The Violence Inherent in the System

Via Twitter, reader and commenter Zerg539, linked me to a story that demonstrates how violent the statist system is:

The North Carolina man visited by armed EPA agents after sending an email to a controversial agency official says he’s not satisfied with the explanations about what he considers an excessive response and that he wants changes to agency policies and procedures.

“This isn’t over,” Keller said.

He told Fox that Environmental Protection Agency officials have said the agency followed procedures and that the agents acted appropriately during their visit last month. However, Keller is still invited to come to EPA headquarters to discuss the situation.

Keller said he’s not willing to come to Washington without knowing what will be discussed.

The incident unfolded after Keller sent an email April 27 to the EPA to try to reach Al Armendariz — a regional administrator who was under fire for a YouTube video post days earlier in which he said his enforcement strategy was to “crucify” executives from big oil and gas companies.

The letter to an EPA external affairs director read “Do you have Mr. Armendariz’s contact information so we can say hello? – Regards- Larry Keller.”

An agent of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made a comment about crucifying oil company executives and the guy asking for his contact information is the one that warrants armed thuggery? I understand the comment about crucifying oil company executive was figurative but it’s certainly worse then asking for contact information.

Sending armed agents to the home of somebody asking for your contact information is nothing but pure intimidation. Nobody should be surprised though, intimidation is what the state does. The costumes, riot gear, weapons, armored personnel carriers provided by the Department of Homeland Security, and domestic use of surveillance drones are all about intimidation. It’s meant to make you kowtow to the state. In fact it’s no different than the Russian military parades that were put on to intimidate both the people in Russian and foreign countries.

The State Makes Hypocrites of Its Supporters

Stephen King wrote an article that has the entire progressive movement cheering his name. In the article King expresses his desire to have the state tax him more. While I give a great deal of credit for the comedic value in this article (seriously, I never knew King was such a vicious writer, kudos to him) I have to take that credit away from him due to his total lack of understanding of the nature of the state. His closing paragraph says it all:

What charitable 1 percenters can’t do is assume responsibility—America’s national responsibilities: the care of its sick and its poor, the education of its young, the repair of its failing infrastructure, the repayment of its staggering war debts. Charity from the rich can’t fix global warming or lower the price of gasoline by one single red penny. That kind of salvation does not come from Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Ballmer saying, “OK, I’ll write a $2 million bonus check to the IRS.” That annoying responsibility stuff comes from three words that are anathema to the Tea Partiers: United American citizenry.

King wants the government to tax him more so they can pay for maintaining roads, education, repairing the faltering infrastructure, and caring for the sick and poor. Unfortunately that’s not what the state will do with the extra money. What will the state do? Buy more bombs.

This is something I don’t get, a vast majority of my friends who demand the rich be taxed more also claim oppose the police state and war. They’ve been duped into holding hypocritical beliefs. On one hand they decry any expansion of the police state and military intervention but on the other hand they advocate people give more money to fund the same beast that’s implementing the police state and killing innocent people overseas. Giving the state more money enables it to buy more military hardware such as drones, tanks, bombs, and bullets. The more money they have at their disposal the more they can spy on you here and the more people they can kill overseas. During the Vietnam War people actually advocated tax protests in an attempt to starve the beast that was sending American men and women to die needlessly in a foreign country that never attacked us. What does it take to get these people to wake the fuck up? Do we have to kidnap their children and send them off to war? Do we have to install spy cameras in their homes?

Let’s address King’s next claim of “American responsibility.” He claims that charity and private investment cannot fix environmental issues (he specifically states global warming but I would like to give him a little more credit than just using a random talking point). What’s the solution than? Give the state more money? The very same state who causes most of our environmental problems in the United States by granting legal protection to polluters? Yeah, that’s worked out well so far. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an organization that exists solely to protect wealthy polluters. Terry Anderson wrong an excellent book titled Political Environmentalism that goes over some of more egregious instances of environmental cronyism. Instead of protecting the environment the EPA protects its cronies by ensuring the business environment is hostile to competition while allowing the emission of as much pollutants as their cronies demand. Does King really want to give the primary instigators of our environmental problems the power to further intervene on environmental matters? That would be akin to handing a serial killer a chainsaw and telling him has full immunity from legal prosecution for any murders he commits with that chainsaw.

The state has mastered duping people. They can get the same people who demand the banks be allowed to fail support a bank bailout. How the fuck did they get so good at fooling people? Is the average person so lacking in the department of critical thinking that they’re unwilling to stop and consider issues more deeply than the talking points they’re fed by the 10 o’clock news? Do these people not actually read bills before stating their support of them? These aren’t even clever scams, anybody who spends 15 minutes looking into them can see what is really going on.

It’s amazing how the state gets so many suckers to back mutually exclusive demands. Are you against war? Demand more taxes to fund the war machine! Do you want the banks to fail? Support a bank bailout! Want the environment cleaned up? Fund the political machinery that allows polluters to dump toxic waster into the water and air from lawsuits! Do you believe two plus two equals four? Believe it equals five instead!

The Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Property Owners

EDIT: 2012-03-22: 12:33: Zerg539 pointed out what I entirely missed, this ruling simply allows Sacketts to take this case to court. Ignore what I said below, I now longer thing this ruling is good enough. If something the government does appears to be good, it’s probably not. Also, I should read things a bit closer from time to time.

The Supreme Court, the same court that rules property can be seized via eminent domain when influential property owners desired it, has actually made a ruling in favor of land owners. Sackett v. EPA started when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) told Mike Sackett that he couldn’t develop the property he purchased because it was a wetland, unless of course he paid the EPA a $250,000 extortion fee for a permit who would then decide whether or not the land could be developed (even when you pay the extortion fee you have no guarantee). The Supreme Court ruled that Sackett could develop his property:

The position taken in this case by the Federal Government—a position that the Court now squarely rejects—would have put the property rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) employees.

The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear. Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by EPA employees as wetlands covered by the Act, and according to the Federal Government, if property owners begin to construct a home on a lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency’s mercy. The EPA may issue a compliance order demanding that the owners cease construction, engage in expensive remedial measures, and abandon any use of the property. If the owners do not do the EPA’s bidding, they may be fined up to $75,000 per day ($37,500 for violating the Act and another $37,500 for violating the compliance order). And if the owners want their day in court to show that their lot does not include covered wetlands, well, as a practical matter, that is just too bad. Until the EPA sues them, they are blocked from access to the courts, and the EPA may wait as long as it wants before deciding to sue. By that time, the potential fines may easily have reached the millions. In a nation that values due process, not to mention private property, such treatment is unthinkable.

The complete ruling can be found here [PDF]. It’s good to see justice appearing once in a while, although it’s sad that Sackett had to suffer the expensive in time and money just so he could build a damned house on his property.