the United States of America...
of the Internet.
"Thou Shall Not Steal"
these four little words, the
foundation of all laws of man is established.
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.
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
"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
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
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
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
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
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
December 6, 2005 Buying Drugs from Canada
The ironic thing is that the Canadians, fearing shortages, are
making their drug program for Canadians only, and exclude the
You just can't fix prices like the Canadians have in their socialized
healthcare system without rationing. They aren't able to provide
services to all the people that want them or need them. Certain
vaccinations aren't given to children because their healthcare system
afford it. Doctors and nurses go on strike or leave the country
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
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
These people have to be housed, clothed, fed, and entertained.
have to provide this housing, clothing, food, and entertainment.
homebuilders build homes for free? Should farmers grow their own
food for others while getting nothing for their labor? Should
nurses, pharmaceutical chemists perform their services without
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
even if he doesn't build the farmer a home? And why will the
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
always be legitimate reasons why the home builder just can't get around
building the farmer's home, and why the farmer just can't grow more
With the incentive of personal gain, these "reasons" somehow seem to
People who are compelled to work without compensation, even if it is
only part of their work days, are slaves. In this modern
instead of having one master, the socialist slave has "society" as his
He is enslaved by his own neighbors.
I am not saying that there isn't a need for charity. But charity
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
not constitute "giving" on your part. It is not "generosity" to
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
parents have to pay the bill.
Socialism always seems to get into trouble because everyone values
labor more than other people's. We want more work from the other
than we want to give in exchange. And when when the participants
socialist arrangement realize that they can get the benefit of the
fellow's labor without giving ANYTHING in return, the whole system
Now, why do American drug companies charge so much? Because they
Monopolies, cartels, syndicates, cabals, government certifications, all
restrict competition that would otherwise force the prices to the
level where competitors start dropping out of the business. The
Federal Food and Drug Administration, determines which drugs can be
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
drugs would plummet. It's the lack of competition artificially
the requirement of FDA approval that contributes significantly to the
companies being able to charge outrageous prices. Add to this the
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
the more they will cost.
December 2, 2005 Who's Responsible for the Horrible Economy
The Michigan economy IS horrible, and there are a lot of people out of
working for less than they would in other areas of the country because
thieving Democratic policies of Democrat governor Jennifer Granholm.
These Democrats for years have convinced people that "compassion" lies
making other people do work for nothing. They want to feed the
stealing food from their neighbor's kitchens. Well, the
inflated UAW wages have been voted out by the Dollar Vote of the rest
country which has chosen non-union made products, but the Democrats
think that they can keep giving away other people's property and
excess just isn't there any more. Granholm and her Democrat
keep trying to squeeze more money out of the remaining businesses and
still doing productive work. This make doing business in
Michigan, or even
living here, unattractive. Getting rid of this UAW (U Ain't
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
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
June 29, 2005
The Third Strike
The difference between the Internet and other electronic media is that
have to actively request to see any particular web site. For
moveon.org 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
Internet in any way (except perhaps to prohibit involuntary political
Freedom loving politicians, the few that there are, should be
opposed to the FEC regulating the Internet. Those of the elitists
fear the power that electronic free speech has to undermine their
Strike 1: McCain-Feingold wipes out free political discourse
Strike 2: Supreme Court nullifies private property rights
Strike 3: ?
May 27, 2005
"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".
fences around pools, banning kitchen knives
Ah, another piece of wisdom out of Europe. In an article from the
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
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
If you have comments or suggestions, email perpetualcommotion.com at
Updated: June 23, 2007