Martin Luther King Jr. and the Government Lie

       

     April 4^th 1968 at approximately 7:01AM in Memphis Tennessee. Unbeknownst to the country the civil rights crusader Martin Luther King Jr. was to die this day. The powerful speeches were no more, saved only by audio record. The marches would not cease, not in the slightest. The day would be somber, the night would be silent. The fight for liberty lies dead on a motel balcony.

       45 years have passed since the voice of equality, freedom, patriotism, and love for mankind was snuffed out, when the light of liberty got a little darker, but it did not go out.

      Many people were taught in school that it was a man named James Earl Ray that killed Dr. King and that he was swiftly apprehended, but is that the truth? In December of 1999 the king family finally got their answer. With the verdict from a jury of citizens they found that the death of Dr. King was a conspiracy. A conspiracy involving government officials and agencies, the CIA, FBI and ultimately even The President of The United States Lyndon B Johnson.

      So what does this say about the current state of affairs in our country? Some have made the argument that the President would never allow citizens to be marked for assignation, they already have, and Dr. Martin Luther King was not the first nor the last to be killed for political reasons.  It would be foolish to believe the political machine would never harm or kill a threat to their power, after all, that would be the only way for them to maintain that power. If it were to become a common knowledge that our government was involved in the assignation of one of the greatest freedom fighters to live, I believe the power could and would return to its rightful place, The People. By reason or Force the end would come to the political machine of tyranny.

Going Postal

   

     So everyone knows that the recent scare tactic used by our Lords is sequestration. One of the effects of this sequestration is the funding of the United States Postal Service and their Saturday delivery. It is said that it would save BILLIONS of dollars if we just didn't run a Saturday delivery. But is this true? Is it really a matter of cutting one day out of their workweek, or is the whole idea of a Government funded Postal Service ready to be outdone by a Free Market model? What are the benefits and drawbacks from a free market approach? Is there another way that we can all enjoy the overwhelming bills and consumer advertisements that fill our mailboxes instead of letters and small parcels?

     The United States Constitution draws out specifically Congressional duty to establish post offices and post roads. Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph 7 reads: The Congress Shall have Power To …Establish Post Offices and Post Roads. But what it does not lay out in any way is the requirement that those offices deliver mail to individuals. So could we do without delivery service and still maintain a sense of normalcy in sending and receiving our mail? Sure we could. In the past mail was delivered to the Post Office, when the individuals were ready to pick up their mail they would travel to the office and pick it up. So what’s wrong with returning to this practice? I think that the hectic life that many of us lead leave very little time to get to a post office in time to retrieve our mail, but wait, if we could save money by not delivering mail we could staff those offices later or even 24 hours.

     Another aspect of this topic came to my attention, I was asked about disabled persons who cannot get to the Post Office and have no one that can get it for them? Well there is an answer for that too, if someone realized this lack of service to a particular group of individuals they could start up a small business that delivered the mail to these people for a fee. Either that or we would see a return of community involvement and acts of kindness to help your fellow community dwellers. If one could not get to the Post Office maybe people would help them by taking them there or even delivering their mail to them. Either way it does not require a service paid for by others.

     So what are the advantages of this approach? I believe that if given a real chance a market approach could outperform any government controlled and funded system that could be built. When a service is needed and wanted (Demand) and the product is there to be distributed (supply) a free market could produce very profitable businesses that employ a good amount of citizens. The drawbacks of this type of business are not unlike any other private business in this country. Market availability along with supply and demand are the inherent risks related to this system.

     So in relation to our current system of government control and now a threat to the people’s ability to receive their mail a free market approach could alleviate the problems that arise from a government controlled postal system.  The flaws of the current system are apparent and so are the differences between them and free market principles. The postman is already an individual and can still perform his job as an individual, the names can stay the same the uniforms can too, but one thing is for sure government cannot adequately run this system to its full potential nor power.