Sayonara Rahm

This week begins one of the biggest transitions for the Obama led White House since they assumed power 20 months ago. We see the worst kept secret in the White House confirmed as Rahm Emanuel officially resigned his position as the Chief of Staff in order to pursue his candidacy for the Chicago Mayoral race. As most of you are aware, I am no fan of Emanuel. He certainly rubbed me the wrong way with his nastiness and absolute hatred for the other party, or for that matter, anyone within his party that didn’t go along with his plans and aspirations. Add to that his now famous “Never let a crisis go to waste” statement (which I personally think was one of the most damning statements ever made by a top level official in terms of revealing to the general public the way that national politicians view their role of governing the people), and you can see why he isn’t on my list of personal favorites. Of course everyone has their own opinion of Rahm Emanuel. What I am going to cover here is why I think that Emanuel leaving the White House is good news for the Obama administration, good news for Americans in general, and then pose a question to the people of Chicago who may now be forced to deal with Emanuel in a position of ultimate power within the city.

There is little question that Rahm Emanuel is simply not a nice guy. The image of him in my head is of the man famous for an election night rant. The year was 1992, and Rahm Emanuel was the chief campaign fund-raiser for Bill Clinton. After Clinton had won, Emanuel was sitting in a restaurant with George Stephanopoulus and other aides. They discussed those who they felt had done them wrong during the course of the campaign. Revenge was the primary subject of the discussion, and a list was created of those who would feel the wrath. Emanuel suddenly shouted out the name of an enemy and stabbed the table with his steak knife, screaming “DEAD” after each name he offered. I wasn’t there that night, but it has been fairly well documented. In my mind it is like a mob boss flipping out after a rival takes out parts of his family. That is how I picture it. Emanuel screaming a name, and then “DEAD”, and then another name, “DEAD”. It is a pretty eerie picture to have of someone who ultimately ended up being the Chief of Staff for the President of the United States.

There are plenty of stories out there of Rahm Emanuel going over the edge, threatening members of the opposition, even threatening members of his own party who were not going along with the plan. Democrats were happy to have Emanuel brought in as the Chief of Staff simply because they knew his reputation for robustly entering into the fray against Republicans. If you will recall, when the appointment was made, I was skeptical. I didn’t like Emanuel, however I recall clearly telling people that Emanuel was the right choice for Chief of Staff if President Elect Obama trusted him. In the end, the President needs to trust and rely on his Chief of Staff. If he felt that Rahm was the guy he could trust, then he made the right choice. Hindsight being 20/20, I am not so sure that he was such a good choice, but I have to admit that I am glad that he was chosen.

The reason that I am glad that he was chosen is because I think that he was a liability to the President. It wasn’t that I specifically wanted the President to fail, although I clearly wanted some of his proposed legislative agenda to fail. But I believed from the beginning that there was a movement afoot in Washington to take full advantage of whatever they could while they had a wave of support and a hatred of the GOP was prevalent. Nothing made me more sure of that than Emanuel’s now famous “Never let a Crisis go to waste” comment. It was a boneheaded thing to let the public hear. It immediately made anyone on the fence about Obama sit up and begin to wonder what was going on. It caused people’s radars to go off, and exposed the administration as perhaps a bit different than the hopey changey crew that they painted themselves to be during the entire campaign.

Which is why I believe that the Obama administration is actually going to reap a benefit from having Rahm leave his position as the Chief of Staff. Emanuel was not liked by the majority of his former peers in the US Congress. It appeared that the only ones who did like him were the extreme far left folks who were as radical as he was. They liked him because he was a strong arm type guy who would work to ram their ultra-progressive agenda through. Outside of them, most of Congress appears to have either feared Emanuel or despised him. Of those whom I have talked to, there was a general feeling that he was bit like a pit bull raised to fight. He did nothing to build relationships or reach compromises with anyone who didn’t share his views. He simply believed the proper course of action was to force what Obama administration wanted down the throats of anyone opposed. It set a bad tone in a town where bad tones are always one press conference away anyway.

You often hear me say that the two parties are one team with two different colored shirts. After experiencing all that I did, I know this to be true most of the time. Two Senators can lambast each other and the opposing party’s positions in dueling press conferences and then go to dinner and laugh together at how folks are buying the show. It is like professional wrestling that way. Two guys beat the dog shit out of each other and then go back stage and share a bottle of liquor. Best of friends in real life, mortal enemies on the stage. What was different with Emanuel was that it wasn’t an act. He genuinely didn’t like the other side. And that made the charade no longer a charade, which meant that nothing was compromised, nothing was coordinated. It became evident when the President himself took every opportunity to lambast the other side. In my opinion, Obama has done so more than any previous President that I can remember. The bluntness and nastiness directed at Republicans and Fox News by this White House is, in my opinion, unprecedented. And that is the influence of Rahm Emanuel.

With Emanuel out of the picture, the White House is losing that negative influence to the political process. It is the elimination of one of the most partisan people in Washington. It is the elimination of a powerful influence that constantly pushed the administration to be nasty, to refuse compromise. It is my opinion that a decent part of what Americans consider arrogance from Obama was influenced, pushed forward, by Rahm Emanuel. He simply set a bad tone in DC. He was a primary force that made DC operate in a negative cycle instead of a positive one. Now that he won’t be there any longer, there is a chance for the White House to move forward in a more practical way, without purposefully alienating anyone who may have the slightest disagreement with the Obama agenda.

I mentioned above that I also think that this is good for the American public. I simply feel that having someone as negative and caustic as Rahm Emanuel removed from the federal government cannot hurt. If Chicago is silly enough to elect him Mayor, at least he can only screw up the lives of Chicagoans. I am happy to have him no longer influencing or shaping things at the federal level.

As for Chicago…. I have to admit that the city is baffling to me. We all know that I have a general disdain for big cities, especially those that are considered the liberal bastions, such as Los Angeles and New York. But Chicago holds a special place in my list of cities I dislike, because I simply cannot understand how it can continue to operate in the way that it does. Chicago, in my personal opinion, is the most corrupt political city in America. New York and LA may be liberal and do some things I oppose, but I don’t tend to view them as corrupt. Chicago, on the other hand, simply oozes corruption.

There is no question that Chicago WAS the most corrupt town in America in terms of politics. New York rivaled it in the past, but Chicago was king. The Chicago political machine is famous for its strong arming, election rigging, and money corrupting ways. Over the last few years, it appears to me that the Chicago political machine is still operating as powerfully as it did in the past. What other city could raise a community organizer to President? We have the Governor taking bribes for just about everything. We have continued stories of corruption and chaos in Chicago. We now have a five person race for Mayor in Chicago in which two of the candidates have faced ethics charges in the past, one of them going through it now (Jackson Jr.). The Daley’s have basically run the city for several generations, and they lived like emperors in that town. Just how powerful must that position be if Rahm Emanuel is willing to give up his seat at the right hand of the President of the United States in order to be Mayor?

So the question I have is what is wrong with the voters in Chicago? I cannot imagine that the people of Chicago are somehow simply different than other cities, that they prefer to have a corrupt political machine running their city. So how does it continue to happen over and over there? Are the citizens simply feeling powerless to stop it so they go along? Are they legitimately not aware of what their city government is? Or are they truly powerless because the machine doesn’t really allow them to eliminate the corruption? What gives, Chicago?

As for Emanuel, don’t let the early polls fool you. He is running 4th right now, but that won’t last long. He will vault to the head of the field in Chicago quickly. He knows how to play the corrupt Chicago political game better than most. And he wouldn’t have taken this step if he wasn’t confident that he can win.

But regardless of what happens in Chicago, America is better off with Rahm Emanuel out of Washington DC. You can believe that.

Sayonara Rahm….. I won’t miss you.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Good Morning 🙂

    Rahm’s telling statement about “never let a crisis go to waste” is as telling a statement anyone in Government ever made. Without crisis, most of the Federal Govt. would not be seen as needed. The Fed’s need constant crisis to legitimize themselves to the people, because without it (crisis’), most of the bloated govt would be obsolete. I’ve often wondered when something becomes a crisis, is it an act of govt to begin with, to legitimize itself to the public? With that said, I’m sure we will see some really good crisis’ or ten over the next two years. Any chance of Obama being reelected would require him to almost become a national hero, because he is a piss poor President.

    Now it’s time to dress warm, put on the camo’s and go forth and chase the illusive whitetail buck. Nature is calling! (pun intended)

    G!

  2. TexasChem says:

    …and all the Kings’ horses and all the Kings’ men, couldn’t put humpty back together again!

  3. TexasChem says:

    John Bolton is considering a Presidential run in 2012…hope he does run.He has to be one of the finest debaters I have ever watched!
    John Bolton = Reaganomics = save America

    Bolton compared Obama to Ethlered the Unready, “the turn-of the-first-millennium Anglo-Saxon king whose reputation for indecisiveness and his unsuccessful paying off of Danegeld … to buy off Viking raiders made him history’s paradigmatic weak leader.”

  4. Could Rahm take his brother Zeke with him please? No wait, take the whole administration with him.

  5. Rahm 2016: America F*** Yeah!

    • Mathius

      Don’t you mean YOU instead of Yeah?

      • Bah hahahaha! Mornin’ JAC. Did those flies do the trick for you?

        • Anita

          The flies, the sun and the stars and moon were absolutely wonderful.

          And much needed I might add.

          Moose and bald eagles were abundant.

          🙂

        • Anita

          This picture is very close to where I spent two days camped on the South Fork of the Snake River.

          Is also close to the view from the Henry’s Fork, where I spent another day.

          Enjoy

          • Beautiful! I’m very jealous! I’m telling you – one of these days I’ll be calling you saying “JAC I’m here, where are you?”

      • Rahm Emanuel says:

        You know what, JAC? F*** you. That’s right, f*** you and the f***ing horse you f***ing rode in on. You motherf***ing pieces of s**t are a total pain in my a**. You and your cr*p and the cr*p of every f***ing a**hole like you is the reason this country is so f***ing f***ed up.

        When I’m President the first god***m thing I’m going to do is have the secret service shoot you the the motherf***ing skull and toss your corpse in the Potomac. Yea? What you think about that f***face? Huh? Cat got you tongue?

        Now, go f*** yourself.

        ————————-
        Paid for by Rahm 2016
        America F*** Yeah!

        I’m Rahm Emanuel and I approved this message.

        • Rahm

          ROTFLMAO…………………

          Little people who think they are so important. Do you look in the mirror to shave or just stare at a picture of Napoleon?

    • Not even you would want that Matt 😛

      • Sure I would.. I’d pay good money to see his first State of the Union…

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        My fellow Americans,

        The State of the Union is all f***ed up. You just had to vote in that s**t for brains b***h Palin in ’12 and she went ahead and f***ed everything up and now you expect me to wave a magic wand and fix everything right this godd**n instant or you’ll blame me for it even though I f***ing told you this would happen if you moose-hunting hick into office. So what are you going to do? You a**holes are going to hand the f***ing Republicans control of congress in the midterms and ensure that I won’t be able to get s**t done, but then you’ll blame me for not getting s**t done while they investigate me for every bulls**t -gate they can come up with in their feeble douchbag a**backward retard brains because that’s what their douchbag a**backward retard red state constituents crave when Wrestle-mania isn’t on TV (yea, I mean you!). “Yea, I know we tied your hands behind your back, but why didn’t you painlessly fix all out problems in your first year?”

        So, yea, The Union is all f***ed up. You want more benefits, but you don’t want taxes. You want a massive military, but you don’t want to pay for it. You want to retire at 55 and receive checks for the rest of your life even if you can still work or if you have money to pay for yourself, but you think it’s socialism if we give money to the poor. You want me to keep jobs in America, but you motherf***ing idiots keep going to Wal-f***ing-mart and wonder what happened to the small business owner, and you also want me to fix the trade deficit at the same time.

        God***n motherf***ing pieces of horse s**t a**hole Americans don’t know their a** from a f***ing hole in the ground and they want me to fix all their d**n problems that they made for themselves and won’t pay the f***ing price. Well you know what? F*** you, America. Man up or shut up, I ain’t your god***n fairy godmother. F*** you.
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        I’m sorry, but I can’t go on.. I’m giggling maniacally at work and that’s just no good.

        • LOL, ok I see your point. Still, I would rather he be a foul-mouthed badass than a corrupt thug. I would rather see someone like Gen. Patton or something. Actually, a debate between him and Gen. Patton would be awesome, and probably only available on cable.

          Pictures of having the king of smackdown be president like in idiocracy come to mind.

          No giggling at work!

  6. Letter One: Blame the previous Administration.

    Letter Two: Reorganize.

    Heh, heh, heh.

  7. “It caused people’s radars to go off, and exposed the administration as perhaps a bit different than the hopey changey crew that they painted themselves to be during the entire campaign.”

    Agree, a President that promised bi-partisan policy, and dropped any hint of that once elected, Rahm may be the true creator of the Tea Party. And you have to give them credit, this is a bold and well thought out move, Obama can now change faces when the Republicans regain enough power to stop him from dictating.

    And Rahm will likely win Chicago, he can deliver more graft than anyone else with Obama’s support. And Obama will be repaid in 2012.

    • Won’t his absence smooth things over? If obama seems ‘nicer’ won’t the sheeple go back to sleep?

      • No, I don’t think they will be going back to sleep soon, post Nov. will be “interesting” times. Obama will be able to blame the Republicans even more than he has so far. Will he use his veto, and reject a Republican budget? Will the Republicans have the guts to allow a government shutdown until they get enough votes to over-ride
        him?

        The Looming Standoff
        By George Scaggs
        Last week, Congress skipped town to head home and hit the campaign trail. It seems they left a bit of unfinished business. Not only did the Democrat-controlled body fail to deal with the Bush tax cuts, which are set to expire on December 31, but in case you didn’t hear, this year, Congress failed to fulfill one of the most fundamental duties it has. They did not pass a budget.

        Actually, they never bothered to create a blueprint for government spending at all. Barely managing to address the issue, the House passed only two of thirteen necessary appropriations bills, and the Senate passed none. This was no small dereliction of duty. In fact, it was a first for the U.S. Congress under the current budget rules, which have been in place since 1974.

        Perhaps we should have expected as much from the 111th Congress. Every time we thought they couldn’t get any worse, they managed to reach another new low.

        http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/the_looming_standoff.html

        Obviously, the stage is set for more mischief to come. Something has to give. A lame-duck Congress will have only until December 3 to continue funding the federal government, and that’s with a generous Thanksgiving break thrown in. A precious few days to deal with appropriately spending such a massive sum is begging for a standoff.

        The mountain of debt in Obama’s budget is bad enough, but the means by which Democrats appear to be planning to implement it is despicable, effectively adding a heap of insult to a ton of injury.

        Essentially, lame-duck Democrats will be in the position to shove a budget down our throats, one that they avoided properly dealing with in an attempt to save their electoral hides and know will be rejected by the newly elected Congress. Thus, they will not be inclined to use another continuing resolution to push the matter into the next session.

        • I agree that there will be plenty of mischief between the election and January. However, never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers. Don’t forget the Ds were elected’…….

          Wet Blanket out…..

          😉

  8. http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/internal?st=print&id=104052668&path=/news/local

    Thoughts, anyone?

    And before anyone calls it government incompetence, let’s look at this: you pay for a services, you receive the benefit, if you don’t, you’re SOL. That’s a private company model. Behold the future if we privatized governmental services.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Absolutely horrendous. However, I don’t doubt that this is precisely what would happen given a privatized model.

      • Buck

        Why is it horrendous?

        Everybody had all the information and understood the agreement going into it. No surprises.

        Even the land owner said he understood. He just thought he could get them to break the contract when push came to shove.

        He gambled and lost.

        I see stupid but I sure don’t see horrendous.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Horrendous in the sense that there is absolutely no reason why the Fire Department wouldn’t/shouldn’t/couldn’t accept full cost reimbursement once offered.

          I’m not saying the government in this instance should have allowed him to break the contract and simply put out the fire. Of course he should have paid. But he was willing to pay and the Fire Department still did nothing.

          In your view of the free market system, could there be a law mandating the private company from acceping full cost reimbursement and putting out the fire? Because there absolutely could (and should) be a law mandating the government run fire department from doing so.

          • So let’s see, my aunt dies, doesn’t have life insurance. I should now be able to go back and pay past premiums to get some coverage?

            Doesn’t work that way Buck.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              That’s not at all what I said. The guy was willing (and ostensibly able) to pay the full cost reimbursement. The issue was not his wanting to pay the $75 and being retroactively covered.

              That would be akin to your aunt having passed, you wanting a $1M policy so you pay the company the $1M policy for them to pay it right back to you.

          • Flooding occurred last week in central WI – didn’t have flood insurance – always meant to get it – now can you pay to have my building recovered if I pay you past premiums?

          • Buck,

            You have this ongoing contradiction….

            free market…making law…

            NO!

            Free market system is economic, not a legal system!

          • Such a law would not be necessary. A for profit or even a non-profit company would accept payment in full of expenses with no problem. These guys seemed to be “making a point”, not in the scenario of a privatized model.

            This example shows a mistake by a citizen and an incompetent management of the fire dept to refuse action when full payment was offered, in addition to fire prevention of a neighbor’s place.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              And that is where we differ — I do not believe a private company would simply accept payment in full. Sure, many would. But many others may not. To make a blanket statement like that ignores changing facts and circumstances.

              I do agree that here it seems the local gov’t was trying to make a point. A law could easily remedy this. Not so with the private company that opts not to provide services in a purely free market system.

              • True, I was running on an assumption, based on the attitude of most businesses. It is certainly not a guarantee. A law, however, is also not a guarantee. If a decision is made to fail at saving a house for whatever reason, a law will not prevent it, and punishments can be gotten around, either by a private or government system. There are no “fixes”.

                Still, a private firm is impacted in the market by failure and poor decisions, and that punishment cannot be escaped, because it is not a legal system, it is public opinion, and therefore, tho it might be able to be manipulated, it remains an unpredictable system and one difficult to rig. A government entity, especially one with a monopoly, does not suffer this consequence at all.

          • Buck

            If the Fire Dept were privatized then there should be NO law governing whether they will or will not accept payment.

            That is up to the Private Fire Dept and those who agree to its service.

            I have absolutely no problem with Privatized Fire Depts or a mix of public and private. This is a service that is distinctly different from say law enforcement.

            In case you didn’t know, in rural areas we have fire protection districts that are separate tax entities. So they do not respond to fires across the district line, unless prior agreements/contracts are in place to guarantee reimbursements.

          • Buck

            I forgot to address your horrendous.

            There is a very good reason not to accept the reimbursement offer. We don’t know from the story if it was a factor, however. It does appear this was more about making a point.

            The reason is that to move engines to a fire can jeopardize coverage of other areas, where folks paid the $75 in advance. Thus taking on new work could impair their ability to meet existing contract promises with others.

            Now as I noted to Matt, I think they should have responded to the neighbor’s place anyway. The guy had paid his fees and the presence of fire next door is a threat to his property. The fire dept should have been there to make sure the fire did not spread to his property.

            • These situations are where I and the no regulation crowd part ways-I don’t know the answers and obviously whether it is private or public, bad stuff can happen. But there are some jobs such as the police department, fire department and the hospital emergency rooms where it is/can be life and death situations and they should be run on more than just free market economic calculations.

              • In theory I prefer the all free market all the time, but in practice I do not disagree V. I tend to like the idea of a mixed model for emergency services, where taxes for emergency services were voluntary, and a person can choose to pay private firms in addition or instead of the tax paid version. Coordinated efforts between the entities would be there. I see no reason for conflict unless there is significant corruption, which would be comparatively rare.

                Law enforcement I see more as an arm of government. Not defense necessarily, as law enforcement is only effective after law is breached. But that is a discussion for another day…

              • V.H.

                Why?

                You believe companies are more than capable of supplying your vital need – food – so well that you pay nearly nothing for it.

                Yet, you believe these same forces that supply your vital needs will not supply your vital needs!

                Bizarre.

              • In short, for me, because Rome was not built in a day.

              • Jon,

                Correct…it took centuries because it was a government project.

              • LOL, a fair point! 😀

              • I know your gonna hate to hear this BF 🙂 but I think the free market has a high probability of offering a better service at a cheaper price-all good things-but I still believe in a little thing called man’s humanity to man or moral obligation or just civilized behavior-pick whichever one offends you less.And yes I know these beliefs open the door that endangers freedom but without it we endanger our humanity-I think we’re smart enough to figure out a way to keep both principals without destroying the other or at least I pray each day that we are.

              • V.H.

                So your argument is:

                We have to use violence on non-violent men to be charitable

                Bizarre.

              • BF-Have you ever considered trying to come up with a plan to show that the free market is capable of solving this problem instead of just saying “violence against a non violent man”. Your real smart and I’m not being sarcastic here-use that brain to come up with a way to be both free and humane.

              • This comes down to basic faith in people. I understand the lack of it at the moment, and I think charity and care for one’s neighbor would have to develop. However, I do believe they would develop. That is why I would support a mixed system in practice for the moment, but the goal would be a total free market, and that is a goal I think is attainable, but I do not think it would be viable overnight.

        • Somehow I knew this would be your response…

        • I’m with you JAC.

    • Mathius

      I would bet they start paying the $75 after they rebuild. I wonder if their insurance will cover the loss when they find out the owners hadn’t paid for fire suppression.

      Nothing wrong here except there was some incompetence with the fire Dept in my view. They should have probably responded to the fire and been prepared to defend the neighbors place when the fire spread, instead of waiting for a call. It was pretty much inevitable it would spread without proper suppression equipment.

      It seems the local govt should allow a waiver when the homeowner agrees to pay 100% of the suppression cost. The local fire dept would have made more than the $75 annual fee. Credit card or certified checks only, of course.

      Now I want to point out once again how you erroneously link actions to dispel the utility of privatized services. This WAS a GOVT service. So the affect was in fact by GOVT. So it is in this case a pay-as-you-go GOVT model, not a private company model.

      I am guessing a private company would have accepted the offer of full cost reimbursement. It would have, of course, included a guaranteed profit.

      There is an old rodeo axiom that fits the situation of the fella who’s house burned.

      You pays yer money, you takes yer chances!

      Or, in this case, you don’t pay yer money and you take yer chances!

      When you gamble, sometimes you lose.

    • Government incompetence…not at all. Citizen incompetence…he knew that the 75 dollars was required for fire protection, and gambled that they would put the fire out anyway…he went all in and drew an empty hand.

    • To me-all this proves is that the government can tax you and then also charge you for services if they please-no competition-nothing. I figure this man figured he paid taxes he shouldn’t have to pay an extra charge-then he thought he could depend on the government or bad press or the goodness of people to save him in an emergency. Bed Decision!!

      I suspect after this the man will pay and the government will come up with a contingency plan that makes sense-this may have been justified by policy but it was stupid !!!!! not to have addressed this type of situation with something better than just letting a house burn down-I also wonder what would have happened if lives had been in danger-they didn’t even come out until another house was in danger.:(

    • Bummer….shoulda’ paid the 75 bucks.

  9. Good riddance Rahm. Hopefully Chicago will keep him out of the Mayor’s office – although he’d be a perfect fit.

  10. Why would a man leave the Office of the President to be a Mayor of a city?

    There is a significance here.

    • Yes, likely the ability to be more corrupt without being noticed, and perhaps have a little extra protection from on high while they are at it.

      Another thing I wonder is about his replacement, how much do we know about him?

    • TexasChem says:

      Perhaps he wants some payback from the various stimulus handouts.
      The odds are highly unlikely Obama will be anything but a one term President.This administration could be about to go into overdrive mode handing out taxpayer funds to strategic “locations”.
      Who knows, it happened when Inspector General Walpin was breathing down the neck of Obamas’ pal, Kevin Johnson, the Democrat Mayor of Sacramento, California.

    • Those who have tasted power become addicted. Perhaps this particular RAT would like to stay on dry ground and senses that this particular ship is sinking!

      Or, he simply knows that he will have more “power” over others by being Mayor. And of course, he will be able to work to deliver much needed votes for his friend in 2012.

    • How many have fled Team Obama? If they see it’s going to get worse, it might be in their best interest to try and distance themselves from him now.

      http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Economist-Mom/2010/0930/Obama-s-economic-team-Triage-completed-it-s-time-for-tougher-choices

    • JAC is close.

      I believe he sees the future. The Federal system is about to collapse.

      Then, local politics will be dominate.

      • Wishful thinking. That thing ain’t going anywhere.

        PS, Flag, I emailed a lecture to USW about the origins of the Fed.. if you have him give me your email, I’ll pass it on to you as well (or he can give it to you directly, whatever). I thought it was pretty interesting and it seemed right up your alley. About 70 minutes long in six 25mb pieces (assuming your email allows such big files – gMail does). I’d be interested in your take.

        • USWep,

          You can pass my email to Mathius.

          Mathius, you mean the conspiracy at Jekyll Island?

          It’s all true.

          • When I first read “The Creature from Jekyll Island” I was suspicious. Further research, however, shows it to be true. Scary stuff eh, BF?

            • Jon,

              Malevolent conspiracies exist.

              • And in a free market, they win.

                Why?

                “Now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.”

              • Mathius,

                No sir!

                This is not a free market.

                They need the power of government violence to enforce their monopoly

                Don’t you dare call this a “free market”!

              • ROTFL-Matthius don’t you dare-BF you aren’t his daddy you know. 🙂 🙂

              • hehehe

              • This isn’t a free market, I was talking about a hypothetical free market somewhere.. evil would win there because good is dumb.

              • Mathius,

                Nonsense.

                Without the power of violence, evil is mute and enfeebled.

              • BF, you act as tho government has a monopoly on violence. They do not. There is a crapload of violence being committed by persons other than government. If I want violence, I need not seek a government official, I can purchase it anywhere.

                Evil, even by your definition, is or includes the initiation of violence. This does not change in a free market. I do not believe good is dumb (altho nice may be dumb, the lie is that good is nice. Nice may be good, but good does not have to be nice). I believe good can be smart, and evil can be dumb, but good is not violent, and puts it at a disadvantage because it does not subscribe to “the best defense is a good offense”, thus it is always on the defensive.

              • Jon,

                Government does have a monopoly on violence.

                Just like Bell had a monopoly on telephones.

                That does not mean it is impossible for you to build and sell a telephone, you just can’t do it legally.

                Same with violence.

                You most certainly can attack innocent people, but you can’t do it legally

            • That’s what the lecture is based on – it’s basically a 70 minute synopsis of the book.

          • Yes, it’s actually titled The Creature from Jekyll Island. You seem to already know the story.

            I think it had a somewhat conspiratorial bent to it and reached a little too far in places, but it was still good. I consider these types of things opposition research.

      • Ah! He’s wants to be the Lord of Chicago!

  11. This is off topic but ran across it this morning and just had to post it-Seems he forgot what was most important.

  12. V.H.
    Your demand is akin to this:

    “Can you come up with a way to plan something that exists without planning”

    You are a God-creator believer (gleaned from previous posts) and as such, you have an incredibly hard time in understanding spontaneous order, that is a system of the Universe that order is created without conscience planning.

    Scientifically, spontaneous order exists because of the existence of gravity in the physical world.

    In the economic world, that is Human Action, spontaneous order is created by the difference between every human beings values. Every human holds value subjectively.

    You value, say – diamonds – whereas I do not.
    I value, say – oil – whereas you do not.

    I trade diamonds that I do not value for oil that I value.
    You trade oil that you do not value for diamonds that you value.

    We both win. We both hold what we valued more after our trade then before our trade.

    This effect creates spontaneous order – the “invisible hand” often quoted from Adam Smith, because we both strive to increase the things we value for ourselves.

    But to get those things we want, we have to produce things other people want.

    Because we cannot force others to accept our goods – we must provide a higher value to the goods we produce than the consumer holds – in other words, we only trade we we get a great deal – that is, we trade a lower value for a higher value.

    So, I must produce something that is higher value to you than what you give to me.

    But! You, ALSO, must provide something that is higher value to ME before I trade with you!

    This effect creates massive economic prosperity for each trade improves both of us.

    • I just don’t know what to say to this-what does it have to do with private business’s coming up with a plan on what to do if an uninsured house in their area catches fire. Even from a business sense they would want to look at possible ways to profit from putting out the fire over turning down business, especially in a situation where they would hold all the cards and would probably be able to make an unusually high profit margin.

      • V.H.

        What does this have to do with a plan for a private business

        You want me to come up with a plan

        But I have no interest in providing fire/police services

        So why should I provide you with such a plan?

        But what I can say is someone will provide the service because such a service has value.

        • V.H.

          I mean, come on!

          People have businesses cleaning up other people’s excrement.

          Do you not then believe people will provide a business of fire protection and police services?

          • She is just asking for a theoretical explanation of how it might work. What would be the motivation, where would be the profit, what would be the upsides and downsides. If you were “hypothetically” interested in a fire and rescue service, what would you do and why.

            Otherwise you are just chanting a mantra and taking free market on faith. Sure, you can present evidence of free markets working, but even that does not explain the “how”. I can show evidence of miracles but that does not include all factors or explain the how or prove there is a God. That is still a matter of faith, and the specifics concerning that God are even more a matter of faith, and perhaps also a matter of religion.

            What you are doing is acting like one whose god is freedom and whose religion is anarchy and you care not to question your faith or explain why you believe it, you just do. It is no more rational than the average theologian’s shpiel.

            • Thank you-much better than my reply-wish I had read it first. 🙂

            • Jon,

              She is just asking for a theoretical explanation of how it might work.

              Already provided above.

              Spontaneous order derived from a desire to increase personal value

              What would be the motivation, where would be the profit, what would be the upsides and downsides.

              Motivation:
              Have more of things a person values

              Upsides:
              Everyone wins

              Downside:
              Some deals are not a deal.

              If you were “hypothetically” interested in a fire and rescue service, what would you do and why.

              I have no idea for I am neither a fireman nor a policeman.

              Would you ask a ditch digger what services he would provide if he was a doctor???

              Otherwise you are just chanting a mantra and taking free market on faith.

              It is NOT based on faith.

              It is based with reason on axiomatic premise.

              Thus, you can attack two and only two things.

              (1)My axiom
              (2)My reasoning

              My axiom for your review (or dispute if necessary):

              Humans act for a purpose

              Sure, you can present evidence of free markets working, but even that does not explain the “how”.

              Nor can you explain “how” the laws of nature came to be either.

              They just “do”.

              I can show evidence of miracles but that does not include all factors

              Thus the problem.

              It is completely impossible to know all factors

              That is the point.

              The system is infinitely complex and defies such knowing.

              • “Humans act for a purpose” Yes in this case the humans purpose was to show everyone that they better pay the stupid $75.00 or we will let your house burn down-possibly let the people inside the house burn up too. Heaven forbid someone messed up the paper work and these people had been covered. Sorry-the someone will figure it out mantra is a little to costly IMO

              • V.H.

                So, because you failed to pay, you believe you have a right to inflict violence on someone to force your point.

              • No, I think there should have been a thought out answer to this obvious problem.

              • V.H.

                There was NO problem.

                The guy didn’t pay and they didn’t come help.

                He knew it in advance and simply gambled that peer pressure would get him what he wanted.

              • There is a problem-even if I could agree that the man gambled and lost his house and all his possessions-this same policy or argument could be used to justify his death or anyone who happened to be in the homes death or injury-that is a real big problem for me. It is a problem that needs a solution-private or public I don’t care but a solution.

              • Already provided above.

                Spontaneous order derived from a desire to increase personal value

                Specifics would be nice, at least specifically applicable theory. General theory on humanity is well and good, but the question is specific, respect it enough to respond with a specific answer.

                I have no idea for I am neither a fireman nor a policeman.

                Would you ask a ditch digger what services he would provide if he was a doctor???

                If I was engaging in socioeconomic theory with such a person, absolutely. Just because a person is not something, does not mean that person cannot have a theory on it. I am an IT engineer, but I theorize on politics and a variety of business concepts, and have even done full business plans for businesses I have thought about getting into. Am I unqualified because I am not already in those businesses? If you cannot imagine how it would work, then you have no real basis for saying that it will, other than a belief that your general theory will apply to all things in a manner that would be accepted by all people. A person questioning the application of your theory is asking for specific application. You are responding with how bad the alternatives are, which DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. It’s just like saying “believe or be damned to hell”.

                It is NOT based on faith.

                It is based with reason on axiomatic premise.

                Thus, you can attack two and only two things.

                (1)My axiom
                (2)My reasoning

                Wrong. I can attack your actions and words. If they are precisely the same as someone basing everything on faith, then I have a basis for my attack.

                My axiom for your review (or dispute if necessary):

                Humans act for a purpose

                Sounds good to me, but that is not your sole axiom. You claim that humans act for a purpose and would do so rationally if only they were free.

                Thus the problem.

                It is completely impossible to know all factors

                That is the point.

                The system is infinitely complex and defies such knowing.

                Yet you know the outcome? I think not. If you understand or can predict the outcome, it is only by applying the theory of the functions of a system. It may not be perfect, but it can at least be a workable version. It must be, in order to have any credibility as a prediction.

              • Jon,

                Yet you know the outcome? I think not.

                Agreed! I cannot, no more than I know the outcome of a poker hand before the last card.

                But I can tell you probability and I can tell you what play best improves the possibility of success

          • Okay, I can accept that you don’t want to spend the time making a business plan-My only point is that these businesses will have to come up with a plan-and if you want to convince people that it is possible to take care of these worries than showing people how it will work instead of just saying it will- Would be a lot more effective. No offense but most people aren’t gonna just take yours or anyone elses word on it. Violence against unviolent people only goes so far.

            • V.H.

              Certainly someone would come up with the plan.

              And how would you test such a plan?

              By offering it to the consuming public at a price.

              If the people buy, its a good plan.

              If the business goes belly up, its a bad plan.

              That is how the market place works.

              • Obviously, I believe that any business would come up with a plan-The question is-Is there a viable plan. The point was-if you want to convince people that there is a viable plan-you need to do more than say it will spontaneously happen.

  13. As Black Flag said, Emanuel’s ship jumping is significant. He knows first hand what is happening and probably what is going to happen. Here’s an article on Flag’s theory that the Feds will tumble:

    If people were generally aware that the breakdown of law and order is already a fact, it would guarantee immediate revolution and chaos. It would reveal many things:

    That government is organized crime.
    That the debauchery and the depreciation of the currency is the means of the greatest transfer of wealth in history from the middle class producers and savers of wealth to the money creators.
    That there is a silent and esoteric war by the money creators on the middle class. The goal is impoverishment so as to quash the greatest potential threat to the fiat system.
    That the government is changing the U.S. demographics with “illegal immigrants.” They make it appear out of control when it is in fact a government agenda. There are many angles here. But simply, an impoverished food stamp class can out-vote the American middle class, making it all appear spontaneous.
    Organized crime must not appear to have “arms and legs” and, above all, organized crime must never appear to be organized.
    That the political class, i.e. “elected representatives,” are paid to rubber stamp the government. Yes, the Federal government pays them, not the individual States. Nothing is left undone to make the political process look and appear to be democratic.
    The U.S. is conducting war with mercenaries (contract soldiers) who fight for money, not causes.
    Governments make mischief with fiat (nonsubstance). This fact alone makes government debt a pretense and a Ponzi scheme.
    “Healthcare” in America has just, and finally, been transferred to the pharmaceuticals and the insurance companies. This is a new and huge wedge driven between the food stamp class and the small business and middle class. This is hidden and subtle class warfare made to appear as a democratic process.
    And there is Wall Street. Here is the script: Wall Street hatched the “subprime” real estate bust. The government and the banks joined in creating a bogus “home buying market.” They knew what the crowd would do. They jumped in. Next followed the real estate crash and the threat of economic collapse and depression. Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson from Goldman Sachs said so.
    The next event was what appeared the natural response of Quantitative Easing (QE). QE is printing money. This was the goal and end game to bail out Wall Street, the big banks, and at the same time dilute main street’s money in history’s greatest ever transfer, accomplished by simple currency depreciation.

    http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/freedom-concerns/the-breakdown-of-law-and-order/?eiid=&rmid=2010_10_04_PLA&rrid=238431067

  14. Jon,

    Evil, even by your definition, is or includes the initiation of violence.

    Correct.

    this does not change in a free market.

    WRONG!

    The free market exists on a premise of voluntary action, free from coercion and violence

    If violence is used, it is no longer the free market, but something else.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      So you see, in the free market there can be no evil.

      Its stunts like this that turn me (and it seems others here as well) off to the pure free market nonsense. The free market is beautiful; everything works perfectly in the free market; there can be no violence in the free market…of course, if there is any violence imposed by any party, well that’s just not the free market! A bit too convenient for my taste.

      Come on BF – you’ve been asked millions of times to defend your view of a free market. You have consistently failed to do so, at least in my opinion. Step up to the plate – define your free market, explain how it operates, explain what happens in the event of ‘violence’ imposed by a free market actor, explain what an individual’s remedies are for breach of contract, etc. I’d honestly really like to know.

      • Buck

        So you see, in the free market there can be no evil.

        Correct, by definition

        Its stunts like this that turn me (and it seems others here as well) off to the pure free market nonsense.

        It is the mental laziness that turns me off of people who cannot read.

        I say “This is white”.

        You say, “But what happens if I add black?”

        I say “Then, it is not white”.

        You say “See! that is why I hate white – it simply can’t deal with black!”

        I say, “No, it just means its not white any more, so the things you say about white cannot apply, because it is no longer white

        You say: “See, that is what I mean. You claim white is white, but when I add black you claim it isn’t white anymore! I say we are still talking about white after I add black!”

        • Buck,

          So to help you understand more.

          I say “White reflects X% of light”.

          You say, “I add black. If white is so good, it will still reflect X% of light even though I’ve added black.”

          I say, “No, because it is not white anymore. It cannot reflect X% of light, but some amount less depending on the amount of black you’ve added?

          You say “See! White is a failure! More black is needed because white simply does not work anymore!”

          I say, “No. If the goal is to reflect X% of light, the white is the optimum color. Any adding of black will degrade the reflective ability

          You say, “You speak mush, BF…”

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Sigh.

            Once again, long on words yet short on answers.

            As Jon Smith argues – no matter your definition, any system will have some violence or evil per your definition. This includes the free market. So how does the free market deal with such violence and evil?

            If the free market can only exist with the absolute absence of any violence or evil, then there can never be a free market.

            • Buck,

              Sigh.

              Once again, long on words yet short on answers.

              You want answers to how black works by asking me how white works.

              And you wonder why you’re so confused.

              As Jon Smith argues – no matter your definition, any system will have some violence or evil per your definition.

              No, by definition a “free” market has no violence. It is a system that has no violence.

              This includes the free market.

              Hence the problem:

              You are a walking contradiction.

              Buck says “No matter the definition of white, it must have black”

              BF says “Ah, no. White is not black. White is white”

              Buck says: “Impossible. All white is must have black therefore white cannot exist by definition”.

              BF: *blink* and recalls “Never argue with an insane man”

              So how does the free market deal with such violence and evil?

              How does white deal with black?

              If the free market can only exist with the absolute absence of any violence or evil, then there can never be a free market.

              Now that may be true.

              So as I posted above, this is what we now do:

              – I know white has X% reflection.

              – This is the optimum.

              – Any addition of black will degrade the reflection from this optimum

              – Adding more black will increase this degrading until it no longer reflects.

              THEREFORE, if the GOAL is to maximize reflection, ADDING BLACK is a contradiction to this goal.

          • BF,
            black exists.

            You say that if black was removed and all was white, that it would be ideal. I do not disagree.

            You say that we should seek to minimize black in order to keep the highest percentage of white. I do not disagree.

            You say that any form of black is bad, thus no purposeful use of black makes sense as it will dilute the white. We disagree.

            If I have a black that I can put in a measured quantity that will neutralize other black pigments, then I say that is preferable. If that enzyme laden pigment is more dangerous, I still say it may be better, but it must be carefully watched and kept from replicating, but it still beats uncontrolled black of all types.

            Does that make sense?

            • This doesn’t qualify as a “colorful” conversation! 😀

              • Help me with my memory -is this an example of an allegory.

              • While your definition would be correct, I would define the conversation as “black and white” rather than “colorful”. However, the participants cannot help but changing things to a gray color in an effort to make a less than colorful point.

                But, it’s all good, as the weather inhibits my desire to hunt. As we like to say in these parts when it rains hard,, “it’s raining little Democrats and the pitchforks to stick’em with”! 🙂

              • HeHeHe 🙂

            • Jon,

              BF,
              black exists.

              Granted.

              You say that if black was removed and all was white, that it would be ideal. I do not disagree.

              That is NOT the start of the argument

              The start always begins with
              What do you want?

              If you want black, then white is not ideal.

              But if you want a high reflective color, then white is ideal

              Therefore, if in seeking your goal, you continue to add black I say “Fool!” because you are moving away from your goal.

              If you further argue back that – No, black is working better – then I know you have something seriously wrong – either you are insane OR your stated goal was a lie.

              • Jon,

                So, when people here argue “Here is a better economic outcome with government” I know something is seriously wrong with them.

                They may be ignorant.
                They may be using fallacies to justify government force on others.

                But something is seriously wrong for their action (government) is contradicting their goal (better economy).

              • BF

                That would depend on how they define “better economic outcome”.

                Socialism produces an economic outcome. Those who think it best would claim it is “better” than the outcome of a “free market”.

              • JAC,

                I agree – they must define this “better economic outcome”.

                As you would note, I ask this question too – based on prosperity.

                If they say economic outcome for them, I offer that they will apply the cost of their choices upon their children.

                If they agree that this is contrary to their measure of an economic outcome, I point out their contradiction.

                If they (shrug), I (shrug) too, and close the economic discussion and move to rhetoric regarding morals.

                Is it moral to inflict economic cost upon your children.

                Then I see where they go from there.

              • JAC,

                Further, we would move to a measurement such as wealth creation, to determine better or worse economics

              • Ok,

                Like you, I WANT white. I want it because it is the best color for reflecting.

                Like you, I know that because black exists, the white will be contaminated.

                Unlike you, I believe that a controlled form of black that combats other forms of black will do more to maintain the maximum shade/percentage of white than just hoping that it will be minimal or that the white itself will resist black pigmentation.

              • Jon,

                I believe that those who run around and flick random pieces of black into the area influence white a whole lot less than those who purposely and centralized with a load of black paint and brushes.

              • Then we at least have a clear understanding of the argument. I am not entirely convinced you are wrong in the long run, although I am quite certain that the current culture, if faced with sudden removal of government, would dump a lot more black paint in than the government has, or bring a much larger centralized pile of paint and brushes to be poured in, largely due to the fact that most people do not even understand the benefits of reflective color and why we want it, much less why white is more reflective than anything else.

              • Jon,

                Which is why I suggest an orderly and consistent retraction of government out of human life instead of the collapse scenario.

                Unfortunately, I cannot see anything but the collapse scenario happening due to the Public Choice Doctrine which states no one segment of a population will purposely allow themselves to suffer for the gain of another segment of society.

                Thus, no possible way to retract government except by collapse.

              • At this point, I too believe the orderly retraction to be a long shot, but I strive for it anyway. I would rather bet on the long shot than resign myself to the lesser option. If I had different resources/circumstances, I might think differently…

              • Jon,

                All the theory and circumstance I have reviewed over the last few years leads me to say:

                Impossible

              • Perhaps, and I certainly respect your position and reasoning, but it would not be the first time I have heard such a statement and proven it wrong. In your occupation, in fact, I imagine you have experienced similar triumphs.

      • Buck

        you’ve been asked millions of times to defend your view of a free market

        I have responded a millions times.

        The optium economic system for humans is voluntary (free from violence) TRADE

        Which words confuses you, Buck?

    • Ok, so as soon as someone introduces violence to a system, it is no longer free, or a free market. So how does the free market preserve itself? It seems awfully fragile by your definition. Many who propose that government need exist to preserve the free market are saying that because they hold a similar view of the fragility of freedom and the free market. You do not think it is fragile, yet your definition of it clearly shows that it is.

      Violence would exist in a free world, just as it does now. Based on your definition of monopoly, there would not longer be a government monopoly of it, as there would be no legal violence at all. However, this does not do jack squat to curb the amount of violence. Removing government violence does not remove violence. Removing legal application or initiation of violence does not remove violence. So the only thing to stop violence is powerful defensive action. This can take the form of shunning for some things, but shunning does not stop a thief. For that you need a violent defense, some use of force is necessary to stop violence. Thus, some “violence” or force is legal, as defense is legal. Government, if operated correctly, would be utilizing violence and force only in a defensive manner, as such, it would be identical to the legal violence you prescribe to, and therefore not evil nor a monopoly, as private defensive action would also be available.

      I have explained how I would set up a government without initiation of violence, if you want more detail, I will explain it again. I have not seen an explanation from you anywhere near functional, it is all a little too much non-applied theory and railing against alternates to your system. Negative campaigns work on some people, but not here. How about some positive campaigning for anarchy, rather than pointing out the flaws in all of the alternatives?

      • Jon,

        Ok, so as soon as someone introduces violence to a system, it is no longer free, or a free market.

        Bingo!

        ….because the trade is no longer voluntary

        So how does the free market preserve itself?

        Economic Law:
        Humans avoid coercion and violent actors

        It seems awfully fragile by your definition.

        It is extremely robust for it is self-correcting.

        When you introduce violence into a free market, the free market stops and withdraws its goods and services.

        The economy of violence begins to degrade and stumble until collapse.

        It a collapse, the violent actors disperse.

        As the violence decreases, the free market responds by providing more goods and services, re-establishing the economy.

        Many who propose that government need exist to preserve the free market are saying that because they hold a similar view of the fragility of freedom and the free market. You do not think it is fragile, yet your definition of it clearly shows that it is.

        They are ripe with contradictions, which is why their plan fails badly.

        You cannot provide a system of non-violence by increasing the amount of violence in that system.

        Violence would exist in a free world, just as it does now.

        True.

        However, this does not do jack squat to curb the amount of violence.

        You have crossed a philosophical line.

        You have now left economics and moved into politics.

        Removing government violence does not remove violence.

        Of course it does.

        Less of something must be caused by a removal of something.

        I believe you intended to say “Ending government would not eliminate all violence” – and that statement would be true.

        Removing legal application or initiation of violence does not remove violence.

        …remove all violence

        Nope, but it does remove the legitimacy of initiation of violence – that is, it is no longer accepted as a Right.

        So the only thing to stop violence is powerful defensive action. This can take the form of shunning for some things, but shunning does not stop a thief. For that you need a violent defense, some use of force is necessary to stop violence. Thus, some “violence” or force is legal, as defense is legal. Government, if operated correctly, would be utilizing violence and force only in a defensive manner, as such, it would be identical to the legal violence you prescribe to, and therefore not evil nor a monopoly, as private defensive action would also be available.

        I have explained how I would set up a government without initiation of violence, if you want more detail, I will explain it again. I have not seen an explanation from you anywhere near functional, it is all a little too much non-applied theory and railing against alternates to your system. Negative campaigns work on some people, but not here. How about some positive campaigning for anarchy, rather than pointing out the flaws in all of the alternatives?

        • Whoops, hit reply too soon.

          Please note here, Jon, we are no longer in economics

          We are talking about Rights, Legitimacy, etc. and not one thing about trade

          So the only thing to stop violence is powerful defensive action.

          Perhaps.

          Avoidance works too.

          Government, if operated correctly, would be utilizing violence and force only in a defensive manner, as such, it would be identical to the legal violence you prescribe to, and therefore not evil nor a monopoly, as private defensive action would also be available.

          But this causes a question:
          A government holds exclusive authority over a geographical area – that is, a monopoly on violence.

          Thus, for your government to maintain its monopoly on “defensive violence” – it must also prevent competition to its authority and thus must attack non-violent people who wish to create a competitive government.

          Therefore, all government must initiate violence on non-violent people to enforce its monopoly on a geography to prevent government competition – and thus, the roots of evil remain unchanged.

        • TexasChem says:

          BlackFlag Stated:”Nope, but it does remove the legitimacy of initiation of violence – that is, it is no longer accepted as a Right.”

          TC:I feel as if it would lend more credence to the legitimacy of violence if you remove the cohesive government of a nation (see Somalia,Pakistan,Afghanistan,etc..) for the simple reason that privatized police forces and military type organizations would flourish in todays world without a cohesive government.With so many different idealogical and religious aspects throughout the nations of this world; how could that not be the case? ? ?

          • Tex

            I feel as if it would lend more credence to the legitimacy of violence if you remove the cohesive government of a nation (see Somalia,Pakistan,Afghanistan,etc..)

            Not true.

            Legitimacy is gone.
            Violence may indeed increase.

            The theory of violence says:
            At the decrease of centralized violence creates an increase in localized violence.

            We exchange the massive concentrated central violence for the diffuse, unconcentrated and decentralized local violence

            As one political scientists says:
            You will pay the man with the bigger gun

        • Economics and politics are not completely separable, if they were, they would not have so much affect on each other. So, I have crossed the line from economics? Good, I am talking about a lot more than just economics. If the only concern you have for all aspects of society is economics, then that would explain your lack of clear explanation of the workings of society sans-government.

          • Jon

            The connection point is above their descriptions.

            Man needs to act to live

            This is the connection point between politics and economics.

            He can earn or trade – this is the economic way

            He can steal – this is the political way.

            A man can do some of one and some of the other – but this is NOT a joining.

            My concern of economics is that economics is central to civilization and human development.

            I am also very argumentative regarding politics – the use (or prevention) of theft and violence as a tool.

            I try not to confuse the two things.

  15. Since the topic seems to have drifted down a side channel, let me offer this from one of my distant cousins.

    There are only two choices available.

    Government or No Government.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/bylund1.html

    • JAC,

      No matter what scheme is used to make government less powerful compared to the voting public, the guns of government cannot be stopped from growing and apprehending roles it was not intended for.

      The most important reason for this is in the very nature of government: it is an organization based upon the use of force and with the sole purpose to use that force.

    • So, have you crossed the valley yet, JAC?

      • BF

        NO!

        Just trying to help clear up the water so we can clearly see and understand the choices we make.

        And the choices we must make.

        I do agree that these are the two basic choices, however.

        When you accept Govt you accept a tremendous responsibility and amount of work. You are in fact agreeing to engage in a life long struggle to balance good and bad, in hopes that good will prevail. This my friend is what I believe Tom meant when he said it required diligence of the citizens.

        As I have said before, humanity is not ready to cross the valley and so I will do my best to help us prepare for that possibility. I know I will not live long enough to see it happen but I get some pleasure out of knowing you and your kin are there waiting for the rest of us.

        Of course, if you village happens to be located within the Rocky Mtns I might be enticed to move sooner. LOL.

        • JAC,

          But he concluded:

          the guns of government cannot be stopped from growing and apprehending roles it was not intended for.

          So, it did not matter how “diligent”. As I’ve said before, you cannot bury evil in paperwork. It will fill in all the required blanks, submit all the necessary forms, complete all the tasks and then claim legitimacy of your enslavement.

          • BF

            I do not think that it cannot be retarded. The question is whether the citizens have the memory and staying power to keep it in check.

            It will seek to grow and if the people do not want it to grow they can shrink it or eliminate it, IF they construct the cage properly.

            I use our own history to support my claim. Without our inadequate Constitution and our Flimsy Bill of Rights what do you think our Government would look like today?

            I submit that it would be even worse. That we would have run hell bent into the furnace of Communism in the early 20th century. It was only the bars on the cage and the cultural memory of a promise of freedom that stopped the complete conversion.

            I never said it would be perfectly contained. Every horse gets out of the barn once in awhile. The task is to catch him and put him back in the barn.

            This is why the left has been waging war in the area of academia for so long. You must destroy the concrete that holds the bars in order to destroy the cage. WE are the concrete.

            And I think we are on the verge of fracturing. I am not sure that there are enough left to keep the remaining bars in place, let alone rebuild the cage.

            I do not intend to bury the beast in paper work. I intend to expose it for what it is so that all can see how ugly it is in the full daylight. Then perhaps they will revolt and help ensnare it once again.

            And yes, it will then again try to break loose. And on and on it will go, until one day the people say enough. We are now ready. We are no longer going to authorize Govt and will now rely on our own honor.

  16. TexasChem says:

    Assuming the abandonment of governments control of social services and military.How would you limit the powers of any organized and privatized military, police force, fire brigade etc…? How could you keep monopolies in monetary systems and markets from happening?

    I am not being condescending I am asking for legitimate answers/ideas gents!

    • TexasChem says:

      OOps… this was sposed’ to be in reply to JaCs’ above post!

    • Tex

      Explain how monopolies exist in the first place without government

      • TexasChem says:

        Corporations could run amok.The more money they make the more power and resources (privatized military organizations for hire) at their disposal.

      • TexasChem says:

        If I had the manpower to enforce control of the creeks in my area I could run a monopoly on the water supply to the ranchers in my area.
        If I had control of the wells in the cities I could run a monopoly on the water supply to a major city and not let anyone drill their own wells…oh wait they already do that…

        • Tex

          Exactly!

          You need to use violence to prohibit others from competing with you – and legitimate violence of government via patents, copyrights, licensing, etc. establishes those monopolies.

          But monopolies cannot exist in a free market.

    • Tex

      Lets take one at a time. In reality, without the Govt power of taxation who would or could support a real “military”?

      You might be able to hire enough folks to control a small area but even the largest corporation could not support an army large enough to control a large land area. And if they tried, who is going to continue supporting such Corporation financially?

      Now, let me be very clear. I am not proposing NO govt at all. Never have. I personally think that National Defense and the military to carry out that defense is a legitimate Govt role. Because we do not need to have “competing” military organizations trying to defend us against a more centralized and complex military. Which is what would happen if we did not maintain the centralized financing of our military. We also don’t want to relive the era of privatized military helping some Company impose its will upon a group of our citizens.

      I see virtually no role for police at the Federal level. Some role but virtually none. Primarily that of policing State officials to prevent violation of our rights.

      Police and fire brigades/depts are primarily a local issue, with some state level.

      Money could be a free market item much as BF has suggested. People would gravitate to that which they believe holds value. Personally I would like to maintain a Federal currency to streamline trade and make payments of taxes/user fees uniform. I happen to think that a single Fiat currency can be used in a manner that maintains a stable value. That means a slight growth in supply to reflect changes in population.

      • I wonder what would happen if all this came true:

        Chief Justice John Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court.
        According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government,
        a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.
        Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues.
        Critics have complained that much, if not all of Obama’s major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government.
        Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.
        The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, ‘That’s not true,’when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court’s ruling.
        As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.
        Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and so on.
        And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until ‘Obama is gone.’
        Apparently, the Court has had enough.
        The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven.
        A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration.
        Such a thing would be long overdue.
        First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something.
        And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim.
        The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.
        In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can ‘opt out.’
        Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama’s history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President.
        The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii.
        And that is only the tip of the iceberg.
        Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not Obama himself, in hot water with the Court.
        Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years.
        Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.
        In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ suing the state of Arizona.
        That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.
        And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party.
        The group was caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasianvoters into staying away from the polls.
        A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.
        This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling–that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

        Things that make one go HMMM 🙂

        • Let’s get ready to rumbllllllllllle!

        • TexasChem says:

          Lets just hope that nothing happens to any of the conservative Justices before any of these issues become resolved.I am a bit worried about that considering how crooked this administration truely is with their thuggy Chicago politics!He could appoint another Liberal to neuter the court.Don’t forget what happened to the man who supposedly had information regarding Obamas passports.He ended up with a bullet in his head in front of a church!

          • Too be honest, I expected that sort of thing to happen as soon as the czars got settled in……this email will come to people’s minds should the conservative justices start having ‘accidents’ and deaths….

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Came across a very interesting article today about how the Roberts Court has moved the court (and therefore the law) pretty far to the right these past few years:

          http://www.slate.com/id/2269715/

          • Hi Buck!

            Read the article that you linked, yet I saw nothing in it that supported the case of “moving to the right”. If anything, with the cases discussed, it was decisions that most right wingers would not agree with. The abortion issue is not a conservative issue, it is an issue for the super left whackballs who want to control the population of earth (Hillary Clinton for example).

            As far as Miranda, I want it enforced completely. The police should always have to inform a citizen of his/her rights before questioning.

            Not sure how all this heads to the right, but will say the decisions on gun control made me jump for joy! Why not use that as an example?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Look at right/left in the GOP/Dem sense — the court has clearly moved to the right on many of these issues over the past few years.

              You see abortion as a ‘issue for the super left whackballs who want to control the population of earth’ — I would argue abortion is an issue for the super right whackballs who want to control people’s private actions. But that’s besides the point – the decision in that case definitely moved the court/law more to the GOP-side of the equation.

              As for Miranda – the decision was widely supported by many on the GOP side and widely criticized by many Dems as an erosion of the legal protections afforded to suspects.

              • Thanks Buck 🙂

                I hope this makes my disdain for BOTH political parties evident. I would like to see what happens IF Obama’s garbage gets crushed by the court though, I think it would be a slap in the face of our entire political situation, not just the squashing of the Progressive Dems and their socialist BS. The GOP is far from innocent, and the favor would be returned in time, keeping our useless government at bay for awhile.

                Peace!

  17. TexasChem says:

    BlackFlag Stated:”It is extremely robust for it is self-correcting.

    When you introduce violence into a free market, the free market stops and withdraws its goods and services.

    The economy of violence begins to degrade and stumble until collapse.

    In a collapse, the violent actors disperse.

    As the violence decreases, the free market responds by providing more goods and services, re-establishing the economy.”

    TC: This is a pipe-dream BF.It is not even plausible in todays world.

    • TexasChem says:

      Not plausible without the legitimized use of violence as a deterrent that is!

      • TexasChem says:

        Iron man could prolly pull it off though…peace through superior firepower and all…

      • TexasChem says:

        “It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press.
        It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech.
        It is the soldier, not the organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
        It is the soldier, Who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag,
        And whose coffin is draped by the flag, Who allows the protestor to burn the flag.”

        – Father Dennis Edward O’Brian, USMC

        Si vis pacem, para bellum!

        • Tex

          Exactly WHO have our soldiers saved us from?

          Who has posed any real threat to eliminate our liberty or any of our freedoms since the end of WWII?

          It seems to me that the greatest assault on our liberty has come from our own Govt, and I surely don’t see our soldiers acting to defeat that particular oppressor.

          I respect those in uniform as much or more than anyone. But I am tired of these “patriotic” platitudes that do nothing but help hide the truth and help foster “rationalization” for the next military venture propagated by some ineffective politician in search of a “diversion” or “legacy”.

          Those who have served this country have done so with HONOR. They deserve no less from the rest of us, but they have yet to get it, in my most humble opinion. We will HONOR them when we stop sending them to die for Bull Shit causes, such as spreading democracy, instead of truly defending our freedom against invaders.

          • TexasChem says:

            JaC Stated:”It seems to me that the greatest assault on our liberty has come from our own Govt…”

            Well Jac,

            Our own government didn’t kill 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11th.

            I’d like to think that our soldiers dieing in Iraq and Pakistan/Afghanistan are bringing the war to the terrorist organizations that would like to bomb the shit out of you and I since were part of the satanic western culture!

            Eliminate them before they do any more harm.
            What is wrong with spreading Democracy?You mean you don’t agree with Manifest Destiny? 🙂

            • TexasChem says:

              *GASP*

            • HI TC!

              TC said: Our own government didn’t kill 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11th.

              UMMM: There are many who believe that the government had everything to do with this event, but that’s for another day. 😛

              TC said: I’d like to think that our soldiers dieing in Iraq and Pakistan/Afghanistan are bringing the war to the terrorist organizations that would like to bomb the shit out of you and I since were part of the satanic western culture!

              Or they could have aided in recruiting more and more terrorists, not to mention decimating generations of innocent Iraqi’s with the use of DU weapons. (I blame government, not our troops)

              How’s your day good Sir?

              • A toast to our fine Marines!

                Last Tuesday President Obama got off the helicopter in front of
                The White House – carrying a baby piglet under each arm.
                The squared-away Marine guard snapped to attention, saluted and said:

                “Nice pigs, sir.” The President replied: “These are not pigs.These are
                authentic Arkansas Razorback Hogs. I got one for Secretary of State
                Hillary Clinton, and I got one for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.”

                The squared-away Marine again snapped to attention, salutes and said,
                “Excellent trade, sir.”

      • Tex,

        Those who believe violence is a solution to non-violent problems will most assuredly suffer their own belief.

        • TexasChem says:

          BlackFlag Stated:”Those who believe violence is a solution to non-violent problems will most assuredly suffer their own belief.”

          TC:I believe the ThReAt of violence to be a solution in the majority of most cases.

          You would never find me at a gun fight with only a knife!

          Being prepared by using military might as a deterrence is wrong in what way BF?

          A strong military allows for a nation to live according to their belief system without fear of an encroaching negative belief system being forced upon them by invaders.

    • TC,

      It is precisely how it works right now which is why there are economic problems.

      Do you not see companies leaving the US?

      Do you not see business closing?

      Do you not read about the rich abandoning their citizenship?

  18. Bottom Line says:

    TC – “Our own government didn’t kill 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11th.”

    BL – 3 – 2 – 1 (snaps fingers) Wake up – wake up.

  19. Bottom Line says:

    “Rahm Emanuel officially resigned his position as the Chief of Staff in order to pursue his candidacy for the Chicago Mayoral race”

    …is…

    A turd resigns from working for turds and supervising turds, to go run for office to be a turd somewhere else and work with and supervise a bunch of other turds.

%d bloggers like this: