The Real State of the Union

The Real State of the Union

President Obama gave his 7th State of the Union speech  last night, January 21st 2015. After hearing these speeches year after year, president after president I have come to see them not as projections of what the actual state of the nation is, but rather an advertisement for things the president thinks he did well,

“ ...more of our people are insured than ever before...”

Well yeah, they kind of have to be, remember you made them criminals if they didn’t buy insurance.

Not mentioned in last nights remarks is the reality of the real state of the union.

What about the National Debt?

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 21 Jan 2015 at 06:03:20 PM GMT is:

The estimated population of the United States is 319,850,520

so each citizen's share of this debt is $56,565.23.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of

$2.40 billion per day since September 30, 2012!

Or maybe the amount of new regulations?

A little over 75,000 pages of new burdensome and restrictive regulations were imposed on US businesses. Each one a hinderance to the growth and expansion of businesses.

No mention of the prison population.

More than 1.57 million inmates sat behind bars in federal, state, and county prisons and jails around the country as of December 31, 2013. Many from victimless crimes.

We could go on with the rising tax rates, poverty levels, inflation, wasteful spending, the drug war, real wars and their destructive nature, the rate of returning soldiers committing suicide, the rate of bankruptcy and homelessness, the NSA…. And so on and so on.

The State of the Union has become nothing more than promises of future action and commercialization of past actions, not to give a statistical breakdown of how the nation is functioning.

On Police Body Cameras

There is a lot of commentary and discussion coming from the Ferguson MO story that revolves around the idea that Police Officers should be required to wear body cameras while on duty. I want to give a brief account of my own thoughts on this issue as it pertains to the need and the effects of pursuing this endeavor.

In response to the Ferguson story, where a young man was fatally shot by an Officer it has raised new concerns for law enforcement and renewed debate over the role, scope  and authority of the Police in America. In the discussion there has risen voices of both complacency and of concern.

The first is the voice of many people who defend the actions and the means of todays police forces. In that defense many will call for any actions necessary for police to "do their job" and will subjugate others to fund their ideas by the use of government and a ballot box. In these claims, the newest want is that of cameras to be worn by all officers, to record at all times, and the video to be made available to the public upon request. This idea is one of accountability and in that respect I would agree. Transparency and accountability is something that has been too long gone from government, even at the police or local sheriff level. Those that do not agree with the means or justifiable excuses by these departments should agree that accountability is needed and wanted in all government positions.

The other aspect of this idea is that of the economic impact it will have. As the calls for police issued cameras are thrown around an important thought has escaped the discussion altogether. The way police departments and law enforcement agencies are funded is through taxation, and in that, all new equipment purchased will be made through these funds. As someone who advocates for an end to legalized plunder (taxation) this idea goes against my own opinion and belief. I have said it time and again that whatever cannot be done through voluntary means should never be forced upon people. For those who call on their local and state police and law enforcement agencies to be equipped with cameras a fundraiser or donation from concerned citizens would be a rather better way to handle this. The subjective value theory again makes an appearance here. If those who do not see a relative value for the cameras (and other services and products for that matter) the forced extortion of them serves as a punishment by which they are victimized by a majority of people who "want without conscience or consequence". These new victims are the result of a economic fallacy that what is publically funded is publically endorsed, even though those that do not endorse the idea will be subjected to its use against them. When any dissent from the idea or even the forced acceptance and funding of the idea is exposed it is usually met with some variance of the phrase, "it is for the betterment of the community and you get to experience it through safer streets and accountable officers." But with this again the value placed on the idea by one does not always carry over to others. This idea of "social positives" through third parties or alternate means is the same argument made in relations to public schools and public welfare programs.

Another caveat to add to this is a comparison of costs to savings. When a police officer receives a compliant or if an officer has to go to court the ultimate financier is the taxpayer. All legal matters are paid for through their funding by the citizens. If these cameras were to have a positive impact of the number of incidences (meaning the number of incidences declines) leading to costly court battles and time lost, lawyers fees and compensation or settlements in and out of court (also paid for by the taxpayer) , the cost to savings benefit should be considered.

In the case of body cameras for police officers the idea to make these agencies and officers accountable and transparent is a noble goal that loses its appeal in the economic light of forced compliance and mandated funding.

The Humanitarian case and Non-Interventionism

Many people tend to have a hard time recognizing the differences between Non-Intervention and Isolationism; rather using the terms interchangeably and erroneously. The classical argument of refraining from intervention into foreign affairs, entanglements and conflicts comes from the belief that national interests should remain in the nation and that no matter the action, internationally, eyes and opinions would be cast towards whatever nation becomes involved in a situation amongst other nations. Many of the founding members of the government of the United States held beliefs in this idea.

Genocide, Holocaust, War, Invasions, Operations, Missions, and Conflicts all involve at the very base people, human beings, that for whatever their own reasons seek to extend the wishes of the governing body they submit to. Governments, and by extension entire countries and the majority of people who make up the society or population of, commit to end conflicts between themselves by the brutality of War. Sometimes they use this when all other means to peace have been exhausted, sometimes as an initiation of violence and others as a defense. These governments recruit, draft and conscript those citizens of value to them, the young, stronger and the productive, to the ranks of their militaries. For this we will only be addressing military intervention; though economic intervention through blockades, embargoes and sanctions should be addressed the same way.

Non-Interventionism seems a pretty simple and straight forward principle. “Do not intervene in affairs of other countries that do not directly affect the US”. But in this very simple statement lies questions.  And serious questions. These questions have been answered repeatedly by many authors, and their acceptance is up to each individual to decide.

Is there a Humanitarian Case FOR intervention?

Of course this question begs the individual to place a subjective value on a human life and pit that against the value of another life. Because the intention and action to do harm to others is a factor to the value of a life for most, it stands that those persons doing harm or threatening to do harm would be subjected to a lesser value than the so called victims of events. Saving a life by taking a life can be seen as justifiable by some and somewhat undebatable to others. The judgment of those who will do harm or violence to others is a constant in the political world, hence a presidential kill list, drone bombings and secretive missions by highly trained military members in government sanctioned assassinations and murders. Even in everyday life, the citizens of every country place value on the lives of every other nation’s people.

Can there be a Humanitarian cause for military intervention. In this question lies an impasse of logic. Can the killing of some be considered “humanitarian” if it is the case to help others to live? If a country’s government were to threaten another with nuclear annihilation, would it not be in the humanitarian sense a point for justifiable intervention?  To ensure the loss of life is kept at a minimum and the worldwide effects of such an act be avoided? One could argue in the defense of the intervener as the wholly humanitarian effort and against the aggressor as the initiator of force. But the end result of to take a life to save a life contradicts the compassionate excuse it seeks to eradicate.  In the purely libertarian sense, one can urge intervention so long as those whose mind is made up against said intervention are not forced or coerced into facilitating the action, whether that be through taxation to afford the intervention, conscription to the cause of the intervention or whatever other means to force a person to act against their own belief of non-intervention.

What is the Humanitarian case AGAINST intervention?

Military intervention comes in many forms. From the small arms trades and sales, troop training, asset maintenance and facilitator of large weapons and munitions, and of course the act of entering into a military conflict with supplies of troops and mechanized weaponry. In the present, all of these actions are ultimately coerced from those who may or may not hold value to them, as stated before, increased taxation and conscription are all part of the norm for these types of affairs.

The Humanitarian case comes into effect at the soldier level and at the economic impact level it has on the citizenry of the intervening nation or state.  Each soldier’s life and those that they may take in combat or those that die from indirect conflict related economic hardships are not necessarily counted as such in current times. But each one of these should be considered when trying to make a humanitarian case either for or against intervention of any kind. As stated before the taking of one life by any means declares the end result of any intervention wholly inhumane and against the stated goal of saving humanity from death or harm.

What are the effects of Intervention?

There is a persistent fallacy associated with those that claim Non-Interventionism is Isolationism. Calling someone an isolationist has become the favored insult to Neo-Conservatives and the Neo-Liberals to cast towards libertarians. While not every Libertarian completely agrees with the idea of Non-Intervention, the same can be said of the idea of Intervention by Conservatives and Liberals.

The term Isolationist is one that for the most part is used erroneously and in a kind of inaccurate, hypocritical way. If the refraining from foreign affairs isolates any nation or state from any others it is in a belief that the non-intervening state or nation has some Responsibility to Protect (R2P) any others. In this theory any nation’s citizens should come to expect to be saved by all other nations or states if their respected nation or state fails to provide adequate protections. In that aim any nation’s citizens can expect to oblige to pay for any such intervention by their government. But this obligation often comes begrudgingly or not at all voluntarily. Should any state or nation, in their attempt to save another, put their own citizens at risk? Or to force them to give up their wealth on a choice not made by them that they may not find the least bit worthy of their contribution?

Sometimes intervention has other effects; creating enemies and leading to an inclusive war or attack by an offended nation or state. It has the effect of reduced production in consumer markets; due to enlistment, conscription or mandatory transfer of market production to production of intervention bound supplies.

However you view intervention it is imperative to comprehend that no matter what type of intervention is being touted, it ultimately is not in the name of humanitarian efforts. It is, as it is now, a monumental shift of wealth and lives into the domain of public welfare, domestic theft of wealth, imperialism and will have further effects that will affect those who have had no choice to submit their own voice against the will and actions of the government they live under. 

Do Philosophies Change Because of Children?

Yesterday my wife and I were at the gym, when a woman interjected herself into our conversation. The conversation we were having ,before this interruption, was on a small bit of success I had that day talking to a co-worker. This woman, who unbeknownst to us had been listening in, asked us if we have any children. We responded with a no, and she told us that our thinking would change if we had kids and it is nice to be idealistic. This caused me to just turn and silently laugh to myself. I honestly do not know where people come up with some of this stuff, but OK, let's address this real quick.

My wife and I do not have kids based on choices we have made to be financially secure enough to not have to struggle if and when we do have children. Our goal is to have a single income home with my wife homeschooling our kids, as it is right now, with debt we had put ourselves into and other very visible issues with the World and US economy it is not feasible at this particular time, that is a decision we live with daily, as both of have a goal to have children.

What this woman had assumed is that with having children our ideology or philosophy would change. That may be true in some cases, but she failed to realize or even acknowledge that she had not the faintest idea of what our philosophy is or what our beliefs are. To understand that what we advocate is freedom for every person and the economic conditions to prosper for everyone, free of state or government control, to rid the world of any semblance of servitude or slavery of any kind. I am not sure how this would change having a child.

This is not the first time I have heard this being said. It is quite a popular expression to tell others that their ideals, their morals, and their values change with the addition of parental roles. I have never understood this concept.

I believe theft is wrong, would this somehow become moral if a child was involved? Taking someone's life is also wrong in my eyes, would this somehow be altered if I had considered the effect it would have on my child. I am not sure what people who use this saying are trying to express or even what they believe how a moral standing, a philosophy would change with having a child.

I did not respond to this woman's claim, though looking back I should have. I could have asked these questions to her, maybe to find she doesn't actually believe in what she just said, or maybe to find her justify what she said with fallacies or even popular myths and excuses.

What needs to be said is this. By changing the dynamics and structure of family units a real philosophical and moral standing should not change but become ever stronger. It should be passed on and expressed to the heirs and inheritors to the spaces we inhabit and the world we leave behind. It should be lived, experienced and taught to those we bring into this world, with no exceptions or justifications for going against these beliefs.

To this woman I say this. Your unfounded accusation and assumption that a belief would change as the family unit count increases was completely unwanted and unwarranted. What you said may be the case with some people, but in those cases I would say that the beliefs or morals of those people were not solid, they were not the philosophical foundation  that these people try to live their lives around and they were not the values that were likely to be taught and carried on to later generations.

The War Boom Fallacy

There is a persistent fallacy that is used by people in terms of economic thought and practice. The War Boom Fallacy is The Broken Window Fallacy used to try and explain War Time economics. Under the theory war brings jobs, production and wealth to workers and producers. At its base is the assumption that ALL things produced in War or for War are needed. War being described as the engine for new prosperity and returned wealth gains not only for the individual workers but also for the State through higher tax rates. Economists have long warned that war is not a driving force behind the building of capital but the greatest destroyers of capital. This fallacy has been used for decades following the great depression and the ending of World War 2 and again when used to explain lower unemployment numbers during the Bush years in office. 

This piece by Jeffrey Tucker in 2004 puts into detail the War Boom Fallacy.

"FEE.org caught this revealing piece from the Washington Post: “Across America, War means Jobs”

 In this corner of a critical presidential-election battleground state, the economy is surging with the urgency of a boom. But it wasn’t President Bush’s tax cuts, Federal Reserve interest rate policies or even a general economic turnaround that did the trick. It was war.
In the first three months of this year, defense work accounted for nearly 16 percent of the nation’s economic growth, according to the Commerce Department. Military spending leaped 15.1 percent to an annualized rate of $537.4 billion, up from $463.3 billion in the comparable period of 2003, when Bush declared major combat operations in Iraq over. …
It is impossible to know how many of the 708,000 jobs created in the past three months are defense-related, since the Labor Department does not track defense contractor employment. But anecdotal evidence suggests the contribution is significant….
In inflation-adjusted terms, the war’s cost will surpass the United States’ $199 billion share of World War I sometime next year. Coming on top of three major tax cuts, that spending will drive the federal budget deficit to more than $400 billion this year. That borrowing will eventually have to be repaid in higher taxes or reduced government services and benefits.
Economists have long argued that war is an inefficient use of government revenue. A dollar spent on a highway not only employs workers but also creates a lasting, broadly shared benefit for the economy. A dollar spent on military equipment is soon lost to enemy attack or the rapid wear of war. If it bought a bomb or bullet, it simply explodes.The families of thousands of National Guard members and reservists have been dealt severe financial blows by the extended deployments of breadwinners…."

The frenetic activity is repeated all over the country. New kilns in California bake ceramic body-armor plates. Apparel plants in Arkansas, Alabama, Florida and Puerto Rico struggle to keep up with uniform orders. Once-idle textile mills in South Carolina spin rugged camouflage fabric. Army depots operate 24/7 to repair and rebuild the wreckage of war in time to ship it back with the next troop deployment.

Many of the younger adults and children are being feed this fallacy and are accepting it without question, aided by Public and Private school curriculum and professed by Economists of the Keynesian School like Paul Krugman. Krugman uses this fallacy without delay in defense of war time spending and stimulus spending by government. He goes even so far as to joke (at least that is what I hope he was doing) that to aid in a recovery from the slump driven by the ever long Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, a housing market collapse and a tanking Wall Street,an Alien Invasion, even if false, would jump start the machines of war and the country and it's economy would be saved.

In Mid 2011 Krugman was a guest on CNN's  "Fareed Zakaria GPS"

"If we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months," he said. "And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake, there aren't any aliens, we'd be better--"
"We need Orson Welles, is what you're saying," Rogoff cut in.
"There was a 'Twilight Zone' episode like this in which scientists fake an alien threat in order to achieve world peace," Krugman said. "Well, this time, we don't need it, we need it in order to get some fiscal stimulus."

 Krugman and the Keynesian School Economists who favor this fallacy fail to recognize the fact that as War Produced goods are built and destroyed products built outside of this false demand are what are wanted by consumers rather than required for war time measures. The theory is as if to say that to stimulate an economy citizens should burn their clothes once a year and replace them, this of course would lead to a rise in demand for clothes but at the expense of savings for other wants and needs, this false demand being used as an example would be fit if not for the thousands of other markets that would be wanting this policy in place to support a false demand for their products, we would see the annihilation of virtually every good in the name of economic steadiness and security. Carpenters not doing well, burn the houses and stores. Auto Industry sluggish, force people to crush their cars once every few years.So on and so on until every good becomes disposable by mandate and is done so to fabricate and support an economic lie.

The War Boom Fallacy or known better as the Broken Window Fallacy brought to us by Frederic Bastiat (The Law) and reaffirmed by Henry Hazlitt (Economics In One Lesson) is a leading factor in the US economy due to it's military budgets and affairs around the world. This act of destruction of goods to strengthen an economy is ridiculous in theory and practice yet is still the most taught fallacy to students through public education. I say to these students and teachers alike, burn your books, your clothes, your beds and backpacks, smash your computers, TVs, your cell phones, in the name of a fallacy you hold to be true, destroy your goods and wait for the stimulus and economic boom to kick you in the rear.

A great paper on the numbers and stats of the "General Discussion of Pre and Post WW2 economics" can be found here. Authored by David R. Henderson this working paper lays out the numbers of the myth and dispels false impulses with clear understanding.

Also look into the Great Myths of the Great Depression by Lawrence Reed, found here, these two essays can be the starting point to your own understanding of the Broken Window fallacy redressed as a War Boom Fallacy.

Minimum Wage Law

The Minimum Wage hurts both businesses and workers alike in that it takes away the right of them both to come to mutually beneficial terms of employment. Below is a recent conversation I had with the Manager of a local grocery chain. As I explain how the minimum wage laws hurt the contracts between company and workers, it also fails to allow services to be rendered at a rate of agreement and forces businesses to comply with rules and laws, mandates and edicts of government agencies that are not present at the time or place. 

Me: Hello I wanted to find out if you were hiring at the moment.
Store Manager (SM): We take applications and fill spots according to the need.
Me: Great, I noticed the parking lot was full of shopping carts and wanted to offer my services for retrieving those carts. I assure you my rate would be sufficient and according to the skills involved.
SM:Your rate?
Me: Yes sir you see I would willingly accept $4 per hour until the job was complete or until a specified time had passed, your decision,
SM: Oh no we cannot do that, that is well below the Minimum Wage set by law, I am sorry but there is no way.
Me: Would you deny me to make any wage simply on an edict of a federal and state agency that is not present at this time or place?
SM: Sir, there is nothing I can do, they set the rate at which I am supposed to pay employees.
Me: And is that fair to either you or the employee? I ask, if I were to say that $4 per hour is what it would cost to have my services, which are needed by the state of your parking lot, and that wage would sufficiently support myself, why then would you deny me a chance to use my skills to earn a wage simply on the arbitrary and unfair rule that takes away the right of companies and employees to come to mutually beneficial terms of employment?
SM: It may not be fair but that is the law and this company will not skirt the law in order to hire cheaper labor.
Me: The company willingly gives away it's right to mutually beneficial terms of employment contracts on the will of a government office that is not present, leaving customers swerving to miss your shopping carts, and then you can deny a man who offers services to help not only you but your customers the ability to earn a wage that is fair and agreeable?
SM: Sir, I am sorry I cannot help you in your search for temporary employment, rules and laws are there for the protection of the people...
Me: Excuse me sir but how then is the minimum wage law helping either me or you in this instance?
SM: Well it isn't in this instance but what you are asking is not normal, a low wage for work is almost unheard of.
Me; I assure you my decision on that number is equal to the amount of skill I have in the matter compared to the time it would take to do the job and given the need for the service the wage seems more than fair, wouldn't you agree?
SM: Well yes but that isn't the point, the point is that we cannot have you on the books at that wage...
Me: Fantastic, I will work for cash money, that would insure neither the company nor I would have to pay taxes on that money, what a fantastic idea.
SM: Sir, No we cannot do that.
Me: Why not, it was your idea. Let me be completely honest, I didn't come in here to bother you with all of this, I just wanted to see how the common company would refuse a person a wage on the edicts of a government agency, against the better judgement and benefits of both parties. I thank you for your time. Good afternoon.
SM: Good afternoon to you as well.

The Pro-Choice - Pro-Life debate

My post Anarchist, Libertarian or Voluntarism: Why I Use One Word Over Another was recently published on the ZeroGov.com website. A commenter had this to say," Ken on May 1, 2014 at 20:45 said:When I got to:

“Some will say that certain traits within libertarianism are dangerous to modern life; ………….pro-choice on abortion, ………………..open borders”. I stopped reading. I am a 45 year old lifelong anarchist. I welcome you former state-ists to the party. Libertarians are pro-choice?!?!? Abortion is a tool of the state. It is founded on eugenics, racism, and the force of the state to eliminate undesirables – one child policies. Any pro-abortion “libertarian” is a Progressive stooge for the state. I suggest you go away."

 I wanted to take a second to correct a fallacy that is presented here and also to write out my thoughts on abortion and the pro-life - pro-choice debate.

A common misconception or fallacy is to relate someone who identifies as Pro-Choice as someone who would choose abortion or is an advocate of it. This is false. A defense of life in line with a pro-life stance is to say that all life is precious and that to kill this life at any time is immoral. What isn't included with most pro-life stances is the definition of life. It is seen as somewhat subjective or objective to the individual. In the minds of some it is the beginning of the process of conception, when sperm meets egg and begins the fertilization process. Some would say it is the birth of the being that signifies life while others would argue on times and situations in between these two ends. Myself I see the logical fact that in our world we construct our medical experiences to explain death as the absence of a natural heartbeat (natural heartbeat being defined as the natural or unadulterated heartbeat of a being, medical technological continuation of this process does not qualify as natural), in this definition the logical opposite of this would be used to explain the beginning of life as the occurrence of a natural heartbeat. This takes place somewhere between 15-20 days after conception.

If the idea of conception is used, which is the chemical and biological process of the production and combination of cells, it would be logical to conclude that a human not be considered dead until the production of cells and the biological breakdown of all cells has been completed, or well after the body has been clinically or legally dead by its current definition.

Does this mean that prior to 15-20 days, the entity is not human? No, it is very much human as we decribe the biological makeup of the being as the collection of combined DNA from male and female partners. What this means is that the idea of life is not attached by the fact it is human. The fact that a body is in the ground or in another body does not negate the fact that it is human, but it does not imply it is alive either.

The original intent of this post is to clarify the meaning of Pro-Choice as a philosophical principle. In all cases I believe the individual or individuals involved have the ultimate choice in all matters that affect them. This goes with the ability to abort a fetus. The two individuals involved have the choice whether to complete the pregnancy or to abort it, my personal opinion of whether it be right or wrong is not needed in their case and likewise should remain my opinion and not tried to be put into action against them. The saying, "Public opinion should not impose on personal freedom" goes well here. My opinion or idea of what is right or wrong on this issue can only be applied if I and my partner are currently expecting a child. This is not currently the way our society or the whole of the public thinks of this issue and this is not an attempt to subvert that opinion but rather to give an alternate way of thinking about it.

In any case the choice of the individuals involved should be the only choice that matters. To claim that someone who claims to be pro-choice on the matter of abortion is an advocate of the practice or be in some way accepting of it by others is disingenuous and deceitful.