the United States of America...
"Give with a free hand, but give only
-- J.R.R. Tolkien The Children
"Thou Shall Not Steal"
these four little words, the
foundation of all laws of man is established.
"America's wealth is in it's culture, not it's soil"
The wealth of America is in it's culture, not it's dirt. If it
was in the dirt, Canada, Mexico and Central America would be just as
prosperous. The dirt here is just about the same as the dirt
anywhere else. The American culture knows how to make use of the
dirt we have. Immigrants who do not take up the American culture and
language bring with them a part of poverty and squalor they wish to
leave behind in their homeland.
June 8, 2007
"Jobs Americans won't take"...
Absolute b.s.! Pay enough, and you will find someone to do
anything. Immigrants are suppressing pay levels well below what
the fair market wages should be because immigrants are willing to do
anything just so they don't have to go back to the bad conditions in
country. That may mean you get a roof replaced for less, or your
oranges are picked for less, but these immigrants can't afford to buy
whatever it is you do, or whatever it is your neighbors do
either. At some point, your neighbors won't be able to afford to
buy whatever it is you do because the pay levels are being set by
desperate immigrants and slave labor in communist countries. All
the while the American culture and the unified American language-- the
very things that makes America prosperous-- are vilified and rejected.
Pray that there is never an economic depression the likes of the Great
Depression of the 1920's and 30's. At that time, many extreme
political and social movements that promised to "fix the problem" swept
over countries resulting in violence and horror on a scale that is
difficult to comprehend. If the world economy collapses in these
days, you will see violent riots and wars between peoples based on
anything that divides them: Race, religion, language,
culture. Economic prosperity is the only thing that will make
diverse groups tolerate each other.
"The gulf that divides Liberals from Reagan Republicans"
This is the gulf that divides Liberals from Reagan Republicans:
Stealing is wrong, Liberals refuse to accept it. The entire
philosophy of Liberals is rebellion against this simple basic law that
it is always wrong to take something that belongs to another by force,
stealth, or deception. Since obeying the mandate of "you shall
not steal" leads to a whole host of other morally correct behavior
steeped in "tradition", Liberals find all such tradition repulsive.
There is a simple test to determine if a law or idea is Liberal or
not: Does the law or idea require that the rightful possessions
of one person be confiscated in order to provide something to someone
else? If it does, then it is a Liberal law or idea.
Or, to put it another way...
Democrats fear and loathe devoutly religious people because the supreme
commandment of "Thou shall NOT steal" is always lurking about in there
somewhere. If any part of a religious belief is accepted by
Liberals and Democrats, then they might be acknowledging the
righteousness of "Thou shall not steal", and how all of their laws,
policies, and ideas violate this simple prime directive.
"Universal Health care Coverage Guarantees Universal Rationing"
Let's give everyone free health care. Hmmm. Who will do the
work? Physicians, nurses, pharmaceutical companies, medical
equipment manufacturers, janitors in the hospitals... a whole host of
people. Great. Now, all we have to do is get those people
to do their jobs for free. Certainly these people are altruistic
enough to do what they do purely for the benefit of their fellow human
I wonder where they will live? Do they have mortgages to
pay? Rent? Property taxes, and gas bills, and electric
bills and water bills? Do they eat? Do they need to buy
food? Do they own a car? Do they have children that need
clothes, and food and a place to sleep too? Well, the answer is
simple: Anyone whose occupation is related to providing
health care will be provided everything they need. Great!
That takes care of that.
Oh wait, how much do they need? Who will determine that? I
know, we'll elect a council of wise people to sort all that out.
But what if the health care workers don't think the council is giving
them as much as they need? What if the health care workers get
idea in their heads that they could be better off doing some other
job? Is it conceivable that they might abandon the needs of their
fellow human beings to pursue their own selfish interests? Might
happen. Selfishness is one characteristic of human nature that
doesn't seem to be diminishing in the least from one generation to the
next. Well, then, the councils will just have to make sure they provide
enough to keep the health care workers satisfied. Uh oh, I
forgot, the council is elected by the voters. The voters are the
ones who will ultimately have to provide the goods and services that
the wise council allocates to the health care workers. If the
voters get jealous that the health care workers are doing better than
they are, they might elect a different set of members for the wise
council. The wise council won't like that a bit, so they will
provide the minimal amount that the health care workers will accept to
keep them working, while extracting the least amount of resources from
the voters to pay for it all. That should work. Now all we
have to do is keep costs down so that the voters and the health care
workers are both happy.
Let's see, how to keep costs down? Well, the wise council only
needs to keep a majority of the voters happy. So what ailments do
most voters suffer from? We'll allocate resources for treating
those, and ailments that are uncommon, well, we'll just let them take
care of themselves. I mean, if you don't treat the uncommon
ailments of a minority of voters, then those voters go away,
right? You don't have to worry about votes from the
graveyard! (At least you're not supposed to. I know that
unethical political parties have managed to extract votes from these
So there we have it: Health care workers will be compensated for
their labor by the government, and a wise council will be elected to
determine how much the health care workers get and which illnesses will
Of course, we could make that wise council unelected. Then they
wouldn't be answerable to the voters. They could compensate
whoever they wanted by whatever they wanted, and compel the rest of the
people to do a portion of whatever jobs they do each day for whomever
the wise council dictates. Farmers would farm and give a portion
of their produce-- an amount dictated by the wise council-- to the
health care workers. All other occupations would be compelled in
the same way.
That means that we will have to have a lot of means to do an awful lot
of compelling. More police. More government
enforcement. We'll need a whole lot bunch more resources from the
people to feed, house, clothe, and generally keep the enforcers
satisfied; since enforcers don't really produce anything
themselves. They just keep the producers in line. I wonder
how much it takes to keep an enforcer satisfied? Satisfaction is
the standard, isn't it? We don't want the health care workers and
enforcers to become dissatisfied and abandon their work, or the whole
system would collapse.
And why do we need a wise council anyway? Wouldn't it be more
efficient to just have one man make the decisions? So this one
man will take the place of the wise council in making its
dictates. Let's just call him a "dictator". That
works. And we will just require everyone to do whatever it is
they do for whatever compensation the dictator dictates.
You know, we might even just require the people to do their jobs for
free, like slaves! Yeah, that's it, we'll make everyone who
serves the system, the government, the state a slave to the
state. Their whole existence will be to serve the state.
will have no purpose other than that. Who is the "state"?
it can't include the slaves and surfs. It's got to be the the
elite few who run it all. We'll make everyone
else who isn't in the elite ruling class into slaves and surfs.
Hmmmm..... I don't know if I like this whole "wise council" and
"dictator" thing. I
might not end up as one of the ruling class,
and have to be a surf! I don't want to be a surf. I don't
want any dictator or wise council dictating what I do and how much I
get paid to do it. Maybe it's not such a good idea to give
everyone free health care. Is there another way?
Well, maybe we could try lowering the cost of health care to the point
where most people could afford it. Then, those of us who are
compassionate could donate some of our bounty to help the less
fortunate. But we wouldn't "compel" anyone to donate
anything. Compelling someone to donate something is the same as
stealing and making them a slave. That's not right. That's
never right. And
if I allow other people to be compelled to donate against their will,
some day, it will be me who is being compelled to give away what I
But why does health care cost so darn much? Why is it so
expensive? I know that gold is expensive because there isn't much
of it, and everyone seems to want it. Same with
diamonds. So the scarcer something is, yet at the same time, the
more people want it, the more they are willing to pay for
it. Those who pay the most get the most, and anyone else who
wants some has to compete by offering as much or more money for it.
Could this be the same with health care? Is there any limit to
healthy a person would want to be? When you are healthy, I guess
you have no need for health care, and aren't willing to pay for
something you don't need. When you are sick, there is no limit to
your desire to be healthy again, and you would be willing to pay all
that you have, especially if the illness threatens your life.
So, let's assume that there is a high demand for health care. For
the sick, this demand is for all practical purposes limitless.
What about the supply of health care? Are there things that limit
the supply of health care, making it scarce? Of course, you need
people who are smart and well trained to do the work: Physicians,
medical researchers, nurses, pharmacists etc. And you need good
equipment, supplies, and drugs. There will be a natural limit to
getting good people to do these jobs. People who can do this sort
of work can do other work too, so you have to make the health care job
attractive, and there is nothing more attractive than money!
But are there artificial limits that make the supply of people,
equipment and medicine more scarce than it could be? There are
the government supported medical guilds, such as the those authorized
by the government to train and certify physicians. There is the
Food and Drug Administration that must approve medicine and
equipment. But we want safe medicine, equipment, and certified
health care practitioners, right? Well, the result is a de facto
monopoly in supplying these goods and services. Competition is
limited, and upward pressure on prices is the result.
Speaking of upward pressure on prices, since the cost of the
health care for a very large percentage of people is borne by
employer-provided or government provided health care funds, the
individuals receiving the care don't feel the burden. They
don't care how much is being charged, as long as their ailment is being
treated. This is great for the health care providers since they
can charge just about as much as the system can bear-- and it can bear
a lot-- but for people who must pay for their own health care, it
up the price, just as people clamoring for the latest video game can
make the product scarce, and push up the price. This means that
since most people are spending other people's money to pay for their
health care, they don't care how much it costs.
So there are natural restrictions on the supply of health care, and
artificial restrictions, and artificial supply of money.
What to do? Well, let's start by removing the incentive for
people to have their employer or the government supply their
health care. That can be done with a simple change to the tax law
in either of two directions: 1) Tax all health care
by employers or the government as income; or, 2) Don't tax any
on health care no matter if it comes out of your own pocket, or out of
your employer's pocket. This will put all people on the same
level. It seems more compassionate to go with the second
option. The only way that government or employer provided
health care can work without bankrupting those who pay for it is if
most people who pay, never use it. Health care plans like this
have to "increase the
pool of participants". This means that they get a lot of young
healthy people to pay for health care that they never use.
Second, you have to remove the barriers that create artificial scarcity
of health care goods and services. Government certification can
still be granted, but whether a practitioner or medicine has the
certification or not should be up to the consumer, not the
government. Independent certification organizations would also be
acceptable. A simple way to avoid fraud is to make the punishment
for claiming certification and then causing someone's death so severe,
that no one will want to claim it if they don't have it. For
example, if someone claims to be a certified physician, either by the
government or some independent organization, but isn't, and a person in
his care dies, he should be charged with a capital offense. But
if someone wants the services of someone who does not have government
certification, then they should be able to. The consumer takes
responsibility for what he gets, and pays the cost he is willing.
Third, artificial barriers to drug availability caused by the
requirement for government approval should be treated the same as
certification for practitioners. Government certification
or independent certification is a good practice, but if a product has
it or not should be left up to the fully informed consumer, and stiff
punishment-- up to the death penalty-- should be imposed on those who
claim certification but do not have it.
These things would make health care affordable to most and available to
all. There is no need for "wise councils" and "dictators" to
sort it all out for us. There are no giants out there to solve
all of our problems. And putting a bunch of people together in a
room doesn't seem to make them any wiser.
"None dare call it slavery"
The Democrat lifestyle requires that someone else foot the bill.
Have you ever noticed that all of their ideas, grandious schemes and
visions inevitably revolve around forcing one person to work for
another? Oh they disguise this as "taxation" to "pay for
services", but the result is that one man is forced to work for
another's benefit. Call it "transfer of wealth" if you want to
sugar coat it, but I call it slavery.
None dare call it slavery.
Monopolies, labor unions, government supported trade guilds, "special
arrangements", secret deals for a price, back room negotiations,
transfer of wealth from those who create to those who consume... these
are the things that have stolen the fruits of unequalled productivity
that should now be providing the American middle class with a three-day
Isn't it an astounding thought that the engine of the American economy
is the "consumer", not the producer; the eater, not the grower; the
taker, not the maker?
May 25, 2007
"Rich people on their knees"
The government really doesn’t need money. It needs things
done. It needs labor. The “government economy” works by
confiscating labor from one person to compensate another who has done
something for the state. This is merely the government’s way
of laundering the enslavement of people to do its bidding. So,
let’s tax the rich people, they say. They have more than they
need, right? Rich people can afford to be generous, even if that
generosity is motivated by the business end of a gun. What do
rich people do? Rich people own things. But ownership is
not taxed, only the acquisition of wealth. Rich people run
businesses. If government needs things done, confiscating what
rich people do results in the government taking a part of the labor
produced by businesses. This means that the labor burden of
government doesn’t fall on the backs of the rich, but rather on the
backs of the people that work for the rich: the people that do
the lifting, the building, the designing, the farming, the cooking, the
cleaning, the digging, the real work. Rich people never have, nor
will they ever—hear this— the rich never have and never will bear the
burden of the government. It doesn’t matter how the tax system is
sliced and diced. The one and only way to reduce the burden the
government places on the backs of productive laborers is to reduce the
size of the government. Enslavement, you say? Yes, even
today, slavery is alive and flourishing. But to make it more
palatable, they call it “transfer of wealth”.
Competition brings rich people to their knees, not taxation. The
only way to “spread the wealth” is by eliminating monopolies and any
government enforced practice that limits competition.
May 25, 2007
"There must be a pot of
gold at the end of college gauntlet"
The only way to encourage young people to enter any field as a career
is to show them that there is a pot of gold at the end of college
gauntlet. Young people smart enough and tenacious enough to
endure the rigors of an engineering curriculum are also capable of
pursuing careers that are more financially rewarding. Or, judging
that the preparation to enter a science or engineering career requires
too great of an investment of time, effort and money, and does not
result in a significantly higher income than pursuing some other
occupation that doesn't involve so many years of difficult college
education; a young person will opt for the easier road. Wages for
scientists and engineers are significantly lower than what a fair and
free market would set them at. This is the result of the
government's policy that allows hundreds of thousands of people with
science and engineering backgrounds to enter the United States' work
force under the H1-B visa program. The number of foreigners with
science and engineering degrees entering the country's workforce each
year equals or surpasses the number of U.S. citizens graduating with
science and engineering bachelor degrees. As long as this policy
continues, wages will be artificially suppressed, and all efforts by
government, industry, educational institutions, or philanthropic
organizations to encourage young American citizens to enter science or
engineering careers will fail.
Our media, business, political, and military leaders choose not to see
this lack of U.S. citizens entering science and engineering careers as
the threat to our economic and national security that it is.
May 11, 2007
"Four political parties"
There are essential four major political parties: Leftist
"Blue Dog" Democrats, "Country-Club" Republicans, Reagan
Leftist Democrats and Country-Club Republicans basically want the same
thing by different means: Elevation of the elite who by birth are
entitled to rule and subjugate and exploit the unwashed masses.
Blue-Dog Democrats and Reagan Repubicans hopefully believe that
the 10 commandments leads to a better life for all. Liberals find
Comandments quite inconvenient, and strive to tear down all traditions
hoping to undermine the power in their simple truth. This leads
supporting all sorts of silliness and bizzarre behavior.
May 10, 2007
"Give with a free hand,
but give only your own"
It's so easy to be generous with the things that belong to other
"Give with a free hand, but give only your own," J.R.R. Tolkien wrote.
That should be everyone's motto. You can't "give away" something
belongs to someone else. If you give away something that doesn't
to you, first you will have to steal it. But there are
theft that go beyond the mere illegality of the act. If you
worked at a
department store, and started giving away clothes to your friends,
wouldn't that be stealing? I'm afraid the department store would
that you take a trip through the legal system. There is no
theft. Stealing is not an act of compassion. But you say,
"This poor man
is hungry and suffering. I'll just betray the trust my neighbor
me, stretch out my hand and take food from his pantry so that the
man can eat." Sounds compassionate. But then your
goes hungry. "But only took one can of beans. He had
plenty. There must
have been a hundred other cans there." Oh didn't you notice that
hundred of your other neighbors heard from the hungry mand what you
and said, "I know a hungry person, I will be compassionate too."
there is no food left in the pantry. Where will you get the food
next burst of "compassion"? Will that neighbor refill his
he now lock his house? If you and your "compassionate" neighbors
him to work and provide supplies for your "compassion", have you not
him your slave? Is there any compassion in slavery?
The consequence of stealing-- of looting-- is that the looted passively
actively make their possessions unavailable to the looters. If
stop making things, growing food, or doing productive things because
assume that the fruit of their labor will be taken from them by force,
deception, or stealth , they will stop producing. Then all
because what the producers used to produce and trade will no longer be
available to anyone.
There is NO compassion in theft.
May 9, 2007
"Leadership is more than
just being bossy"
"The Taboos of Leadership," Anthony F. Smith, CEO coach and founder of
Leadership Research Institute
Leadership is more than just being bossy. True, one important
being able to get others to do work, and that means you are the "boss".
But let's look at the tradeoffs that must occur. A "leader" is
broker of favors. He gets one man to do something, but in return
pays this man for his service. But a leader can't do the work
must be able to channel the labor of someone else to pay for the favor
done by the first man. If he does this successfully, he is then
all involved as an effective coordinator, and more coordination work
Like most skills humans possess, the skills of leadership can be
but only through much practice. Some people get to practice
very early in life, often as children, and are seen as "natural-born
leaders". But a person can start a business, and through
the skills of leadership. True, people who learn things early in
often perform them with an ease that appears to be instinct, unlike
someone who learns these things in his 30's. But it can be
done. The way
to learn to swim is to let go of the side of the pool, and head out for
the center. You will never learn to swim if you just hug the side
A successful leader will be a "favor broker", directing the labor of
various groups or people to accomplish a task that ends up benenfitting
all involved. The end result , the task itself, may not benefit
in the process of acheiving it, all will benefit, and the "favor
earns the title of "leader".
"Employers invade your privacy during hiring process"
Where do these companies get off demanding so much information about
you when you apply for a job? I guess they can ask anything they
want, but why do people allow it? Why do people submit to the
bullying? Why on Earth does a lumber mill need to know if you are
up to date on your credit cards before they will let you cut down
trees? Does being behind on your Macy's account mean that you
will be a bad risk and go around the camp wielding a chainsaw in a fit
of madness? It just seems to me that there is an effort on the
part of employers to prevent people from changing jobs. It all
goes back to the only way to improve your standard of living is to have
employers compete for your skills. Knowing what's on your credit
report is a trans-corporate fad that need to be stamped out by
prospective employees telling these corporate bullies to go pound
sand. Or maybe an even more effective protest is to demand more
money for a squeaky-clean credit record. After all, if your
credit rating is a criterion on which your prospective employment
depends, then it must be difficult to find people with excellent
backgrounds. So you might as well turn it to your
advantage. These things actually make you more valuable, right?
Here is a typical "carte blanche" style of background check release form.
"Where's the compassion for the wagon pullers?"
The media keeps wanting to pile more and more people on the wagon in
the name of compassion. "We need to help these poor people," or
"The victims of that natural disaster are hurting," and they insist
that the "government" help. But where does the "government" get
the labor to help? I has to get it from the people who can do the
things that need to be done. These are the people pulling the
wagon. When people are forced against their will to pull a wagon,
are they not slaves? If more and more people climb on the wagon,
are not the slaves whipped even more lest they slow down and the wagon
stops? Where, then is the "compassion"? Why does one group
deserve compassion while another does not?
The reason all this doesn't work is that the government can not
dispense compassion without the influence of influence. That is,
politicians are trying to buy votes with labor stolen from the wagon
True compassion, generosity, and giving is a free will act on the part
of one person to another. If giving is not done voluntarily, then
what is named "generosity" is in reality theft. The Prime
Directive, "Thou shall NOT steal"
is violated, and no good will ultimately come of it.
If a society rejects God's laws-- "Thou shall NOT steal" is definitely
them-- there will be terrible consequences. What's wrong with
America? The people have selfishly created a government system to
institutionalized the violation of
the Prime Directive.
"At what cost political correctness?"
The high cost of being politically correct. There is a
cost in competitiveness. The normal American
implementation of "diversity" is to set quotas for how many of each
group will be hired. Then the management, mired in political
correctness, trumpets their unfounded and illogical dogma that "there
is strength in diversity". But using criteria to hire people
other than their raw talent means that a company will be populated with
many who are less than the best. There
is no room for "diversity of talent" in a competitive marketplace. Diversity for diversity's sake
comes at a high cost that competing countries do not incur. They laugh at how we
handicap ourselves with such foolishness. Hire the most talented
people for the job regardless of what group they belong to. This
is true diversity. It
is the only way.
"Religious toleration, religious freedom."
Religious toleration and religious freedom means that people are free
to be wrong. Dead wrong. While it does not mean that you
must accept what other people believe as being on par with your
beliefs, it does mean that one's religion should have no effect
on their ability to get a job, participate in commerce, education, or
whatever. The ability to tolerate the bizarre beliefs of others
is a unique societal characteristic of the
American Christian dominated society and form of government. It
has been the
only one able to pull it off. Christ did not compel people
to believe in him. As part of the exercise of one's free will,
are free to be totally wrong. If this were not so, then you
wouldn't have a free will.
Groupism is the enemy. Monopolies, guilds, labor unions,
restrictive trade associates, secret societies, criminal gangs an
syndicates, and people that insist that "those who are not members of
my religion or caste or race or ethnicity are less than me"; these are
the enemies of all man. Members of these groups do seem to
prosper, but only by exploiting those who are not. The only
reason such groups can prosper is that only a few can be members.
If all people were accepted, then there would be no relative
prosperity, and there wouldn't be much need for the group identity to
What we have been doing is no longer
The way we have been used to doing things are obviously no longer
working. Let's try a simple change. Let's start following
the simple rule of
"Thou shall not steal", or to put it another way, "You will not take
does not belong to you", and let's see where that leads.
Many laws and policies-- and supported by the people--
that are causing the problems we now face violate this simple rule.
There is no compassion in theft.
There is no generosity in robbery.
There is no kindness in extortion.
Violate God's law, and God will punish you.
God is punishing the people of the United States because the people of
United States have institutionalized the violation of His law
March 12, 2007
The Truth has a frustrating way of ignoring concensus.
People must be causing global warming because only people can pay
taxes. But if
God was causing the Earth to warm, this would be a problem for
liberals: To send
God a tax bill, they wouldn't know where to find him.
February 18, 2007
Liberal philosophy: Ruling power belongs solely in the hands of
the elite class.
Liberal policy: Confiscate labor from the productive to
distribute per the needs
the elite ruling class.
January 23, 2006 "It's what the
American people want"
When you go to Target, and buy something made in China, it tells the
executives running the company that Target is likely to sell more stuff
if that stuff comes from China. Every dollar is like a tiny
little vote. So far, China is winning the American "dollar vote"
by a landslide.
This dollar vote victory is not being ignored by the management at Ford
or other US companies, or even the politicians in the US
government. The huge dollar vote gorilla wants stuff made in
China while a few mice in the corner peep about losing US jobs, US
preeminence in technology, and loss of the American standard of living.
The one thing it seems that US companies, managers, boards of
directors, and politicians seem to be ignoring is that the "dollar
vote" is not targetting just US manufacturing. It is also
rejecting US engineering, US management, and even US ownership.
This same dollar vote will eventually say, "we don't want to buy stuff
from companies managed by Americans, or even owned by Americans,
because paying Americans to own and manage companies costs too much."
To put it another way, Americans are saying "we don't want what our
neighbor does." But aren't we all our neighbor's neighbor?
If we refuse to buy our neighbor's labor, who will buy ours?
America will be reduced to a land of farmers, lumberjacks and miners
living in squalor.
We are the prodigal sons spending the inheritance from our fathers.
America is getting what Americans are voting for with their
dollars. It is the truest form of direct democracy ever
devised. In order to turn this around, we need courageous leaders
who will actually lead, instead of just riding the turbulent waters of
politics. Government imposition of trade barriers, tarrifs, or
any other intervention would be disastrous. It will cause a
depression, and likely lead to a third world war.
No, rather we need leaders to educate people that we truly prosper when
our neighbors prosper. People need to understand that monopolies
of any sort, corporate, labor, professional, or criminal diminish our
competitiveness, flexibility to respond to changing markets, and our
standard of living.
We need leaders to lead us away from self destruction.
You shall not take that which belongs
If you have comments or suggestions, email "report" at this domain.
Updated: June 16, 2010