Invention, Fairness and Convention

Convention kills invention! Interestingly those who say you’re crazy for thinking and acting against conventional wisdom inadvertently wind up devoted and loyal agents of statism and socialism, discouraging those whom may bring something better to this ever-changing world; better systems, technologies, economies, etc., than what the existing conventional institutions are able, or for that fact, willing to.

State and socialist institutions promote mediocrity and deter exceptional innovation, serving their own agendas under the auspices of… security, fairness and equality. Strength of force through the machinations of propaganda. Protectionism, security and enforcement are the result of the fear society experiences en mass due to over exposure to this propaganda. Protection, security, fairness and so-called equality are all qualities of which are by design to keep the state placed above all human activity. Security, fairness and equality for the state, an institution which lacks the ability to compete with the market order and the ever-changing world and its Human environment. The state does not compete, it enforces order. Convention.

Convention is usually accompanied by the pretense of a custom, policy, or law’s usefulness. State mandated or corporate policy convention is another story. Convention in these cases are usually the persuasive or coercive measures of self-protectionism. Propaganda further embeds the fallacies involved in conventional “wisdom’s” perpetuity.

Upon serious examination and study it is always surprising to meet certain realities within the contemporary market order. The institutions of industry which employ egalitarian ideologies of fairness within their employee policies. Policies within a business structure which oppose the industry’s necessary purpose of profit seeking. Contemporary “newspeak”, political correctness, seems to play a role here as well as it seems profit seeking is now considered deplorable. There are many variables to corporate egalitarian activities and their connection to the state and no room to discuss them here. This slight digression would be better served in another article.

The State is counter to the market order right from the beginning, yet it attempts to control the market order while simultaneously using it. The State admonishes the free market as dangerous and unfair unless of course the State manipulates the market “order”. Nothing is worthy of use for all of society unless it is sought out and controlled by the state! Interesting! A truly evolving society may discover, upon critical thought and logical analysis, that the State may be ultimately not only irrelevant to  posterity’s prosperity but actually a serious detriment; what keeps the State in place is based upon a fallacy of reason. But this contention assumes a society is in perpetual evolution of thought, as opposed to devolution, self-induced mind control and slothful consent.

Civilizations do cycle through periods of golden eras and dark eras; but with the internet and a computer in nearly household, could another dark age be avoided? Could light be shed on the uselessness of the State as well as socialism and its cousin egalitarianism? It is hard to say. Even free information has a tendency toward manipulation.

Seemingly though, society is not always as diligent at study and the effort required in holding on to its freedom. In some ways freedom itself may have a tendency to reproduce dark eras as freedom and liberty owe work, study and determination as a prerequisite to support itself. Freedom, borne of technological and sociological advancement, lends to ease of life’s necessities and mental sloth is in many cases a detrimental byproduct. And with this laziness on the part of society so goes the growth of the State under such circumstances. Eric Fromm covers this subject quite well in “Escape from freedom”. Even though his comments on economic factors are counter to my understanding, he covers the psychology of modern man within societal structures very well.

Statism, employing propaganda to render into subterfuge what acting man uses as the tools necessary toward the end of improving his own circumstances, and in turn the circumstances of others through the free market system, easing discomfort and pain whatever obstacles he may meet along the way from whatever source. The State, using the power of a controlled media to sway public opinion and label such energetic and ingenious individuals “unpatriotic” or greedy as they have a tendency toward breaking the rules of convention to invent and create and in doing so eventually becoming prosperous should they become noticed by the market and in turn become successful, protects itself from such ingenious individual’s ability to possibly antiquate the relevance and need for the State itself.
The State employs enforcement to “stabilize” and control the very people who give consent to a government’s employment of such methods; eventually finding acts of state stabilization as self-oppressive to the consenting “voters”. We give consent to our own oppression under the auspices of stability. To create a fixed market of fairness and equality. Many contemporary economists fail miserably under this fallacy, supporting these machinations at every turn.

There is nothing to be gained by any version of a fixed, unchanging and controlled market as it is an impossible fantasy and no profits could exist under any such scheme. -Profits: the evil goal of the marketeers and profiteers! Unfair! I have heard many such idioms used to disparage the market order by many so-called truth seekers; incendiary language against profit seeking is but one of many fallacies they use in argument. These people unwittingly play into the hands of the State which they seem to admonish, and with such feverish ignorance and denial.- When Statists speak of stability what they are really speaking of is control, and neither is possible in reality. Socialism cannot be accomplished, it would fail before its realization, as it is economically  unsustainable. The current economic situation is evidence supporting this premise, in real-time. A pseudo State market order without a monetary pricing system has no mechanism of accounting and checks against failure and malinvestment.

I would add for the contemporary so-called environmentalists that there is no better means of truly protecting resources, and in turn, the ecosystem than by the efficiency of the free market system. Its innate need of efficiency regards limited resources and a need for preservation of the environment as a mechanism toward sustainability and ultimately prerequisite for Human advancement. Hence, the free market procures efficiency of the use and preservation of resources, and the ecosystem’s preservation as well, reducing waste as well as cost. Cost which is not always accountable in money, but in the commodity value of first order goods and their scarcity. In other words the need for a business to be self-sustaining, e.g., tree farming and the lumber industry.

The State stands in the way due largely to the fact the State requires control to justify its existence. The State procures its power through consent, its wealth from the producers and control through fear. A simple question for those so bent upon the State’s necessity in order for society to work: which do you think has a stronger propensity toward war, the State or individuals? Towards accomplishing clear and confirmed goals, the State or individuals? If the State has an endless supply of “income” sources, the consenting taxpayer, what mechanism exists which curbs the State’s propensity toward any end it desires, achievable or not?

Statism procures mediocrity and the decay which follows, and unless we decide that the State is no longer relevant and can only be of any use when kept under strict control -if this is even possible- limited in scope of power and replaced by a free market system which has a more efficient way of dealing with the constant changes Human need and its prerequisite of ecosystem sustainability, we will experience the further decline of the West. The complete abolishing of the State would be a great evolution of society if it could be realized, but the fear of the masses renders this possibility a dream.

The market system, free or not, is made up of entrepreneurs, workers, capitalists, inventors, visionaries, and ultimately the customer. Within the market structure the customer ultimately possesses sovereignty in deciding what products and services become needed. The State has no such mechanism in place other than the mechanism of fairness, convention and so-called equality and ultimately force; as though all things in life are fair, everything is fixed, all humans are born with the same life qualities and happiness and ease for all is enforceable. The State’s products, borne of fear and, of course never forget, envy: equality, stability, security, defense and ultimately…control.

Harrison Bergeron, the main character in a Kurt Vonnegut short story adapted to a short film illustrating a possible future of egalitarianism in the most disturbing fashion; using weights to weaken the strong, masks to hide the beautiful, and signals placed directly in the ears of the intelligent to keep them from thinking; this fictional state represses the extraordinary. This is the case of art copying life. Bergeron would no doubt be appalled by what we have as a society if he were real…but then again Harrison Bergeron is a character who resides in us all once the veil of lies and denial lifts through critical thought and intensive study. Once an individual comes to terms with these realities there is no denial of the need to act…until, of course, this same individual encounters another ghost human, asleep at the wheel of convention and fairness, sucking the slightly awakened and inspired individual back into sheepish slumber. Or maybe the awake and energetic individual who would like to bring about real change of thought and action encounters many other people who are seemingly aware of the fact that something is wrong with current political and societal circumstances, but that these people, confused by the fallacy of the market order being the blame for such problems are unwilling to act accordingly to bring forth real change. The market today, made up of many factors of state interventionism, protectionism, and a monopoly of money; e.g. currency. I cover the money issue further in another article.

Many truth seekers also have their agendas mixed; some fighting for further enforcement of  “rules” which are designed to ease the complaints of those who are unable or unwilling to compete in a specific area. Many have the general predisposition of the “victim”; weak in one area, but unable or unwilling to explore their own individual strengths and talents as they are sucked into the ambiguous fight for fairness and equality themselves, completely forgetting what independence truly means. Many of the said rules these individuals fight for weaken those who could otherwise out compete and outsmart their competition, allowing the weaker and inefficient to have a false upper hand over the stronger; weights placed around the neck of the stronger competitor. Rules of Law ought support the strengths of individuals as well as private property and not the collective force of mediocrity and egalitarian ideologies. This is not meant as a condemnation toward certain types of people and their causes, only an observation. An observation of the weakness in the plausibility and reality of parts of their argumentation. Truth seekers, seeking truth, or fairness?

Ultimately we have to decide on either the State or Independence for our future. Under the former you get what we are seeing today: a failing system of distribution of wealth, energy and resources from the hands of the efficient and energetic to the less efficient and the spendthrift; distribution of wealth into the hands of people who share no quality to truly produce and build for the future as the entrepreneur does so feverishly. Those who take the risks of inventing products of and for the unforeseen future, whatever they may or may not be, their creations put into the hands of convention, which procure seemingly permanent institutions of control and enforcement, under the guise of security, fairness and equality. Locking society into a fixed system of thought and control, as though the world is in a fixed state of being. If the laws of science were fixed, would we have seen some of our current technological advancements come to the light of day? Could there be any real Human advancement? Under the latter you get your future held within your own hands, working from the perspective of your own individual need to ease your uneasiness and in turn help those around you. Within a free market system YOU decide; you work through problems local to you and your community, as well as neighboring communities. You and those whom you exchange, work, share, help and compete with invent, not the State. Voluntary adaptation, ingenuity and creativity. Evolution and adaptation to a world of perpetual change. Invention.

In addendum:

In America and around the world we do see many entrepreneurs becoming successful. But many of their “successes” are due largely to State intervention and cooperative collectivism through corporate structuring. Certain products are seemingly at the helm of world governments’ need to distract and “entertain” many into the collective slumber of ignorant slaves. Toys for totalitarianism? The embryonic world fascist state? Is it a conspiracy? Or is it consent?

Today we lack true invention. True invention antiquates old systems which no longer perform and allows technology to evolve in the hands of those who use it, individuals, and this is only possible within the framework of a true free market system. A free market system would allow antiquated technologies to disappear and new more efficient ones which serve the consumer would replace them. Think about how much infrastructure is built up around the automobile (production automobile of course) and how little the technology has changed for the consumer in the 100+ years since its inception. Protectionism, hindering the market order system.



Fear and the Consequence of the Mob

From economic calamity to terrorism, societal fears engender the very events we abhor within the constructs of our imagination. What we fear beget the product of our fear. Societal fear is the architect of superstition and the resulting institutions of control. These superstitions and the institutions built upon them engender irrational behavior within society as well as within the governing bodies of society; the harmful effects of these irrational human behaviors multiply geometrically through these institutions.

The products of fear range from the seemingly benign fear of the dark and the paralysis it creates in the child, something that most people are able to overcome by adulthood, to the more malignant fear of bogeyman, and the resulting institutions of war and so-called security. It is interesting that a society of critical thinkers may regard these two systems as homogenous; government propaganda contorts the meaning of war and security into a singular means to the promise of peace and prosperity. This train of thought is an obvious contradiction, but the fears and collective rationale of these institutions of thought and the mob-like nature of so-called democracy render these facts a distortion and create enemies of those who question the ‘authorities’ on such subjects.

This brings us to the powers of democracy and the mob-like dangers it engenders. The resulting fear of a mob renders any real debate or argument against such institutions a dangerous affair for those who may attempt any argument against such institutions; placing these institutions of thought in perpetuity and out of harmony with any real sense of freedom or liberty.

Perpetual and fixed fears rely upon ignorance and the manifestations of the human imagination. These fixed manifestations of the majority eventually acquiesce into the hands of the state and the institutions of warfare and into a police state as exemplified in America and Europe especially since the events of 911.

From government to religion, the institutions of man rely upon fear to control society. To control the masses. To stabilize, control, manage, administer, police, rule, govern, etc. Stability is an anomaly in of itself when considering subjective societal affairs such as economy and value. See Mises on Stability, part#4 of the link page.

Fear is of course a natural condition of man, and many fears are rational and understandable. If it were not for fear man would have died off a long time ago; e.g., fear of where his next meal will come makes man go out and find a way to get it. This is a very simple and real example and needs no further explanation to the critical thinker.

But irrational fear as a mechanism employed by the state is another situation. Fear of economic disaster, a fear coddled by the very institutions which have attempted the stabilization and control of economy, is for the most part an irrational behavior when studied in a specific light. This is a bit complicated and I’ll explain in brevity. Contemporary society fears economic disaster, but clamors to the very institutions which have ‘regulated’ and attempted control of economy for more than a century: government and incidentally the central banks and the corporate entities which follow. Unable to see that it is the result of this intervention and attempt at controlling economy that is the cause of its current failings and ultimate demise. See my other article Laissez-Faire Hallucinations.

If you read the link provided above “Mises on Stability”, you can see the problem with this thinking on any control of economical means, but I’ll expand in my own words. Human action and society is a perpetual system of change. A system engendered through the necessities of every day life and the desires of people who have a need to make their lives better. This is a right conferred upon humanity by the immutable reality of everyday Human life and living, this unchangeable part of society’s perpetual change. If society stifles in a system of so-called stability, change in accordance to economic necessity cannot occur naturally. This seems like a contradiction, and I agree, but it ought to exemplify the need for a very limited government, as government has no way of dealing with these realities without introducing corruption and despotism into the so-called order of all things Human. It is this “stability” socialism so strives for, and this is a futile and dangerous mistake; it procures unnatural obstacles to everyday Human life and economy and is completely unsustainable. Laws ought support the right for people to change their circumstances due to their needs, under the understanding that these changes are not at the cost of other lives or future lives. But also, this “cost” cannot be arbitrarily dictated by representatives who are not held to the same standards and provisions of such laws and customs.

Again, none of this is to say that much of what contemporary man fears is completely irrational and unsound in principle. The results of the reaction to these fears as well as their origin are the main focus here. The laws which attempt stability and control based upon such fears. Are they the result of propaganda, i.e., exaggerations of a media system designed to perpetuate the powers of the state?

One question of many is, are these manifestations creating a mob nation? Searching the world over for monsters? Turning the entire world into a police state? Where the so-called “security” system implicates the very people who buy  the idea of security; -or in the least, pay for this system, one way or another through coercion, whether they “buy” into the idea or not- as this system places focus on them, the masses, who pay for this “security” through taxation and the loss of dignity, liberty and property.

All the while the corrupt nature of world leaders and politicians becomes more and more obvious and undeniable with every passing news day. Man is not infallible, and majorities even less so, therefore this is but another example of the need for very limited government. It is for this reason that what America had been once, a Constitutional Representative Republic, as opposed to what we have today: a socialist democracy on the verge of collapse. Never mind the corrupt political acts employed around the world through the behaviors of corporations, banks and government acting in concert on their own behalf under the guise of benevolence, safety and security; the Orwellian perpetual warfare of the last hundred plus years and the countless economic depressions, wars, manipulations and interferences of the most basic and fundamental requirement of Human activity: economy. The plethora of news stories of molestation, drugs, infidelity, prostitution, lewd behavior, etc., by political and world leaders are an everyday news flash. And these are the people in control of your safety, security, prosperity and peace?

Seems these leaders have made you and I the focus of suspicion and of assumed criminal behavior. Big Brother, the ubiquitous government doing surveillance on every physical and non-physical move you and I make. And the corporate institutions which make big money supporting such activity. Your movements, your banking activities, transactions, email, digital phone use, etc., all acts of which undermine several parts of the Bill of Rights expounded within the very contract which lends American government the ability to govern, the Constitution for the United States of America. Does this mean that we are no longer a party to the constitution? Are our governments incrementally taking our rights away? Who does this government represent now? Who is afraid of who? And this would be my real question: Who is watching the obvious crooks who run this whole show? This creature is only in its embryonic stage, and it is already rearing its ugly monstrous head, and yet we do nothing.

This situation, doomed to miserable failure as none of this activity is economically and socially sustainable in the long run, will more than likely eventually culminate into war.

Seems to me this government is aware that its “plans” are not going to make a lot of people very happy. This, in my thought process, is the very reason so much emphasis is now placed upon so-called security. The government is protecting itself from you and I. Fear.

I digress, but what do you think public employees unions protect government employees from? The voters, you and I. But we depend upon these state and federal employees to build bridges and roads and schools, right? I ask, why? This line of thinking precludes the free market from entering into these lines of work. Business has built within it requirements of getting a job done efficiently, otherwise the business will fail, the State has no such mechanisms. My contention has merit simply by looking at the protections the government has safeguarded against the governed,  you and I (the real free market), right under our noses all along.

Fear and irrationality do their bidding, and we give tacit consent by allowing such infringements upon us. And we understandably do so out of fear of the mob institutions created by this so-called democracy. The IRS, DEA, ATF, USDA, CPS, FDA, TSA, Homeland Security, etc., are the agents of this mob democracy and you would be hard-pressed to argue otherwise with all these and many other institutions of control in place by government. These few mentioned institutions of government act in an arbitrary manner and are seemingly above the constitutional laws which lend them their “limited” powers. But overcoming this fear is the only way to turn things around.

Sooner or later Human Action must and will prevail. But will it be at the cost of much bloodshed and decimation of our environment? Or do we posses the capacity to revolt without violence? Have we evolved enough, or has God created an intelligent enough species to use our intellect to tear away the institutions of fear once and for all? Evolution, creation, alien infiltration,whatever your beliefs, do we posses the capacity to set aside our normal and perpetual superficial differences and truly adapt to our ever-changing environment? Or do we intend to annihilate ourselves in some perverted hope to start all over again? I have my doubts either way. But I also do have hope that we can flourish beyond a planet of Waring races through patience, critical thought, understanding, empathy and wisdom.

In conclusion, what right have we to permanently force our protracted fears into the institutions of government and onto posterity based upon what we fear now? The manifestations of the multitudes, the mob. Expounded upon the future by corruptible men, to extinguish the flame of Humanity and relegate all to a future of imprisonment and desolation. What right have we to do such a stupendous and horrendous act upon posterity? In the name of peace and security? Current rationale dictates and perpetuates the duplicitous results of fear, and we act as a mob to the future of all Humanity. Who are we to do such a thing?

Some may read this and say that I am using fear as my guide, or that I am using fear as the template of my conviction, that I contradict myself. I will preempt this possible conjecture and state with profound passion that it is the courage of my conviction that fuels these words and that fear would delay or prevent my doing so!

The Failures of Universal Insurance

When I tell people I do not have “health” insurance, that I do not pay into the company “Health Plan”, people look at me as though I am from Mars. They ask things like: “What if you are in an accident?” “What if you get sick?”

Well, on the first question, I usually always ask why an accident needs extra coverage when many accidents are technically already covered by other insurance plans already in place, such as auto, homeowners and life insurance plans. For example, if I my life is ended simply by walking down the street getting hit by a car, this would be typically covered by life insurance should I choose to own such a policy. I would be covered in this case assuming I am not playing “chicken” with cars or jaywalking while intoxicated…some things are just not insurable.

If I am hurt at work, the company’s plethora of state mandated “insurance” plans cover my possible accident. The employer is further backed by the ability to drug test any person involved in an accident, reducing these accidents from such liability on the corporation or company’s behalf.

On the second question, I would ask what they mean by “get sick”? If they are asking, what if I wind up with cancer or some other sort of debilitating disease, I ask why that would be covered by an employer’s plan anyway? That is the sort of “coverage” that ought not be pooled in with every candidate. This is a practice under the guise of “universal” insurance that makes no sense to me. Every candidate should choose in opting to have this sort of coverage; and having the choice of carrying personal health insurance or not could be possible under a free market system. In a free market system, insurance companies would opt to test you according to proper risk assessment and build your plan accordingly, as opposed to a socialist system which lumps all people together regardless of the risk factors involved.

Everyday health and illness is very hard to define and therefore not truly coverable. It is generally up to the person to get out of bed every morning and get to work and receive pay for the work done, and not if they do not get up and go into work. Under the latter circumstance they simply do not receive income. If they simply do not feel well enough, why should that be paid by everyone else? Anyone see in this point were the consistently rising costs of medical care originate?

I will now offer you something from the Ludwig von Mises Institute on the subject. This is an excerpt from an article by Hans-Hermann Hoppe which I will credit as the main source of my research in backing up my contention on this subject. The excerpt is taken from von Mises’ book “Socialism”. I decided to use this material not because I did not reach a similar conclusion on my own, but that I understand that my “credibility” is under scrutiny unless I support my views with the merits of “professional” economists.

To the intellectual champions of social insurance, and to the politicians and statesmen who enacted it, illness and health appeared as two conditions of the human body sharply separated from each other and always recognizable without difficulty or doubt. Any doctor could diagnose the characteristics of “health.” “Illness” was a bodily phenomenon which showed itself independently of human will, and was not susceptible to influence by will.

Followed up with:

Now every statement in this theory is false. There is no clearly defined frontier between health and illness. Being ill is not a phenomenon independent of conscious will and of psychic forces working in the subconscious. A man’s efficiency is not merely the result of his physical condition; it depends largely on his mind and will. Thus the whole idea of being able to separate, by medical examination, the unfit from the fit and from the malingerers, and those able to work from those unable to work, proves to be untenable. Those who believed that accident and health insurance could be based on completely effective means of ascertaining illnesses and injuries and their consequences were very much mistaken. The destructionist aspect of accident and health insurance lies above all in the fact that such institutions promote accidents and illness, hinder recovery, and very often create, or at any rate intensify and lengthen, the functional disorders which follow illness or accident.

So until I have a choice in truly choosing a “health-Care” insurance plan with an insurance company which tailor-fits my plan to my lifestyle and a true risk assessment, I will carry no “health” Insurance. I will continue to simply pay cash for my visits and save a ton of money each year by taking care of myself, and NOT paying into a system doomed to failure. And I won’t be playing chicken in traffic or bungee jumping anytime soon either. Those sorts of activities fall under the suicide class and are uninsurable. Any form of universal healthcare, whether offered by government or a corporation, is another form of welfare and ought not be forced nor coerced upon anyone.

I’ll also add that it is the improper “insuring”of all classes of people together as one that drives up the real costs of medical needs. This is a subject for another article I’ll lead you to covering the subject (just click this sentence).

On Socialism in America

In the last few years I have participated in many discussions about American style  socialism. I have argued what I think is a very plausible case that American government is very much a socialist government, and that it is slipping further into the very dangerous clutches of socialism. I also argue the case against socialism in general, but that argument against socialism is not necessarily the reason for this particular article.

I have encountered a plethora of confusion and misunderstanding on the subject of socialism in many of these discussions and hope to address it here. In one such instance there was this suggestion that America is not truly a socialist country by the real definition of the word, but that though we have many “socialist-like programs”, America’s system of government does not fit the true definition of socialism. It is not my intention to attack those who support this point of view, I simply want to make an attempt at clarifying this misunderstanding. This suggests to me that I should expand on socialism and its definition and show further evidence in support of my argument. This claim of defining socialism, and that America does not fit the definition, is an error in opinion that I find shared with many others within these discussions. I hope to clarify any confusion about my perspective on the matter.

Though these are my opinions, and my points may seem a bit pedantic, I think that the evidences I present within these opinions are real and I hope that it fosters cognizance in support of my contention on this subject. I hope to solidify my presentation of this matter against any confusion or misinterpretations. In other words, I am selling my point of view by backing it up with provided evidence which also supports my attitude toward socialism and the reality that it is very much alive here in America and very much at the core of America’s decline, the outcome of which we are witnessing today. Whether or not you buy my explanations and examples is of course also dependent upon your belief system and how flexible you are in those beliefs.

Due to the myriad of writings on the subject (and some of those writings are mine, here in this blog) I don’t feel a need to write a tremendous amount on the subject on my own, I’ll mainly use definitions as my approach. I hope my brevity and use of links is an acceptable and effective means of support for my contention.

Note to the reader: It is interesting to me that there exist so many political obscurities and ambiguities within the contemporary definitions of our language. I think it is important to point out the harmful effects of political stress on language through legal perversions as well as political misinterpretations and propaganda; that this is a mechanism employed to deceive and confuse the public’s knowledge of any form of government manipulation of various matters of acting man. Politicians rearrange words to suit their political ends, and as history shows, government expansion is usually the result. Confusion is a powerful mechanism of control. One of several such examples of language manipulation is so-called political correctness, this machination allows the government “experts” to come out from their proverbial political hole and formulate public opinion. Interestingly, some words are very elusive in finding definitions for as they are no longer shown in the dictionary.

The case of language manipulation could also be considered a form of PSYOPS. For just one example on the PSYOPS subject and the government involvement of business watch this video.

For an interesting read on a related subject, click “Brainwashing” below:


A Synthesis of the Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics

I digress…But I do so to illustrate the need that care be taken when studying the contemporary definitions of our language. Our thoughts as well as our belief systems are vulnerable to the many suggestive signals we receive from the plethora of media today.

Socialism: (


1.a theory or system of social organization  that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3.(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Socialism: (Merriam-Webster)

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
This definition is also very important: Click here to learn about Allodial Title as well as its related definitions.
Click here for a list of Federal Government agencies.
Click here for a list of State government agencies.

It is interesting to point out that socialism, as defined in #3 of each definition above, is also considered the transitional point between capitalism and communism. It is for this reason that I supplied the ten planks of the communist manifesto. It is not my intention to supply all the materials necessary for the study of communism here, only to connect the real definition of socialism to American government administration and policy by using only a few select examples.
I think it is worthy to examine these planks as many of these planks are partly employed in American policy and that many do not recognize this reality due to the previously mentioned confusion of language manipulation as well as propaganda.
I have witnessed that those whom do actually concede in argument upon realization that socialism is very well embedded into American policy only to supply the platitude that “there is no better way”. I also will add that I think that many who do realize the responsibility that goes with rejecting these socialist policies also means that they may lose some future “benefit” and that their “security” could be threatened; many already receive some form of “benefit” from this system, and this presents a real problem as well. In those cases I simply illustrate with simple arithmetic that this system is bankrupt and cannot sustain itself in the long run, and it is for that reason, and the many other serious defects in socialism, these systems need abandoning eventually anyway.

10 planks of the Communist Manifesto:

  1. Abolition of Property in Land and Application of all Rents of Land to Public Purpose.

  2. A Heavy Progressive or Graduated Income Tax.

  3. Abolition of All Rights of Inheritance.

  4. Confiscation of the Property of All Emigrants and Rebels.

  5. Centralization of Credit in the Hands of the State, by Means of a National Bank with State Capital and an Exclusive Monopoly.

  6. Centralization of the Means of Communication and Transport in the Hands of the State.

  7. Extension of Factories and Instruments of Production Owned by the State, the Bringing Into Cultivation of Waste Lands, and the Improvement of the Soil Generally in Accordance with a Common Plan.

  8. Equal Liability of All to Labor. Establishment of Industrial Armies, Especially for Agriculture.

  9. Combination of Agriculture with Manufacturing Industries; Gradual Abolition of the Distinction Between Town and Country by a More Equable Distribution of the Population over the Country.

  10. Free Education for All Children in Public Schools. Abolition of Children’s Factory Labor in it’s Present Form. Combination of Education with Industrial Production.

I said I would be brief on this subject, but I have a feeling that I will need to elaborate a bit further. This is a subject that is hard to choose just where to begin, as I see nothing but evidence of socialism nearly everywhere I turn.

First I’ll list some of the more illusive or obscure manipulative characteristics of socialist control in American policy and administration and the mechanisms employed within the classifications of property, wealth, medium of exchange, banking, markets and travel.
1. Property, that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner. It is important to understand the definitions of allodial title and fee simple in regards to property, and why these expressions are now nearly non-existent in America.
2. Wealth, all things that have a monetary or exchange value. Anything that has utility and is capable of being appropriated or exchanged.
3. Money/Medium of exchange, anything acceptable as a measure of value and a standard of exchange for goods and services in a particular country, region, etc.
4. Banking, the business carried on by a bank  or a banker.
5. Markets, A regular gathering of people for the purchase and sale of provisions, livestock, and other commodities. This classification also functions in many diverse sub-classifications, but for simplicity I will stick to the rudimentary level only. This should suffice for the point of this subject.
6. Travel, to go from one place to another, as by car, train, plane, or ship; take a trip; journey: to travel for pleasure. To move or go from one place or point to another, to proceed or advance in any way.
Refer to the 10 planks shown above

1. On property (plank #1): In this first point I will point out that socialism is mainly about the forced redistribution of property and wealth into a collective. Evidence suggests this reality; unless you own property in allodium, it is safe to say that you only have property ownership in a titular sense. -Interestingly, the WordPress spell-check does not recognize allodium as a word, I’ve provided the definition in the link above.- Titular, meaning you only carry legal title, as the titled property is still encumbered by a debt, even if the note is fully paid and the purchase debt is satisfied by payment in full based upon the terms set within the purchase contract. A mortgage is a purchase contract which automatically registers the said property with the state. Any registered property you “own” remains encumbered by the state through taxation. Try not paying the taxes and/or the fees on such property and you will meet the real owners of “your property” and their agents as they come to seize all of it. All other property which requires no enforced legal registration stored within the registered property is subject to seizure as well if these taxes are not paid. This point is generally speaking of real estate property, but also includes your automobile, as the same rules apply. The automobile example is also connected to the “travel” example, so I’ll discuss that a little further when I reach that subject.

2. On wealth (plank #’s 1, 2 & 3): Wealth could very much be considered the same class as property, but for illustrative purposes I will stress further. Wealth is capital in this classification, and capital is any property that is or could be used to support or expand wealth. Abundance of wealth also allows those who possesses it the time available to live as they see fit, as well as the freedom and time to study on what actions are necessary for certainty in the future. But with today’s politically driven envious attitude toward wealth, state redistribution enforced through state registration of capital (state encumbrances on wealth and prohibition of inheritance through massive taxes upon inheritance, etc.) one is derailed in the natural ability to act on personal need. Therefore similar mechanisms (heavy progressive taxation) are employed, as mentioned above on property: to redistribute this wealth from the owner to the state which then controls the ends of the capital derived from this wealth, e.g. redistribution, which upsets the natural actions necessary for self-preservation as well as preservation of the surrounding communities, as they are all connected; state control and manipulation of wealth. This leads us to the manipulative laws of incorporation and the monopolies they encourage as well as the harmful effects of centralization, which I will leave for now and use as another example later in another article.

3. On money (plank #5): or better known as medium of exchange and compared to so-called currency. Legal money does not truly exist in this system. I’ll explain this contention. Money, as a standard of stability of exchange for goods and services, which would not be perishable by over-taxation and inflation within a competitive monetary system, which could only exist in a true free market system, is only real if it is not created by fiat. I’ll reiterate this point: money can only exist in a true sense of its definition if it is employed in concert with a true free market system. The use of the words stability and value could imply manipulation, so I will be careful of using these terms. Monopolized and controlled by a central banking institution’s ability to inflate its supply as well as control the mechanisms of interest, undermining this so-called money, which renders it currency as it needs to keep moving, is manipulation. Designed to keep flowing, as its name implies (currency), stripped of value by inflation, which in turn creates an unnatural need for over-speculation and over-investment. This is not a natural characteristic of free market economics. This is a characteristic of control outside of and unnatural to a true free market system. A money monopoly capitalism; pseudo capitalism.

4. On banking (plank #5): This subject is very much connected to the “money” example above. Not only do we have a monopolized and manipulated supply of money (based on debt, interest rate manipulation, quantity manipulation by quantitative easing, which in turn effects its value). We also have what is known as fractional reserve within the banking system. (please see link) This fractional reserve system, which is “backed” by the government-run FDIC (currency insurance system), is yet another example of government taking over an industry. I hope you do further research, as I am only attempting to show evidence of government control, e.g. socialism.

5. On markets (plank #’s 5 & 8): The opposite of a free market system fits into the socialist classification. Except for an illusion created by propagandists and apologists, we in America do not have a free market system. Our economic system, which consists of government interventionism, money monopoly, protectionism, etc. (as shown above) cannot be considered a free market system, it is in fact the opposite. This classification also functions in many diverse sub-classifications, but for simplicity I will stick to the rudimentary level only. For more on this subject see my other article “Laissez Fair Hallucinations” where I get a bit more in-depth.

6. On travel (plank #’s 1 & 6): This is also covered in the “property” example above, but I will give just a simple every-day example. Look at the tolling and metering “businesses” (government monopoly): bridges, turnpikes, and various other means of metering other public projects. Public travel, metered through the state controlled business of tolls and taxation. This in an area of industry that could run much more efficiently and effectively through privatization, and that by the state selling these industries to foreign corporations to make up for state mismanagement of funds, corporations which have no real concern for the locality other than to take money out of the local system and distribute it in to a global system, this robs the local citizenry of the ability to reap the rewards of such an industry. Evidence suggests the state selling toll businesses to foreign institutions. (Again, I am providing the information supporting my contention, I hope you, the reader, spend the time on some of the research materials provided.) There are many ways to show examples of State ownership of industries, which could further support my contention of socialism, but I will leave this here for now. A thought on the subject of public projects: Many of these so-called public projects are paid up front by bonds which are paid for by the local citizenry, after construction of these projects the business of tolling (metering) begins. One may ask if these toll collections should go back to the citizens who paid for the project to begin with, as well as pay for maintenance. But instead the money typically goes into a state-owned “general fund”  and spent on more government. This establishes further my contention of state ownership of this industry, an industry which could be run by the private sector, by people of the region where it is established. The states are selling these operations, and the real estate along with it, to foreign corporations which further establishes my argument of state ownership of industry. If the state does not own it, the state could not sell it.

I could add a point on the media business and connect it to my previous PSYOPS point and connect it to plank # 6 of the communist manifesto: Centralization of the Means of Communication and Transport in the Hands of the State. But I wanted to be as brief as possible so I’ll leave the rest of the study to you the reader to decide on your own. If you do an internet search on the ten planks of the communist manifesto you will find a plethora of sites about a similar idea on America practicing communism, I wanted to attempt something a little different.

Upon further study of the ten planks of the communist manifesto there lies many more correlations to American government administration and policy. One could easily throw the 14th amendment into this classification and link it to plank # 4, but again I am only exploring the connection between government-run and manipulated industry.

And this site on state government agencies.
With the plethora of Federal and State agencies, shown in the links above, governing nearly every aspect of private life, and in conjunction, the business life in America, one is hard-pressed to prove the ability to do business without dealing with bureaucracy from government and without possibly breaking one of the thousands of legal ‘codes’ on the books today.
I think I have provided ample evidence of complete state control right down to the government mandated ‘currency’ we use; a constantly depreciating currency. The monopolistic quality of this currency and its connections to social engineering and manipulation by central government acting in concert with central banks; each benefiting from the acts of the other regardless of the harm caused to the future of the people this effects directly. The acts of government control on nearly every sector of the economy to favor some collective ideal.
I could write much more on this subject, but would rather have you do your own thinking and study on this subject and see if you truly come up with another answer. I think it is important to know just what we are facing in the possible future if this system is not taken back by the people. Unless we understand our government we cannot find resolutions to the barrage of political insanity we witness nearly every waking moment of the day.
For more related articles go here , here, here and here.

Capitalism In One Lesson in less than 15 minutes, by Nielsio

This time I won’t say much. I’ll just let this video speak for real capitalism, the antithesis of socialism.

I will just point out that the section in this video that mentions Smith, Mises, Hayek, Rand and Friedman, I do not fully agree. I have studied much of Hayek’s writings and at this time find no truth in the statement about his advocacy of the state controlling anything. Also, Mises’s writings do not fully lend to this opinion so far as I have learned either. Both Hayek and Mises were ardently against state control and manipulation of the free market and both had written on this throughout their lives. I see no evidence YET, that supports this point of view. But otherwise the video is very well laid out in support of capitalism.

I will also add that though I agree with the example the video uses on democracy, It behooves me to point out that it is for this reason that America was originally established as a representative republic. Why the author of this video does not point this out is incredible to me.

A Change in the Weather

Cover of "Critical Path"

Cover of Critical Path

I am having trouble with the current arguments for, and the arguments against the theory of global warming, or the now recently renamed climate change. Today, by whatever name, these arguments seem to carry a specific affiliation to a particular political side; either the side of the so-called conservatives or the so-called modern-day liberals.
This side taking detracts from the most important part of the argument to begin with; the argument whether or not man is destroying, or, capable of destroying his world and himself along with it.

I do think that there is evidence enough to at least say that, yes, we are capable of destroying our environment. And that we have done plenty of harmful things in the past and still do in the present, and that we are also fully capable of reversing the effects of pollution and can regenerate damaged areas of our ecosystems through science and technology.

But in the end what we are really talking about is destroying ourselves. The Earth has a way with dealing with us one way or another. When we destroy the ecosystem we eventually destroy ourselves, and if that happens, I’m certain the Earth will reclaim itself in the end. So we’re not really talking about saving the Earth, are we?

I don’t want to argue “sides”, I want to explore options about what I can do and in turn what everyone can do about the problem, because I also think that the problem isn’t only about the environment, it’s about economy as well. It’s about viable alternatives in energy and choice in everything from the kind of transportation we choose all the way to the type of food we are able to buy and or grow ourselves should we choose to. It’s about cutting our total dependence upon petroleum, and that’s a lot of cutting. Petroleum isn’t only about the gasoline we invariably pump into our gas tanks every day (not that we have any other choice in the matter). Petroleum is in nearly everything you use on a daily basis, including the food you eat. Many Americans are completely unaware of the connection to corn and petroleum and its relation to the “food” you eat from the grocery store. I recommend “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” by Michael Pollan for a more in-depth look into this side of the story.

I am not certain that we can plausibly argue against varying forms of environmentally destructive human activity by simply denying that it even occurs at all. In addition, one of the many platitudes on the subject, ‘it is not as bad as they say’, carries little merit with it at all in this argument, and for that fact any argument. Ahh denial…

But also I think that to clamour to political “parties” for their support, on either side of any issue, and that the use of their platforms and rhetoric to create consensus -which eventually winds up becoming “party” issues in the end- that this politicizing is acting in an unproductive way on this as well as many other subjects. The consensus, which political over-involvement creates that otherwise would not exist, is not an honest and ethical means of scientific resolve, unless we consider creating a misinformed mob an acceptable resolution to societal matters.

I think “climate-gate” is a great example of how the statistical facts are alterable when a particular “side” wants the results it needs to develop the ends to its means; and this goes for either side of an argument or debate. I do not know very much about climate-gate other than what I read in the news -seems to me either side could manipulate the “facts” through the various mainstream media sources which also prove to carry bias in many politically driven issues- and with that, I will say that this lends validity to my argument about politicizing subject matter such as pollution; it becomes yet another means for politicians to rob the rest of the public to serve their political ends. Pollution and systematic destruction of our ecosystem is what we are talking about in the end and the concern is real, any sane person should  see the logic in this. It would be a fallacy to argue by simply saying that pollution is not a problem.

It would also be an error in judgement to confuse me with someone siding with the global warming crowd. I’ll explain:I do not prescribe to the pandering for more government involvement, at least not the type of economically destructive involvement we are witnessing with such schemes as Cap and Trade. This proposal is only another way to tax and dominate a naïve public and has little to do with remedying pollution. This proposal, and possibly eventually global treaty, is more about funding a bankrupt world government and its system of self-perpetuating expansion. Cap and Trade is about state-ism on a global scale, and state-ism is a major contributing factor to where humanity is today. (Read the link.) If you think we have economic and ecological problems now, what do you think will happen when government runs the entire show? I would like to see everyone to stop buying what the television is selling and please think deeply about all this.

I’m going to throw this little quotation in for fun: “The capitalists are the communists, the communists are the capitalists.” Hopefully it will tempt you enough to want to read “Critical Path” by Buckminster Fuller for more on the meaning of this. Critical path articulates an uncommon and profound view of the world’s power structure and how harmful and illusory its mechanisms of power are to our future and that there’s a better way for the future, but that the human condition is continually manipulated and hindered from its full potential to self-support and self-sustain by the acts and institutions of the power structure. This is a wonderful review of the book.

And of course on the flip-side to what I am saying about global warming, I will add that those so ardently in favor of the “Drill, baby, drill” approach, those who would seemingly completely deny there’s a problem at all, that maybe looking a little deeper into the petroleum problem would help to better understand that ingenuity would be a better way; new technologies may never surface if we fight so hard for things as they are. Protectionism kills invention. Though I would applaud a move toward independence of foreign oil, but that care would be necessary to avoid ending up right back in the place we are in now; with limited choice in energy and therefore beholden to an oil monopoly and locked into a polluting and metered energy source with no end to its instability in price.

Maybe remedy to any current crisis would be all one can hope for until the next problem arises, as problems  will always arise because within every form of energy discovered, and the Human action involved in these discoveries, there lies a by-product and reaction that will need yet another remedy and another resolution. But when we become congested by state-ism and bureaucracy, we are unable to solve anything. (Unfortunately we may already be in that position.)

Government and corporations cannot be trusted to help solve social problems, its like asking criminals to solve their own crimes, and come up with their own punishment. We must all be able to act on reason and explore the knowledge available to us at the time of any crisis. And because man cannot know all things at all times, and science changes through discovery, that to create permanent mandate and policy based upon current knowledge is counterproductive and dangerous. And to expect government to act objectively, if political objectivity could even exist at all, in all such matters is absurd and naïve. Government has little incentive to create sound solutions, unless held accountable for its actions, and any accountability by government is almost non-existent, government seems to have more power and wealth to gain by perpetual social problems to “experiment” with anyway.

I am uncertain exactly what the solution is at this time but I will continue to argue against any further government intervention and corporate involvement in the matter. Both political and corporate sides of the argument are selling fear in exchange for a false sense of “security”, all based on the fallacy of scarcity, that’s what the power structure does, and the government and corporations capitalize on it. We get so caught up in who is right or wrong, we forget what the argument is really all about, then we lose sight of what can actually be done about it, leaving the institutions who helped create the mess to supposedly clean it all up. This presents a conundrum I understand, but I would actually recommend a sort of pressing of the ‘pause’ button, and maybe a consortium of real thought on these matters to take place before any more ‘policy’ or commercial rigidity to take root on this situation. The people whom all these policies and ventures effect need be included in the process to include insight and perspective to come up with foresight on this whole issue. A real grass-roots effort where localities enter in the remedial efforts from their position, as opposed to being undermined by any central power which cannot supply the same insight and perspective for their regional needs and requirements. This process could work in many other human endeavors. Maybe we would have less war in the end as well.

What we need to strive for is a results-driven leadership, a leadership of people who carry with them the environment as well as the Human condition as its main priority. To reach this goal government and at the same time monopolistic corporate institutions which hold each other so dear need be put in their place. The limits of our government, as delineated in the original contract, The Constitution FOR the United States, could get us back on track and this contract does not need any further perversions by those “acting” on our behalf. We need no more obscure and ambiguous interpretations of this document. What we need is adherence to the original Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments. This would be a great place to start, since it is our American government’s duty.

But I do not want to inundate this topic with further political rhetoric. I want to do what I can do, and at this time that would be to generate positive discourse on these questions. As I have attempted to illustrate above, I am not trying to take sides on this topic, but I am taking a stand. And that stand is against further robbery by the power structure by use of propaganda which creates  false consensus toward the goal of more involvement and more control of you and I and our children’s children by the great Government Incorporated under the illusory guise of “protecting” us against ourselves. OK, I did it again…but you get the point by now I’m sure.

In the end I hope to see real markets move into alternative energies, alternative transportation, alternative homes, alternative work and of course keeping the environment in mind. And along with all this, the free will for the people to choose these things as they come alive in the economy as a result of a real free market economic system.

Availability of alternative clean energy would create entire economies in of themselves creating a need for useful products and services and a need for more people to do the work that goes with it all. No one need be put out of work as the protectionists, and socialist unions propagate. All the work once needed in an antiquated industry simply re-tools for the next new industry that replaces the old systems. Business could come alive in so many ways and so many could benefit from a real free market system, a system of choice and free will.

The funny thing about socialism: There is seemingly no cure for capitalism except the complete perversion of the system until we are all chained to a wall of equality by government. Until we are all equally chained together in poverty, scarcity and fear, we won’t have the socialist utopia the capital manipulating socialists so desire. Petrified by legal codes at every instance of possible positive action, as our human reflexes want to better our situation, but cannot because we have become chained to emotional irrationality sprung up from ignorance and sealed by law.

If we do not have freedom in choice of what we would prefer in alternative energies, if these energies are not available how are we to lower our so-called “carbon footprint”? If science does not have the freedom to solve problems through technology due largely to protectionism and bureaucracy and the tyranny of socialist policy, how can any of us hope to ever solve the environmental issues we face today? Rather than moving forward by what was once American ingenuity and creativity, we are now regressing into a backwards society where we have no choice and scientific resolution is under arrest by the government propaganda machine.

To embellish my point further: Often in the beginning of any technological advancement, when a new invention goes into production, it is extremely expensive and can often only be purchased by the wealthy. These purchases build the capital necessary for the research and development needed to help bring the product to market in a less expensive model for all to enjoy. Through the envious behavior of redistribution of wealth the government employs so readily, do we think the government can perform all the R&D necessary to bring out the best products? To bring all the latest and greatest to the public? This is extremely doubtful because government cannot seem to even manage a trillion-dollar cash heist and property theft industry. They always need more money, like a child stealing money from your wallet on the nightstand and then asking for more allowance the next morning and they have not even done their chores. They’ll keep doing it if you let them!

It’s 2011, and we are still pumping gas, why on earth do you think that is? If you look back for more than thirty years we’ve heard the same story about petroleum and its harmful effects on the environment as well as its scarcity. The pollution, greenhouse gases, oil rig disasters in the ocean, tanker spills, wars fought over oil, price instability, etc., there’s nothing new here, these problems have haunted us for decades. It’s would seem it’s not about solving a problem. It’s all about the metering and profit! We need to change our perspective of “profit” and “value” and concede defeat to our self-destruction as the ends of the current means, and I am certain there is no value in that, a zero-sum game for all involved. For more perspective here please see my related article which discusses the false value of our currency that we work so hard for, and the problem of measuring the value of our work and goals by contemporary monetary standards: “Earning Good Money”.

And one last note to think about: Some of the wealthiest and most powerful Americans are politicians. Think about it.  Government takes the wealth that people create, not the other way around. The hypocrisy of the benevolent socialists.

I’m sure some will say that I’ve contradicted myself and have taken a side against socialism. And that this could be one way to discredit everything I am attempting to point out and distract from the merit of my contention. I will argue that would be an error for two reasons:

1) I see no side in many of the political circles who argue against socialism; no one, no politician, really calling it like it is, therefore no real political side to take. And because many Americans do not even seem to recognize socialism and simply do not know what it is. Many do not understand that we officially began our journey toward socialism in 1935 when the American government started the Social Security System, a government mandated and controlled retirement system. So many Americans seem not to understand the value of knowing what any of this even means; that this is a socialist system and it is failing miserably. It perplexes me that most Americans think this system is not a socialist system. (There are ways to wean America off social programs without completely cutting programs leaving those dependent on them in the streets. Please read this article as well)

2) I am taking a stand, not a side.

We have seen the west deteriorate economically, and the global environment along with it for decades under socialism, and I do realize that America’s version of socialism is more of an embryonic version, but it is still socialism. And for some reason there is a clamour for more of the same. I think this defines insanity.

There is no such thing as a ‘little socialism’. It is either present or it is not, and it is and has been present in America far longer than I have been alive and it is proving a miserable failure and will prove further with time if not turned around as soon as possible. Maybe we should try a more open approach. Maybe we need to take responsibility and bring forth the change by positive Human action. We cannot solve the massive problem of pollution and its effects on our environment if we cannot change the way we think of the institutions which create the pollution and then admit the part we play individually in the scheme of things.

It’s time for a massive re-orientation of thought. And above all actions government and corporations take, it is your actions and my actions that really count. Human action, as opposed to Human waiting around.

What the? Here I go again!

Why have I not covered what I really want to talk about yet? Life, friends, family,  living, art, fun, working for your own means, rewarding yourself and those around you with your creative inspiration, whatever they might be. Community, as a sum of people with free will and integrity as their guide.

For me, I simply want the time and energy to study, make music, and build an economy of my own within my community. My physical community as well as my cyber community, without government and their myriad of agents and accompanying legal-ease stealthily thwarting my every attempt at living a self-sufficient life. To be Human. To be free. To live by my free will and not the will imposed upon me by every possible institution of man.

I mean, all I really want to do is be happy and share that happiness. But how can I feel content in this world of corporate and government-run everything? I mean really, has anyone been paying any real attention? Is anyone really looking around at what little so-called quality of life we actually have left? Just what are we doing letting our souls be yoked by the machinery of despotic “globalism”? Are our minds and bodies so weary that we cannot stand and end all this B.S.? Why on earth do we continue to do nothing? To just keep bending over, over and over, paying more and more with our own labor, into a government controlled system of pure failure; a “welfare” system, systematically and endlessly throwing money at people whom due to the mechanisms of this forced benevolence, only multiply like rabbits. I often wonder that if the real natural laws of economy were in place, laws that lie within non-coerced human action, more people might have a better judgement of how many children they can raise, and we would not ever have a need to consider any socialist version of population control, let alone “welfare”. Our inaction is what keeps the machinery in place. Sooner or later this system as it is all coming down, one way or another. In case no one has noticed, the process has already begun.

I think some people regard “quality” of life, the ability to shop endlessly for crap they don’t need. All the while their kids are out drinking and doing dope, or who knows what, like “sexting” moments their own of poor judgement which they captured on their own smart-phone, recording it and sharing it no less. Something these lost kids will most likely live to regret later. Anything, I suppose, to put an end to boredom and lack of any real stimulation. Children mostly unchallenged by the government controlled, failing education system…one of the many failing government-run systems. But seriously, exposing yourself, how creative and intelligent.

But at the same time state agencies compel parents to do nothing, as this “system” teaches us that we have no control over our own children, that the state has the ultimate power and control. Should you try undermining the state, just watch what happens, you could have your children kidnapped by CPS, or you could be kidnapped by the police. Click this one small example.

I wonder if the only standard that America is willing to fight for is the socialistic version of “equality”, equality mandated by socialism which engenders envy and the accompanying mob mentality we see in the news today when any particular group is about to lose their “benefit package”. Benefits which are completely derived from the theft of another group, within an unsustainable chaotic economic system of coercion, decay, theft and bribery. Equality forced by government created delusions of iniquity…how interesting. Think about this folks, and without getting too far into the politics of unions, unions in the private sector are by design, at least in theory, to “protect” the worker from the employer. State unions are by design to protect the “worker” from their employer, the “tax payer”.

I’ll also take this opportunity to point out an absurdity on the part of socialism. Right now, in 2011, students are attending the union protest and sit-in in Wisconsin. Aren’t these the same students who oppose increases in student tuition? Hmmm… now there’s and interesting concept in economic theory.

All I know is we are out of touch with reality. There is so much available to us, and yet we let those who “represent” us keep it from us for our own “protection”, and we act like nothing matters, that everything will be A O.K.

So long as we have the luxury of acting like idiots, not giving a damn about anything but our own “stuff” and how much more useless crap we can gather, I suppose nothing will change and we may only have ourselves to blame. Those available luxuries are going to become dramatically less available, and soon, I guarantee it. Maybe that will bring back the intuition and resourceful attitude once endowed by America.

Who knows? But to the contrary, I believe more and more people continue to realize that things are getting worse in many ways, but better in many other ways at the same time. It’s just hard to find the better news because the mainstream networks do not cover it much. Maybe it’s because we all seem to only care about drama. It’s what we want to watch that the networks give. At least this is what the number crunchers at the networks think. But network viewership has been in decline since the 80’s and supposedly being replaced by cable. I would argue otherwise, and so I will.

Let’s look at how many bloggers there are now, that takes a lot of time away from the American past-time of watching TV, as I write these blogs, and put a quite bit of time and thought into them, I also read other blogs by people who do the same. I spend around two or more hours a day reading and studying on many of the subjects I am passionate about so I feel qualified to debate about much of what I bring up in my blog. I also find many ideas from other people stimulating and reassuring, and that humanity can and more than likely will prevail. I only hope it is not at the illusory controls of our current governing powers-that-be that continue to control the process.

Spend some time with some of the free information you can find on the internet and study away! Just be sure to qualify the websites you spend time on. Misinformation is plentiful on-line, so be very careful, backup as much as possible through critical thought and study.

I’ve said this before, but try to gain an understanding of what the politicians are up to as much as possible. By understanding that when you “vote”, you ultimately give consent to whatever these politicians do. Of course I am not saying do not vote, if that’s what you think matters, go ahead. I am talking about making change through human action. Vote by how you live and go about your business.

Some of what you may want to do is more than likely “illegal”, with thousands of laws on the books who knows jack anyways? But the real question is: is what it is that you want to do unlawful? This is seemingly only a semantic issue and very touchy subject by attorneys and those practicing  the “legal” profession. And I will disclaim that I am not a lawyer and I am not attempting to get people in trouble with the law, but my definition of illegal is real: “Contrary to or forbidden by law or statute”.

But by “unlawful” I consider this more in the constitutional sense. In other words, our government in America, from the Federal government all the way down to the local municipalities, gains only limited powers, and that ONLY by the limited powers contracted within the original organic Constitution for The United States, with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, (the first Ten amendments). And that any statute, legislation or otherwise, regardless of its given quality of protection or security, is unlawful if it acts contrary to the limited powers granted to American government. And that no agent of American government can write law which precludes government agents from the laws written thereof. Bouvier’s Common Law Maxims provides insight into how American law was supposed to be written and carried out.

So sooner or later, you realize that nearly anything you do, and may want to do, is already illegal and that when your back is up against the ropes, you may have to fight your way out! If everyone agrees to fight back by our actions, sooner or later the fight goes the other way and the underdog actually realizes that a little confidence is all it takes to win a fight.

As we know, it’s all a big lie anyways at this point. We keep waiting around all our lives for something to change. And then we realize that it is only the actions of every person that brings positive change, not the politicians. So it’s within what we choose through our own free will and integrity that really counts. Your vote…not so much, not so long as a corrupted system is in place. Vote if you want, but I say: Go act on something you are passionate about!

Go plant your garden regardless of SB-510. Keep going to the farmers market to buy or sell your veggies and buy meats from local ranchers. Write articles about what to do with your extra earned ever-depreciating cash, such as buying precious metals or other currencies, or investing in real capital, YOU. Write about life in general and with passion. Compose music that is far different and open from what you hear on the radio or the “canned” stuff playing in the grocery store. Make your own art, whatever it is. Teach your children right from wrong (it’s not as ambiguous as many make it out to be), but let them be kids at the same time. If you are not happy with the school system, commit to teaching them at home, it has its rewards. Recognize and nurture the talents your children have, even the seemingly smallest of talent can bloom into something wonderful for everyone. Don’t take your freedom for granted, assert yourself when you realize your ability to act on the behalf of your own free will is imposed upon by another and do not be afraid to do so. Challenge the way things are, if you disagree with them, and do something positively opposite. If something is getting you down, figure out just what it is and do something about it! This blog is part of my process. Carry your passions with you and never allow those who are the keepers of things as they are to force you to leave them behind you.

And now I’m going to learn to play piano. I invested some money in a keyboard set and I can take lessons for free right here on my computer. And no one can stop me! Maybe I do something sinister like play my guitar too! Maybe I practice some “devil’s intervals“, HA! Maybe next I go and buy some organic unpasteurized milk…OH MY!

To be or not to be, that is the question.

Laissez-Faire Hallucinations

I suppose that what I am doing here is sharpening laissez-faire’s definition in regards to free market economy. This I find necessary largely due to the plethora of arguments on the subject that I have encountered within various books and articles that have either been based on pure economics or have simply used examples taken from the study of the subject of economics; that many of these writings misrepresent laissez-fair market theory.

For those who may have become confused by a tangled web of ambiguous misinformation on the study of economics served up by the daily news, T.V. news “programming”, irresponsible educators, apologist and propagandist historians, enthusiastic socialist politicians, enthusiastic war mongering politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike, or even idiotic op-ed articles (and you may consider this one of those, that’s O.K.), I just want to clear the air a little.

If you disagree, that’s O.K. too, I’m just hoping you’ll at least return to the endless social, political and economic arguments that are so prevalent today with a fresh perspective of what is actually happening when the argument for or against laissez-faire economics comes up, that many of these arguments defy logic.

Laissez-faire :



the theory or system of government that upholds the autonomous character of the economic order, believing that government should intervene as little as possible in economic affairs.

the practice or doctrine of noninterference in the affairs of others, especially with reference to individual conduct or freedom of action.

I present this definition as a way to illustrate to all the hobbyist economics students, including myself, as well as the would-be future and current economists who may consider writing on the subject of economics, that laissez-faire economic theory is and has been nothing more than theory and not truly in practice by American government, at least not for more than a century. And when the American government actually attempted to adhere laissez-faire policies to the fundamental method of governing its economic affairs, it was very short-lived. It’s simple, governments intrude, unless kept under control by the governed. This is obviously no easy task but the 20th century ought provide enough evidence of government intervention, regulation, protectionism, and monopoly at a pernicious detriment to the economic affairs of the entire world. Thus the 21st century is proving an ever-deepening plunge into the socialist abyss.

Technically speaking, we have had a socialist system in place since the Social Security System’s inception set in motion in 1935 by the Social Security Act. With so much information supporting this fact, I fail to understand how it is that so many are in denial of  this, but whatever the case, it is true and America as well as the entire world has not been the same since, from a social, political and economic perspective. What led America to this deteriorating system requires a much deeper study of its roots within the 16th amendment as well as the Federal Reserve Act. But we cannot ignore the most important facet in destructive role played by the 14th amendment and how it created a whole new system paving the road for such abilities of this government to usurp and destroy; I’ll leave that to you to study on further if you should choose. I want to keep this article simple and focused.

With such deteriorating socialist acts still in place, it is strange to me to see so much discourse on the subject of so-called laissez-faire economic policy. But, with the American economic system inundated in a myriad of mixed policies and statutes which pervert the very laws of economics and liberty, I suppose I expect confusion to some degree. Or is it pure denial? I’ll leave that for the politicians and the voters to continue fighting about.

For me I’ll just stick with what I know and do whatever I can to shed what light I can and hope for the best for all of humanity.  I’ll even concede defeat on any subject I’m wrong about, that’s more than I can say for our leaders. Though one can only hope political, corporate and military leaders experience some enlightenment and change their destructive ways. (That was a joke) Ultimately the average people are more than likely going to have to force the change by their actions…human action.

I would rather argue the case for liberty and free will and try to not be distracted. To attempt to avoid the argument for liberty and free will have its value detracted by the divisive tendrils of deception.

On the subject of money, please see one of my other articles “Earning Good money”. Also this one on government intervention and protectionism, “Pumping gas & politicians” .

I will also humbly refer you to this article at the Von Mises webpage. “The Myth that Laissez Faire Is Responsible for Our Present Crisis”, is an even deeper analysis on the subject of the laissez-fair blame game going on with our the current economic crisis. I discovered it while doing research for this article, it articulates further with deeper research points and current examples on this subject, enjoy.

Is This Your Utopia?

Your Utopia can never be my Utopia. Any idea of Utopia cannot prevent Human Action and free will by a “collective”, otherwise this form Utopia will be nothing more than a global prison. Utopia is not possible. Try studying praxeology to better understand what this video and many others like it ignores about Human nature and Human action.

I’m all for a better world than what we have, but within reason and logic. Individual Human free will must also prevail. Most evil in men culminates from the isolation that occurs when men lose free will and independence.

Declare War on War

With all the declared wars on drugs, poverty, illiteracy, pollution, obesity, etc. Have any of these wars been met with success? What definition of victory do we have to go by? How about the War on Terror? Does anyone see an end to that? Is there any true way to define victory against terrorism? Is that a real possibility? Do the institutions that build up around these platforms truly perform with victory in mind? And if not, do these institutions ever really go away due to their inability to produce positive results? Should they not in the least be created in limited tenure as to their duty to resolve the indicated issues they proclaim to fight? Or do they just become another permanent agency or bureau, another tentacle of the government which eventually ends up controlling nearly every part of the private lives in every community?

On the subject of warfare.Today, in the so-called modern civilized world, the threat of lives lost ought to prevent wars in the first place, no? Let alone the amount of money it costs to fight these wars. Have we not evolved past a point where our egos irrationally and uncontrollably misguide our actions?

Here’s the fundamental question I would like to present to those who feel some sense of a real or manufactured patriotic duty contrived by the messages we get from the mainstream media tools of government, messages to justify our support and participation in physical warfare, real warfare that cost lives: Do you think our leaders consider the true cost of warfare in the end? Do we consider the ultimate cost? Not only the lives lost, but think about how much money it costs to fight a war. Couldn’t the billions, and today, trillions of dollars spent on warfare go toward the real problems humanity faces? You know, the ongoing problems of the human condition that create acts of war to begin with?

Funny how we are to not supposed to protect ourselves here at home in nearly any conceivable way, physically, economically, spiritually. Let the “authorities” handle it we hear.  And yet these “authorities”  send our children hunting for monsters in every oily part of the world. Funny…those not required to go into battle sending others to die for their cause…interesting concept.

Maybe we ought to concentrate more on what we have to deal with in our own lands, our own communities and our own families, instead of invading foreign lands. Have we not done enough damage?

Me and my big mouth again…asking all these silly questions.

See my other article “Tsunamis of Taxation, Inflation and Subjugation”.