"Guaranteed minimum income"?

If there were a "guaranteed minimum income" it would quickly become the new zero.

Then, someone would demand the minimum be increased.  Again and again.

Why are "smart" people too dumb to see this?

.

Wage hikes feel good, solve little

Wage hikes feel good, solve little

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 8, 2013)

I have seen many well-meaning people calling for an increase in the "minimum wage" as a way to fight poverty. If only it were that simple. How much do you raise it? To $100 per hour? More?

Unfortunately, economics doesn't work that way. The higher you raise the minimum wage, the fewer people a business can afford to employ. Many people will be priced out of a job altogether.

A higher minimum wage increases the cost of doing business, which means prices will have to go up or businesses will close. Employees getting the new minimum wage will soon be facing proportionally higher prices for everything they buy- completely negating any benefit they thought they were getting, thus creating a vicious cycle.

The economy isn't a pie; it's a pie that can grow exponentially. A dollar someone else pockets doesn't necessarily take a dollar out of your pocket, unless that dollar is gained through theft or coercion.

Many CEOs are paid a ridiculously inflated amount, but the solution isn't to raise the "minimum wage", it's to eliminate the fiction of the corporation, and get government OUT of the "business" of controlling business. That includes completely eliminating "minimum wages". When businesses are privately owned, but are told by government how they can operate, what they must pay, how much they can charge for their services, and are forced to pay a percentage to the State, that is the socialist economic system properly called "fascism".

But what if the "minimum wage" had simply kept up with the cost of living? Wouldn't that solve everything?

If the minimum wage had "kept up" with the cost of living, unemployment and inflation would have been proportionally higher all along. The reason the cost of living keeps rising is the devaluation- the counterfeiting- of the dollar by the Federal Reserve. Strike at the root of the problem, not the side effects.

Even a minimum wage of $100 per hour or more wouldn't make everyone happy. If the average person brought home the same amount as a vastly overpaid CEO, or what the average plastic surgeon makes, it wouldn't be long before everything cost many times what it costs now. That's just a basic law of economics- supply and demand, and the ability to produce enough to meet demand without a free market. The same number of items will always be out of reach of the average person, no matter how high you make the minimum (or average) wage.

Don't fall for the feel-good solutions which solve nothing.

.

Which would you be?

Warlords and Protectors.

That is what many guys naturally tend toward.  They are just opposite sides of the same coin, I think.

Every statist seems to worry that everyone inclined in this way will become a Warlord if the State collapses, but wouldn't more people choose to become Protectors when freed of the silly notion that "that's government's responsibility"?

If that's the kind of person I was, I would certainly get more satisfaction out of coming to the rescue than I would subjugating others to my will.

Or, is this another area where I'm just oblivious to how different I am from "the average"?

.

Josie the Outlaw

Nice!

I'm sure you have probably already discovered her videos... but if you are one of the unfortunates who has somehow missed out, check her out.  And share her videos with statists who might just want to see a hot anarchist.

Her website is here: JosieTheOutlaw.com/

.

Christmas colors: Red and Bluish Yellow

"Bluish yellow? You mean 'green'?"
"Oh, I don't like labels."

Labels exist for good reason.  They can help people communicate when used correctly.  They can also prevent communication when used incorrectly.  If you call green "blue" your message is getting muddled.

If you call a conservative or a socialist "libertarian" you are not communicating, you are confusing.  Yet major "news" sources are doing this all the time.  So much, in fact, that it is probably intentional.

Be annoying.  Correct them relentlessly.

.

Things left unsaid...

Any subject I address- for my CNJ columns in particular- ends up being necessarily abbreviated.  I am limited  to "around 400 words".  Take my recent column, on people being forced to work on Thanksgiving, for example.

I had to stick with a narrow peek at one aspect of all the possible things that are related in some way to the topic.  I couldn't really go into the nationalization of the holiday by Lincoln.  I couldn't go into whether a day set aside for being thankful really makes sense, or whether it is necessary to believe in the supernatural to feel a sense of thankfulness.

I didn't address whether holidays are silly collectivist nonsense, or a necessary diversion for humans.

I didn't have time to address every detail of whether it makes a difference if you work for a corporation or a small family business.

I didn't go into the whole load of myth and misinformation that has grown up around "The First Thanksgiving Day" and pilgrims and "indians", or "the evils of industrial farming techniques", or whether eating meat is ethical or healthy, or... well, lots of other things that certain individuals out there feel are important to tackle every time the issue of "Thanksgiving Day" is discussed.  And that's just on the Thanksgiving side of it.  Anything anyone writes on a subject is going to ignore more than it addresses.  That's just reality.

As hard as it is for me- and it really is difficult- I have to focus on a tiny part of all the potential tangents I could explore anytime I write on anything.

And it seems that some people always manage to mention what I didn't address rather than focus on what I did.  Which is fine.  More can always be discussed in the comments.  Right?

But, maybe that's not enough.  Blogs are free to set up.  Whatever you feel is not being addressed by others may be calling to YOU to address it.  Start writing.  If I can do it, you can, too.

.

"Hit and Run"- wrong but understandable

A strange question entered my mind after hearing about a friend who was hit in a "hit and run" accident recently.

Were there as many hit and runs before cops started making every accident into a criminal case?

I would bet there were not.  I might be wrong, but I can see why people might now flee after an accident.  Maybe there are some residual substances which the authoriturds criminalize in their bloodstream.  Perhaps some mandated papers are missing or expired.  Perhaps the driver or a passenger is "in the system" for some other infraction and an encounter with enforcers would be too costly.

And, that's besides the fact that now, in every accident, the enforcers will find a way to turn it into a "crime" and extort money from someone.  Not money for the injured party as in restitution, but for their leash-holders of The State.  It's what they show up for.

Sometimes accidents are just accidents.  Tragedies don't need to be used to prop up the flailing police state.  If I have an accident, I feel awful enough (just like when I dropped my mom's whole chocolate pie on the floor the other day).  I don't need anyone to inflict extra pain on me in order to "teach me a lesson", or to finance the cowardly enforcers' retirement fund.  Nor do I want enforcers doing that to other people on my behalf.  Get a clue- people who don't feel bad for causing an accident don't magically change for the better because you turn them into criminals and steal some of their property for the State.

Go away, enforcer.  Society can't afford to support you any more.

.

Dreaming of riches

The weird dreams I sometimes have... the ones I can mention in nice company (or even among outlaws like myself), I mean.

A few days ago I dreamed Bitcoin was at $2077 and someone donated 20 of them to me.  Of course, in my dream, my mathematical abilities were on par with my waking mathematical ability, and I figured it totaled million$.

Yes, in the past I have also dreamed of cash, precious metals, and other treasures falling into my lap, so this is just a new version of the same old dream.

But, speaking of Bitcoin... I really am amused at the people having conniptions over other people choosing to use Bitcoin.  Personally, I will use FRNs, silver, gold, Bitcoin, or trade goods to get what I want or need.  And I have used each and every one of those forms of "money" at various times.  I won't accept payment I don't want, and I would never expect anyone else to, either.

I don't totally understand how Bitcoins are mined or created, because that involves math and programming- 2 things I am not great at and don't have the ambition (or time) to really practice.  But, I am not an expert on gold mining and refining and minting, either.  That doesn't make me scared of gold.  Yes, I wish I had bought a bunch of gold when it was really cheap, but I'm not going to insult people who own gold simply because they have more than I do.

I was highly amused when the story broke where the expert was calling Bitcoin a "Ponzi scheme".  By making that association he is lending a lot of undeserved legitimacy to actual Ponzi schemes (even the "participate at gunpoint" Ponzi scheme called "Social Security").

I never started accepting Bitcoin in order to get rich.  Or even to profit from having them.  I did it to have another monetary option available to myself.  It has worked and I am satisfied with that option.

If you don't like Bitcoin, I have a link on the side that will allow you to get rid of the ones you might have.

.

Never confuse theft with charity

Never confuse theft with charity

 (My Clovis News Journal column for November 1, 2013 -in the Portales News-Tribune this time)

I'm as far from being a Republican as I am from being a Democrat: as far as east is from west. But when I see misguided criticisms and flawed comparisons aimed at the wrong target, I feel the need to address it.

Recently I witnessed someone scolding Republicans for their "opposition to socialism", as demonstrated by their use of the ObamaCare boondoggle for political theatrics. "Opposed to socialism"? Republicans are enthusiastic socialists in most everything they advocate- but their favorite programs differ from those of the Democrats, therein dwells the friction.

This particular Democrat was claiming that Jesus was a socialist, as evidenced by his handing out free medical care, food, and other such necessities, therefore Republicans shouldn't be so hostile to socialism. But there's a gaping hole in this comparison, overlooked by the commenter.

Socialists' "generosity" comes through giving away things that didn't belong to them to begin with, and were not voluntarily given to be handed out. In other words, socialists steal from others and then feel superior when they distribute the stolen property. Never confuse theft with charity. You can't be generous with other people's money, time, or labor, but only with your own. When you try to do so, you are just a common thief.

Any way you look at it, that's not nice.

If theft was one of the virtues advocated by Jesus, I must have missed that part.

Anytime you take something that doesn't belong to you, against the wishes of its rightful owner, you are stealing. Even if you promise to use that property for good. Even if you say the victim of your theft is getting some necessity in return. Even if you make the claim that the person has implicitly consented through some non-voluntary "social contract". It doesn't matter if your uses for that property are "progressive" or "conservative". Once again, it comes down to the difference between sharing and being robbed.

Go ahead and advocate whatever policies or programs you like, but don't pretend those you look up to would have supported whichever Big Government welfare program you happen to love, in an attempt to make your position seem moral.

That applies to those who would claim he would have supported the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, the War on Terror, torture, immigration control, government schools, police checkpoints, NSA spying, or anti-gun laws. In this case you are clearly misrepresenting everything he stood for. What was that about "bearing false witness"?

.

Nice cops

Everytime I speak the truth about cops, someone will object and tell me "there are good cops!"

No.  There are not.

As I saw someone say a while back- and I wish I could remember where I saw it and who said it- there are "nice cops", but no "good cops".

A "nice cop" is one who treats you in a non-cop manner.  Who holds the door for women, stops to help a stranded traveler, gives a thirsty dog a drink.  Things any of us would do if we are decent people.  He is nice because of who he is, and what he is doing at the moment, not because of what his job might be.

But, that same "nice cop", as soon as he enforces ONE counterfeit "law" is no longer a good person.  He is being a cop.  He might still do "nice" things while on the job, but the overwhelming majority of that "job" is inflicting evil upon people.

Most bad guys can't spend all their time being evil.  It's too much work and would cripple their ability to live among friends and family- if they could even keep friends and family.  They have to be nice to those around them most of the time, no matter what they do when they target those they consider to be "other" or "less-human".  Because of this fact, you can have nice mobsters, nice muggers, and nice rapists, but none of them can be "good".

And neither can any cop.  The "job" eliminates that possibility completely.

.

Don't add what you don't need

A week or so ago an online friend (you know who you are) was relating a conversation he had with someone else- trying to explain that refrigeration systems don't "make cold", they remove heat, and then he mentioned that this is similar to what liberty is.

It isn't so much "something" as a lack of something: liberty is the lack of tyranny, or coercion, or whatever you want to call it.

Why on earth would anyone want "Life, now with added tyranny!"?

.

Can't blame a thug for trying

You can have opposing sides in an encounter both be right- even if one is otherwise wrong.

An extreme example: imagine you lived during or just before WWII in Germany, and you happened to be present as Hitler was issuing orders to kill some innocent person.  You would have been right to shoot Hitler, if you'd gotten the chance at that moment, and he would have been right to violently defend himself from your attempt.  I would hope you came out victorious, but I wouldn't blame Hitler for shooting you in self defense.  It would be silly to fault a person for that.

No one is obligated to just sit there and be killed.  No one can "lose" a right, such as the right to defend yourself.  Not even by violating the same right in others.

It seems odd to me when that's what I think people are advocating.  It's why "resisting arrest" is such a stupid concept for a "crime".  It's why I would like to see the next death row inmate who is being lead to his execution lash out and kill a few of the prison employees before being shot to death in the hallway.  If you're going to die, die like a man.

Sure, I always prefer the bad guy to be the one who loses, and if I'm involved in a violent attack I'd probably rather my attacker let me shoot him without fighting back, but I could never blame him for trying.

.

Protect the dead- eat the living?

Watching Firefly, as I often do, I am constantly coming across wise things I hadn't caught before.  Or, stupid statist things that I hadn't gotten the significance of on earlier viewings.

One jumped out at me recently, when the Alliance goon said, in reference to the crew of Serenity: "Lowlife vultures, picking the flesh off the dead." As opposed to what?  Lowlife thieves who eat the living with taxes and regulations, that's what.

The dead don't care if you take their stuff- they can't own anything.  Funny that The State would supposedly find this more horrific than stealing from living owners- but you know they do.

.

Ah-sheh'heh

That means "Thank you" in Navaho.

Thank you for reading, commenting, and sharing my posts and CNJ columns.  Thank you for your support- financial, emotional, and intellectual.

Just Thank you.

.

Leaving a mark

Humans want to know (or at least feel) they have left some mark on the world that will outlive them.

I am happy to know I've made my mark.

I know my Time's Up flag will outlive me.  Most people who use the design don't even know I designed it- and that's IF they have ever heard of me.  It has taken on a life of its own.  That's strangely satisfying.

Government meddling not helping

Government meddling not helping

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 25, 2013.)

When judging whether you should do more of something, or even continue to do it at all, a necessary step is to look at the results your actions have produced so far.

After over a century of government schooling, usually erroneously called "public education", illiteracy is at crisis levels in America. Another century of letting government control education and today's texting generation may be literacy's "good old days" by comparison.

After a century or so of ever-escalating anti-gun "laws", the least dangerous places are still those areas which have avoided the most restrictive, or what the anti-gun activists would call "common sense", regulations. The most restrictive locations keep getting less safe.

Because of strife between the "races", government imposed "laws" which violated the right of association, particularly that policy which was called "Affirmative Action", and caused the strife between the races to begin heating up again. For decades now, about the only racial problems that have existed are those directly created by government intervention.

President Lyndon Johnson declared a "war on poverty", and imposed policies that made poverty practically hereditary and almost impossible for those being "helped" to ever escape. Poverty is winning that war.

After several decades of drug prohibition, approximately the same percentage of people are addicted to the forbidden substances as were addicted before the prohibition began, and the laws are driving the drugs to grow ever more dangerous and cheaper.

Here in the midst of the post-9/11 security mania, Americans are less free at home and less safe when venturing out into the rest of the world. And there have never been more people around the world willing to kill or die to strike a blow at the US government, which they mistake for Americans.

After handing control of the money supply over to the Federal Reserve a hundred years ago the US dollar has lost 95% or more of it's value. "Inflation" isn't normal; it is the consequence of the Federal Reserve's accelerating counterfeiting operation which floods the economy with more and more dollars every year- each of which makes the dollar in your hand worth just a little bit less.

How is all that "help" working for you?

Of course, when proposing to interfere, you also need to examine whether your plans will violate the rightful liberty of any person, or violate their property rights in any way, no matter how seemingly minor. If it will you shouldn't ever do it.

It leaves me wondering, how can anyone imagine that socializing medical care will have an effect opposite to that of state intervention in every other area?
.

Who is less trustworthy?

In a conversation with my newspaper editor last week, concerning my column, he mentioned that he also doesn't trust cops, but that doesn't mean he trusts the people who sue the cops- particularly when they wait a year or more to file the suit.

Well, I don't necessarily automatically trust anyone, but I know cops lie as a matter of course.  It's a required part of holding the "job".

Sure, a guy who sues the cops and wants to be paid millions of "tax" dollars also has an incentive to lie.

No one gets my trust automatically.  And who is it more important for me, personally, to be wary of?  Who can do me the most damage, with the least chance of me being able to fight back effectively?  It's not the guy suing the cops, even if the cops are- in this case- "innocent".

.

Knock out the aggressors

That new excuse for aggression, the "knockout game", does seem to show a need for more people being armed at all times, but I wonder how much a gun would really help.

If the attack comes with "no warning", as is claimed, how will you have time to pull your gun?

By all means carry a gun with you everywhere you go, but that's not enough.  You also need to be aware of your surroundings every moment of every day.  Make it a habit.

If the predators can't get within striking range, they can't punch you.  But if they do manage to catch you off guard, and if they fail to knock you unconscious with the first punch, maybe you can end their consciousness forever before they succeed.

.

Be careful what you ask for

It cracks me up when statists complain about the ideas of liberty being spread on the internet, because, in their minds, the State "gave us the internet", so we should be grateful and never put a disparaging word about "government" online.

Except that they're wrong about this, too.

Government didn't create the internet.  Some government goons told some techies what they wanted in a robust communications tool, and those people created the internet.  Much to the consternation of every government thug since the day they realized what had sprung into being was something they didn't control.

And, the internet wasn't even useful until it escaped into the wild.  If government employees were still keeping it only for themselves, it would be nothing more than a filing cabinet full of dead roaches.

.

The blind leading the blind?

Politics is not a case of "the blind leading the blind" (as I have heard claimed).  It's much worse than that.  It's an example of the blind "leading" the one with absolutely perfect vision.

You can see your own path- you don't need to be dragged where you don't want to go, right off a cliff, by someone who is clueless and stupid.

.