The power of III

Summum ius summa iniuria--More law, less justice

26 March 2011

400,000 leftists march in London, decry austerity, destroy private property, demand government spends more

More government spending: It's worked in the past, right?  Why wouldn't it work again?

I’ve just watched the soi-disant “March for the Alternative” snaking its way across London. It is clear enough, from the banners and slogans, what the protesters are against: spending restraint, open markets, private enterprise, property rights, free contract, Tories, bankers and Nick Clegg. Fair enough. But what are they for?

Their website suggests that they think the answer to our debt crisis is more spending. In fact, they don’t think we have much of a debt crisis. They want higher taxes, particularly for the rich, whom they expect to wait around meekly to be fleeced. And they insist that higher state expenditure (”investment”) will create more jobs. [I love this next bit--HM] Why so half-hearted, comrades? Why not go all the way, nationalise every business, place every adult on the state payroll and confiscate all income? By your logic, it would surely make Britain the most prosperous country on Earth.

Read the whole of MEP Hannan's blog post at The

Here's my take on today's London mass protest:

Those protesters are unfortunate.

They were raised to a life made easier through use of other people's money (tax monies). They, like their labor union counterparts in the US (as seen in Wisconson), are now starting to appreciate that the privileges to which they consider themselves to be entitled can now stop like a faucet being turned off.

The time of false prosperity, which has lasted for decades, is coming crashing down.  The time for austerity has arrived for the West, perhaps the whole world.   

The left-wing youth and their political mouthpieces and pundits wont go quietly into the night.  Watch the University age students wearing black scarves and Guy Fawkes masks kick at the windows of the Ritz Hotel on Picadilly.  How does that help their cause?  Destroying someone else's private property is a way for hotheads to blow off steam.  But it also shows a penchant to destroy wealth, an unintended metaphor for the economics of their own "alternative" to government austerity.

Among other similar demands ("higher spending") they want higher taxes for the rich.  

They don't think of this as confiscation of wealth that someone else produced by the sweat of their own brow.  They wouldn't think of doing it to their neighbor in the same row house in Brixton or East London.  

Somehow it's OK if the person has more money than they do.  Their labor produced the wealth of the rich person:  the rich person couldn't have possibly made the money through their own effort, right?  When the rich person is deprived of their wealth by the "people", the rich person's employees will have less wages, or no jobs.  They rob Peter to pay Paul.  They auto-cannibalize their own economy.  Their movement is driven by self-interest, but don't realize that what they propose will only hurt the economy and themselves.

They need to fight for an end of the Corporatist State, central banking,  the use of tax money for special interests, and Keynesian governmental economic policy.  

Decreased taxes, decreased government regulation,  and less government interference in economic matters will begin the return to prosperity.  It will come at the suffering of many, especially the working class.  Think of it as economic chemotherapy: Makes you sick as hell before it can make you better.


Other bloggers have their favorite phrases to inspire and remind their readers. Arctic Patriot is known for his : "Resist", to which Kerodin adds his: "Reinforce.  Reload.  Ruckus.  Restoration."

Here's one of mine you'll see from time to time: 

Economic knowledge should dictate your politics.

“The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.”--Frederic Bastiat

"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers."--Friedrich August von Hayek

"The system of discriminatory taxation universally accepted under the misleading name of progressive taxation of income and inheritance is not a mode of taxation. It is rather a mode of disguised expropriation."--Ludwig von Mises 

25 March 2011

24 March 2011

Quote of the Day 3/24

The propensity to truck, barter and exchange one thing for another is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals.
--Adam Smith (1723-1790)

Two weeks since my serious car accident

Still not working... no paid vacation. None; been working per diem. Peach of an economy, as you know.

Still hurt all over, especially my ribs and my leg.  I get tired after a couple of hours. 

Today one doctor said I had a concussion and post concussive syndrome.  MRI showed a bunch of rib fractures.  Lawyer was hired for a personal injury suit...its been a busy day.

Financially, I must work, and soon.  Very very soon.

I spoke to my (very nice) boss today.

He doesn't want me to return until I am like Tigger, because of the nature of our business:

However, I feel like Eeyore:

and my commute is really long every day, and when I get to work, all day it's upbeat customer service...

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffin' glue.

23 March 2011

Feds raid State legal medical marijuana facilities in Montana

As people in Montana and beyond struggle to come to grips with a massive federal raid of Montana medical marijuana businesses, the question that comes up is: Were these businesses violating state law that allows medical marijuana, or were they raided because they are in violation of federal law, which prohibits the use and possession of marijuana.

This memo from a U.S. Attorney, shared with the Colorado Independent may shed some light on that question.
The memo was sent to the Independent by the Cannabis Therapy Institute, and can be seen here (pdf).

The “Haag Memo” was written on Feb. 1, 2011 by United States Attorney Melinda Haag (Northern District of California) to John A. Russo, Esq., Oakland City Attorney, in response to an Oakland City Council request for guidance regarding medical marijuana and federal law. Haag writes that the memo was written with consultation and approval from U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

Holder had previously said the feds would not interfere with states that legalized medical marijuana.

From the memo:
We will enforce the CSA (Controlled Substances Act) vigorously against individuals and organizations that participate in unlawful manufacturing and distribution activity involving marijuana, even if such activities are permitted under state law.

Others who knowingly facilitate the actions of the licensees, including property owners, landlords, and financiers should also know that their conduct violates federal law.

Taken verbatim from the Washington Independent, link here.


Big, big, big surprise: The Obama administration fails to live up to another of its 2008 campaign promises.  

In case you don't give a hoot for medical marijuana, a subject I suggest you learn more about, let me tell you why you should consider this another shovel full of dirt on the way to burying your liberty.

Every time the feds assert their law (meaning: send unopposed armed men to enforce a law that was passed in Washington, DC, but nullified by or contravened by preexisting State law), they grow in power, and we individuals, locales, and States shrink in power.  

This time it's state legal marijuana, the next time it's likely to be state legal (locally manufactured) firearms and ammunition. 

Do you want them arresting your 23 year old daughter, who's never been sick in her life, because she refuses to spend 15 or 20 grand on a healthcare policy she doesn't need because of the Obamacare mandate? 

Who knows? Someday, they might want to tax off the grid electricity production or confiscate personally owned gold or silver bullion.  Every time there is a new precedent in centralized Federal power over local law, the door to let them in your house creaks a little bit more open (I guess that is a ridiculous analogy, since the TSA is already in our pants).  

State laws need teeth when they nullify a Federal law.  The state law enforcement or state militia has to be tasked with arresting and punishing (as a felony) any individual federal employees that seek to violate a State law.

Personal liberty can only be maintained for the vast majority in this country if a person has the option of "voting with their feet," and relocating to a more preferable State which is more desirable based on their personal beliefs and values--this is an originalist Jeffersonian idea.

22 March 2011

Not good news, inflation on track for 8.3% this year

Verbatim from


US Inflation On Track To Hit 8.3% In 2011

Tyler Durden's picture

Chasing all the fluttering glow in the dark swans over the past month has put some of the key issues facing the US economy on the backburner. But just like today's surging inflation update in the UK confirmed, there is only so long that any given crisis can be used a distraction from the real problems at hand. And here is where we stand: per a quick check with the recently released and constantly updated MIT billion price project, which just happens to correlate 93% with the CPI, 2011 inflation in the US is trending at an 8.3% annual rate of increase. This is only comparable to China, which just happens to have a growth rate (presumably that is double that of the US), and is almost three times higher than the latest inflation data released by... Zimbabwe. Below is the most recent inverse disinflationary data confirmation from MIT (and plotted by John Lohman). By now we hope readers are honing their iPad eating skills.

Rand Paul tests presidential waters, "won't run against" dad

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is visiting Charleston today talk about his possible presidential bid, how to reign in the national debt and the current military action in Libya.

Paul, a Tea Party favorite who won his Senate seat last fall, is visiting several early presidential voting states independently of his father, 2008 presidential contender and current U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas.

“The only decision I’ve made is I won’t run against my dad,” Rand Paul said, adding that he wants to see the Tea Party influence the 2012 GOP nominee.

Paul is set to appear this afternoon before the College of Charleston’s bully pulpit series. This evening, he will address the Charleston Meeting, a new invitation-only, center-right organization that invites prominent politicians to address its members off the record.

Read more in Charleston, SC Post and Courier.

21 March 2011

On "Racism" and human nature

In the recently released video of the NPR executive, Ron Schiller said that the current Republican Party has been "hijacked" by a group that's "not just Islamophobic, but really xenophobic" and suggests the tea party movement is comprised of some "seriously racist, racist people."

I've been looking for a reason to write a post on racism for a while. Xenophobia is a word of modern construct, just over 100 years old, that is simply defined as fear of foreigners.
Race, meaning "tribe, nation, or people regarded as of common stock" dates from around 1600, while racism wasn't used as a word until the eugenic movements of the Nazi's in the 1930's, according to the online etymological dictionary.

The term "Racism" has been in overusage for my adult life, and is bandied about whenever it suits a party who feels threatened by another party.  Most commonly these days, it is used to disparage any opponent of our current President, as if that is the only possible grounds to oppose the man's policies.  

It is applied, as noted above, to any leftwing or Statist opponent of the Tea Party movement.  Everyone knows that, applying usual public school education, the wish to diminish the power and taxing ability of the central state is only advocated by neo-confederates who want to bring back slavery--you know, racists.  Just ask Jeanene "racism straight up" Garofalo. (I apologize to my readers for any resultant nausea or vomiting if you watch this video.)

That anyone buys this kind of hogwash is reason to despair of our society.

The power of accusation is much more powerful than the power of the truth.  Labels are used simply smear another's reputation with a horrific label, whether it is "racist", "xenophobic", "antisemitic", and the like, as well as the flip-side of such labels, depending on the society in which the labels are cast about: "nigger-lover", "jew-lover", "capitalist", "kulak", "Tory", etc.,. 

The mere association of an individual with the label is enough to taint the person in the eyes of many, quite separate from the truth or accuracy of the label.  With such a label- damaged reputation, the person's or institution's influence will wane.   Such is the power of using public labels--the accuser is elevated, the accused is diminished.

In fact, this is a commonly used courtroom tactic:  say something outrageous about the accused, or a potentially powerful witness, then withdraw the statement to avoid the objection, and the damage is done.  The jury has heard the words.  Their opinion is tainted, despite the judge's instruction: "The Jury will disregard..."  As a lawyer friend of mine is fond of saying: "Just ignore the big pink elephant in the back of the room..."

Fear of those different from yourself is inborn.  Stranger anxiety on the face of infants is a commonly noted milestone of development.  As stranger anxiety is inborn, extrapolation of this concept to fear of those outside of your immediate family, ethnic group or larger community doesn't take a great intellectual leap to understand. Fear of strangers/outsiders/people of another race (for example) can be rationally unlearned, but the unlearning process goes against this innate aspect of human nature.  Different facial characteristics, clothing, skin color, manner of speech, etc., can all set off this deep human fear. If the "xenophobia" [using the term in its most general sense] is nurtured in the family unit, it leads to a strong sense of identity within the individual.  A strong sense of identity may be for good or evil (e.g. adherents to a religious group with a strong sense of community on the one hand, or on the other hand, the creation of an environment in which genocide is possible).

Throughout most of human existence, people lived in extended families or tribes, ranging through large areas and interacting with other more distantly related families.  Only recently (last 10,000 years or so) did humans start to concentrate in cities, and much more recently did we begin to have "national" identities.  Once humans had the technical ability to travel great distances, it became possible to encounter people of different races.  Humans have not had enough (geologic/evolutionary) time to overcome our innate fears when it comes to other cultures and races.

I believe that fear of outsiders is normal, natural, and inborn. You can define "outsider" narrowly or broadly.

I also believe that we should teach our kids not to fear based on simple externals.

For me, I don't care if a person is Mexican, black, Chinese, Canadian, or (insert your favorite here);  what matters to me is that person's character. An individual's character seems very much tied up in their socioeconomic class and their culture of origin.  I have black friends that I am close to, and I attribute the closeness with the fact that they are middle class and well educated. In other words, they talk like me, they sound like me, and when we have a conversation, we have no trouble understanding one another.  Usually, if I meet someone from an unusual country of similar socioeconomic background, I find myself questioning them about culture, history, and current events of where they're from.

Despite my assertion that "I don't care" if a person is of a certain race or origin, there are always triggers that set off my internal sense of fear (I use the term fear, but I could also say "sense of caution" or "wariness").  Sometimes it is an obnoxious demeanor, an accent, sometimes it is a person's skin color, sometimes it is a disturbing outward appearance, like a burn victim or cancer patient missing half their jaw.  

I need to make a mental effort to overcome the initial sense of caution, in order to get past the superficial, to get to know the person.  Because it takes effort, I might not be able to do it if I am tired or very distracted.  

Does this make me a racist or a human being?

I have also crossed paths with men and women of several "races" that I had no interest in knowing after a short encounter. Lots of things turned me off; the people of which I speak were pleased to be on welfare and Medicaid, enjoyed playing the public system to their economic advantage (though still pathetically poor), and didn't care who knew about their scams. We didn't share similar cultural backgrounds, socioeconomic backgrounds, and had very different philosophies of personal responsibility. It just so happens some of the people to whom I refer were black. Some were Hispanic. Fewer were white or Asian--I'm not trying to generalize, that's just been my experience. 

My point is--the difference is primarily cultural and not racial.

I have no idea if I am at all unusual in my approach to other people of different races or religions.

I try to follow classic Judeo-Christian tenents in my approach to people I consider different or foreign to myself: 

I think of the golden rule, and try to treat others the way I want to be treated.
I try to overcome my caution and give the person the benefit of the doubt.

I try not to throw around disparaging terms in public because I know public smears can "kill" a person's income, reputation, or self-esteem. 

As a libertarian, I don't push my culture or religion on anyone not interested. 

(None of the tenents listed above would apply to people who are physically/economically/emotionally encroaching on my person or property--that's when offense is called for--libertarians are not passive.  F*ck with me, you'll get the sharp end of the stick...)

For better or worse, we live in an ethnically and culturally diverse nation, and it behooves us to make the effort to get beyond the superficial, to know, to work with, and to love one's fellow man.  You never know who you might learn from. 

I close with a quote and a link to the League of the South's statement on racism, which I also affirm:

The League of the South has never before issued a statement denying that it is "racist" because racism is a wax nose charge. Those who resort to this charge can never be satisfied. The more we deny it, the more we will be forced to deny it, until at last all that we will have time to do is to repel the latest charge of "racism." However, we make this one statement, to satisfy strangers of good will, that we bear no ill will or hatred to any racial, ethnic, or religious group.

As always, constructively critical comments are welcome.

Quotes of the Day, 3/21, courtesy of George Carlin

I went to a bookstore and asked the saleswoman, "Where's the self-help section?" She said if she told me, it would defeat the purpose.


Not only do I not know what's going on, I wouldn't know what to do about it if I did.
Some people see things that are and ask, Why? 
Some people dream of things that never were and ask, Why not? 
Some people have to go to work and don't have time for all that. 

One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor.  
The very existence of flame-throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done.
"I am" is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that "I do" is the longest sentence?
Facial shackles come gratis with marriage certificate


I think people should be allowed to do anything they want. We haven't tried that for a while. Maybe this time it'll work.