December 19, 2010 – Would it be any worse than what we have today?
By The Cerebral Aesthetic Vagabond
Pretty sunrise (except for the darned wires), taken on December 14. Unrelated to this post, but I thought it was pretty. (I hope they haven’t copyrighted the sky...)
Once upon a time I made a comment critical of government on a “progressive” blog. My comment was swiftly attacked by another commenter (obviously a statist), who asked if I would prefer the law of the jungle, implying of course, that government makes us better than animals. After a moment of reflection, I replied to that commenter that, yes, I did favor the law of the jungle and cited some of the ways in which anarchical animal culture was superior to human culture under its lauded government. (Don’t take my word for it. Watch the unambiguously warm welcome this jungle animal gives its long lost human pal.)
I first titled this essay, “Is Government Obsolete?” and then realized that there is more than one possible interpretation of that question. On the one hand, corporations are clearly taking a leading role in running the world and writing its laws, relegating government to a role as enforcer of corporate policy. The other interpretation, the one I intended to imply, is that government has outlived its usefulness and more importantly, its benefit to mankind. (Although it remains a financial bonanza to those in government!)
Clearly, the corporate monopolies taking over the world are doing so by exploiting the power of government, without which assistance they would have a much more difficult time of growing their monopolies. Some might argue that government serves as a powerful force to prevent the formation of monopolies, and at one time that might have been true, but today the opposite is true. As U.S. House Representative Spencer Bachus candidly admitted recently,
In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks.
Even if it were true that government thwarts the formation of monopolies, which is a demonstrably false notion, in a world without government, power would reside in the people and the superior numerical force they embodied, so should a corporation become too dominant and oppressive, the great mass of people could ultimately resort to the application of brute force to restore balance. The implied threat of brute force, after all, is precisely what backs up all government action. Government is granted license by the people to employ as much force as necessary to defend the interests of the people. Unfortunately, nearly every government on earth today misapplies this mandate of force against the very people who have granted the mandate!
Mr. Bachus’ candid admission above is but the tip of the iceberg, because virtually every regulatory body in U.S. Government today is actually in the service of the corporations they purport to regulate. Witness the S 510 bill, written by large corporate players in the agriculture sector and endorsed by a couple of government regulatory agencies besides the venal congress. The primary purpose of this bill, which is definitely not food safety, is to drive smaller competitors out of business, using the government’s muscle to enforce the law. Where is the popular benefit from government in the case of this law? Government today serves largely as a blockade preventing the people from taking action against the corporations, not the other way around, which is protecting the people from abuse by the corporations. With some effort I could produce hundreds of examples of government regulatory bodies siding with the corporations they purport to regulate, against the interests of the people.
As a single, relatively trivial example of one of the myriad alphabet-lettered regulatory agencies serving the interests of the corporations they supposedly regulate, consider this article, titled Boeing 'In Massive Safety Cover-Up'. In the video linked in the article, an aviation safety expert and former FAA investigator described the FAA investigation into these allegations as “laughable.” No surprise there, because after all, who do these regulatory bodies really work for?
(Notice that both the article and video referenced above originated outside the country. It’s really too bad our “free press” in this country is so inadequate that one must read the news from outside the country to find out what’s going on inside the country. There is virtually no difference between the U.S. mainstream media today and the Pravda and Izvestia of the old Soviet Union.)
Government inevitably creates a double standard of justice, granting itself broad discretion when applying laws to people in government. Consider, for example, the tepid interest the governments of the U.S. and Australia have shown in prosecuting their staffs who use government computers to access child pornography. Should a “civilian” engage in the very same activity, the government will embark on a mission to destroy that person’s life, yet when government employees break the law, it’s simply covered up. Or consider the term “cop killer,” which implicitly values the lives of murdered police officers higher than those of murdered “civilians.” Why do we continue to tolerate such double standards?
Government tells us that murder is illegal, but then turns around and executes criminals under the “death penalty.” If that’s not hypocrisy, then I don’t know what is. In reality, the death penalty is merely state-sponsored vengeance, sanitized by virtue of it being perpetrated by the state. However, the motives behind it and the end result are the same. The only difference between vengeance exacted by the state or by the individuals involved is that the people in whose names the vengeance is carried out don’t have to dirty their hands. Other than that, I don’t see much difference in whether the state or individuals exact vengeance. Although I deplore violence, I feel the only person who has the right to avenge a wrong perpetrated by another is the victim their self, or in cases where the victim is murdered or too weak to retaliate, their survivors or close acquaintances. Although I’m sure most people will disagree with me, I have more faith in the judgment of individuals to mete out fair justice than I do the state. I believe people and animals possess an innate sense of justice and fairness; the state does not. Yes, people have been known to overreact, but so has the state. In fact, from what I’ve seen, the dispassionate state is more likely to “overreact” than are individuals, even institutionalizing its overreaction, such as with the proliferation of asinine “three strikes” laws.
According to Max Igan in this series of videos (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4), most of the laws created worldwide in the last decade are not aimed at benefiting people, but controlling them. He boldly asserts that today we have criminals in power worldwide who are creating these laws aimed at harming the rest of us. No wonder I’ve grown fond of this Australian fellow, because I’ve been saying much the same thing! In the videos he also asks a question pertinent to this essay, which is: If the purpose of government is to benefit people and it fails to do so, then why have government at all?
People may insist that only government can fulfill certain functions, such as protecting us from criminals and those dreaded “terrorists,” or providing services such as education, health care and road construction. Such assumptions are dubious at best in the face of historical facts, but the absence of government does not mean that nothing will get done. Individuals, groups of individuals and companies are well able to provide all the services that government provides today. Recall that the federal government we observe today did not exist when this nation was founded. The federal government that existed when this nation was founded was minimal and yet the nation thrived. In fact, it thrived more so then than today, which strikes me as a rather obvious expectation since today’s government is clearly a huge impediment to commerce and innovation, not to mention freedom.
Nevertheless, let’s consider a few of the “vital” services government provides and whether or not the government has really delivered the goods.
Although governments in the U.S. probably spend more on education, per capita, than in any other country in the world, the test results of its students are among the poorest in the world. Even regionally within the U.S. one can observe the same lack of correlation between government spending and student performance. It does not appear as though government involvement in education has improved the quality of education; in fact, the opposite appears to be true. Many people have convincingly argued that a “dumbing down” of the populace is precisely the reason why government got involved in education in the first place, and considering peoples’ voting habits and faulty knowledge of the world around them, it’s easy to find favor with that argument. (Here’s a simplistic introductory video on this subject.)
Like most other things in the U.S., the educational system has been perverted (literally in some cases!) as a vehicle of profit, as well as a tool for brainwashing generations of people. The only thing the educational system “teaches” anymore is how to shut off one’s thinking ability in favor of obeisance to the state and rote repetition of orthodox propaganda.
What has long astonished and rankled me is how much tax money is extracted from us on behalf of the schools. It appears, for instance, that a significant chunk of my property tax bill goes to the schools. In addition, there are school taxes on my electric and telephone bills. Oddly enough, there doesn’t appear to be such a tax on my water bill – an oversight, I suppose. Why is the school system so important that the government must tax the heck out of us to fund it? As an aside, being childless I resent being forced to subsidize the education of other people’s children, even if they were actually learning something. In my view, people ought not have children if they are not capable, financially, mentally or otherwise to raise them. Nevertheless,
brainwashing educating children seems to be a very high priority to government.
Long ago I took a dim view of people who homeschooled their children, likening them to tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists. Today I applaud such people and would insist on homeschooling my own children if I had any. Interestingly, throughout the world people who homeschool their children are stridently demonized by the state, which is yet another bit of evidence that there is an agenda in public education that extends beyond merely educating the children.
As with education, governments in the U.S. spend staggering amounts of money on “health care,” with disappointing results to show for their expenditures.
The U.S. has a startlingly high rate of infant mortality, rivaling that of “third world” countries; it has one of the highest rates of obesity in the world; it has a lower life expectancy than several other countries; and it probably has the highest rate of pharmaceutical drug consumption in the world (so many drugs are consumed in the U.S. that they are showing up in the water supplies). Is it mere coincidence that drug consumption is so high while pharmaceutical drug makers are among the most munificent contributors to the campaigns of aspiring politicians?
It’s increasingly clear that, like most pharmaceutical drugs, vaccines are nearly worthless, if not dangerous. Almost all of the age old viral diseases were in marked decline well before vaccines for those diseases were created! The chief factors responsible for the waning of those diseases, as well as for that of most diseases, are improved nutrition and sanitation. That’s it. The drugs had little or nothing to do with the decline. In fact, over the decades vaccines have repeatedly caused disease outbreaks, such as a recent outbreak of polio in Nigeria that was caused by a polio vaccine. And yet, it’s the government, acting as the enforcement arm of the pharmaceutical industry, that is demanding that we inject these vaccines into ourselves, often accompanied by intimidation tactics and the implied threat of force. Either government is acting as an agent for the pharmaceutical firms, it has a hidden agenda of harming the populace or it’s just plain incompetent. Regardless, government is not acting in the best interests of the people.
Or how about that decades-long “war on cancer” (isn’t it telling how government initiatives are prefixed with the word “war”)? This “war” has been waged for at least half a century, billions of dollars have been spent and still there is no “cure” for cancer. Meanwhile, we’ve sent human beings to the moon and back several times, decoded the human genome and produced a toxic cornucopia of genetically engineered Frankenfoods. A cynical person might be tempted to conclude that treating cancer, or any disease, for that matter, is more profitable than curing it; in other words, keeping people sick is more profitable than making people healthy, which is why I think the “health care” system in the U.S. really ought to be called “sick care.” And what of all those government grants to universities and corporations that engage in cancer “research”? Were a cure found and the disease effectively eradicated, all that “research” money would disappear.
Well, here’s a guy – Max Igan again – hosting a radio show during which he speaks with Rick Simpson, who claims to have found a cure for cancer, a cure so simple and inexpensive that his own government, the Canadian government (all the Anglo governments seem to be the most wicked on earth), is working hard to suppress it, evidently on behalf of the precious pharmaceutical industry.
Finally, there’s the government’s health care system, currently known as Medicare, which is a popular target of fraud. There are even computer programs available to health care providers that identify the most costly codes under which to bill medical procedures to the government. The government is constantly playing “catch up” in its efforts to prevent Medicare fraud, which is not too surprising because its money is not at risk, ours is.
The future of government health care, the recently passed, so-called “health care reform” law isn’t aimed at improving health care, but at addressing the unsustainability of the present system. The current government-private partnership, financed primarily by “insurance” (an abuse of the concept of insurance) cannot be sustained, so the “health care reform” law primarily focuses on rationing health care and raising revenue, in part by forcing more people to purchase “insurance,” when what needs to be done is to scrap the entire system and start over from a free market basis. Even a purely socialistic health care system in which the government provides care directly, which I do not support, would, nevertheless, be an improvement over the system we have now, which combines the worst elements of capitalism and socialism, with the private sector providing the services and charging whatever it likes with no constraints imposed by the free market (because there isn’t one), and the government paying a significant chunk of the bill. If I didn’t know any better, I might begin to suspect the system was rigged to benefit the elites who control the health care system (oh, wait...).
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, plain and simple, and like all Ponzi schemes, it worked in the beginning when there were a lot more
dupes contributors than beneficiaries. The revenue collected on behalf of Social Security is not “invested” in any way, but is spent as part of the government’s general revenue fund as soon as it’s collected. Since the scheme promises to pay out more money than it collects in revenue, the only possible ways to fulfill that promise are either to earn investment income on the revenue, which, as explained above is not happening, or to collect more revenue relative to what is being payed out, either by raising the tax rate, creating more bodies paying into the system (illegal immigrants, for example) or raising the age at which one is eligible to collect benefits (which has occurred several times in the past and is being considered once again by Congress). The tactic of inducing more and more people to pay into the system is identical to that of a Ponzi scheme, with the difference that participation in a Ponzi scheme is at least voluntary.
The Social Security system has been so botched up (interestingly, government employees participate in several alternative retirement systems that are much more lavish than Social Security) that the government is openly discussing confiscating peoples’ private retirement savings accounts in order to help fund Social Security! Of course, confiscating peoples’ savings won’t fix the government system, but it will kick the can down the road a ways and government is nothing if not shortsighted.
If instead of depending on the government, people were to save and invest for their own retirement (as they modestly tried to do with the 401Ks which are now threatened with government seizure) or face living on the street or with their relatives, they would not only probably enjoy a higher standard of living than they would by relying on Social Security, but such an approach would be sustainable, unlike the government’s Ponzi scheme approach, which according to the laws of mathematics must eventually fail. Preparing for one’s own retirement need not involve scoring huge financial investment gains, but can begin with something as mundane as simply paying off the debt on one’s house, affording them a low cost place to live when they retire, a goal that was once commonplace but seems so foreign in this day and age of high mobility and houses as investments.
And how about children simply caring for their aging parents? That’s the way things used to be in this country and still is in many parts of the world. Taking care of one’s parents is not only a moral obligation, but comes with benefits, such as having someone around to supervise the children and imbue them with a lifetime’s worth of hard-earned wisdom. Moreover, the cost of warehousing an elderly relative in a nursing home can be avoided. Given, however, that the nursing home business is big business, one must wonder if intergenerational alienation is part of a plan to bolster both the nursing home and child daycare business sectors. (I know these suggestions of mine sound cynical, but one must view things from the perspective of the elites who control the world. Money is literally their god; they judge everything by its monetary value, individuals according to their net worth and money is the only thing that matters to them. To them, everything must generate maximum profit all the time; if something fails to generate maximum profit, then in their eyes it’s broken and must be fixed. If one is ever at a loss to explain how things work in our society, the first question to ask is, “Who benefits?” Or more specifically, “How do the elites benefit from what is observed?”)
This country has become a realm of endemic financial fraud, aided, abetted and protected by government, which now demands that we the people shoulder the burden of bailing out the private banks. Without government intervention, the banks would be free to suffer the consequences of their fraudulent behavior by going out of business, which is the way of life in the natural world: mistakes are punished, sometimes by death.
Since its inception in 1913, the government-issued currency has been steadily debased, by several accounts having lost 95% of its purchasing power. (I use 1913 as the starting date because that’s when the partially gold-backed currency was introduced. Prior to that date, the purchasing power of the fully gold-backed U.S. dollar remained eerily stable for the better part of a century. Once the final link between the dollar and gold was severed in 1971, the debasement of the dollar and the accumulation of the national debt both accelerated.)
Our cycles of economic robustness and depression are largely the result of the government’s undisciplined monetary policy, emanating from the its central bank. I understand that the Federal Reserve is technically separate from the government, but it clearly operates in concert with government policy, and in any case, there would be no central bank such as the Federal Reserve without government approval.
The animal world, living under the dreaded law of the jungle and without government doesn’t experience such cycles of prosperity. Except when the ecological balance is disturbed by man or nature, the animal world enjoys a high level of stability and sustainability.
I will acknowledge one success in the government’s efforts to protect the environment: air pollution has been significantly reduced, in part thanks to government-mandated pollution controls on automobiles. Of course, deindustrialization, encouraged by government policy, has probably played a significant role as well.
Mostly, environmental protection and other forms of government regulation have been abused to take control of private lands and water supplies and drive companies out of business.
Whereas the people of China managed to live for thousands of years in harmony with their environment, in its recent quest for economic growth under the stewardship of China’s government, that country has become one of the most polluted in the world. Lest people think I’m singling out China for criticism, let us not forget that the greatest environmental catastrophe in all of history, the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, occurred under the watchful eyes of “regulators” within the U.S. Government.
Ooh, what a scary word is anarchy. Most people incorrectly associate the word anarchy with chaos. Like some other words ending with “cy” and “chy,” such as democracy, plutocracy, oligarchy and monarchy, anarchy merely describes the essential nature of a government. Unlike the other words, anarchy simply means “the absence of government.” Statists, who cannot conceive of a world without government, naturally loathe anarchy. To such people the absence of government implies disorder or even chaos, for to them government represents order, totalitarian government the most well ordered of all. The message promulgated everywhere, in the schools, the media and of course, by government is, totalitarianism: good; anarchy: bad.
Does the absence of government necessarily mean chaos will ensue? The internet has thrived for almost two decades now as an anarchical, government-free zone, fostering numerous innovations during that interval. How ironic is it that today we stand at the precipice of the threat of government intervention in the operation of the internet, and what is the nature of that threat? It’s the threat of government censorship and control, primarily aimed at suppressing the free exchange of information, thanks to the conveniently timed disclosure of non-secrets by WikiLeaks. This time around the government isn’t making even a feeble pretense that controlling the internet is in the interests of the people. No, the government is forthrightly complaining that the wicked internet is being used to divulge government secrets. Sadly, nobody asks the question, “What kind of government needs to operate in secret anyway?” Governments don’t keep secrets from one another; the only secrets are those the government keeps from the people it supposedly serves.
The world’s most cherished inventions and works of art were created not by governments, but by curious, self-directed individuals who, ironically, sometimes created their art or developed their inventions in spite of possible retribution from government! Even today, governments and corporations, through their unjust laws and highly paid legal teams, continue toiling arduously to stifle innovation and creativity.
There have been plenty of instances of anarchy throughout human history, including in the American western frontier in the nineteenth century (I concede that there was some government, but it was minimal). Certainly there were murders, robberies and acts of fraud, just like there are today, but I don’t think the conditions then were chaotic. If they were, then the American west could not have been successfully settled by the newcomers. Moreover, a large class of crimes were absent in the nineteenth century American west, those committed by the government itself, crimes such as stealing children from their parents under the
ruse guise of “child protective services”; shooting citizens wielding garden hoses; smashing into houses and killing the occupants and their pets on the basis of bad drug tips from paid informants; throwing people into prison for not paying taxes; fining people for having unkempt yards; evicting people from their own property for living too “simply”; confiscating people’s property for the absurd accusation that their property has committed a drug-related “crime” (as if drug prohibition is even justifiable in a supposedly free society). The above hugely incomplete summary of crimes committed by government doesn’t include the numerous false flag crimes of terrorism committed by government, crimes which seem to grow more numerous with each passing year. And what of the greatest crime of all, war? Only governments wage war; without government there would be no war, or “terrorism” for that matter. Even worse, government frequently sows the seeds of war, only to use the subsequent harvest to justify waging war anew, as admitted by Hillary Clinton in this video:
... the people we’re fighting today, we were supporting in the fight against the Soviets
I submit that a well educated, well armed populace is quite capable of maintaining order without infringing on each other’s rights. Yes, mistakes of justice can happen, but would they be any more common than the injustices routinely inflicted by government? Would such mistakes me any more a miscarriage of justice than, for instance, sentencing a young man to seven years in prison for violating draconian laws, despite his making a diligent effort to comply with those complex and confusing laws?
Moreover, is government ever remorseful about the injustices it inflicts on the people? I submit that individuals who commit errors in the application of justice are more likely to feel remorse and seek redress for their errors than government, which seeks only to conceal its mistakes and deny its culpability.
People will insist that without government ambitious people will form their own de-facto governments and lord over weaker people. While that is probably true, such would-be tyrants are still constrained by the threat of retaliation, either from the masses of aggrieved victims or from competing would-be tyrants. In any case, the potential power of, and harm that can be caused by private tyrants pales in comparison to that of government.
Government is no different in the manner in which it lords over people and compels them to its will, but unlike private tyranny, government is shielded by a veneer of legitimacy. People stifle their outrage against government abuses because they graciously, but naively believe government operates in the best interests of society as a whole and is therefore legitimate, its mistakes to be forgiven. Although our government was conceived as one constrained by the checks and balances of several branches, in reality it has become one gigantic tyranny, accountable to, and constrained by nobody, least of all the ignorant, inattentive voters.
The legislative branch has basically abdicated its responsibility, surrendering all its power to the executive branch; the judicial branch, which has largely been appointed by the executive branch, repeatedly demonstrates its loyalty to the same. Despite the intended design of a government constrained by checks and balances, the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government are still parts of a single government and for the most part, any appearance of contention between the branches is merely theater to placate the masses. The people in control of these branches of government are also members of the “elite” class and they have amply demonstrated their devotion to that class, as well as to its class war against the “masses.” So I don’t see how a bunch of petty, would-be tyrants in an otherwise anarchical setting could possibly be as bad as what we have now, which is a well organized, omnipotent, totalitarian tyranny, brandishing phony credentials of legitimacy.
By the way, for a humorous take on the class war being waged by the elites, which I’ve drawn attention to for years, watch this video. A statement that caused me to burst out laughing was when Gerald Celente said in reference to the British “royal” family,
This isn’t even ‘let them eat cake.’ It’s ‘let them eat nothing.’
Animals live under conditions of almost pure anarchy, shallow intra-clan hierarchies being the closest they come to having a government of any kind. And yet, animals enjoy a level of tranquility, harmony and stability that humans can only dream of. Are proponents of government implying that animals are capable of living in more civil fashion than humans?
Living without government doesn’t mean that we must each fend for ourselves. Under anarchy, people would be free to voluntarily organize themselves into groups to pursue a mutual benefit, just as animals do. Predatory pack animals hunt together and share in the spoils; some animal species raise their young in a communal environment; and many animals organize themselves into clans. In fact, without government, people would probably feel a greater obligation to look after their fellow human beings, instead of offloading that obligation to an uncaring government as they do now.
During my entire life, I’ve received little from government that I value, including my public education. In fact, as I mentioned in a recent post, I hated school even though I love learning. I’ve learned far more, while enjoying the process more, outside the public school environment. When I was younger I was indifferent toward government, but as I grew older I came to view government as all cost and no benefit. Lately, I’ve grown to view government as a grave threat to my own personal safety. For example, instead of viewing the police as the guarantor of my safety, I’m more afraid of being victimized by the police than by criminals! Often when I write on this blog I consider the possibility of alienating the government and earning its enmity, the potential consequences of which I’m keenly aware. Ironically, if one day I am “protected and served” by the government, it will merely prove one of my points in this essay, that government is more dangerous than it is beneficial, or as George Washington more eloquently phrased it:
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
As far as I’m concerned, I have no need of government. Some of us don’t want cradle-to-grave “care” from a surrogate parent otherwise known as “government.” I, for one, am perfectly happy to assume full responsibility for my well being and provide for my needs, just as all animals in the jungle must do. I believe that if other people honestly examine the benefits and costs of government from their own perspective, they will come to the same conclusion. Of course, there is a large contingent of people who are net beneficiaries of government, beginning with government employees themselves. I don’t know if such people can ever be persuaded that they could thrive on their own merits. When their own finances are involved, people have a remarkable capacity to justify any behavior of theirs. I’m sure the people confiscating raw milk and feeling up passengers in the nation’s airports have manged to convince themselves that they’re providing a beneficial service to the public. There are also people who don’t work for the government, but who are authoritarians that harbor the righteous belief that they can tell others what to do and how to live. For them, government is a powerful tool with which to bludgeon others into conforming with their views. Ironically, such authoritarians always take umbrage when the power of government is directed at them.
Despite any dubious arguments in favor of government, human beings survived and thrived for tens of thousands of years before the scam that we call government was invented by cunning psychopaths. The fact that our species endured long enough to invent government is proof of our ability to survive under the “law of the jungle.”
Today we find our government at the ineluctable endpoint of its life span, for, as has been noted by others, most governments only survive for 200-250 years. The elites have become utterly debauched and driven mad with greed, while the people have lost their moral compass and sense of personal responsibility, both merely following the examples set by a despotic, corrupt and increasingly desperate government. A mighty collapse is waiting in the wings – we’re in the incipient stages of it right now. Perhaps when this Humpty Dumpty finally falls off the wall we shouldn’t bother to pick up the pieces, but should follow the advice of one illustrious government functionary who admonished us to “just say no,” not to drug use, however, but to government. Or, we can repeat the process all over again with a brand new government and hope that things turn out better, which, according to Albert Einstein, is the definition of insanity.
Pretty sunset, taken on December 2. Again, I just thought it was pretty.
Here’s an outstanding series of videos (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5) featuring Sibel Edmonds discussing, from her perspective as a former insider, how government really works. Particularly note how she describes how the “state secrets privilege” is cavalierly used to conceal wrongdoing. In the end her advice is to not work within the system or through “proper” channels, but to anonymously leak information to the public! (Notice that she doesn’t advise leaking information to the media, but to the public.) As I understand her, our system is so broken that the only way to obtain justice is by making an end run around government and its “justice” system.
Here are a couple of links that are related to this post insofar as they help highlight the failures of government.
The first is a video of lady asking the U.S. Congress why it’s allowing mortgage lenders to engage in racketeering and why it doesn’t serve the interests of the people that elected congresspeople to office. I wish more Americans were as attentive and passionate as this lady.
The second is an article revealing that the products of government-run American schools are too dumb even to use as cannon fodder.
Here’s a brief, but illuminating essay that meshes well with mine here, titled Statism: An Unfalsifiable Religion, from a web site called Center for a Stateless Society (judging from the name alone, I think I’m going to like this site).
And for some good news for a change, it appears the governor of New Jersey has demonstrated a bit of good will or common sense and commuted the sentence of the young man sentenced to seven years in prison for violating that state’s crazy gun laws. Thank you, governor!
Here is an excellent video (Professor Paul Connett: Your Toxic Tap Water) highlighting the failure of government to protect our water supply, despite plenty of evidence that urgent action is necessary.
Here’s a breathtaking series of videos (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) featuring the towering Lew Rockwell discussing government, spiced up a few quotable gems, such as,
Think of it [government] like a huge, blind, rabid dog.
If the government doesn’t do something evil, it’s only because they don't think it’s in their interest or they didn’t of it or they can't figure out how to do it.
(Those delicious statements may be heard toward the end of Part 3.)
Are Lew and I on the same wavelength, or what?