The Dull and the Malevolent

U.S Rep Susan Brooks recently paid a visit to Grant county. Though she spent much of her campaign to get elected lambasting the federal government for its many follies, she seems to have developed respect for the almost universally loathed men and women of Congress. “(I have been) really impressed with the quality of passion and intellect of all members of Congress...They are smart people who care very much about this country." Congress? Smart? This certainly would have come as a shock to Mark Twain who once quipped, "Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." He also claimed that a flea could be taught anything that a congressman knows.

But what I find even more dubious is her claim that Congress "cares very much" about...well, anything other than themselves. H.L. Mencken, who like Twain was an American literary genius, expresses this sentiment in his inimitable style:

"These men (in government), in point of fact, are seldom if ever moved by anything rationally describable as public spirit; there is actually no more public spirit among them than among so many burglars or street-walkers. Their purpose, first, last and all the time, is to promote their private advantage, and to that end, and that end alone, they exercise all the vast powers that are in their hands.... Whatever it is they seek, whether security, greater ease, more money or more power, it has to come out of the common stock, and so it diminishes the shares of all other men." 

I doubt very much has changed for the better in Congress since Mark Twain's or Mencken's days. Most likely, it has gotten even worse. So I'm afraid I just can't take Susan's claims very seriously. 

She goes on to bemoan how difficult it is, in comparison to the judicial and executive branches, to "get things done" in the legislature. You can't just issue an edict and expect everyone to obey. You have to get people to agree with you. I suppose that would slow down the process. But since the process tends to strip Americans of as much money and liberty as they will bear without revolting, it's probably best that it is slowed down. 

Brooks, this friend to the Tea Party, this alleged champion of small government conservatism, is also a member of the Homeland Security Committee. Of course, Homeland Security is the Orwellian name for the federal department that is all but openly at war with the citizens of the United States. It is the department charged with protecting the "homeland" from terrorists. And we are all, evidently, suspects in the war on terror. So Homeland Security must monitor our bank accounts, political rallies, and internet usage. We have given up living in a free country in order to feel safe from the enemies the government created during 60+ years of intervening in the affairs of foreign nations. And safety of the citizenry, according to Brooks, is “the federal government’s top role...and that’s not something the private sector should be doing.”

Put aside, for a moment, the argument that the federal government's actions, including bankrupting the nation, actually make us less safe. Is the federal government's top role to keep us all safe in the first place? Not at all. The federal government of the United States' first goal should be to protect individual liberty. The whole excuse for needing a military is to deter foreign invasions so that Americans can freely go about producing goods and services to exchange on a free market. The quantity of safety that a society accepts must be based on voluntary trade-offs. The congresswoman doesn't think the private sector should be protecting us, but it does so regardless. It is private businesses that provide us with locks for our doors, security systems, shotguns, and fireproof safes. Almost every company I have ever worked for has had private security guards on the premises even though the government provides a police department. If anything, we should allow the private sector to provide more security. 

Susan Brooks proves to be yet another typical Republican masquerading as a proponent of small government. Hopefully, the people of our county will finally catch on to this trick that she and so many other members of the GOP have played on us. Hopefully, the Republican Party will just wither away and be replaced by liberty.

Prune the Executive Branch

It would appear the executive branch is in need of some pruning. The whole country seems to be abuzz about the numerous scandals that Barack Obama's administration is currently dealing with. The major three being, of course, the IRS specifically targeting conservative groups for extra scrutiny, the unwarranted spying on the Associated Press and other media outlets, and the deaths of Americans at a "diplomatic outpost" in Benghazi. In all of these cases Obama has pleaded ignorance. So much goes on day to day in the executive branch. How is Barack Obama, a mere mortal after all, to be expected to know about every development? It seems the executive branch has become too big to succeed.

My biggest problem with Obama's excuse is that it is plausible. The executive branch houses far too many departments which employ over 4 million people altogether. Presidents come and go, but these departments, staff organizations, "independent agencies", and government-owned corporations continue stripping liberties and destroying the economy decade after decade. It is literally impossible for a president to fully know what goes on inside the EPA, CIA, or the IRS. This is a problem. But what is the solution?

The Founders would have considered most of the bureaucracies that have sprung up in the executive office unconstitutional. Protecting wetlands from economic development just wasn't seen as the role of government. Instead, the role of government was supposed to be protecting the life and property of citizens so that they could live as free human beings. But it seems that almost everything the executive does these days runs contrary to that role.

It is high past time that we reduce the size and scope of the executive branch. We can start by eliminating every department not specifically sanctioned in the original constitution. This includes the despicable IRS. We will need to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment which allows the federal government to tax our incomes. This will be a huge boost to our struggling economy and allow us to build the capital we will need to return to improving each succeeding generation's standard of living. The feds will be forced to limit their actions, overseas and domestic, in order to survive on the decreased cash flow from the taxpayers. The world will be a better place. We will then accrue the additional benefit of the President unquestionably being involved in the day-to-day decision making in the White House. We will know whom to blame.

Taken for Granted in Grant County

Earlier this evening, the Marion City Council took another crack at getting the ball rolling for a $3 million loan. They say they need this money to replenish their depleted insurance fund. But it seems that many residents of Marion think the city already borrows too much money in their name. I am inclined to agree with them. They have been burned by their government time and again. 

I had an opportunity to talk about this earlier today on Eight Twenty Penn with host, and my good friend, Kristopher Lee. On the show I made the point that if I am having trouble paying my bills, I can't simply borrow the money by promising the lender that I will force my neighbors to repay my debt. Instead, I am compelled to cut back on my spending or, if all else fails, declare bankruptcy. Any attempt by myself to acquire funds via violence would be considered a crime. But that is exactly what the city of Marion intends to do. Indeed, this is standard operating procedure for all governments. They assume that if they need money, you have to pay. They help themselves to the fruits of your labor and greedily devour it. They say that they are offering you services, and they must be paid for providing these services. But you'll notice that when you hire the services of a roofer, he doesn't return after the job has been completed and paid for to demand more money because he can't afford his insurance.

Why doesn't the city consider asking the residents for the money? I'm not talking about asking for a tax increase. I mean they should take to the streets and personally beg for the money they "need" to make payroll. Perhaps they can have a bake sale, or make and sell some crafts, or maybe host a walkathon, or any other activity that churches and other not-for-profits use to raise funds. They can stand at intersections and pester drivers for their loose change. I can almost hear the council members scoffing at such an idea. They think those options are beneath them. They feel they have a right to your money and you should just be happy with what they let you keep. They are spending this money on your behalf and it is you who should be thanking them. They take for granted that they can tap into your resources, the money you earned in exchange for your time, effort, and productivity, and use it however they see fit. 

Never forget that it is your money and that they are supposed to be working for you. Not the other way around. If we didn't go to work and earn the money, they would have nothing to tax. They are totally dependent on private productivity. If they would like more money, they should have to go out and earn it just like everyone else. I have more respect for the homeless people on the streets of Chicago who harass every passerby than I do for the thieving and arrogant local politicians who constantly squander the people's money. In fact, I have more respect for the muggers than I do these "public servants". At least the mugger doesn't expect you to be grateful for being robbed. 

No doubt, the city government of Marion will eventually get its loan. They will not feel remorse. They will more likely feel relief. They will pat themselves on the back for saving the city from their own ruinous policies. It will be business as usual. They will waste the money they do get, and they will always come back for more. They will not be the least bit embarrassed by their contemptible behavior. You will put up with it. You will continue to go to work so that you can pay for their debts. You will continue to try and use what limited resources you have to improve life for your family and yourself. They will continue to increase your burdens and make it more difficult for you to succeed in that endeavor. You will continue to pay their bills before you can even pay your own. 

Lord, haste the day when the Proles rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies.

Fair is Unfair

"Government is essentially the negation of liberty." - Ludwig von Mises

Ludwig von Mises, the greatest economist of the 20th century, felt that government is necessary to "make the social system of cooperation work smoothly without being disturbed by violent acts on the part of gangsters whether of domestic or of foreign origin". But he was not fooled about the nature of government. He called it "the opposite of liberty. It is beating, imprisoning, hanging." He defined government as "the social apparatus of repression and coercion". He was quite apt to describe it this way. Everything the government does, it accomplishes by violently extracting wealth from the productive (non-government) sector of the economy. An appeal to the government for solutions to societal problems is an appeal to violence. It is an appeal to forcing your neighbor, at gunpoint, to conform to the standards you have set for him.

I am a proponent of the non-aggression principle (NAP). The NAP basically boils down to the moral assertion that the only legitimate use of violence is in defense of persons or property. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Live and let live. Anyone who violates this principle by aggressing against another member of society is considered a criminal. Anyone who does not engage in aggressive behavior towards others' property, is not a criminal. Using this criteria makes it difficult to view our government in a sympathetic light. On the one hand, the government will arrest, detain, and fine non-criminal people for ingesting substances that have been forbidden by the government. On the other, it allows the criminal Federal Reserve to steal the purchasing power of every citizen through inflation. Is this how we want the government directing its monopoly on "legitimate" violence?

Private property is the foundation on which a free market economy is built. But our government, which was allegedly established in order to protect private property, has become its biggest enemy. They have become the very gangsters from which Mises hoped they would protect us. They seem to consider nothing but how to loot more money out of us to use for their ends. A recent example of this is the new internet sales tax law they are attempting to pass. The "Market Place Fairness Tax" (How Orwellian does that sound?) would make internet retailers responsible for collecting the sales tax on behalf of the states in which their customers reside. Consumers typically can't avoid paying these taxes when they go to a local business. So, they tend to purchase more goods via the internet. Congress' idea of fairness is making it more difficult for consumers to avoid sales tax on their internet purchases as well. Not even for a second would most of these thieving thugs consider leveling the playing field by eliminating the sales tax altogether. Though such a move would make things just as "fair", it doesn't increase the amount of your money they are able to get their grubby hands on. 

In reality, they are not concerned with fairness, or welfare, or safety, or equality, or any of the numerous pleasant sounding concepts they use as aegises for their actual plans of plunder and power accumulation. And they will beat, imprison, and hang anyone if it will help them to accomplish that end. We need to expand the sphere in which the government may not operate. We need more liberty and less repression. 

V for Vouchers: The Program Expands

Indiana has decided to expand its voucher program. Another small step in what I feel is the right direction. Back in March, I noted that Mike Powell -the superintendent of Mississinewa Community Schools- wasn't very happy about the voucher program. He is hardly alone. Government school officials from all across the state are weeping, wailing, and gnashing their teeth. The Chronicle-Tribune has quoted a few of them from the area and I would now like to use this space to mock them respond to their quotes.

First up is more from Mike Powell. He says it's, “another example of our state legislature trying to destroy the public education system in Indiana.” I know Mike feels that the Indiana Republicans are hell bent on eliminating coercive government schooling. But I would like to hear him explain why giving parents the ability to choose which school their children go to is detrimental to the existence of schools like the ones that he runs. The insinuation is that parents don't want to send their kids to his schools and that, if given a choice, they will go elsewhere. Perhaps Mr. Powell should take a long look in the mirror. Because if he is running a school that fails to satisfy parents, then it is he who is the destroyer of the "public education system" by incentivizing those parents to seek better education options for their children outside of the public school system. He then switches gears and goes on to suggest the possibility that vouchers could be a good thing, but we just haven't had them long enough to know for sure. “Once they put it in, at least give it a few years to see if it’s the right thing to do,” he said. “It just gets bigger and bigger.” Somehow, I don't think we would be hearing him complain if it was his budget that was getting "bigger and bigger".

Next up is a short and sweet offering from Madison-Grant's Superintendent. John Trout says, “I am not a supporter of the voucher program or of expanding it." If he gave a reason why, the newspaper didn't print it. I'll go ahead and assume that it's not because he feels that property owners should not be forced to subsidize any sort of government run schooling scheme and that we need to return all taxpayer dollars that are used for this end. No, I'm sure his reasons are quite similar to Mike Powell's. He is afraid students will choose to leave his lousy schools.

Superintendent of Marion Community Schools Steve Edwards has already had several students abandon his lousy schools. “We were 17th in the state in percentage loss of students,” he said. “We lost 83 to vouchers last year.” That's 83 students who were liberated from the notorious Marion public schools and allowed to seek education elsewhere. But let's pretend for a minute that the widely held beliefs (that Marion's school system is a terrible place for education while thriving in the areas of drug use and violence) of the community are wrong and that Marion really is a top notch place for your kids to go learn math. Shouldn't parents be able to make that decision for themselves? Steve Edwards doesn't think so. And unlike the superintendents of Mississinewa and Madison-Grant, a reason is given. "[Parents] don’t always make choices for the right reasons.” I see. I suppose that means Steve Edwards does make his decisions for the "right reasons". And I'm sure the fact that parents choosing to send their kids elsewhere means less revenue for Edwards, doesn't factor into his opinion at all. He cares more about the children of Marion than do their own parents. Wow. What a saint. He then begins to sound like an abusive husband begging his battered wife not to seek another man's arms. “Our schools have improved and we can provide more,” he said, and then immediately launched into the argument articulated by Powell that this is just all so sudden. “It’s too soon to make changes (to the voucher program). This has now exploded.” Yes. It's far too soon. But what if they had just as soon decided to eliminate vouchers? Once again, I'm betting we would hear a different tune. He continues: “Even though money goes to the child, it’s indirectly subsidizing private schools. Students have become commodities.” Better than it directly subsidizing Edwards' paycheck. It's a little difficult for me to take him seriously when he refers to the children as "commodities". I hardly think the parents are thinking of their children this way. It's more likely that he is the one thinking of them as commodities that he will now be losing to a rival business.

The Chronicle then goes on to quote a few other people who are in favor of the vouchers. One such person is Rep. Kevin Mahan who said it's a good policy but "it's too early". It's too early to institute a good policy? Actually, Mahan was afraid to vote for it because the people of his district are evidently against it. “I don’t get paid to do what I want to do, I get paid to do what I think is in the best interest of District 31,” he said. “I vote the will of my district.” It just so happens that I am a resident of District 31. And it was not my will that he vote against it. Hooray for democracy.

They close the article with a quote from Daniel Altman, who is the press secretary for the Indiana Department of Education. According to Altman, “It takes money away from public education, and it’s not the best use of resources.” As I stated previously, it can only take money away from public "education" if parents choose to spend it on private education. Which would mean that the parents have decided that it is, in fact, the best use of those resources. 

All of the people who were quoted as being against the expansion of vouchers in the article have one thing in common. They all stand to lose out financially if people become free to choose the best school for their children. If it were up to them, no one would be permitted to escape from their government funded compulsory institution. These people are not used to having to compete for customers on this scale but they had better get used to it. Or, better yet, they can resign and stop trying to imprison the children of Grant County.