From  the United States of America...
The dustiest little corner of the Internet.

"Thou Shall Not Steal"

With these four little words, the foundation of all laws of man is established.

December 26, 2005 The Automobile will Kill China's Communism

The UAW would have us believe that first came the labor union, then came the better life for all.  Not true.  Not true at all.  First came the automobile.  Then came better roads to drive on.  With the means to travel longer distances at a whim, workers began to shop around for the best paying jobs.  No longer were they limitted to work within walking distance.  This meant that employers had to compete for workers.  Competition for workers, along with advances in technology that allowed more work to be done by machines, caused wages and working conditions to improve.

The movement to unionize certain classes and skills of workmen fed off of this rising wealth created by the automobile and machinery like a lamprey feeding off a sturgeon.  The trick to prosperity for unionized labor is to not let everyone into the union.  This forces all the rest of the population to pay more for the products produced by unionized industries.  The union members thus receive more per hour of labor than comparable work performed by non-union workers.  But, if everyone was part of some union or another, how would the relative value of each type of work be determined?  Would they hold some mass convention of union bosses?  I wouldn't want to be at that convention!

So, the automobile, machinery, and now automation-- not trans-corporate labor unions or government regulations-- are responsible for the abundance we enjoy today.  In fact, the American people are turning their backs on their over-priced unionized neighbors products, and voting with their dollars for more competitive prices from Asian manufacturers.  Skilled politicians will take note of this landslide victory, and nothing will be done by the government to thwart the will of the people.  There may be strong words against "offshoring" and "imports", but they know that people want this, and no legislation will be a serious threat to stop it.

Now as for China, their most dangerous threat to their tyranical government is the automobile.  That's why liberals hate cars so much.  They know deep in their thieving little hearts that the automobile means prosperity sans government intervention.  When enough Chinese have the means to travel where they want to get the best income they can, they will rise up against their government if it still stands in their way, and communism will fall.

December 19, 2005
Life without liberty is not worth living.

I couldn't believe what I heard out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh today.  "Civil liberties are worthless if you are dead," he said in defense of the government usurping our rights in the name of our protection.

"Give me liberty, or give me death!", remember?

Our founding fathers believed to their core that liberty was worth more than life.  Surrendering our liberties in the name a safety is a dangerous bargain.  Perhaps not this administration, but the next, or the one after that will use the provisions of the "Patriot" act to control behavior.

Were there no people who where not involved in any sort of terrorism that were prosecuted under provisions of the "Patriot" act?  I remember reading about them.  If a law is on the books, the government will use it to bludgeon people into submission.

The Islamic terrorist want to destroy the American way of life.  They want to make our lives miserable.  Well, they have succeeded.

How many lifetimes have been lost waiting in line at airports to search for nailclippers and pocket knives?

I wasn't around to remember, but the movies, newspapers, books, and many people that were there still are around.  I know that Americans fought and died in World War II for "the American way of life".  At that time, Americans would have thought it scandalous to be required to carry around identification papers as people did in fascist countries.  People in fact DID fight for our rights and liberty.

Life without liberty is not worth living.  Liberty is worth dying for.  Liberty is worth living dangerously for.

When they get you believing the opposite, that life is more important than liberty, the tyrants of the world have won.

You, Mr. Limbaugh, have become a pawn of the tyrants.

Freedom is worth life itself, or the tyrants will prevail.

Support liberty, not tyrany.

December 8, 2005 City Finances in Shambles?  Robocop to the Rescue!

There is just something wrong with autotmated law enforcement.  The communist East Germans set up shot guns along the boarder that divied east and west Germany in order to keep any poor east German from trying to escape the oppression of socialism.  It was illegal for East Germans to escape to the West, and this form of automated law enforcement was approved by the East.

Setting up a shotgun to fire and stop an intruder from entering your home while you are asleep would be considered illegal.  Yet setting up cameras to nab drivers who accidently drive through a "school zone" at the wrong time when the speed limit has been dropped to 20mph is considered proper.  Both the boobytrap shotgun to protect your home and the speed cameras are automated law enforcement.  But the reason latter is considered good and the former considered bad:  Traffic cameras make money for the government.  There are much more effective means to slow people down, if that was really the objective.  One good examble is to consturct speed humps.  I'm not talking about just little rummble strips, but mounds 4 ft. wide, 8inches high stretching across the road that will bash your head against the ceiling and smash your muffler if you go over it too fast.  These are far more effective than any sign.

As for making things difficult for all adults in the attempt to help children, the real emphasis should be on making it a better world for the adults these children will become.

Who sets these speed limits anyway?  Ever wonder about that?  This is supposed to be a democracy, right?  Most things we get to vote on, like taxes, milages, etc.  Why don't we get to vote on speed limits?  It only seems fair since we all have to use the roads.  The only solution is to demand Raise the speed limit.  I've notices that in many places, they have set up the traffic lights so that you have to be exceding the speed limit by at least 10mph in order to go from one green light to the next.  I think that this is done on purpose in order to lure otherwise law abiding folks into going too fast.  Speeding alone rarely causes accidents.  Rather, tailgating, swerving in and out of traffic, and running red lights do.

The objective of all law enforcement and courts should be to enforce the law, not to raise revenue.  Using cameras to catching otherwise law abiding citizens is theft by way of deception.  Allowing people to inadvertantly violate some law by purposely obsuring signs or taking advantage of their common inabiltiy to notice things while driving is an outrage.  This sort of practice leads to corruption and a violation of the public trust causing honest citizens to begin to despise the corrput police and courts.  Those public officials who use law enforcement to raise funds instead of straight forward taxation should be publicly executed because this is the most haneous abuse of their position.

[Note:  Actually, execution of any one is not a good policy, because once accepted, it will be abused, as it has been so many times in human history by tyrants, dictators, and repressive governments to squelch dissent.]

December 6, 2005  Buying Drugs from Canada

The ironic thing is that the Canadians, fearing shortages, are considering
making their drug program for Canadians only, and exclude the Americans. 
You just can't fix prices like the Canadians have in their socialized
healthcare system without rationing.  They aren't able to provide all the
services to all the people that want them or need them.  Certain
vaccinations aren't given to children because their healthcare system can't
afford it.  Doctors and nurses go on strike or leave the country because
they aren't being paid enough.  Heart patients have to wait 6 months or more
for bypass surgery.  More and more people are opting to pay for private
healthcare, and the socialist political leaders I hear interviewed on
Canadian radio are worried.

Whenever the government "provides" a service, someone has to do the work. 
These people have to be housed, clothed, fed, and entertained.  Other people
have to provide this housing, clothing, food, and entertainment.  Should the
homebuilders build homes for free?  Should farmers grow their own food and
food for others while getting nothing for their labor?  Should doctors,
nurses, pharmaceutical chemists perform their services without compensation?
  At some point the farmer will need a home built.  What can he trade the
home builder if the home builder knows that the farmer must give him food
even if he doesn't build the farmer a home?  And why will the farmer do
anything to grow more food than he can eat himself if he knows that the
homebuilder must build him a home even if he gets no food?  There will
always be legitimate reasons why the home builder just can't get around to
building the farmer's home, and why the farmer just can't grow more food. 
With the incentive of personal gain, these "reasons" somehow seem to vanish.

People who are compelled to work without compensation, even if it is for
only part of their work days, are slaves.  In this modern incarnation,
instead of having one master, the socialist slave has "society" as his lord.
  He is enslaved by his own neighbors.

I am not saying that there isn't a need for charity.  But charity doesn't
come at the point of a gun.  That would be theft.  "Forced giving" is theft.
  "Charity" would be feeding a hungry man with food from your own
refrigerator.  Housing a homeless man in your neighbor's spare bedroom does
not constitute "giving" on your part.  It is not "generosity" to give freely
of your neighbor's possessions.

It's always easy when the other fellow has to do the work.   The burden is
light when someone else has to carry it.  It's really cheap when your
parents have to pay the bill.

Socialism always seems to get into trouble because everyone values their own
labor more than other people's.  We want more work from the other fellow
than we want to give in exchange.  And when when the participants in a
socialist arrangement realize that they can get the benefit of the other
fellow's labor without giving ANYTHING in return, the whole system grinds to
a halt.

Now, why do American drug companies charge so much?  Because they can. 
Monopolies, cartels, syndicates, cabals, government certifications, all
restrict competition that would otherwise force the prices to the lowest
level where competitors start dropping out of the business.  The FDA, the
Federal Food and Drug Administration, determines which drugs can be sold in
the US.  If instead, the government said, "We approve *these* drugs, but you
can, at your own risk, buy drugs approved by other countries," the price of
drugs would plummet.  It's the lack of competition artificially created by
the requirement of FDA approval that contributes significantly to the drug
companies being able to charge outrageous prices.  Add to this the veritable
ocean of money being made available by insurance companies to pay for
medicine.  Money is to prices like fuel is to fire.  How much fuel can a
fire burn?  All of it!  Without some external limiting factor to hold down
prices, such as competition, the more money made available to pay for drugs,
the more they will cost.

December 2, 2005 Who's Responsible for the Horrible Economy in Michigan?

The Michigan economy IS horrible, and there are a lot of people out of work or
working for less than they would in other areas of the country because of the
thieving Democratic policies of Democrat governor Jennifer Granholm.

These Democrats for years have convinced people that "compassion" lies in
making other people do work for nothing.  They want to feed the starving by
stealing food from their neighbor's kitchens.  Well, the artificially
inflated UAW wages have been voted out by the Dollar Vote of the rest of the
country which has chosen non-union made products, but the Democrats still
think that they can keep giving away other people's property and labor.  The
excess just isn't there any more.  Granholm and her Democrat conspirators
keep trying to squeeze more money out of the remaining businesses and those
still doing productive work.  This make doing business in Michigan, or even
living here, unattractive.  Getting rid of this UAW (U Ain't Working)
mentality will be the best thing that ever happened to this state.

October 10, 2005

American manufacturing can compete with that of any other country.  Or, perhaps I should say that it could compete.  But the government would have to get out of the way.  No taxes on corporations.  No mandated environmental or OSHA regulations.  Ban trans-corporate (monopolistic) labor unions.  No product safety regulations.  Let the market decide entirely which company makes the best product for the lowest price.

But these things will not come to pass until America has been reduced to a land of peasant sharecroppers, lumberjacks, and miners.  Even the savior of the 21st century, the "service sector" will evaporate as no one will be able to afford the services of their neighbors.

When America's economy is in ruin, if even then, perhaps people will realize that "compassion" must go first to the doer, the creator, the producer.  There must be more people pulling the cart than riding in it, and those that ride in it must do so only by the leave of those doing the pulling.

October 10, 2005

Ours is a consumer driven economy.  The consumers get what they want and businesses know what they want by what they spend their money on.  In essence, we vote with our dollars.

Now look what we've been buying with our dollars:  Offshore manufactured products.  Companies took notice of the fact that when they offered imported goods to their customers, sales increased.  So, they offered even more offshore manufactured products and displaced US products on the store shelves.  It was not long before companies realized that in order to survive, they must offer their customers imports.  This was a response to consumer demand, not a corporate conspiracy.  If consumers would not buy anything but American made products, manufacturers would be tripping over each other trying to set up US manufacturing plants.  As it is right now, consumers are demanding products made in China, and companies are acquiescing.  Words only have power when they lead people to do something.  Actions make people take notice. The dollar vote is the most powerful form of democracy ever created.

Americans typically buy the product that meets their needs the best at the best price.  While everyone is keenly interested in their own job and the company they work for, very few consumers consider the impact that their purchasing decisions have on their neighbor.  And those that do most often decide that they are not interested in subsidising their neighbor's lifestyle by paying more than they have to, and thereby sacrificing their own standard of living for the sake of their neighbor's.

So what are consumers saying with their dollar vote?  They don't want to pay more for unionized labor.  They don't care about government mandated environmental or safety regulations.  And since all companies must pass along their tax burden to their customers in the form of higher prices, consumers are refusing to pay more tax than they have to. Perhaps they are just ignorant of these things.

Our political leaders have taken notice of the consumer dollar vote.  Democratically elected politicians will not disregard the dollar vote.  What politician will stand up to this opinion poll?  Only the most courageous elected political leader will have the strength to stand before the people and tell them that their economic destiny is in their own hands as a group, and in their neighbors hands as an individual.

In the recent case of Delphi Corporation going in bankruptcy, it is highly unlikely that Governor Granholm will stand before the people of Michigan and explain to them that their economic problems are the fault of our neighbors.  Since we are all neighbors to someone, it's everyone's fault.  She will not lead us by hammering home the point that companies must make a profit in order to stay in business, and that in order to make a profit, companies must sell to consumers, and that individuals make up their own minds as to what they buy.

We would all like the government to intervene and force our neighbors to buy our products or services, but we don't want that same government to force us to buy our neighbor's.

There is little incentive for monopolies to provide the best product or service at the lowest cost.  That is why economic organizations endeavor to eliminate the "competition".  All monopolies damage the consumer.  Only in special circumstances where it is impractical to have competition, such as for utilities and transportation, should private monopolies be allowed to exist.  And then only under close public scrutiny and control.  Economic organizations naturally seek to become monopolies.  They desire to extract a greater share of economic output than would be the case if competion existed.  Examples of monopolistic economic organizations are trans-corporate labor unions, government labor unions, governments, cartels, corporate monopolies, trade guilds (exclusive professional associations), organized crime, gangs, and government-industry collusion.  All these seek to limit the consumer's choice, forcing them to work longer to pay for the monopoly's product or service.  Monopolies want economic slaves.

The hourly wage people get paid depends on the value that their labor has to their fellow man.  When monopolies are present, this value becomes artificially distorted in favor of the monopoly.  Some people complain that certain corporations or its top officials are being compensated in excess of their true value.  In these cases, the possible existance of some sort of monopoly should be investigated.  True open competition will bring down everyone's pay to the level that it deserves to be at based on the value it creates for the consumer.

The only economic model people should suffer to exist is the best product at the lowest cost.  Since money is an abstraction of debt owed for labor performed, any other model means that they will be spending more of their life than is necessary.  Monopolies steal life.

June 29, 2005
The Third Strike
The difference between the Internet and other electronic media is that you
have to actively request to see any particular web site.  For example, is not in the "history" list of my web browser.  The FEC does not
need to, nor should it be permitted to "regulate" the free speech of the
Internet in any way (except perhaps to prohibit involuntary political pop-up
window ads).

Freedom loving politicians, the few that there are, should be absolutely
opposed to the FEC regulating the Internet.  Those of the elitists bent must
fear the power that electronic free speech has to undermine their attempts at

Strike 1:  McCain-Feingold wipes out free political discourse
Strike 2:  Supreme Court nullifies private property rights
Strike 3:  ?

May 27, 2005
The labels "conservative" and "liberal"
What is the opposite of "thief"?  Whatever that word is, that's what I would call myself.  It's not that I've never stolen anything intentionally or unintentionally.  But rather that I know and believe that it is fundamentally wrong to steal.  Nothing good comes of it.

By the true definition of the word "liberal", that's what I would probably prefer to call my ideas.  I believe in freedom.  I believe in fair and just treatment of all.  I believe in life, liberty, and property.  But "liberal" policies today, usually require at some point that something be taken from one person in the name of being generous to another.  The example I use is that "liberals" want to feed the homeless with food from their neighbor's refrigerator.  I say, it's not "generous" to steal.  So, the true test of any idea, law, policy, platform, legislation, or even world view is, does it depend on theft to implement?  If it does, it is "Liberal".  If it does not, well then, I guess we'll have to call it "conservative".

Rounded corners, fences around pools, banning kitchen knives
Ah, another piece of wisdom out of Europe.  In an article from the BBC (Doctors' kitchen knives ban call) we learn that the Brittish physicians and law enforcement want to ban kitchen knives to reduce the incidence of stabbings.  Already, the Europeans have effectively banned all fire arms.  They've insisted on everything having rounded corners so that if you bash into it you don't get hurt.  Europe has become such a risk adverse society that its residents are being smothered in the thick goo of a motherly nanny state.  These folks will be afraid to do anything.

And yet again, they are attacking the wrong problem.  For instance, here in America, most communities insist that you have a fence around your swimming pool to keep little toddlers from marching in like lemmings over a cliff, and drowning themselves.  Never is the responsibility put on the parents of these kids to watch little Trevor and Skyla.  It's too much of a burden, apparently, to ask parents to put a fence around their kids!  How irresponsible that no one has put a fence around the Pacific ocean yet.

The problem in Europe, and everywhere else, it the goodness of the people, not the accessibility of weopons.  Get it?  Almost anything can be used as a club to beat someone over the head with.  Not too long ago, the former leader of the 80's band Adam and the Ants was arrested for trying to assult someone in a Brittish pub with an alternator.  Yes, a car part!  I didn't follow that story too closely, but I don't remember if the Brittish law enforcement and physicians associations called for the banning of alternators.

If people have a good internal moral compass, laws to govern every little aspect of peoples lives are not needed.  If they don't, there aren't enough laws and cops in the universe
to enforce them.

You shall not take that which belongs to another.

Blog Archive (June 15, 2007)

Perspectives I
Perspectives II
Backscatter X-Ray
PC Home

Inception: June 28, 2000
Updated:  June 23, 2007

If you have comments or suggestions, email at gmail