Life Got You Down? Blame Government

Are you happy? Are you satisfied with your job, making good money, have a loving family that you spend loads of time with, you're in perfect health, have no debt, got a good education, plenty of money in the retirement account, own a nice home that you're able to update semi-regularly, take vacations annually, and all the rest? I mean, that's the American dream, isn't it? The one we've been taught is achievable in America and nowhere else because of our grand, unrelenting commitment to freedom and individuality. Or are some or all of those areas lacking in your life?

I was thinking about it earlier and I'm quite certain that most of the discontent we experience in our lives can easily be found with its roots in government. There are some out there who think corporations are the world's greatest evil, but do corporations have as much influence over your day-to-day life as government does? Can corporations hold a gun to your head and make you pay for goods and services you don't want? Can corporations be absolutely inefficient, fail in their mandates and missions, lose money year after year, steal from you, fine you for not buying their products, violate your civil liberties and still count on you giving them your business? No, of course not. They have to earn your business. Government just points a gun at you and forces you to do business with them and on their terms only. That's not to say that there aren't bad corporations out there with evil business models, but once again that's because of government enabled cronyism. While businesses and corporations can cause minor hiccups in our day-to-day lives (ohmgygawd, I just spent 30 minutes on hold with Verizon #hearthisassholes), it's the ever-present leviathan of government hanging over our heads, like an eternally cloudy sky that you don't even notice anymore (but once you're "awake" you  notice it all the time), that causes us the most misery.

For example, are you or a family member sick or suffering from chronic pain and you can't get your hands on the drugs you need to treat it? That would be government's fault. Government is keeping marijuana, medicinal and otherwise, illegal and off market in many states. The FDA is the one holding up approval on potentially life-saving drugs, drugs that terminally ill patients are more than willing to risk their already dying lives to take in the hope that it might give them a few more precious months or, God-willing, years on this earth. The market is trying to bring life-saving drugs to the people who desire it at affordable prices. The only reason you can't have them is because of government laws, red tape, and regulations. Food and drug safety and efficacy can be proved by various private, competing entities and get safe drugs to market much faster than the several years-long process it takes for the FDA to complete its studies.

Moving on, what about your quality of life and finances? Are you happy in your job, following your dreams and passions? No? Why not start your own business? Maybe start small and work out of your home? Oh, because your local government regulations prevent home businesses? Hmm, well how about you become a professional of some sort? Oh, you don't have the right government licensing for your floral shop or interior design degree? Understandable. I can see why we need the government to protect us from the dangers of unlicensed florists and interior designers. Or from the horrors of a bad haircut. The stuff of nightmares really. Well why not go back to school to pursue that degree you've always wanted? Too expensive? Was that Amazon's fault, or Ebay's? Hmm, don't think so. When government will hand out or subsidize student loans for everyone with a pulse, it increases demand. The only way to satisfy demand and create equilibrium in the market is to raise prices. Rising prices means it's less affordable, so we need more student loans. Oh vicious circle! And many in government insist that we must make it our goal that every child in America receive a college degree. Because there's no better way to render something completely valueless than by making sure everyone has one. But if you still think that going into debt to get that online degree from Phoenix University that every Tom, Dick, and Harry is now trying to get will finally give you the leg up you've been looking for, be my guest. However, if it doesn't work, you know who to blame <whisper> government.

Have you taken your annual vacation this year? Full two weeks? No debt? Trying to figure out what exactly it is you're saving all that money for anyway? No? Walmart charging you too high of prices again so you can't save money? Or could it be something else.... You see, our government thinks it can control money. They think that they can solve all of our economic woes by printing money or otherwise manipulating the currency. You'll hear our politicians claim that inflation is a good thing. Government will tell you that rising prices makes everyone wealthier because, you know, I never feel richer than when I pay $4 for a gallon of gas that only cost $3 last year. Your home is worth more, but with that food prices keep rising, gas prices keep rising, the cost to heat and cool your home keep rising, but the price of iPads is falling so there's that. I hear they're quite tasty when baked and feed a family of four quite easily.

 Despite the constantly rising prices that you've been told make everyone wealthier, you can never quite figure out what happens to your paycheck each month. And while your home might be valued at $250k, you can't manage to sell it because who's able to save $50k for a nice, respectable 20% down payment? Nobody! But that's okay. Government to the rescue again! They'll subsidize agencies like Fannie and Freddie to give you a loan for as little as 3% down, no savings needed! What could possibly go wrong? Without government, who would force banks and other entities to give out loans to people to buy overpriced homes they can't afford? Wait, don't tell me...Walmart. Amiright?

Not only is your paycheck being eaten away by the insidious hidden tax known as inflation, it's also being eaten away by the never-ending string of overt taxes we're subject to. Sales tax, income tax, payroll tax, property tax, hotel tax, rental car tax, airfare tax, death tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, corporate tax, the not buying a product you don't want tax (aka Obamacare), excise tax, gasoline tax, utility taxes, telephone usage tax, cigarette tax, luxury tax, gift tax, gambling tax, lotto winning tax, IRA early withdrawal tax, vehicle sales tax, and on and on and on. Really, though, they're doing you a favor. The government steals this money from you and makes it harder to make ends meet each month because if they didn't you would probably spend it irresponsibly. It's much better that they spend it irresponsibly for you.

"But," you may say, "I'm willing to pay those taxes because I get important government goods and services in return." Like pothole free roads. And pleasant, stress-free visits to the DMV. And an easily navigable and affordable justice system that works for the little guy. And over 700 military bases all over the world. I'm sure if the government weren't stealing your money from you every two weeks you would willingly donate that money to the military bases in Germany and Japan that are so imperative to our safety. You can never be too safe, after all. Which is why I thank the Lord every time I go to the airport and get groped down, nude scanned, or irradiated that my money was taken from me forcibly to pay for my safe travels. Granted, they've never caught a single terrorist no matter how much money I give them but I'm sure it will pay off one day. Given how greedy corporations are, I know American Airlines and Southwest have zero interest in keeping their flights and passengers safe and therefore would not be willing to provide adequate security measures for their passengers; it would eat into their bottom line after all. Terrorists would just keep hijacking their planes and Jetblue would be all like "That's cool. Any publicity is good publicity, right?"

Don't even get me started on companies like Apple. How dare Apple invade countries like China and give those Chinese workers jobs they would never have had otherwise so that Americans can buy highly innovative and desirable products that have literally changed human life at reasonable prices!? If Apple were more like government, they would have invaded China with the Apple Army they keep on retainer, destroyed Chinese cities to build their factories (for which the Chinese should be grateful), used their Army to take out all competition, and then hired a bunch of union workers to charge $20/hr to work no more than 8 hours a day so that in 10 years time they could sell you a phone the size of your shoe for $5000 and then balked at you if you weren't grateful to them because if it weren't for them you wouldn't have a portable phone at all dontchyaknow?

I could do this all day, but stop for a moment and just think about it. Who controls the money? Government. Who controls interest rates on money? The Federal Reserve. Who determines the type of currency we use? Government. Who prints the money that causes inflation? The Federal Reserve. Who forcibly takes money away from us to pay for things we don't want (and maybe a few things we do)? Government. Who controls your education? Government. Who controls your food? Government. Who controls your healthcare? Government. Who controls your retirement? Government. Let's not even think about this in the left/right paradigm. These things are true no matter which party is in power and have been for half a century now or more. It's time to wake up. It's time to open your eyes. It's time to see what's really going on here. It's time to join the revolution. As Katniss Everdeen was told in book 2 of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire as she was battling for her life against her competitors in the Capital-controlled games, "Remember who the real enemy is." I promise you it's not Walmart.       

 

The 'D' Word...

One of the most misunderstood and controversial positions of libertarianism is the freedom of (dis)association. The PC buzzword for it is now 'discrimination'. This has been popping up more and more recently, primarily in regards to news items about private businesses "discriminating" against gays. In Kansas, for example, their House passed a bill allowing businesses to discriminate against gays based on religious grounds. The bill died in the senate just days later but not before major media networks picked up on it and created a frenzy among gay rights advocates and supporters thereof.

Just on its heels comes another major piece of state legislation up for approval in Arizona which asserts almost the same rights as the bill in Kansas, that businesses can deny service to gays based upon religious grounds. This bill is currently awaiting approval or veto from Governor Jan Brewer. 

Such legislation has been the result of a few high-profile cases of businesses discriminating against gay customers, like the cake baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple or the innkeepers in the U.K. who wouldn't let any unmarried couples, gay or straight, occupy the same room.

Let me be clear, I am not anti-gay. I gave monthly donations to the Human Rights Campaign for over a year before having to cut back due to finances. I favor allowing adoption for gay couples. I am in support of gay marriage. That being said, I also believe in private property rights and free speech. Private property entails being able to do what you please with your own property, including inviting (or not) people of your choosing to visit or do business with you.

Would anyone condemn a black store owner who refused to do business with a skinhead? I don't think so. Why is it okay for the skinhead to be denied service but not a gay person? Recently, acquitted killer cop Manuel Ramos, who was found not guilty for the savage beating death of a mentally ill homeless man, was forced out of a restaurant by fellow patrons. In response to the legislation in Arizona, some storefronts are posting signs reserving the right to refuse service to Arizona legislators. George Zimmerman is assuredly not welcome at many establishments he might like to frequent. There should be no problem with any of this. Each of these businesses has the right to discriminate against the skinheads, George Zimmermans, legislators, saggy pants wearing teens, or gay people of the world. Government's only role in any of this should be to enforce the rights of people to use their private property how they see fit.

Do I agree with the discriminatory practices of denying gays service? Of course not. But I do defend the right of people to conduct their business according to their beliefs. Much like Voltaire famously said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I will also defend the rights of the consumer to boycott, petition, write negative reviews, or otherwise inform people of the discriminatory practices of these businesses. No government action is required.

Art Carden explains it another way in his article about this same topic. In his words,

"Calling on government to purify others' hearts and minds opens Pandora's box, pushes us farther down a very slippery slope, and invites all sorts of other hackneyed cliches. I hope that people find discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, physical "handicaps," and other arbitrary criteria morally repugnant. I do. However, my disapproval of another's attitude does not give me the right to use force to correct their erroneous ways. Indeed, it may backfire."

Precisely. What proponents of anti-discrimination laws are really calling for is for men with badges and guns to force others to accept the beliefs, ideas, or values of someone else. Forcing others to believe the same as you do through government's monopoly of force is not the best way to deal with people with irrational beliefs. Art Carden summed up his article like so,

"When we use force to restrict others' liberty, we endanger our own.
Governments coerce others with a two-edged sword: giving the state the power to do things you like necessarily requires giving the state the power to do things you don't like, and giving the state the power to restrict behavior of which you don't approve gives them the power to restrict behavior of which you do approve. The right way to change hearts and minds is not coercion. It is persuasion."

One final point about all this, and I will hat tip one of my favorite interweb figures, The Libertarian Homeschooler (find her on Facebook here, her blog can be found here, she is on Instagram @thelibertarianhomeschooler, but alas is not on Twitter yet despite my pleas). When we ban something, be it a substance or a behavior, all we do is drive that behavior underground and out of sight. It doesn't mean that behavior is eliminated. It just becomes secret and when it becomes secret, it can't be addressed either in society or in the market. Let's put it this way, wouldn't you rather know up front that you're dealing with a bigot and make the decision yourself to do or not do business with that person? Or would you rather unknowingly subsidize their bigotry by still giving them money because they have to keep their idiotic thoughts to themselves? I would prefer to knowingly vote with my dollars and give my money to non-bigots than unknowingly give it to bigots. Bigots also have the right to not want to accept money from people who wish to do business with them in exchange for services.

We all discriminate all day, every day for various reasons and based on dozens of criteria, not all of them rational. Nay, it's the only way to base a decision. Walter Block contends in his book The Case for Discrimination that "...discrimination -- choosing one thing over another -- is an inevitable feature of the material world where scarcity of goods and time is the pervasive feature. There is no getting around it. You must discriminate, and therefore you must have the freedom to discriminate, which only means the freedom to choose. Without discrimination, there is no economizing taking place." We pass by various store fronts and either decide to shop there or not based on the silliest reasons: the font of their store front, the neighborhood it's in, a friend of a friend of a friend said her aunt's hair dresser had a bad experience there. Heck, I'm amazed to see work trucks that have political bumper stickers on them. Passing by certain trucks I do think to myself "Gee, I guess I know who not to do business with now, clearly they're a bunch of dumbasses." Is that right of me? Probably not. But I'd bet dollars to donuts that we've all had crazy thoughts like that and have made decisions based on far less of criteria. Should we all go to jail or be fined?

I would prefer to live in a society where we can openly talk about these things and engage our neighbors in peaceful attempts to change hearts and minds instead of driving the problem underground. Will it end bigotry? Unfortunately not. But neither will enacting laws that essentially amount to thoughtcrime that must be enforced by the modern day equivalent of the Thought Police. In the end, we must decide whether discrimination is an issue that we would rather be decided in the public sphere by government, whose only tool of persuasion is the barrel of a gun, and the necessary increase in power it gives to government which can and will be used against us all one day, or whether we think we as a society can be trusted to do the right thing on our own and slowly, yet peacefully learn to exercise tolerance for those who are different from us.

Living in the Twilight Zone

Every day some new headline or soundbite pops up that literally makes me want to beat my head against a wall. A couple weeks ago, it was the president's State of the Union address in which he declared, to thunderous applause, that he was going to bypass Congress whenever and wherever he could and use his pen and his phone to pursue his economic agenda.

Echoing this sentiment and in a show of support, Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee recently went on record by saying that writing up a number of executive orders for the president to sign should be "our number one agenda". No doubt she was one of the ones cheering when Obama announced during the SOTU that he would make her and others like her entirely irrelevant by bypassing Congress this year in his "year of action".

And yet, members of Congress aren't the only ones cheering. Millions of Americans who believe that Congress is hopelessly deadlocked and not doing enough to help businesses create jobs and get the economy chugging along also applaud the words and actions of the president and his Democratic cohorts to legislate by executive order. While Democrats have no problem with this currently with Obama in office, now that they have willingly given this power over to the executive, what will they do when a Republican gets into the White House and wants to do the same thing? Of course they will be crying bloody murder, but once you give over this power, you cannot un-give it. There are no takebacks. You cannot expect it to not be utilized by the next occupier of the White House. And why do you suppose the Republicans in Congress haven't more forcefully opposed this, perhaps by taking action to block these unlawful uses of executive actions? Mayhaps it's because you would be fooling yourself if you believed Republicans won't gladly wield this power to their own advantage the next time one of their own reclaims the high command.

Over the past few years, since I've been "awake", I've noticed an incredible amount of intellectual dishonesty that is rampant not just amongst our legislators but amongst the general public as well. How else can you explain the silence of the left, supposedly the champions of civil liberties, in the face of the complete evisceration of our Bill of Rights from the Obama administration? The conservatives who were cheerleading Bush and his use of torture and the creation of the "Patriot" Act have now begotten a president who claims the power to indefinitely detain and even murder American citizens on the mere suspicion of terrorist activity or associations. When you allow a person of authority, particularly a head of state, unchecked powers, don't be surprised when they use it. And don't expect to rein in their newly found power without a fight.

Now for the latest cringe-worthy soundbite which comes to us courtesy of Rep. Keith Ellison who hilariously intoned that the latest CBO findings in which they project that the 2 million job losses that are expected to come due to Obamacare will, get this, "allow for people to have more free time and be able to cook dinner at home". Ha! This reminds me of a similar claim made by the loony toon Nancy Pelosi who said that the death of the 40 hour work week due to Obamacare's redefining "full-time employment" will free people up to pursue their happiness and follow their passions. What planet do these people live on? This is not freedom for those people who need a steady 40 hour (or more) work week in order to pay for the continually rising prices of everyday items due to the inflation created by the Federal Reserve's crippling monetary policy. Who actually believes this crap that representatives like Ellison and Pelosi try and shove down our throat?

Yup, welcome to the Twilight Zone, where we've now blatantly handed all power over to the executive, where the president possesses the power to assassinate any American anywhere at anytime based upon secret evidence that only he and his team possess, where we now allow American citizens to be indefinitely detained without charges on the mere suspicion of terrorism or being associated with terrorists, and where losing a paying job with benefits now qualifies as freedom from the burdens of an honest day's work and not, rather, further struggle to make ends meet. When will Americans finally wake up? I'm tired of living in the Twilight Zone.