An Inevitable Outcome

I’ve bitched and complained about taxes time and time again on this site. Outside of my criticisms of taxation being a form of theft I also bring up the practical problem with raising taxes, those who have money will eventually leave when their taxes get high enough. California, the state that taxes so hard it almost qualifies as rape, is learning this lesson:

State Controller John Chaing continues to uphold the California Great Seal Motto of “Eureka”, i.e., ‘I have found it’. But what Chaing is finding as Controller is that California’s economy as measured by tax revenues is still tanking. Compared to last year, State tax collections for February shriveled by $1.2 billion or 22%. The deterioration is more than double the shocking $535 million reported decline for last month. The cumulative fiscal year decline is $6.1 billion or down 11% versus this period in 2011.

[…]

California politicians seem delusional in their continued delusion that high taxes have not savaged the State’s economy. Each month’s disappointment is written off as due to some one-time event.

The State Controller’s office did acknowledge that higher than normal tax refunds for February might have reduced the collection of some personal income taxes. Given that 2012 has an extra day in February for leap year, there might have been one day more of tax refunds sent out. But the Controller’s report shows personal income tax collections fell by $325 million, or 16% versus last year. Furthermore, leap year would have added another day for retail sales and use tax collection, but those revenues also fell during February-by an even larger $813 million, 25% decline from 2011.

The more likely reason tax collections continue falling is that businesses and successful people are leaving California for the better tax rates available in more pro-business states.

The common cry of the collectivist movement is “Tax the rich!” As Bastiat warned us, some people are unable to see the unseen effects of state actions. What happens when you start taxing the “rich” more and more? Eventually they leave. The “rich” have money, a fact made evident by their status as being “rich”, and therefore can afford to move to a new state or country. When they leave they take their tax money with them, money that is sometimes used to fund programs that are supposed to help the downtrodden like food stamps, welfare, and worker’s compensation.

In the long run taxing the “rich” causes more harm to the “poor” than anybody else.

Kony 2012

I’m sure you’ve seen that blasted viral video talking about Joseph Kony. If you haven’t you’re lucky. Either way the entire thing is a scam that is attempting to justify bombing in Africa and the following video does an excellent job of explaining this fact (in the form of a rap news segment):

Since we killed Osama there’s been a hole in my stomach.

Sorry to hear that.

I miss him.

Why?

Because we desperately need a new dark skinned disney villan so we can justify defense budgets of trillions.

I Don’t Think Driving Under the Influence Applies Here

I’m not even sure what to make of this story:

Authorities in western New York say they’ve charged four young Amish adults with illegal possession of alcohol after their buggy collided with a police car responding to a report of a drinking party under way.

The Chautauqua County Sheriff’s Office tells media outlets that the crash occurred around 7:15 Sunday in the rural town of Sherman, near the Pennsylvania border in New York’s southwest corner.

First of all you can’t say a horse drawn buggy crashing into a car happens every day, I would think the horse would refuse to run into an object. Also:

Police say several other buggies fled the scene.

That’s just funny.

The State is Here to Help

Or not:

Federal Emergency Management Agency officials over the weekend issued a letter denying Gov. Pat Quinn’s request for disaster aid for the five counties hardest hit by the tornado, meaning residents and communities will not be eligible for federal dollars for the costs of repairing the damage.

The news was yet another blow to the region, which had been designated a major disaster area just last year after floods damaged the area. The 170-mph winds of the recent twister damaged or destroyed hundreds of homes and killed seven people, said Harrisburg Mayor Eric Gregg.

According to statists we need agencies like the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to assist people in areas rocked by natural disasters. Yet when an area is actually hit by a natural disaster FEMA effectively says, “LOL, sucks to be you!” I’m sure FEMA has a damned good reason for not helping the region out though:

FEMA officials determined that assistance from state and local agencies, combined with volunteer groups and private insurance, would be enough for the five counties to rebuild on their own, spokesman Mark Peterson said Sunday.

In other words we should turn to mutual aid. Huh. In that case I guess we don’t need FEMA then, do we?

I find it funny that the state demand we pay them a tithe for the use of providing services but then doesn’t provide those services and tells us to rely on one another. If we rely on one another, if we practice mutual aid, then we don’t need the state. Effectively the state is once again doing my job for me by making my argument for me.

Crashing the So-Called Justice System

We live in a police state where every person is actively breaking numerous laws. Between the constant issuance of speeding tickets, verboten substance possession charges, public intoxication charges, parking citations, and numerous other victimless “crimes” being perpetuated by everyday people you would think our court systems would be flooded with so many cases that none of these things would actually get to trail. The dirty little secret of the state is that they’re only able to fine, incarcerate, and otherwise punish people for these petty crimes is because they rarely go to trail. If we want to crash the punishment system (often incorrectly called a justice system in this country) all we need to do is take everything to court:

AFTER years as a civil rights lawyer, I rarely find myself speechless. But some questions a woman I know posed during a phone conversation one recent evening gave me pause: “What would happen if we organized thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of people charged with crimes to refuse to play the game, to refuse to plea out? What if they all insisted on their Sixth Amendment right to trial? Couldn’t we bring the whole system to a halt just like that?”

[…]

“The truth is that government officials have deliberately engineered the system to assure that the jury trial system established by the Constitution is seldom used,” said Timothy Lynch, director of the criminal justice project at the libertarian Cato Institute. In other words: the system is rigged.

In the race to incarcerate, politicians champion stiff sentences for nearly all crimes, including harsh mandatory minimum sentences and three-strikes laws; the result is a dramatic power shift, from judges to prosecutors.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1978 that threatening someone with life imprisonment for a minor crime in an effort to induce him to forfeit a jury trial did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to trial.

[…]

On the phone, Susan said she knew exactly what was involved in asking people who have been charged with crimes to reject plea bargains, and press for trial. “Believe me, I know. I’m asking what we can do. Can we crash the system just by exercising our rights?”

The answer is yes. The system of mass incarceration depends almost entirely on the cooperation of those it seeks to control. If everyone charged with crimes suddenly exercised his constitutional rights, there would not be enough judges, lawyers or prison cells to deal with the ensuing tsunami of litigation. Not everyone would have to join for the revolt to have an impact; as the legal scholar Angela J. Davis noted, “if the number of people exercising their trial rights suddenly doubled or tripled in some jurisdictions, it would create chaos.”

We can grind the police state to a halt by simply exercising the rights that are supposedly guaranteed us by the United States Constitution. In other words we must overcome our fear that the state will toss us in a cage longer unless we surrender our rights. Furthermore we must stop looking at tickets on a purely costs basis. Sure it may cost more to fight a ticket in court than it would to simply pay it off, and the state realizes this, they have engineered the system this way to ensure we simply surrender our money to them.

The current criminalization of everything requires complacency by the people. Were every single citation, ticket, find, and charge taken to trail the court systems would be so flooded with cases that they would be entirely unable to function. In such a scenario they would be forced to make a decision: concentrate on crimes where a victim exists or continue prosecuting victimless crimes and finding it impossible to get through the cases.

Nothing can be changed at the ballot box, but we can change things through other methods. Jury nullification and taking everything to court, in other words exercising your rights, are two great ways to toss monkey wrenches into the state’s works. The state expects us to roll over and pay the money they demand from us because it’s easier than fighting them. In the short run it may be easier to roll over but in the long run it costs us far more as every infraction against our liberty the state wins empowers them, encourages them, and makes them believe they can extract anything they want from us by merely making the cost of fighting seem smaller in the short run. Let us use their own weapon against them, let us gunk up the engine of punishment by exercising our rights.

That Sounds Familiar

We’re going to play a game, it’s call guess what device I’m talking about. This device, at one time and possibly still today, required a buyer to get permission from the police to buy, required a fingerprint of the device be submitted to the police if the purchase was approved, had to be surrendered to the police if the previous permission is revoked, couldn’t be purchased by convicted criminals, and the police were to be notified within 24 hours of the device being lost or stolen. What do you think the device is?

If you guessed a firearm you’re incorrect. The correct answer is a typewriter:

Romanians now must seek police permission for owning a potentially dangerous weapon — the typewriter.

[…]

Under new procedures:
–Typewriter owners must submit written applications to police for permission to keep or buy a machine, then wait for an answer.
–If the application is approved, the owner must submit a type sample of numbers and letters for registration with authorities.
–If the license is withdrawn, owners must sell their machines within 10 days to a state-run shop. Private sale is forbidden, but the owner is allowed on appeal.
–Typewriters will be denied to people who have a criminal record or pose “a danger to the public order or state security.”
–Police must be notified within 24 hours of the loss or theft of a typewriter, and their rental or use outside the registered owner’s home is forbidden.
–Penalty for failure to comply with the law is $240 and confiscation of offenders’ typewriters.

This was printed in The Telegraph on April 30th, 1983. Reading through it I was able to check every single bullet point off when I replaced the word ‘typewriter’ with ‘firearm’ and applied the list to what gun control advocates have been demanding. It seems obvious to me that the gun control crowd has been pilfering communist regimes for ideas on laws that they should push regarding firearm control.

Just like communist regimes of the past, current advocates of controlling tools desire power. The communists hoped to oppress all criticism by making it illegal to criticize communist and controlling means of producing written material. Gun control advocates hope to cement the state’s power to rule over our lives by disarming the people. Deep down inside gun control advocates fear individual liberty and demand the state be allowed to control the lives of every man, woman, and child. In the state’s absolute control the gun control advocates can absolve themselves of responsibility for their personal defense by gaining a scapegoat, an entity to blame, when they are subjected to crimes of violence. Instead of saying “I fought and lost” they want to say “The police never arrive, I couldn’t do anything, it’s not my fault, the police were supposed to protect me.”

The gun control advocates’ willingness to surrender all of our rights to comfort themselves is the thing I find most disgusting about them.

The Classic Voting Debate

Election season is that special time that comes to us living in American every two years (although the really “important” elections are only every four years). During this time we’re given the choice between evil of one variety and evil of another variety and asked to choose which type of evil we want to rule over us for four years. With election season comes debates regarding the process of voting, a debate that’s going down at Tam’s blog and Linoge’s.

The debate has three sides; those who believe you should vote for the “lesser” or two evils, those who believe you should vote you conscious, and those who don’t believe in the voting process. I’ve written about my opinion regarding the voting process and I fall squarely in the third camp. I don’t believe voting can change a damn thing, the system is rigged too well to ensure the current political power maintains its, well, power. Every challenge to the establishment has been crushed and with each victory won by those in power they’ve learned how to keep people’s input from ruining their chances of ruling the American people. They’re specialists, they spend a large majority of their time scheming, plotting, and planning new ways to fuck over the grassroots movements, the political dissidents, and the radicals. Voting is their system, they know and understand it, they control it, and we can’t win by playing by their rules.

But this post isn’t about the futility of voting, it’s about the debate raging between the first two sides; those who believe you should vote for the “lesser” or two evils and those who believe you should vote your conscious. While I hold no regard for the voting process I also have no desire to prevent those who wish to participate in the voting process from doing so. If you believe the system can be changed at the ballot box then certainly vote; I do believe in a diversity of tactics after all. What I will ask of those who wish to use the ballot box is this: don’t be part of the problem, be part of the solution.

What I mean by this is don’t be in the camp that votes for the “lesser” of two evils. Do you know what I refer to the camp that votes for the “lesser” of two evils as? A bunch of socialists. Let’s assume that Romney gets the nomination and this year’s presidential election winds up being a battle between Obama and Obama, err, Romney. Looking at the situation we have two candidates whose only differentiating feature their skin color. Politically Romney and Obama hold nearly the same beliefs, they both love big government and spit on individual liberty whenever the chance presents itself.

The “lesser” of two evils camp will claim numerous reasons why you should vote for Romney instead of Obama. These reasons range from the danger of Obama being allowed to pick new Supreme Court justices to the economic devastation wrought by Obama’s policies. What these individuals have failed to state is how Romney will be any different. Who would Romney appoint to the Supreme Court? What economic policies would Romney implement? Nobody in the “lesser” of two evils camp ever provides solid answers to such questions. They often say that Romney is a socialist but not as much of a socialist as Obama. What does that get us? A socialist judge nominated to the Supreme Court, perhaps not as socialist of a judge, but a socialist judge nonetheless. Romney’s knowledge on economics is almost zero, a fact made apparent by his statements that the president is in any position to fix the economy. The only fix to the economy is through an entirely free market and that necessarily requires a complete abolition of government involvement, something Romney doesn’t support.

At least those voting their conscious have a leg to stand on because they’re trying to be part of the solution. If people would abandon the idea of supporting the “lesser” or two evils and began voting on their principles we’d likely have a far better situation than that currently faced. Gary Johnson isn’t likely to fix everything, he’s not even likely to fix some things, but he’s likely to cause little damage.

What this entire argument boils down to is the following: those voting for the “lesser” or two evils will accomplish nothing while those who vote their conscious will likely solve nothing but at least stand a chance. Putting Cthulhu into office will only result in evil being brought against the people of this country. No matter how you shake it voting for the “lesser” of two evils accomplishes nothing. At most, at the very most, it staves off total economic collapse by a few minutes, but the faster we get the collapse over with the fast we can recover. The longer we allow the government to work the longer the pain of recovery will last as demonstrated by the Great Depression. Therefore voting for the “greater” of two evils will serve us better in the long wrong as it’ll get the pain over with more quickly.

Those voting for the “lesser” of two evils are part of the problem, they’re prolonging the pain. A vote for a third party may very well be a vote thrown away but it’s not helping perpetuate the problem and, therefore, is far better than a vote cast for the “lesser” evil.

Another way to look at things is that we’re probably better off, in the long run, with a completely authoritarian president who can get this police state ramped up to 11 because the faster the average individual is inconvenienced the faster they’ll get pissed off and work on changing things instead of just bitching about them. Really, in the grand scheme of things, those voting for the “lesser” or two evils are the biggest problem causes of them all. Those who vote for the “greater” or two evils are getting us to collapse and recovery faster, those who vote their conscious are attempting to get people into office that have a chance of rolling this country back before the collapse happens, and those of us who have given up on the idea of voting are a null sum in the equation.

If you’re going to scream at me and claim I’m part of the problem because I won’t vote for the “lesser” evil all I can say is kindly bugger off. As much as you’re convinced that I’m part of the problem I’m convinced that you’re part of the problem. You think I’m a terrible person because I won’t play your game and I think you’re an equally terrible person because you’re playing the game. Bitch and moan about Obama all you want but Romney isn’t one iota better. Your belief that Romney is the “lesser” evil is delusional. The only way one could possible come to such a conclusion in my opinion is if they lied to themselves so much that they started believing their lies, in other words they are practicing cognitive dissonance. I don’t believe there is any way to stave off the collapse and the longer we prolong our agony the more severe the recover will be.

To those of you voting for the “lesser” of two evils, your doing nothing more than prolonging agony so don’t claim any moral high ground over me. Shove off. Go tell yourself bedtime stories about how great you are and use me as the villan, frankly I don’t give a damn. Your plan sucks, it’s the worst of the worst, and you will get no support from me. Unlike you, those voting their conscious are at least trying to fix things, they’re doing something different because they have the ability to use reason and through that ability have realized the current plan, your plan of voting for the “lesser” evil, hasn’t accomplished anything. What did voting for Bush accomplish? Further economic failure, bailouts, a more prominent police state, and war. What will Romney give us over Obama? Nothing but more of the same; more economic failures, more bailouts, a more prominent police state, and more wars. If that’s your idea of better then I will have no part in your scheme. Like children you ignore what you don’t like and simply scream “NOT UH!” whenever somebody points out the failure of your plan. Go play in your sandbox and let us adults get to work.

Empty Apologies

I’m sure you’ve heard about the rampage that ended in the death of 16 Afghanistan civilians:

Sixteen Afghans, including women and children, were killed in their homes by a rogue US soldier in a pre-dawn rampage on Sunday, plunging relations between the two countries into a new crisis.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai condemned the slaughter as unforgivable.

‘When Afghan people are killed deliberately by US forces, it is murder and terror and an unforgivable action,’ Karzai said in a statement.

The American soldier entered the homes of civilians in the southern Kandahar province and killed 16 people including nine children and three women, the statement said.

But it’s OK, Obama called and apologized:

US President Barack Obama has phoned his Afghan counterpart Hamid Karzai to express condolences over the massacre of 16 villagers in Kandahar.

[…]

Mr Obama vowed to hold accountable anyone responsible for the “tragic and shocking” incident.

I’m sure the phone call went something like this:

Obama: Hey, I heard about the rampage that left some of your people dead, super sorry about that.

Karzai: Sixteen innocent people were slaughtered, nine of them children, and all you can say is ‘I’m sorry?’

Obama: Fine, I’ll do a token inquiry.

Karzai: An inquiry? How about you get out of my fucking country!

Obama: Yeah, about that. See, the thing is we really don’t feel like the time is right for use to leave. I’m sorry this happened and everything, and I can’t say it won’t happen again, but I’ll certainly give somebody a stern talking to about this. Talk to you later.

After which Obama hung up the phone, laughed his ass off, and told Biden, “That guy thinks I care, what an idiot!” This is the result of war and it is why it should be avoided at all costs. I think the horrors of war were realized well enough by the founding fathers since they required congressional approval before the United States would raise an army and enter a war. Sadly the founding fathers didn’t realize how spineless fucks would end up populating the congress and give the president dictator-like powers to send American people overseas to die without so much as a challenge.

Strong Bipartisan Support

We often hear a bill has strong bipartisan support as if that’s a good thing. Truthfully strong bipartisan support is a fancy of way of saying legislation that will fuck us in the ass. Remember the bill I mentioned that would effectively make it illegal to protest anywhere people protected by the Secret Service were speaking? It broke the laws of physics when it passed through the legislature faster than the speed of light. It flew threw the Senate on February 5th, made its way through the House on February 28th, and was finally signed by the emperor president on March 7th. All told the bill went from passing its first part of congress to being signed into law in roughly one month.

The statement released by the White House is laughable:

H.R. 347, the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,” which makes it a Federal crime to enter or remain knowingly in any restricted area of the White House, the Vice President’s official residence, or their respective grounds without lawful authority.

No justification, no attempt at bullshitting the public about why this bill is needed, just a short statement that might as well read, “Shut up slaves.” The statement also entirely missed the fact that this bill extends well beyond the White House or the Vice President’s residence:

‘(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area–

‘(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds;

‘(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or

‘(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and

‘(2) the term ‘other person protected by the Secret Service’ means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.’.

The bill applies to any location where persons “protected by the Secret Service” are at. Beautiful isn’t it? That means this bill applies to any location the president or vice president are currently stalking about.