On the Way to Samaria

There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money -- if a gun is held to his head.  ― P.J. O'Rourke

We are occasionally accosted with the "Christian view" that government should grow it's charitable activities. It's what Jesus would do, we are told. When I hear this, I mentally sort through the countless parables and gospels I have heard to try and understand how the Christ supposedly delivered this message. I am at a loss. Ticking through the various scenes, all more or less memorable in their message, you see Jesus washing feet, tending to the sick, and feeding the hungry. In no instance is he portrayed as a social worker, city councilman, or as a community organizer. Those are clearly extra-religious appointments, and do not seem to have any basis in religion.

His most memorable story about charity is "The Good Samaritan", which is the story of a man who had been beaten and left for dead along the road. The man who came along gives direct assistance to the stricken man, and takes him into town, where he arranges for proper care, giving his own money directly to the innkeeper to pay for the cost of the recovery.

Notice the story was not about arranging a charitable trust, running around town and collecting dinars for the cause. No, it was about rendering aid. Personally making a positive difference in a man's life. That, my friends, is charity. Pledging your neighbor's tax money is not.

So, the religious argument always misses the mark with me. Ironically, many of its advocates are "for" the separation of church and state. So much for the principle of the thing.

A good summary of the bible and the government was written by Doug Bandow for the Acton Institute.

Did you know that private charity was outlawed in the Soviet Union?

In a limited government, charity is one of the many things that are best tended to at the personal level. The next time you see someone in need of help, cut out the middle man, and help him yourself.

Minimum Wage, Minimum Freedom

“Unfortunately, the real minimum wage is always zero, regardless of the laws, and that is the wage that many workers receive in the wake of the creation or escalation of a government-mandated minimum wage, because they lose their jobs or fail to find jobs when they enter the labor force. Making it illegal to pay less than a given amount does not make a worker’s productivity worth that amount—and, if it is not, that worker is unlikely to be employed.”

― Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy

I only need one reason to oppose minimum wage laws: They are an unjust government interference in the otherwise voluntary exchange of labor for value. An economy will always suffer when free trade is blocked or prevented. Still, far be it from me to discount the many good reasons there are to oppose such laws.

• High minimum wage countries (Spain, South Africa) have high unemployment.
• Zero minimum wage countries (Switzerland, Singapore) have the lowest unemployment.
• Minimum wage laws make it illegal to hire people who are unable to add even $5 worth of value for an hour of their labor. So, the least skilled people receive nothing, and as a result have no feasible path of acquiring a job skill.
• The education system, which is intended to prepare people to function in the society play the cruelest joke, by teaching skills no one will pay for.
• When the lowest skilled persons are "assigned" a high enough wage, that job will be eliminated first, either through reduced service or automation. 
• People who have worked for years and developed skills that trade for $15 will suddenly be told they have wasted their entire career developing higher skills.
• If everyone in the neighborhood survived with their jobs intact, they would be competing with more dollars for the same goods and services their neighbors want and need, raising the price of everything, creating price inflation, and thus, defeating the original purpose of the wage price increase.
• Minimum wage laws hurt lowest income neighborhoods hardest, because the industries that operate there exist on the lowest profit margins. When the businesses are no longer viable, they will close.
• Minimum wage is a system of slavery; causing massive unemployment, and creating an ever growing dependent class. This is the real, insidious reason why the idea is promoted by the politicians. They can then control who hires people, and who doesn't.
• The reason our unemployment rates are so high today (and yes, they are as high as ever), is that the Bush-Obama recession was a significant deflationary event. It caused a critical number of people to fall below their point of economic viability. If minimum wage controls hadn't gotten in the way, and if the Fed wasn't intent on creating inflation to overlay the whole scenario, the recession probably would have ended of its own accord. Continued distortion of the true economic situation has not helped in any way.
• Just because the republicans are against minimum wage increases it doesn't mean minimum wage increases are a good idea. They are bad for all reasons, including all those involving  fairness, freedom, and compassion.

Personal freedom means economic freedom, and as a consequence, our rights to exchange our labor for value should never be infringed by a government. If I want to work for $5/hour, I should have that right. 

More Pieces of my Mind

We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.

-- Albert Einstein

1. The last word on Hillary: Not many remember the whitewater whitewash, where circumstances regarding Hillary's investment history in cattle futures, the failure of the Whitewater development, Fraudulent billing practices of the Rose Law Firm and many other Arkansas oddities were swept under the rug. Since the truths in these matters were never unearthed and examined by the media, we shouldn't expect these outlets to bring any light to the Benghazi and email server coverups either. We can simply accept, however, that she is who she appears to be; and that her trustworthiness clearly does not rise to the level of rank politician, let alone president.
2. Our society will be much better off when the narrative of "cop shooting unarmed motorist" does not include the unnecessary qualifiers of 'one was black and one was white'. It's as if those are the only two colors there are; The number of possible colors is infinite, and will be ever more so. We should be focusing now on the issue of officers using deadly force in routine traffic stops. As long as people think it is racism, we'll never be able to address the true threat.
3. We are told that this next federal election will be about economic inequality. It should be entertaining to watch the candidates insist they are unlike past democrats and republicans, who have collectively been in charge since the Grant administration. If income inequality is the problem, why should either of them be given the reins again? Income inequality has been the law of the land since 1913. Both parties have had over a hundred years to fix this.

Pieces of my mind

1. Calling attention to the color of people perpetuates those differences. To you and me the goal is equality. To the politicians, the goal is markedly different. Politicians gain by creating controversy and exploiting it. We would do better by treating each other well, and neutralizing any leader who sees a difference.

2. Communism isn't the problem. The problem is the Communists. Similarly, most "-isms" are harmless. Most "-ists" are not. Do not fear the ism. Communism simply does not work, in the same way that feudalism or racism does not. Therefore there should be no effect. Communists, on the other hand, can do a lot of damage.

3. Many forest fires are now caused by government. Efforts to control the ebbs and flows of nature usually have unintended consequences, and forest management is a good example. The government prevents homeowners from removing decayed bio-matter from their own property, and when it catches fire and burns dozens of houses down, they don't get the connection.

4. After the next black swan event, this economy will be known as the ____________ bubble era. We are now taking nominations to name this particular bubble. I'm thinking we may be looking at the "Corporate Profits" bubble this time. Money is flying in from all directions into a market that has been pumped up by lack of other investment options, plus, foreign escape to a stronger dollar. Corporations are taking low interest money and buying back their own stock with it. Unfortunately, the earnings will seriously underperform the expectations, and when it all comes to light, and the market falls 50%, it will look like all other bubbles through the lens of 20/20 hindsight. We should have seen it coming.

5. People have a remarkable ability to extract nutrients from all manner of animal and vegetable. About 10,000 years ago, we discovered grains, and these things have been modified regularly by anyone who swung a hoe in the early days. Since Gregor Mendel, these things have been modified in a more organized manner. The point is, genetically modified food is not a threat. It has been with us since the early days. More importantly, it is an opportunity to feed millions who might not thrive without it. That said, I'm thinking of going paleo. Why? Because it is the only diet that makes perfect sense in a survey of historical genetics.

About the Money

America has the best politicians money can buy. -- Will Rogers

Had to wonder: Does it really have to be about the money? I witnessed countless TV commercials in the last election cycle trying to convince me one by one that Charlie Crist and Rick Scott are two different people. That's where all the money went, and it added very little to the discussion. There didn't seem to be much of a difference at all between the two candidates. In that same race, the best candidate was a guy named Adrian Wyllie. In one poll, only 8% of those polled had even heard of him, yet 7%  thought he was the best candidate. Why was it so hard for his message to get out?

I recently came across an essay by Mark Brandley, who concludes:

... why are scoundrels successful in the political arena? Analyzing the nature of an election provides us with an answer. In order to win an election, candidates need to offer their supporters other people's wealth, and candidates must convince their supporters to vote in spite of the fact that individual votes will not affect the election. Accomplishing these two goals requires deception. Therefore, candidates who are willing to violate property rights — to steal — and be deceptive have an advantage over candidates with stronger moral convictions. So of course elected officials are corrupt. Candidates with moral integrity are at a severe disadvantage in the political sphere. Do not put your hope in political solutions -- 

The essay was written just over four years ago, and once again, the season is well underway. Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney were taking turns standing in the establishment money machine; while other candidates are waiting for their turn in the grab shack.

All this money flying around doesn't help the information process, however.

The local TV stations rely on the money machine for their fall commercial spot sells, and therefore, the networks who depend on them do not want to do anything that would accidentally clarify the debate. No, No, No. After all, if there was a real difference between the two candidates, the debate would end prematurely. Keeping them close keeps the money flowing.

What if it weren't about the money? Freedom of speech issues aside, what if the TV spot buys had no real consequence? What if there were enough of a difference among the candidates that advertising was superfluous? Modern political theory requires that the politicians go after the middle of the road; i.e., to the marginal voter. And since both politicians want that same unprincipled voter, they can sway an election on the stupidest of promises. 

My personal way of dealing with it is that I no longer vote for politicians. I will only vote for statesmen. And since all Republicans and Democrats are by their nature politicians, I simply don't vote for them any more. It doesn't have to be about the money; especially if each of us take 15 minutes to learn about the candidates on our own.

I can safely navigate through TV commercials, since they are all for the status quo candidates and my DVR discriminates against all TV commercials anyway. The next thing to do is to become informed by the real candidates; the possible statesmen; the ones you will not regret voting for. Only then will voting be a worthwhile activity again.

.

We're doing this wrong, that has to be obvious. The solution is to make it not about the money.

Life, Death, and Climate

Many of the people demanding action on global warming are not finishing the thought. Warmer climates are responsible for more abundance and easier life management by many underdeveloped economies. A warmer climate has resulted in longer growing seasons, more bountiful harvests, and better living conditions around the world. The fewest weather-related fatalities in history are being recorded each successive year. One study found that 40,000 lives per year in the US alone would be saved by a climate that is 2.5 degrees (C) warmer.

Folks who want to reverse warming are asking the world to take three steps back. Unintended consequences don't matter to these dullards. They stopped thinking right after the protest rally.

Still thinking....

• Does anyone else think that sovereign countries  (e.g. Japan) buying equities (i.e. shares of stock in publicly traded companies) is a good idea? It occurs to me that the logical endpoint to this is government ownership of the nation's businesses. Or by it's other name: communism. 
• The US Federal Reserve buying up all the debt is just as bad an idea; and for similar reasons.
• What is the moral distinction between torture and targeted killing? There are people who think torture is a problem (because it is associated with one party), yet targeting citizens and combatants by drone is okay (because it is associated with that other party). Shouldn't we have a problem with that, too?
• Civilizations are made up of people. Economies are made up of people who stand to benefit from a division of labor. A builder trading some of his stored wealth with a baker, for example. The government is created solely to protect an economy and by extension, its civilization. When the government starts favoring the Baker or the Builder, distortions are introduced that do more harm than good. But that's how you buy votes. Great system, huh?
• The smallest unit of any civilization is a family. A collection of people acting as one unit for the collective benefit of the family. A collection of families is a community. However, not all aspects of the community can benefit all families, and each family must be free to connect and disconnect at will with the community. Therefore, not only is the family the smallest unit that can call itself a civilization, it is also the largest. 

Random thoughts

Happy Christmas Eve. Some topics that I need to get out there, but reserve the right to blog about again someday:

1. A comedy about the assassination of the leader of a sovereign country doesn't strike me as good entertainment. How did we get to the point of making 100 million dollar movies making fun of a government contriving an act of war?

2. People who complain about the US Constitution, calling it an outdated document created by dead people seldom have the same opinion of The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, The Harrison Narcotics Tax Act or the Sherman Antitrust Act.

3. A government that repeatedly makes a distinction of any kind with regard to the color of one's skin is perpetuating that distinction, and in the process, institutionalizing racism.

4. The government that announces a 5% rise in GDP, consisting almost entirely of the increase in health care spending as a result of the Affordable Care Act has no credibility, and apparently no need for it.

Finish the thought

A conclusion is the place where you got tired thinking.  - Martin H. Fischer (1945)

Sometimes we run out of gas when it comes to thinking things further. Picking a restaurant for dinner, deciding whether to buy a new Christmas tree. Just make a decision, you tell yourself. It matters little. Other times, drawing conclusions without gathering all the facts and thinking it through can be disastrous. Buying the red car because the saleslady is pretty; or even taking a new job, because it's next to the Starbucks. Well, okay, there are plenty of folks who often don't think things all the way through.

If you have recently concluded that government is good, but that the cops are bad, then you missed the truth that the cops are only there to implement the government's laws. If you are one of those who stopped at "government is good", yet still think cops are the problem, well, frankly, you didn't think it through.

When 21 ounce sodas are banned, the only way to guarantee compliance is to send an armed representative. How about when a citizen attempts free enterprise (e.g. selling "loosies") outside of the state tax system. Yep, guys with guns are dispatched to deal with it. If you or your elected representatives weren't all just too tired to think when that law was drafted, perhaps Eric Garner would still be around.

Every law on the books today is there, probably because some busybody moron convinced you and your neighbors that it was "best for the community". At that point, everybody stopped thinking. But consider this: every law on the books requires force, sometimes violent, sometimes deadly as part of the enforcement action. That's right, people dying for someone's idea of a law. If you are not willing to see someone die for a law. It's a bad law.

And if you have elected representatives who make laws that restrict people from earning a living, or from buying the sodas of their choice, or for heaven's sake what part of the bus you can sit in; then keep thinking; because laws by definition bring duly appointed and armed police officers to the scene. It's a forced conflict with government and legal violence at the logical end.

When you get in practice, you find you can start finishing other peoples' thoughts. If you like government, you have to love the cops. It also works the other way: If you dislike the cops, perhaps it is the government that is the problem.

People who are paid to think about things, call it a root cause analysis. Figure out what is causing the problem and fix it. Ferguson is a symptom. Occupy Wall Street is a symptom. Even the Tea Party is a symptom. The core problem remains. Once we get everybody thinking past their biases and fears, the solution will become much clearer.

The core problem as I see it is that the two parties have every reason to maintain a status quo; and a permanent solution to the problem is not in their plan. Perhaps having more people actively thinking is the way out of the mess.

Immigration Song and Dance

If you were watching The president's immigration skit last Thursday, you were treated to his plan to get something done. That will show us who the third branch of government is, by golly. For those of you not watching Univision last week, here's how the plan went down:

Three new bureaucratic task forces to hopelessly confuse strengthen border security. Because there's no problem that can't be made more better by putting a few more friends on the payroll. Also, make sure they don't talk to each other or people already doing that job.
Prioritize deportation of the really bad guys first. Meaning anyone who gets out of line.
Scatter "Secure Communities" because those were really starting to work
Give the ICE officers a fat raise. Because if enforcement is not an option they need a reason to come to work.
Give incentives for all immigrants to get here before they turn 16. That way, you can decouple them from that subversive family oriented support as quickly as possible.
Give preferential treatment to those who've managed to hide effectively for five years, and especially if they have kids while they are here. They need to be dependent on government out of the gate, of course.
Release the detainees who appear to be talented. Don't want any positive examples laying around the community centers. That would ruin everything.

As usual, the politicians are not looking for a real solution, or even to clarify the US policy on immigration. Its a complicated mess, only because thats what they want it to be. The politicos are fond of pointing out our rich heritage in welcoming immigrants. What they leave out is that all the immigrants learned English, took care of their own, and respected our country and our traditions. Instead, our elected representatives are actively supporting dual language programs, in the process guaranteeing non-integration of the newcomers into society. Some melting pot.

Here's the Wizer's plan. Drop all the bi-lingual support and force all immigrants to learn English. It's the compassionate thing to do. Term limit the benefits so that the immigrants know it is a safety net and not a hammock. Tell them this is the land of opportunity, and they are free to be part of it. If they 
want to come here it has to be for the right reasons. Finally, yes, they should read the constitution. In fact, we all should. It might change a lot of things for the better.