Sunday, April 5, 2009

Five sextillion... draw a line!

Sextillion, it's a number you've likely never heard of, and almost certainly never contemplated. However, thanks to statist intervention in Zimbabwe, sextillion is becoming a household word. You see, the annual inflationary rate in Zimbabwe is five sextillion, that is- 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000%. That means what cost a Zimbabwean dollar at the beginning of the year, by the end of the year costs $5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. At least, I think that's how it converts, I start getting lost in the billions.
The president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, a commie dictator with U.N. backing, followed Mao's agrarian reform "ideals" and confiscated thousand of white farmers lands, turning them over to unskilled Zimbabweans, resulting in mass food shortages.
What's happening in Zimbabwe is nothing more than an exaggerated version of what's taking place in our country. That is, statist central planning.
I don't know about you, but Zimbabweans seem to have an extremely high tolerance for getting screwed! I mean serious, where will they draw the line? Maybe they'll wake up when a candy bar costs an octillion or undillion... As for me, I hope Americans wake up long before it gets to that point... somehow though, considering how much we've put up with so far, I doubt it. In fact, Zimbabweans are likely less tolerant than Americans. I mean, think about it, what do Zimbabweans have to think about beyond the basic means of survival. On the other hand, Americans have golf, American Idol, Dancing With The Stars, OMG, the list goes on and on... to distract them.
Personally, I think we may consider waking up to the reality. That is, I think Americans may realize the free market is the answer when... no, not even then, not even when toilet paper costs fifty-nine duotrigintillion dollars, and quattuordecillion cents. Maybe at that point the money will at least have some intrinsic value: to wipe with.

Saturday, March 14, 2009

People who say we own the government.

This much needs to go- people who say "we own the government because this is a democracy." It's not that I don't think this is the way it ought to be, I mean, if we have a government then that's the way it ought to be.... but it's not that way. So people who say that we own the government, are lying.

In my opinion, talk radio is the greatest evidence of the fact that the majority of the population are brainless. After all, these shows exist because people actually listen to them. The only thing that could explain away my conclusion is that perhaps those who listen to it do so because they think it's great comedy... personally, this is my reason for listening.

On one of those silly occasions, I was listening to Doug Wright, and he conjured up that ridiculous argument. B. Obama was flying to Colorado to sign a bill. According to Wright (honestly, he annoys me like beyond explanation) people were up in arms because Obama was using all this money to fly, blah blah blah. And then went onto claim that "the plane is our plane! This is a Democracy!" blah blah blah... I wanted to reach into the radio and slap him.

I was up in arms as well, but not over the plane ride, more over the fact that we even have a president, after all, I'm anarchist. Doug Wright attempted to justify the use of the plane on the basis that Obamaditty was our elected president, and that means.... blah blah blah.

So here's the thing, if we really own the first plane (or whatever you call it,) we could board the damn thing whenever we wanted and fly to Cuba. But we don't, so we can't. How hard is that to understand? Government implies rulers, and Obama is our ruler. Rulers have privileges.

I don't want a ruler. The end.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

The Pledge

Here's my beef with the pledge of allegiance. It's a pledge of allegiance to a flag. That's right, we pledge our allegiance to a piece of cloth... doesn't anyone else find that strange. Oh wait, that's right, we also pledge our allegiance to "The Republic" for which the flag stands. So we are supposed to obey the republic, ok, I'm getting it. Next...

One nation- ok, so that's supposed to remind us that it's not two nations, or three, or many. Ok, got it.


Indivisible- Ya, this is the part that really gets me, it's an echo from that whole "one nation" part. This is supposed to remind us of the sorry southern saps who had the audacity to disagree. That's right, they had some crazy idea that they could leave the republic if the republic treated them like dirt. Where'd they get that crazy idea? (Old Honest Abe should know, he quoted from the declaration of INDEPENDENCE at Gettysburg!)

I mean serious, what is so good about being bound to the republic? Do we believe in Thomas Jefferson when he so eloquently stated in the D.o.I. "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another..." Oh ya, that's right, Jefferson believed there were certain conditions, that if met, would warrant a people dissolving their government.

In school we were taught that the "civil" war (which I call "The War of Northern Aggression") was about freeing the slaves. I will not waste any of my time attempting to convince you this was not the case, if you believe it, you probably have never read a book. It was not about freeing the slaves. The end.

Might I recommend several books that will give you a very clear understanding of what the War of Northern Aggression was really about- "The Real Lincoln," Thomas DiLorenzo, "Lincoln Unmasked," also by Thomas DiLorenzo, and "Lincoln the Man," by Edgar Lee Masters. When you read these books the first thing you will realize is this- YOU'VE BEEN LIED TO YOUR WHOLE LIFE about "Honest" Abe and the true cause of the War of Northern Aggression ("civil" war.) You will also realize how wrong it is to take the pledge of allegiance. 

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

We owe the government?

I'm confused (not really,) I keep hearing commercials, the news, friends, etc. talking about how so and so "owe" the government for back taxes, etc. On the radio on my way home from work I heard about how some low life famous person went out and spent a bunch of money but didn't give the government their $200,000 share of the money spent. Where does the government get these numbers? Oh that's right, the more you make the more you are supposed to take on in the burden of taxation. This is how we repay the rich for their success... TAX the hell out of them. 

Is it just me or is the government a big huge bully? Seriously, who else could get away with marching around ordering people to hand over their property- OR ELSE! This poor sap of a famous person who made the mistake of spending her hard earned money without giving big brother a cut is now going to spend 6 months in prison... that's right, she's going to have her liberty removed for SIX MONTHS (about 185 days) because she "owes" the government taxes. 

In the past people have argued that we pay taxes because without them we wouldn't have "public schools, highways, a military, nukes, etc." What I don't get is, if that's the case, if we HAVE to pay taxes, shouldn't we pay taxes according to the level of government consumption we are involved in? Rather, the more effectively you make use of the government consumption, i.e. becoming a successful person through individual management, the more the government says you owe! Shouldn't it be just the opposite? The more frivolous you are with your use of "government provided amenities" the more you should "owe" the government?

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think we owe the government anything, I think they owe US everything. The argument will now be made by the statists amongst you that people like our famous tax evader are evil because the rest of us poor saps ARE paying our taxes and she should have to as well. Rather, I think she did us all a favor, think about it, the $200,000 that was supposed to go to the government went into the private sector. That's right, it went WAM BAM into the pockets of PRIVATE CITIZENS! If she HAD payed her taxes, that is, if she HAD turned her $200,000 over to the government it would likely be going to blow up more brown babies in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or waisted on some outrageous inauguration etc. I don't know about you, but my personal money is always better spent when I SPEND IT. You won't catch me sending trillions of dollars over seas to make bullets that will disappear into mid eastern hills or mid eastern flesh... NOPE! My money will go into your pockets, or your fathers, or your daughters, or your cousins... that's right, my money will be spent on products that make MY life better, products that your cousin produces, money that they will use to feed their children. 

The reality is this, like H.L. Mencken said- "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." I couldn't agree more. Those of you who love taxes, seriously, you need a brain examination... no serious, don't doubt me, think about it, you do. I mean seriously, are you going to argue with me on this? You like taxes? Serious? You do? Like I said, if you like taxes... you're a moron. Thy are evil, wrong, forever and ever... amen.

Am I the only one disturbed?

Have you ever watched the A&E show "Manhunters: Fugitive Task Force?" It's one of your typical cops shows, U.S. Marshall's flying around the country (at tax payers expense) nabbing "bad guys." The show always begins with a 5 second disclaimer that says something like- "This show is about U.S. Marshall's hunting down 'alleged" criminals... all suspects are innocent until proven guilty..." blah blah blah. Supposedly the disclaimer is supposed to protect the people being arrested should they be somehow innocent of the crimes they're accused of.

Every time I watch the show I find myself more and more disturbed by several things. First off, the U.S. Marshall's are willing to (and do) step on the toes of everyone they come across in their endeavors to track down the "bad guy." Whenever they go to check on a possible lead, if they even bother to knock, they ALWAYS enter the leads home, without asking permission, and I've NEVER seen them present a warrant. I don't know, maybe I've missed something, but I thought there was supposed to be a warrant involved?

Once inside the home they treat everyone (EVERYONE) like crap, they get in faces, demand answers, push people around, threaten, intimidate, swear, yell, blackmail, etc. They do all of this in hopes that they will get another lead to point them in the direction of their target, even if it's just a phone number. All the while the camera is taking footage of the home, often in shambles (not expecting the company) in what I can only assume is an effort to show how "crime" is always linked with poverty, dirty homes, etc. 

Eventually they end up finding the poor sap after intimidating the hell out of countless individuals, and haul him off in their expensive black SUV's. Occasionally they will arrest someone with a real disgusting charge against them (the kind I would otherwise have little sympathy for,) but most of the time the "criminal" is guilty of some drug "offence." 

So let me get this straight, the police have the right to use whatever means necessary short of murder to intimidate anyone they choose into revealing basic information about some dude that smoked weed? Hold up! Isn't this a double standard? Physical force used to punish the associates of someone who committed a victimless "crime?"

I don't know about you, but there is something seriously wrong with that picture. If you don't see it, perhaps you need to reevaluate the meaning of "the golden rule." Drugs are nasty things, but they don't warrant the kind of behavior the US Marshall's delve out. PERIOD.