fact that I would love to demolish a huge part of my history.  Then I would be able to get a loan, walk down the streets without having people come up to me and yell "pervert!" and generally be a happier person.  I think the demolition of history is a good thing, don't you?
I have another simple question for those people who are using the hegemonic power of government to force another man to give up his real property rights.  Why don't you just buy the house yourselves?  If you are so all-fired concerned about preserving history and remembering the good old days of fistfights and shootings, band together, raise some funds and make the homeowner an offer he can't refuse.  Isn't it strange that envy-filled people like those promoting the theft of this man's home are incapable of even conceiving of the possibility of using their own money to do something they want done? Worshipers of government never use their own money.  They always flee to their god to get things done and, sadly, their god is very good at the act of robbery. 

Monday, October 19, 2015

The Fatal Flaw In Gun Control/Mental Health Legislation

I opened my Denver Post this morning to read at the top of the front page that the Denver Broncos won in overtime yesterday.  Good for them.  I also read another story, that was below the crease on the front page, about proposed gun control and mental health legislation.  Both stories had the same theme and both stories had the same solution to a problem that does not exist.  Let me tell you about them today.
Just like King George II managed to exploit the opportunity afforded him when the Twin Towers were brought down, thus allowing him to wage imperialistic wars around the globe, so King Obama and his democratic court want to exploit the most recent mass shootings in order to advance their war of tyrannical control over the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  It matters not if a career politician calls himself a Republican or a Democrat as they all share one thing in common.  They all despise freedom with a passion and they dedicate their lives to waging wars and making laws to take away what little freedom we still have.  The recent wedding of proposed new gun control and mental health laws is a case in point.
The AP article on gun control, written by Kathleen Hennessey, said, "After 15 years of a virtual gag order on guns in presidential politics, Democrats are talking again.  President Barack Obama is considering more executive action on gun control....At the Democrats' first debate in the presidential season, candidates jockeyed for bragging rights over who had the lowest rating from the National Rifle Association."  I must admit that it comes as news to me that we have heard essentially no calls for additional gun control laws over the past 15 years.  I guess I live in a different world than Kathleen does.  But I will grant her point as I often suffer from the mental illness known as detachment from the world syndrome (DFTWS) and have no idea what is truly going on around me.  Kathleen informed me that "the absence of gun legislation passed by Congress has spurred a steady call for action from the Democratic base."  The article went on to show that a recent poll of the citizens of the SDA by Pew Research now reveals that a majority (52%) of those polled believe guns laws should be more restrictive.
We all know what happens when a majority forms in the political universe.  A majority formed years ago that now forces the top 49% of the income population to pay all federal taxes and fund the entire federal government.  A majority just formed recently that has granted homosexuals most privileged status in the eyes of the federal government, thus relegating Christians to second-tier status.  And now a majority has formed which believes that gun owners need to have their constitutional freedom to own, posses and shoot guns restricted.  Once a majority forms the rights of the minority are about to be taken away.
Closely tied to the push for more gun control laws is the push for more laws declaring more and more SDA citizens to be mentally ill, thus allowing for involuntary incarcerations at "mental health hospitals," also known as prisons. (If you can figure out a way to put more "mores" in that last sentence, let me know.) A sister article, written by Lena Sun of the Washington Post, declared that, "Months of deadly mass shootings are pushing mental health legislation forward in Congress, with advocates and lawmakers describing a momentum for change they have not seen for nearly a decade."  The problem is the rate of "mass shootings" in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika has not been on the increase.  Go here, here and here for the proof.  The current push for more gun control laws and additional laws declaring more people to be mentally ill has nothing to do with what is going on in the real world and everything to do with the fact that the majority now believe there is a problem.  Watch out!  Change is coming and it will not be for the better.
Lena informed me that "two bills are lawmakers prime focus as they return to Washington on Tuesday.  Each bill would remove barriers for Medicaid funding of mental health treatment...none of it would come cheaply...neither measure has a price tag attached or any suggestion of how it would be afforded."  Let me suggest that these two new laws about our mental health be paid for by taxing the rich, whoever they are.  We all know they are not paying their fair share anyway.
There is a fatal flaw in the reasoning revolving around both the gun control and mental health proposed legislation.  Do you see it?  The great majority of the citizens of the SDA are blind to this logical flaw.  Their blindness is a direct result of their religion.  Religion, we all must admit, makes people incapable of seeing the truth.  In this case the religion of government worship makes it impossible for those who practice it (almost everyone in this idolatrous country) to see the rather obvious and simple truth that making laws does not change human behavior.  It is now against the law in Colorado to text and drive at the same time and yet total deaths on Colorado roads is going to be a new record this year, primarily because of how many people end up killing others as a result of the fact that they are texting while they drive.  Why didn't the new law make them stop?  Making another law about guns will not stop people from shooting other people with guns any more than the law against texting while driving has made drivers stop texting.  Making a new law about mental health will not make people mentally healthy, whatever that means.  Laws simply do not change human nature and yet everyone who worships the State believes that the mere passage of a law solves a problem involving human nature.   These devotees of state worship really and truly believe that the mere passage of a law by a legislature solves the problem that motivated it.   It has never proven to be true and yet all state worshipers continue to believe it.
I would like to propose a simple test.  The point of my test is to neither prove nor disprove the current arguments about gun control or mental illness programs.  The point of my test is to either prove or disprove the ability of the government to do anything about those two issues/problems.  I propose a full and total ban on all guns for a twenty year period.  Anyone caught with a gun in public would be imprisoned until that twenty year period ended.  At the same time I propose that an enormous bureaucracy be created, at the federal level, that has the authority to declare any person it wishes to be mentally ill.  Once declared mentally ill that person would be held in a mental health hospital (prison with a softer bed) until the twenty year period is over.  The new bureau should be paid for by a dramatic increase in taxes on the rich, thus also solving a third problem that I have not mentioned....income inequality.  Once these two programs are in place let us just sit back and watch the utopia unfold in front of us.  I am giving the advocates of gun control and mental health incarceration expansion a free pass to do whatever they want for twenty years.  If they are right we should come close to a state of heaven on earth in the SDA as the years progress.  If they are wrong, things will stay as bad as they are today, or perhaps get worse.  But at least by the end of the twenty year period we will know if government is really and truly a god.  I am betting against government by the way.  I am also betting that at the end of that twenty year time frame, when things end up being worse than when we started,  those who worship the state will clamor for more laws and a longer time period.  That is the nature of religious worship of a false god.