The Scam of Social Security

You know that scam called Social Security? It’s even more of a scam today than it once was:

People retiring today are part of the first generation of workers who have paid more in Social Security taxes during their careers than they will receive in benefits after they retire. It’s a historic shift that will only get worse for future retirees, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

Technically this has always been the case due to inflation. The money paid into Social Security early in your career is worth less when you draw it since the dollar is in constant fall. With that said, even without inflation this was bound to happen. Why? Because Social Security is a big Ponzi scheme (in fact the only reason the state likely pursues individuals running Ponzi schemes is because they’re challenging the state’s monopoly on Ponzi schemes). Like any Ponzi scheme, Social Security can only work so long as more and more new people are signed up to pay into the system. As soon as there are more people withdrawing from Social Security than paying in the entire system collapses. Combing the increasing number of people unemployed with the fact the baby boomers are beginning to withdraw Social Security and their population is higher than new workers beginning to pay into Social Security and you have a collapsing Ponzi scheme.

The FBI Doesn’t Want to be Politically Incorrect

How can you ensure that any crimes you’re planning won’t be investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI)? Make sure they’re politically incorrect:

In emails to a known terrorist, the man charged with killing 13 people in a 2009 attack at Fort Hood, Texas, expressed his support for suicide bombings and killing civilians — glaring signs that the FBI did not act on but should have, a report has claimed.

Army Maj. Nidal Hasan told a radical Islamic cleric that he advocated using suicide bombers and that he believed it was OK to kill civilians.

And the terrorist, Anwar al-Awlaki, a man well-known to the U.S. intelligence community, told Hasan in an email that the Army psychiatrist should keep his contact details handy.

But the agents on the FBI’s Washington anti-terrorism task force thought the issue of a Muslim soldier talking to extremists was too sensitive to bring up with the Defense Department, Rep. Michael McCaul said after he was briefed on the findings of the independent review on Wednesday.

‘It shows you the length of the political correctness stuff going on,’ he told the Associated Press.

It’s kind of ironic that the FBI demanded more and more spying powers after 9/11, claiming they needed to spy on any foreign communications for the safety of the nation, only to received them and not use them. I guess manufacturing terrorist threats is more politically correct then pursuing existing threats that the FBI has actual evidence of.

The state has to be the only entity so incompetent that they can literally be handed unconstitutional powers to spy on American citizens, actually find a possible terrorist using said powers, and fail to act on it.

Dissent Won’t be Allowed at the Republican National Convention

What does the Republican National Convention (RNC) want? Romney. Not only that but they want it to appear as though Romney has the support of the entire Republican Party, which is probably why they aren’t giving Ron Paul a speaking position:

In a political move that defies logic, CNN is reporting that presidential challenger Ron Paul has not been asked to speak at the Republican National Convention in Tampa. Instead, the Romney team has invited Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, Ohio Governor John Kasich, Arizona Senator John McCain and Florida Governor Rick Scott will also have prime time speaking roles.

I’m guessing the RNC made this move in the hopes that Ron Paul’s delegates won’t shot up without Paul present. The RNC wants to make it appear as though there is unified support for Romney throughout the Republican Party. After all, if you can’t get your own party to show support for your presidential candidate how are you going to get the general public to support him? Paul’s supporters are very expressive of their support for the good doctor and would make a lot of noise during Paul’s speech, likely far more noise than Romney would receive during his speech.

I’m hoping that Paul’s supporters will make a circus out of the RNC. Nothing would amuse me more than seeing Paul’s supporters booing Romney and the other neocons, giving speeches on television denouncing the RNC, and tossing glitter everywhere inside the RNC (glitter is such a pain in the ass to get off of clothes that people would be walking around with glitter covered suits for the entire convention, lulz would be had by all). Some people are probably shaking their heads at that last statement and want the Paul supporters to act professional. In response to such a statement I would be forced to ask why anybody should take a rigged election seriously.

Another Shut Up Slave Moment Brought to You by the State

What happens when you catch the police brutalizing the public? You become a target of the state:

Keene, New Hampshire – August 4, 2012 – The controversial felony wiretapping charges journalist and founder Adam ‘Ademo’ Mueller is facing will go to trial, a situation that has stirred up a hornet’s nest of free speech advocates in New Hampshire. The “Free Ademo” supporters are planning to show their support en masse at Hillsboro County Superior Court when jury selection for the trial begins at 9 a.m. Monday, August 6. This will be the first time an activist has taken a case this serious to trial since the state passed HB 146, a jury nullification law that ensures the defense’s right to inform the jury of their right to issue “not guilty” verdicts when they disagree with the application of the law in question.

According to court documents, the three wiretapping charges stem from a vlog Mueller posted on, which featured recordings of on-duty public officials being interviewed about alleged police brutality at a local school. Mueller was reporting about a video recorded by a Manchester West High School student’s cell phone, depicting Officer Darren Murphy slamming a handcuffed student’s face into a cafeteria table. The video later went viral.

This is going to be an interesting case due to the jury nullification law recently passed in New Hampshire. Traditionally juries are told that they must rule based on the letter of the law but this isn’t true, a jury may rule in whatever manner it wants without facing repercussions. If members of a jury believe a law is wrong they may give a ruling of innocent. Juries in New Hampshire, thanks to the passage of HB 146, will now be informed of their jury nullification powers and this seems like the case to use such powers on as Ademo is really being charged with catching the police brutalizing people they’re supposed to protect.

Seven Dead at Sikh Temple in Wisconsin

It’s unfortunate that evil people are able to strike anywhere in the world. This is the reason gun-free zones don’t work, because there are no zones you can guarantee to be free of guns unless the location is guaranteed free of people. When discussing gun-free zones many advocates of gun control demand that places of worship be including on the list of places where a gun can’t be carried legally, unfortunately bad people do enter places of worship:

At least seven people, including a gunman, have died in a shooting at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin in the US.

The attacker “ambushed” a policeman at the scene, shooting him multiple times, before a second officer returned fire, killing the gunman, said authorities.

The shot officer was among three men critically injured in the attack in Oak Creek, suburban Milwaukee.

My condolences go out to the families of the victims. At this time information is scarce since the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) are declaring it an act of domestic terrorism:

At a press conference, Oak Creek Police Chief John Edwards said they were treating the attack as a “domestic terrorist-type incident”, and that the FBI would take over the criminal investigation.

He said he could not release any information about the shooter, who local media reports said was a white male.

I wonder if this was merely another random act of violence or if the shooter had a grude against practitioners of the Sikh faith.

Add Brew City Shooters Supply of Milwaukee, Wisconsin to the Blacklist

If you live in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and have shot at the Brew City Shooters Supply range know that your personal information was given to the local police:

Wisconsin -( Carry has learned of some concerning information that we would like to pass along to our membership and right-to-carry interested folks in southeast Wisconsin.

In a recently published Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article which you can read here

It was reported that the former Badger Guns (now Brew City Shooters Supply) has, since 2009, been reporting the names of every customer that comes in to use their firing range to the West Milwaukee Police Department.

In this time over 25,000 customer names were reported to West Milwaukee Police Chief Dennis Nasci who ran a background check on each through “his system”.

So far in 2012 it was reported more than 8,800 customer name records have been supplied to West Milwaukee Police by Brew City Shooters Supply to have a criminal background check run on them.

If there’s one thing I hate it’s a company that treats its customers like suspected criminals. At least I’m lead to believe that Brew City Shooters Supply suspects all of their customers are criminals since I can think of no other reason that they would report every one of their customers to the police. Either way I’d refrain from giving them any business as their behavior, if nothing else, is an effective means of creating a local firearm registry.

The Art of War: Know Your Enemy, Know Yourself

Sun Tzu said “If you know your enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not your enemy, for every victory gained you will also know defeat. If you know neither the enemy or yourself, you will sucumb to every battle.” While he was talking specifically about war much of his advice translates to other aspects of life, especially debates.

Being able to debate is important if you want to advocate for something. During most debates there are three factions: those who agree with you, those who disagree with you, and those who haven’t taken sides. Some say that debating is pointless because you’ll never change your opponent’s mind. The assumption being made by such a statement is that your goal is to change your opponent’s mind, it’s not in most cases, it’s to convince those who haven’t taken sides to take your side. In your quest to convince those who haven’t taken sides to take your side you need to know the details about what you’re advocating and the details about what your opposition is advocating.

Today’s lesson is simple: in a debate know your shit and know your opponent’s shit.

As a fan of examples I’m going to use an example to portray today’s lesson. In our example we’ll have a hypothetical debate between a libertarian named Murray and a communist named Karl. Let’s consider the first part of the Art of War excerpt, “If you know your enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.” Murray, being an intelligent individual, has thoroughly read both libertarian and communist literature. He actually knows how Karl came to his conclusions, understands Karl’s theories, and can quote from any number of Karl’s fellow communists. Murray also knows his own work like the back of his hand. Why is this important? Why did Murray waste his time researching communism if he’s debating libertarianism? Because one cannot hope to win a debate unless he actually knows what his opponent is doing.

During this hypothetical debate we’ll say Karl states, “Human history can be characterized by exploitation. The capitalist class exploits the laborer class. In order for the laborer to obtain the necessities of life he must become a wage slave to a capitalist. The capitalist, interested only in profit, exploits the laborer and gives only a fraction of the value provided by the laborer in wages. Unable to survive without wages received from a capitalist the laborer is reduced to a mere servant.”

How could Murray respond to this? He could just call the entire statement malarkey and leave it at that but little would be accomplished from such a feat. Those who listened to the debate would see Karl as an intelligent individual, logically explaining his philosophy, and Murray as an inarticulate moron who doesn’t offer and explanation as to why Karl is wrong. Thankfully Murray has read Karl’s works and has found the failures of his statements. With this knowledge in hand Murray can counter by explaining, “You are correct in so far as human history can be characterized by exploitation. However you are incorrect on who is performing the exploitation. We must look at the root cause of the issue, why are other options unavailable to the laborer? Why can’t many of the laborers pool their resources and setup a competing factory on an unused plot of land? It’s not because the capitalist is preventing it, it’s because the ruling class, the state, is preventing it. The state, claiming authority over all, maintains a monopoly on the ownership of land and its use. Laborers cannot setup a competing factory because the state will use force to stop them from using the land and will make matters worse by hitting them with countless fees for inspections and fines for violating its regulations. These costs are nothing to an established business, which has the available capital to pay the fees and fines without going broke. The laborers, who are trying to establish themselves, do not have such access capital available to them. It isn’t the capitalist that is exploiting the laborers, it is the state that is protecting the capitalist from competition from the laborers.”

By using that explanation Murray is able to do two things: counter Karl’s statement and setup an argument against Karl’s idea to improve the current situation. Karl wants to establish an all powerful state to rule over all of society and ensure no capitalists are ever again able to exist. Murray, by showing the state to be the true exploiter, has set himself up to counter Karl’s solution. If you know your enemy you can anticipate their movements and develop an appropriate plan to deal with them.

Let’s consider the next piece of the except, “If you know yourself but not your enemy, for every victory gained you will also know defeat.” In a debate not knowing your enemy can cost you greatly, even if you know your own philosophy. This is where many libertarians falter, they know libertarian philosophy in and out but they have no understanding of communist philosophy. It’s time to revisit our debate between Murry and Karl. This time we’re going to assume that Murray has no functional knowledge of communism.

Karl says, “The capitalist class has amassed all possible resources and prevents the laborer class from acquiring them. In order to grow their wealth the capitalists keep the laborers in a state of poverty, preventing them from becoming an economic competitor.”

Unfortunately for Murray he has no understanding of the issue Karl is brining up. All Murray says is, “You just want to take the entrepreneurs’ wealth so that you don’t have to work.” Such a statement fails to address the point Karl was making, that is the poor are prevented from rising because resources are kept from them. It isn’t a false claim, those who are in poverty are often unable to rise economically because resources are not available to them. What Karl is incorrect about is the perpetrator, it’s not the capitalist but the state. It’s the state’s monopoly over resource ownership and implementation of rules and regulations that prevent new low cost businesses from developing. For a small fee anybody can gain possession of a food cart and could begin selling hamburgers, hotdogs, french fries, etc. to hungry passersby. Yet many municipalities have laws against such businesses or require the purchase of an expensive permit before selling food.

Now we’ll take a look at the last except, “If you know neither the enemy or yourself, you will sucumb to every battle.” If you don’t know your stuff and don’t know your opponent’s stuff you’re truly sunk. For this final section we’re going to assume Murray has no understanding of libertarian philosophy or communist philosophy.

Karls says, “The current environmental destruction is a demonstration of a capitalist’s greed. They are willing to put the health of everybody else at risk merely to obtain more wealth. No regard is given to the community.”

Murray, having only heard a few talking points about libertarianism, is unable to counter with any detail and merely replies, “Free markets would solve that.” How would free markets solve that? Murray isn’t sure and thus unable to go into detail. To anybody observing the debate Murray looks like a putz while Karl seems like a very intelligent individual, after all he gave an explanation for the rampant environmental destruction going on in the world. Those who try to argue in favor of libertarianism but don’t understand libertarianism are the most dangerous, they practically hand victory to the communists.

If you want to enter into debates you must not only know your material but also your opponent’s material. This holds true whether the argument is gun rights versus gun control, libertarianism versus communism, free markets versus controlled markets, or any other topic. Going into a debate knowing only your material will likely grant you some victories while going into a debate knowing neither your material or your opponent’s material will ensure your defeat.

Why You Should Quit Politics

Longtime readers of my blog know that I slowly became more and more disenfranchised with politics. At one point I believed, naively, that the political system could be reformed and that liberty could be reclaimed if we could just get the right people into office. I’m over that now, I realized the achieving liberty by begging our oppressors won’t gain us liberty. This is why I’ve ducked out of politics and am focusing on economic solutions and I’m not the only one:

The whole prospect compelled me to re-examine the efficacy of the political process as a means to liberty, and I’m beginning to think that this state sanctioned mechanism for change may not actually be the most appropriate means for our desired end. Perhaps it’s time to rethink all this- to demote on our priority list the stopgap measures of the political process and to begin fervently pouring our talents, energies and monies into a ‘targeted capitalism’, if you will. Liberty lovers everywhere intentionally targeting state-monopolized resources and disintegrating those monopolies through the capitalist process. These means are by nature decentralizing and can be pursued while completely disregarding the will of power. Enough of this pleading with our oppressors not to oppress us so much! Let’s stop being depressed victims of the state and instead start imagining all the endless opportunities its incompetencies create! In the process, we can be around people we like, create wealth by offering real value for the masses, live adventurously, with a clean conscience, and most importantly, live free.

In order to remove the state’s interference from our lives we must make the state irrelevant. So long as they maintain monopolies on needed resources people will continue to falsely believe that those resources wouldn’t be available without the state. How many times have you heard the argument that the state is necessary to build and maintain roads, provide welfare to the poor, and ensure we have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink? Those of us that argue markets can provide all of those things are often doubted. Market skeptics don’t consider the fact that the state prevents such goods from being provided on a free market, they just know that those goods aren’t currently being provided by a free market.

If we want liberty we must step up to the plate and begin challenging the state’s monopolies. We must demonstrate that the state isn’t required to provide goods and services. Once the state has proven to be irrelevant individuals may finally start questioning why they’re paying great deals of wealth to it.

The history of the United States has demonstrated one thing: the political process isn’t an effective means of achieving liberty. In the 236 years this country has been in existence we’ve seen the state grab more and more power. The Articles of Confederation were quickly replaced by the Constitution, which granted the federal government the power to tax. When states tried to leave the United States they were forced back into the Union by a Civil War. In the name of fighting communism more and more spying powers were granted to the federal government. Now we face an almost all-powerful state that claims control over all social and economic issues. It cements its power by preventing others from providing wanted services or helping one another. The state claims it’s necessary to help the poor, sick, and hungry and then prevents others from helping the poor, sick, and hungry. It validates itself by preventing others from doing what it does. Time has come to say “Enough is enough!” We need to start challenging the state’s monopolies, we need to demonstrate that individuals are capable of helping one another. Honestly, we all need to start businesses (not state sanctioned businesses, just businesses).

Roger Pion, a True American Hero

I never heard the name Roger Pion before but the stunt he pulled in Vermont should make him world famous:

Working in a stout former bank building with windows closed and air conditioners humming, Orleans County sheriff’s deputies didn’t know what was happening in their parking lot until a neighbor called 911.

A man on a big farm tractor, angry about his recent arrest for resisting arrest and marijuana possession, was rolling across their vehicles — five marked cruisers, one unmarked car and a transport van.

By the time they ran outside, the tractor was down the driveway and out onto the road.

With their vehicles crushed, “We had nothing to pursue him with,” said Chief Deputy Philip Brooks.

This is why I love farmers, if anybody in this country has fighting spirit it’s them. Not only do they have fighting spirit but the way they seek revenge is usually quite comical. In this case nobody was hurt and laughs were had by all (except the police, but they don’t count because they arrested a man for a victimless “crime”).

I know the police are going to force Roger to pay for their cars again (he already paid once through taxation) and likely will hold the farmer in a cage for some time. If there is a relief fund or somewhere to send letters of congratulations I’d very much like to know.