Today I was going to comment on a story at the Chicago Tribune, regarding Obama's disastrous changes to our already-disastrous student loan policies. I was offered a chance to login using my Google ID. When I tried, I got this message (emphasis mine):
Signin.chicagotribune.com is asking for some information from your Google Account XXXXXXXX@gmail.com
• Email address: XXXXXXXX (XXXXXXXX@gmail.com)
• Country: United States
• Language: English
• Google Contacts
Really? What the heck does the Trib think it's doing slurping up my Google contacts? That is absolutely none of their business.
Of course, I couldn't post.
It's said that as the convenience of the technology available to us increases, so does the willingness of unscrupulous people to exploit that convenience.
I wonder how many times this information has been inadvertently shared by me without my knowledge.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Friday, October 21, 2011
Dem Attacks on Republicans Descending into Self-Parody
Vice President Biden asserts that people who oppose Obama's job plan will be responsible for rape and murder.
Paul Krugman of the NYT calls Republicans pro-pollution, and that Republican policies will cause people to be poorer and sicker.
At some point you have to just shake your head and wonder if these people have been building their cartoonish straw men of evil Republicans so long that they're actually starting to believe their own propaganda.
Paul Krugman of the NYT calls Republicans pro-pollution, and that Republican policies will cause people to be poorer and sicker.
At some point you have to just shake your head and wonder if these people have been building their cartoonish straw men of evil Republicans so long that they're actually starting to believe their own propaganda.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Efficiency: The Logical Conclusion
I have a concern that at some point our increased efficiency, already evident in agriculture and manufacturing, will mean that there simply is not enough valuable work to occupy a majority of adult humans.
If the third world is eventually able to achieve full economic development, that will mean virtually the end of the subsistence farmer and laborer.
When, just to throw out a number, one tenth of the population is able to produce all the food, medicine and material goods necessary for the other nine tenths, exactly how do those other nine tenths justify their existence?
There is only so much "service" and "knowledge" work that needs to be done, and we're getting more efficient at doing it all the time.
The logical extension of the trends of technological achievement is that a large segment of the population will become productively superfluous.
There is no culture on earth that is prepared for that. There is no culture where one tenth of the population is prepared to productively support the superfluous nine-tenths. It's a recipe for civilizational catastrophe.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Whittling Away at Our Rights. Not Aukai with me.
The 2007 case, United States v. Aukai, by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, has been used to justify warrantless searches without consent at airport screening stations.
Meanwhile, the fourth amendment to the Constitution states:
The court asserts that airport searches are constitutionally reasonable "administrative searches" because "...because they are 'conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings.'"
An "administrative search" is
It was the 9th Circuit, aain, that determined that airport security screens qualify as administrative searches, back in 1973 in U.S. vs Davis (thanks again, 9th Circuit!).
The 2007 decision expands the 1973 decision by asserting that consent is no longer a factor and revocation of the "implied consent" given by entering the screening area is no longer allowed.
In my opinion, the entire concept of an administrative search completely guts the 4th amendment concept of unreasonable search. By lowering the standard of probable cause and allowing the invasiveness of the search to be "balanced" against the "need" for the search, you have written the government a blank check for incredibly intrusive searches on virtually no probable cause, which is the state of airport security today. When bureaucratic employees can grope you with no probable cause and you are unable to revoke consent for such groping, we are pretty much at the bottom limit of how intrusive and unwilling a search can be.
For many people, flying is not a luxury and buses, trains or automobiles are not a realistic alternative. I used to fly weekly or more often for my job. I would have had to resign if I had not been able to fly. Saying the flying is a luxury is analogous to saying all motorized transportation is a luxury. Imagine if automobile checkpoints with random searches were set up on a route you traveled daily to work, and imagine that you were told "Hey, if you don't like it, you can walk, ride your bike or ride a horse." Would that seem "reasonable" to you?
It is the nature to government to expand power. Power has been so expanded in the realm of air travel that we no longer have any notable rights once we pass the security checkpoint -- our freedom of speech, of assembly, our right to bear arms, our freedom from unreasonable search and seizure (I'm out a good key chain screwdriver/wrench tool -- no blade! -- thanks to unreasonable seizure!), all are sacrificed at the checkpoint, along with, arguably our fifth amendment right against self-incrimination.
The illusory, temporary safety we receive in return is not worth this.
ASIDE: Notice how interpreting the law requires going back through decades of case law to try to understand the terms as the courts use them? After more than 200 years of U.S. case law, this process becomes so complex that a normal reasonable citizen, can, in my opinion, no longer be assumed to understand that law. When we have reached that point, the law ceases to be an object that the citizen should respect and strive to obey -- why try to obey a set of rules when understanding those rules is beyond your reach. The law has become a Mephistophelean trap for the unwary.
Meanwhile, the fourth amendment to the Constitution states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The court asserts that airport searches are constitutionally reasonable "administrative searches" because "...because they are 'conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings.'"
An "administrative search" is
an inspection or search carried out under a regulatory or statutory scheme esp. in public or commercial premises and usu. to enforce compliance with regulations or laws pertaining to health, safety, or security <one of the fundamental principles of administrative searches is that the government may not use an administrative inspection scheme as a pretext to search for evidence of criminal violations People v. Madison, 520 N.E.2d 374 (1988)>
see also probable cause at cause
The U.S. Supreme Court held in Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967), that a reasonable administrative search may be conducted upon a showing of probable cause which is less stringent than that required for a search incident to a criminal investigation. The Court stated that the reasonableness of the search can only be determined by «balancing the need to search against the invasion which the search entails." Cases following Camara have stated that the probable cause requirement is fulfilled by showing that the search meets reasonable administrative standards established in a nonarbitrary regulatory scheme.
It was the 9th Circuit, aain, that determined that airport security screens qualify as administrative searches, back in 1973 in U.S. vs Davis (thanks again, 9th Circuit!).
The 2007 decision expands the 1973 decision by asserting that consent is no longer a factor and revocation of the "implied consent" given by entering the screening area is no longer allowed.
In my opinion, the entire concept of an administrative search completely guts the 4th amendment concept of unreasonable search. By lowering the standard of probable cause and allowing the invasiveness of the search to be "balanced" against the "need" for the search, you have written the government a blank check for incredibly intrusive searches on virtually no probable cause, which is the state of airport security today. When bureaucratic employees can grope you with no probable cause and you are unable to revoke consent for such groping, we are pretty much at the bottom limit of how intrusive and unwilling a search can be.
For many people, flying is not a luxury and buses, trains or automobiles are not a realistic alternative. I used to fly weekly or more often for my job. I would have had to resign if I had not been able to fly. Saying the flying is a luxury is analogous to saying all motorized transportation is a luxury. Imagine if automobile checkpoints with random searches were set up on a route you traveled daily to work, and imagine that you were told "Hey, if you don't like it, you can walk, ride your bike or ride a horse." Would that seem "reasonable" to you?
It is the nature to government to expand power. Power has been so expanded in the realm of air travel that we no longer have any notable rights once we pass the security checkpoint -- our freedom of speech, of assembly, our right to bear arms, our freedom from unreasonable search and seizure (I'm out a good key chain screwdriver/wrench tool -- no blade! -- thanks to unreasonable seizure!), all are sacrificed at the checkpoint, along with, arguably our fifth amendment right against self-incrimination.
The illusory, temporary safety we receive in return is not worth this.
ASIDE: Notice how interpreting the law requires going back through decades of case law to try to understand the terms as the courts use them? After more than 200 years of U.S. case law, this process becomes so complex that a normal reasonable citizen, can, in my opinion, no longer be assumed to understand that law. When we have reached that point, the law ceases to be an object that the citizen should respect and strive to obey -- why try to obey a set of rules when understanding those rules is beyond your reach. The law has become a Mephistophelean trap for the unwary.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Straight From Hamas' Own Monstrous Mouths
From this CBS report:
Yes, we taught them, by their own admission, that kidnapping is an effective technique. This is not the behavior of a budding state. This is the behavior of a full-fledged criminal terrorist gang.A Hamas leader in Gaza, Mahmoud Zahar, told the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot in an interview published Sunday that the swap deal for Schalit will encourage the Islamic group to capture more soldiers.
"The lessons we've learned by kidnapping soldiers leads us to continue the kidnappings," the Hamas leader said. "We still have 7,000 prisoners in (Israeli) jails, and they also need to be released."
Friday, October 14, 2011
Obama Endangers Our Men In Yet Another Third-World Shit Hole For No Good Reason
U.S. to send troops to Uganda
How come it's always the Democrats who send our troops off to fight with no congressional authorization and no compelling national interest, but it's the Republicans who get called war-mongers?
Update: This action is being done pursuant to the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009, passed in May 2010. So, the groundwork for this had been laid by Obama and the Democratically controlled congress since Obama's first year in office. Even early in his term, Obama has been, like Clinton, eager to risk American lives for no compelling national interest. In fact, in this case, there's not even any non-compelling national interest. It's a strictly "humanitarian" action. It seems to be a liberal truism that its OK to risk our troops' lives as long as we don't benefit from it.
How come it's always the Democrats who send our troops off to fight with no congressional authorization and no compelling national interest, but it's the Republicans who get called war-mongers?
Update: This action is being done pursuant to the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009, passed in May 2010. So, the groundwork for this had been laid by Obama and the Democratically controlled congress since Obama's first year in office. Even early in his term, Obama has been, like Clinton, eager to risk American lives for no compelling national interest. In fact, in this case, there's not even any non-compelling national interest. It's a strictly "humanitarian" action. It seems to be a liberal truism that its OK to risk our troops' lives as long as we don't benefit from it.
OWS: Ideological Idiocy
In this L.A. Times photo gallery, you can see some of the signs displayed by OWS protestors.
For example "What have we really become? Corporate run government is fascism."
Really? When did this become the definition of fascism? There has never been a fascist state that was run by corporations. Mussolini's and Hitler's fascist states were states where government controlled the corporations. That is a far, far different thing. To not understand the distinction is to completely miss the point.
Especially because the very thing these protestors would like (simultaneously with advocating anaarchy, go figure), is more government control of corporations.
I'm not a particular fan of crony capitalism, or crony socialism, which is closer to what we have. But the problem isn't the corporations. The corporations rationally seek to gain influence with a government of sweeping, nearly unlimited regulatory powers that can, at the stroke of a pen, destroy their business, or enrich it. What else would you expect them to do? And in what way would you ever make them stop? As you give government more and more power over the fate of corporations, you give corporations more and more incentive to seek influence within government.
Every time these supposed anti-fascists push government to tax and regulate corporations more, they move one step closer to actual fascism.
Another unintentionally hilarious (and true) sign depicts a large check (very professionally printed, I might add). It lists "Payee" as "99 percent," yet also states "Pay to the order of the top one percent" the amount of "5 billion dollar state tax cut."
Now, I know the poor protestor has probably never cut a check to anyone in his life, being a money-grubbing parasite who would prefer to take than give, but "Payee" is the party in an exchange who receives payment, so what he's really saying in his sign is that both the one percent and the 99 percent benefit from the 5 billion dollar state tax cut. Exactly right. But I don't think that's what he meant.
Another great photo shows the protestors posting a bill on the front of a Chase bank branch. The bill is for "foreclosure/(illegible) crisis, loan 'swap' deals, property tax loopholes, cuts to small business" -- uh, wait, aren't most of those things controlled by the government (even, arguably, the foreclosure crisis, due to federal policies that encouraged sub-prime loans)? Why is the bill going to Chase, not the government?
Is Chase responsible for taking advantage of legal property tax reductions? Shouldn't you be mad at government for offereing the "loopholes" not at a company for rationally taking advantage of them? And how, exactly, does Chase have the power to "cut" small business? By no longer offering loans it considers to risky? I'm a small businessman and had trouble with Chase taking an exorbitant amount of time to do a loan for me earlier this year -- they were being ridiculously slow about approving a loan I was obviously a good risk for. Instead of whining about it, we just took our business to a different bank. Problem solved. That's capitalism, baby: you get to shop around, find someone who wants your business and vote with your pocketbook. I love it.
There are a lot of signs along the lines of making banks pay. Funny, no matter how hard I try, I can't think of an instance where a bank owes me money it hasn't paid me. No bank ever came to me and forced me to do business with them, or forced me to sign a contract, nor violated the terms of a contract I willingly signed. Why do they owe us, again? Meanwhile, the government takes money against my will all the time and spends it on a lot of really worthless stuff (Solyndra, anyone?). Why are these people mad at the banks instead of the government? Why do they want the government to exert more control over the banks?
Do they seriously think the government will make better decisions than the bankers? Who has more skin in the game? I think that would be the bankers.
I can't keep cataloguing the signs. The idiocy is just too infuriating. And too self-evident.
For example "What have we really become? Corporate run government is fascism."
Really? When did this become the definition of fascism? There has never been a fascist state that was run by corporations. Mussolini's and Hitler's fascist states were states where government controlled the corporations. That is a far, far different thing. To not understand the distinction is to completely miss the point.
Especially because the very thing these protestors would like (simultaneously with advocating anaarchy, go figure), is more government control of corporations.
I'm not a particular fan of crony capitalism, or crony socialism, which is closer to what we have. But the problem isn't the corporations. The corporations rationally seek to gain influence with a government of sweeping, nearly unlimited regulatory powers that can, at the stroke of a pen, destroy their business, or enrich it. What else would you expect them to do? And in what way would you ever make them stop? As you give government more and more power over the fate of corporations, you give corporations more and more incentive to seek influence within government.
Every time these supposed anti-fascists push government to tax and regulate corporations more, they move one step closer to actual fascism.
Meanwhile, another protestor displays the anarchy symbol, and a quotation from Abbie Hoffman. "The first duty of a revolutionist is to get away with it." Unshown is the followup sentence "The second duty is to eat breakfast." I'm honestly unsure what's profound about either sentence.
I'm not fond of actual anarchists -- as some very wise men understood, governments are instituted to secure our rights. A state of anarchy may be preferable to totalitarianism, but not by much. However, these deluded fools aren't anarchists. They sport the symbols and the "down with authority" language, but all their actual demands call for an ever-larger government to grant them ever more entitlements. Don't they get even a little bit embarrassed by that? Did anyone ever sit down with them and actually explain what "anarchy" means?
Another unintentionally hilarious (and true) sign depicts a large check (very professionally printed, I might add). It lists "Payee" as "99 percent," yet also states "Pay to the order of the top one percent" the amount of "5 billion dollar state tax cut."
Now, I know the poor protestor has probably never cut a check to anyone in his life, being a money-grubbing parasite who would prefer to take than give, but "Payee" is the party in an exchange who receives payment, so what he's really saying in his sign is that both the one percent and the 99 percent benefit from the 5 billion dollar state tax cut. Exactly right. But I don't think that's what he meant.
Another great photo shows the protestors posting a bill on the front of a Chase bank branch. The bill is for "foreclosure/(illegible) crisis, loan 'swap' deals, property tax loopholes, cuts to small business" -- uh, wait, aren't most of those things controlled by the government (even, arguably, the foreclosure crisis, due to federal policies that encouraged sub-prime loans)? Why is the bill going to Chase, not the government?
Is Chase responsible for taking advantage of legal property tax reductions? Shouldn't you be mad at government for offereing the "loopholes" not at a company for rationally taking advantage of them? And how, exactly, does Chase have the power to "cut" small business? By no longer offering loans it considers to risky? I'm a small businessman and had trouble with Chase taking an exorbitant amount of time to do a loan for me earlier this year -- they were being ridiculously slow about approving a loan I was obviously a good risk for. Instead of whining about it, we just took our business to a different bank. Problem solved. That's capitalism, baby: you get to shop around, find someone who wants your business and vote with your pocketbook. I love it.
There are a lot of signs along the lines of making banks pay. Funny, no matter how hard I try, I can't think of an instance where a bank owes me money it hasn't paid me. No bank ever came to me and forced me to do business with them, or forced me to sign a contract, nor violated the terms of a contract I willingly signed. Why do they owe us, again? Meanwhile, the government takes money against my will all the time and spends it on a lot of really worthless stuff (Solyndra, anyone?). Why are these people mad at the banks instead of the government? Why do they want the government to exert more control over the banks?
Do they seriously think the government will make better decisions than the bankers? Who has more skin in the game? I think that would be the bankers.
I can't keep cataloguing the signs. The idiocy is just too infuriating. And too self-evident.
OWS: Greedy Protestors
The L.A. Times referred to the OWS protestors as "anti-greed protestors." As Inigo Montoya said, 'You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
In what way can protestors whose entire agenda is that money should be taken from other people, "the rich," and that things should be provided to the protestors for free -- free college education,. debt forgiveness, free healthcare -- be defined as anti-greed?
Isn't that the essence of greed? Covetousness? Wanting what others have? Wanting more for yourself at others' expense?
When did "greed" get redefined to mean "wanting to keep what you have or earned?"
We're very much through the looking glass, now. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
In what way can protestors whose entire agenda is that money should be taken from other people, "the rich," and that things should be provided to the protestors for free -- free college education,. debt forgiveness, free healthcare -- be defined as anti-greed?
Isn't that the essence of greed? Covetousness? Wanting what others have? Wanting more for yourself at others' expense?
When did "greed" get redefined to mean "wanting to keep what you have or earned?"
We're very much through the looking glass, now. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
Friday, October 7, 2011
"Obscenely Rich"
I'm having a "take back the language" moment. It has become so commonplace to tack the word "obscene" in front of the words "rich" or "wealthy" that even people who believe in the right of people to earn and keep their wealth sometimes do it (unthinkingly, I hope).
In the above-linked article, Paul Kengor refers to Steve Jobs as "obscenely rich." No, Mr. Kengor, Jobs wasn't obscenely rich. He was beautifully, brilliantly, wonderfully rich. It is a hard, cold fact that in his pursuit of his wonderful wealth, Jobs brought more opportunity and prosperity to people via direct employment and via the indirect effect of the incredible usefulness of the devices his company produced than all the anti-poverty programs of the 34 years since the introduction of the Apple II.
He could have donated all his wealth to charity and it wouldn't have begun to touch the good he did through his so-called "greed" and "obscene" wealth.
Bill Gates is widely known and respected for his charitable work, but frankly, I think that is such misplaced respect that it's almost laughable -- Gates has done more for the poor -- by keeping so many people from being poor -- by ruthlessly driving Microsoft to become the corporate giant it is than any possible benefit of his charitable activities.
I wouldn't trade one Steve Jobs for a million Lyndon Johnsons, or even a million Mother Theresas, because of million of them would just be a million people making millions of people comfortable in their poverty, but a million Steve Jobs would be a million people creating prosperity for many millions more.
There's nothing obscene about wealth. We owe the wealthy so much. Once upon a time, we found nothing wrong with admiring the wealth of a Rockefeller or a Hearst. We need to rekindle that admiration once again. It's not obscene. Don't let people tell you it is.
In the above-linked article, Paul Kengor refers to Steve Jobs as "obscenely rich." No, Mr. Kengor, Jobs wasn't obscenely rich. He was beautifully, brilliantly, wonderfully rich. It is a hard, cold fact that in his pursuit of his wonderful wealth, Jobs brought more opportunity and prosperity to people via direct employment and via the indirect effect of the incredible usefulness of the devices his company produced than all the anti-poverty programs of the 34 years since the introduction of the Apple II.
He could have donated all his wealth to charity and it wouldn't have begun to touch the good he did through his so-called "greed" and "obscene" wealth.
Bill Gates is widely known and respected for his charitable work, but frankly, I think that is such misplaced respect that it's almost laughable -- Gates has done more for the poor -- by keeping so many people from being poor -- by ruthlessly driving Microsoft to become the corporate giant it is than any possible benefit of his charitable activities.
I wouldn't trade one Steve Jobs for a million Lyndon Johnsons, or even a million Mother Theresas, because of million of them would just be a million people making millions of people comfortable in their poverty, but a million Steve Jobs would be a million people creating prosperity for many millions more.
There's nothing obscene about wealth. We owe the wealthy so much. Once upon a time, we found nothing wrong with admiring the wealth of a Rockefeller or a Hearst. We need to rekindle that admiration once again. It's not obscene. Don't let people tell you it is.
Anti-Corporate Demonstration, Brought To You ... By Corporations
This is making the rounds. Hat tip to Power Line, which asks the insightful question "Where do people who don’t like corporations work?"
Apple Memories
I was in college back in 1984 and had the good fortune of being friend with some of the most dynamic young computer scientists at Ohio State University. I'll never forget the day that one of them called me over to his place. "You've got to see this!" I could hear his familiar enthusiam for exciting new technology in his voice.
He ushered me into his bedroom and showed me a squat beige little unit. One of the first Macintoshes to hit the streets. He explained the mouse, how to launch an application, demonstrated MacWord, MacPaint and the desk accessories in the Apple menu (which was just an unbelievably cool idea -- useful little utilities that were available no matter what other program you were running at the time. OMG!.
It's hard to explain to someone who didn't grow up with graphical user interfaces how utterly amazing this all was.
We were in a world where "copy c:\docs\hstry,doc c:\docs\hstry01.doc" was the height of user interface simplicity.
It was so hard to wrap my head around, I had to believe that it was covering up some hidden complexity. "How do you get to the command line?" I asked him.
"There isn't one."
"B-b-but how do you do system level administrative things?"
"You do everything through the Desktop interface."
(Insert sound of my mind exploding.)
I had to have one. Immediately.
God bless, Mr. Jobs. And thank you.
He ushered me into his bedroom and showed me a squat beige little unit. One of the first Macintoshes to hit the streets. He explained the mouse, how to launch an application, demonstrated MacWord, MacPaint and the desk accessories in the Apple menu (which was just an unbelievably cool idea -- useful little utilities that were available no matter what other program you were running at the time. OMG!.
It's hard to explain to someone who didn't grow up with graphical user interfaces how utterly amazing this all was.
We were in a world where "copy c:\docs\hstry,doc c:\docs\hstry01.doc" was the height of user interface simplicity.
It was so hard to wrap my head around, I had to believe that it was covering up some hidden complexity. "How do you get to the command line?" I asked him.
"There isn't one."
"B-b-but how do you do system level administrative things?"
"You do everything through the Desktop interface."
(Insert sound of my mind exploding.)
I had to have one. Immediately.
God bless, Mr. Jobs. And thank you.
The Easist Way to Tell the Occupy Wall Street Extremists Are Not Really the 99%
Just look at the outpouring of admiration for the recently deceased Steve Jobs -- the iconic epitome of dynamic American entrepreneurialism. That's what Americans still admire. Not dirty hippies asking for government handouts and demonizing the very people who make their comfortable lives possible.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
The Root of the Problem
In Why Your Bank Is Charging More Fees by John Berlau, there is one sentence that perfectly encapsulates the root problem of our current government:
This is one of those illuminating incidents of politicians accidentally revealing too much truth.
Isakson wasn't voting for or against a law, or for or against a principle, he was voting for or against private entities.
The original text of the Constitution and Bill of Rights has safeguards meant to prevent government playing this sort of favorites game -- implementing rules that reward one business or group of citizens at the expense of another.
However, through sloppy and intentionally dishonest interpretations of the commerce clause and the general welfare clause, we have reached the point where punishing disfavored groups and rewarding favored ones is almost the entire business of government.
The only way to reign in this abuse of power is to drastically reduce the power of the Federal government and its ability to reward and punish.
“Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia, told SunTrust, the largest bank in his state, that this time he planned to vote against the bank and with . . . Home Depot.”
This is one of those illuminating incidents of politicians accidentally revealing too much truth.
Isakson wasn't voting for or against a law, or for or against a principle, he was voting for or against private entities.
The original text of the Constitution and Bill of Rights has safeguards meant to prevent government playing this sort of favorites game -- implementing rules that reward one business or group of citizens at the expense of another.
However, through sloppy and intentionally dishonest interpretations of the commerce clause and the general welfare clause, we have reached the point where punishing disfavored groups and rewarding favored ones is almost the entire business of government.
The only way to reign in this abuse of power is to drastically reduce the power of the Federal government and its ability to reward and punish.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Altruism ain't always all it's cracked up to be
The Pathological Altruist Gives Till Someone Hurts
Add another study to the list of things for which it takes an awful lot of education to not know already.
Ayn Rand pointed this out rather pointedly more than 50 years ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)