❝❝Within our borders, absolutely we should have Truth, Justice, and the American way.

Outside, no. We should be an inspiration, not a hegemony.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ 9-11 ∙ inspire ∙ require ∙ meddle ∙ United Fruit Company ∙ Hawaii ∙ Iran ∙ military intervention ∙ taxpayer funds ∙ Muslim ∙ 20th Century ∙ America ∙ honor ∙ Character ∙ hegemony ∙ reputation ∙ Truth Justice American Way ∙ Barack Obama ∙ Donald Trump ∙ alphabet agencies ∙ conservatives ∙ goverment ∙ culture ∙ liberals ∙ Obamacare ∙ passion ∙ Isaac Asimov ∙ Roy Moore

❝❝Again, the "problem" isn't who ever is occupying the office. The problem is that we give government power to abuse and then act surprised when the alphabet agencies take it "too far."❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ goverment ∙ power ∙ alphabet agencies

❝❝There is an assumption underlying American politics and to a certain extent our discussions here. In order for you to win, in order for you to benefit, someone else if not everyone else must lose. Some call it dualism, some call it either/or, and some call it IS or IS NOT. It's The Law of the Excluded Middle (more or less) and it's usually a false premise.

Something doesn't have to be black OR white. Sometimes it can be sour. Or fuzzy. Or octagonal. By accepting two and only two qualifying conditions, you eliminate all other possibilities, even if those other possibilities may serve your needs better.

For example, Sarah Waggoner is very much caught up in dualism. Any criticism of Democrats means she must attack Trump or Republicans in general. The idea that someone can be critical of Democrats without being a Republican is outside her expectations and almost outside her world view.

Meanwhile, from my perspective the problem isn't Democrats or Republicans. Accepting either premise ignores the obvious (to me), that too much government is the core problem. As long as the discussion is about either Party Red or Party Blue, we don't talk about an ever expanding technocracy that consumes more and more even as it restricts freedom. You can't talk about the dangers of government until you stop talking about the misdeeds of whichever party. Dealing only with Republicans or Democrats means you never look too closely at the system.

By design

---

Still, your first reaction to any criticism of Democrats is to attack Trump or Republicans.

You've never seen me "discuss" things like religion, sex, or crony capitalism with Republicans. Not to mention the occasional person who insists that their morality must displace all other choices.

My default is KYFHO. Keep Your F…ing Hands Off!

The fact is (and one of your major issues) that I assume that most people are perfectly capable of making their own choices. I don't think that government should be involved in most things. I don't think that government is first, best, and last solution. I do not trust in the wisdom of government.

Outside of sex and top-down morality, yes, that matches the mainstream "Republican" position. More accurately, the mainstream "Republican" position matches some of the classic liberal position. And yes, there is a vast difference between modern liberals and classic liberals. As I've said, my opinions on religion, sex and top-down morality (and what is dooming our culture) put me outside the Republican mainstream and squarely in with what might be called Democrat positions. Again, more accurately the Democrat positions match some of classic liberal position positions. And since classic liberals had those positions first, well, the Republicans and Democrats stole from their betters.

I could give you a hundred and thirteen things that Trump has done wrong. But I don't see Trump as significantly worse (or better) than his predecessors. At the end of the day (or term), we still have an ever expanding government that is destroying liberty. I don't think we should have a country whose liberty depends on the whims of those "in charge" this week.

Meanwhile Republicans and Democrats both want to expand government, only with their people in charge. The goal is not the government. The goal is not the system. The goal is liberty. Everything else is extra.❞❞

Tags: philosophy ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ dualism ∙ Donald Trump ∙ goverment ∙ system

❝❝The economic choices allowed by government to most American citizens are meant to control them, not to free them.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ goverment ∙ choice ∙ control

It always bothers people when I answer the implied question and not what they actually said.

Tags: maxims ∙ goverment ∙ corruption

❝❝Beer, cheese, and bread.

These things were discovered hundreds, perhaps thousands of years ago. We don't know exactly when. What we do know is that chemistry and science in general originated because someone wanted to make beer, cheese, and bread better.

Money, measurement and accounting in general started because someone tried to figure out how many goats their grain harvest was worth.

That doesn't even count fundamentals like fire or the wheel which are still basics of our science and technology today.

Science and technology use what works. When we find something that works better, we modify our science and technology.

And yes, economics in it's pure form is a science. The problem comes when we try to use economics to do things that it can't do well. Most of this is directly traceable to government interference in the exchange.

Economics describes the flow of value. We know how value moves as long as it isn't diverted. Rather than top-down "managing the system" and diverting (and diminishing value), I'd rather see new ideas in products and services. I'd rather see incremental improvements in technology than a clumsy effort to shift money by government edict. I'd rather see lower prices than tariffs protecting the "balance of payments."

---

No, the correct phrase is that when we find something that works better, we modify our science and technology. Sometimes it's an improvement, sometimes it is a dead end. Modify is appropriate, not improvement.

Your point is wrong. The poor are getting richer, in cash, opportunities, and in available goods (at a lower cost). Cell phones are dirt cheap. Grocery stores have a better selection and sell for lower relative prices.

There is a disparity between the rate of wealth growth of the rich and poor, but the majority of people are better off. But since that doesn't cost the poor, that's hardly a problem.

Are there problems with unemployment and low paying jobs? Yes, but it's not government's job to fix that. We know that when government tries to set prices or wages, things get worse.

You want specifics, then I will give you specifics. Cut taxes so that the combined (Federal, state, local) tax on anything is no more than ten percent. Do away with the income tax and it's reporting requirements. Prevent government from spending more than it takes in, possibly by punishing the legislators. I can give you hundreds more, but all of it is unimportant until taxes get cut way back AND government spends within it's means and no more.

If I say things that are correct and they don't fit your "mental image of the world," maybe that image isn't all that clear.

---

For American history, I usually work from about 1750 CE on. For Western civilization in general, I usually work from the age of Charlemagne or the Roman republic

Now, what you are talking about is the 20th Century. That just happens to be the century of American central banking, command economy, war as an industry, active intervention in the internal affairs of other nations, massive corporations mostly unbound by local laws, and the birth of "globalism." I put "globalism" in quotes because our "elites" don't mean opening up the world to trade and cultural exchange, they mean control. Specifically deciding what is and is not allowed under what circumstances.

I group these things together because they are closely and intimately related. These are also things that you are not supposed to pay attention to, indeed most of the media constantly tries to distract people from these things. It's just taken for granted that government is supposed to handle those things and we mere citizens aren't supposed to worry.

We're conditioned from birth to accept that government is the first, last, and best solution.

Plot the events and trend lines for yourself. Increase any of these six items and the impact falls mostly on the middle class and then the poor. These changes don't affect the rich as much as those trying to become rich. Changing your financial circumstances becomes harder. Indeed, a society that puts those six factors first "locks out changes," it resists any disruption from within the system. Usually the only change that can happen starts externally. For the elites, this is not a flaw, this is deliberate design.

So when I say that government is not your friend and when the solution to almost all widespread economic problems is to get government out of the picture, it's because I know what it has done.

The truly scary part is "helping the little guy" relies on more government intervention and control. Even though that is what hurt the them to begin with. Let's fix government… with more government!

The problem for the elites is that the economy can't be controlled, not even mostly. Remember when I said that economics was about the flow of value? It's like piping water in a swamp. Yes, you can clean it up the water and direct it where you want, but there is still a lot of water flowing around. The more water, the more it seeps and looks for lower ground. You can only" fix" that by draining all the water and taking away what used to be widely available.

Now let's change that phrasing that a bit.

Yes, you can clean it up the value and direct it where you want, but there is still a lot of value flowing around. The more value, the more it seeps and looks for lower ground. You can only" fix" that by draining all the value and taking away what used to be widely available.

That's a whole new different perspective. Economic activity and free markets create more value. The flow of value and value in the wrong hands threatens the central systems and the elites. As the elites see it, their best interests are served by controlling value and directing it where they see problems. They want their choice to supersede the choices of others, particularly the unwashed masses who don't know when something is being done for the Greater Good.

Build a system insulated from the free market that "controls" value and it will always serve the elites at the expense of everyone else. Manipulate the system, tinker with it, and the elites always come out ahead.

---

“When has an economist ever been right about anything?!”

Hernando de Soto. The Other Path: The Economic Answer to Terrorism. Almost any of the Chicago school of economics. But the politicos don't like a free market approach because it reduces their power and their ability to pick "winners" and "losers" in a national economy. Of course when things go wrong, that doesn't stop the politicos and pundits from blaming economics in general and the Chicago school specifically. Even if the politicos and technocrats did the exact opposite of what Chicago school of economics experts told them they needed to do.

---

Meteorology measures and predicts the weather within limits. No one expects meteorology to control the weather. Even in a massive internal environment like a skyscraper, no one uses the tools and techniques to of meteorology to control the "weather" except in the most basic ways. Meteorology is about understanding the weather, not controlling it.

Any meteorologist who told you that he could control the weather is either a fool or a con man.

Likewise, any meteorologist who claimed he could predict the wind by measuring the humidity isn't using the right tools.

---

The Other Path tells that story. de Soto was part of the international economics team brought in to advise to Chilean government how to grow their economy and how to deal with The Shining Path's promises. It's one of the best examples of practical economics and the Chicago school specifically.

---

A word of advice. Never argue practical economics with a small "L" libertarian.

---

A good economist isn't going to promise he can control the flow of value. What he can do is tell you that diverting value reduces value.

Value isn't something that can be generated by political dictate. You have to provide something that people want. Free market competition means that over time, goods and services become better, cheaper, and more widely distributed, even as the overall value flow increases. It's all based on choice without coercion. Voluntary exchanges between consenting adults.

When you get people who don't like the choices others make and see the coercive power of government as a way to change or stop those choices, that's when things get complicated. We effectively outlaw cannabis and cocaine, but nicotine and alcohol are only regulated. Sex is okay in marriage, but not as a commercial transaction. You can make a statue of a bare breasted Liberty leading the charge, but most American beaches require covered breasts.

The economic choices allowed by government to most American citizens are meant to control them, not to free them.❞❞

Tags: economics ∙ beer ∙ cheese ∙ bread ∙ chemistry ∙ science ∙ money ∙ measurement ∙ accounting ∙ wheel ∙ fire ∙ harvest ∙ trade ∙ technology ∙ value ∙ American history ∙ Western Civilization ∙ 20th Century ∙ central banking ∙ command economy ∙ war industry ∙ foreign policy ∙ corporations ∙ globalism ∙ media ∙ goverment ∙ Hernando de Soto ∙ Chicago school of economics ∙ Chile ∙ libertarian ∙ voluntary exchange ∙ consenting adults

Yahoo pulls the plug on fake profiles used by British police

Tags: maxims ∙ goverment

❝❝Let's break the myth that government is the first, best, and last solution.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ goverment ∙ first ∙ best ∙ and last solution

Hi there. I'm called NeoWayland and I'm libertarian. That means I think there is too much government.

I'm not a Trump supporter. I don't like him, I don't trust him, and I don't think he's good for liberty or the country. But I've also been watching the man for a long, long time. There's an exchange in the original Pirates of the Caribbean film.

““You are without doubt the worst pirate I've ever heard of.””

““But you have heard of me.””

And that's where we are, folks. Trump may be the worst president you ever heard of. But you have heard of him. And he plays the press better than almost anyone else on the planet.

Think about it, Trump has made several careers over several decades doing exactly that. He keeps turning bad press into press for his goals. Then he gets most of what he wants. He plays the long shots, more often than not he gets the payoff. Trump has spent his life turning obstacles and adversity into triumphs.

No, I don't like him. No, I don't trust him. But I can't deny Trump's success. The orange hair clown is a distraction. He plays a character to divert your attention, but underneath there is a first class operator and a pretty good executive.

Any of this is obvious to any one who bothered to do the research. That brings us up to just before the 2016 election.

You don't have to take my word for it, do some digging. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama conspired to make HRC President. I'm not going to go over the shenanigans and rules lawyering that leveled the opposition in their party. It has it's roots in the superdelegates, and you don't need my instructions on how to clean your own house.

But HRC decided to go one step further. She decided that she needed a Republican clown to defeat. She picked Donald Trump. Without doing her homework, she bought into the image that he'd been selling for decades. HRC called in some favors. With Obama's help, Hillary set up a backup plan using ideas that have been very successful for the Democrats in the past. They tried to set up a false narrative that would give Democrats Absolute Moral Authority to denounce Trump and all Republicans for all time.

Or at least for the next eight years.

Yes, you read that right. Hillary Clinton picked Donald Trump to lose the election. And she called in every political marker she had to make sure he got the Republican nomination.

Hillary Clinton did not do her homework. Nobody in her camp did. They forgot that Trump turns adversity into advantage.

This isn't the first time Democrats have relied on false narratives. The Republicans are the party of Lincoln. Republicans were responsible for passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act over strong Democrat opposition. But because Republicans did not give special privilege and recognition to the designated victim class, they were "racist." In the public perception, "equal rights" got redefined into preferential treatment. But only for certain groups.

The later waves of feminism are way too complicated to untangle here. Feminism changed into a variation of the same theme. Preferential treatment AND special privilege on demand and as defined by certain very vocal women who claimed to speak for all. If a Republican politico did not support that instantly and without question, well, naturally they were misogynist and anti-woman. Never mind that the definitions constantly changed, or that the "rights" weren't always practical or even possible. No, certain women had to have what they demanded when they demanded and without consequence. Or the Republicans were keeping women down.

And then there is climate change. I've dealt with it extensively elsewhere. It doesn't use science, it uses the politics of victimhood. And you are not allowed to dissent.

There are other false narratives. But these are big ones from the Democrats. Republicans have their own, but I'm not going into those here.

Since at least the 1970s, Democrats have relied on the The Big Lie to manufacture narratives giving Absolute Moral Authority to denounce Republicans. Sometimes I wonder if the Democrat and progressive elites have forgotten how to do anything else.

And that brings us to the 2016 election aftermath. There was the narrative, Trump had colluded with Russians to steal the election. He was a traitor and a fool. All his supporters were uneducated and unsophisticated saps who Trump had exploited. Surely the virtuous Democrats could prevail against Orange Man Bad.

This time there was a difference. Any Trump watcher could tell you that Trump wasn't a politician. Most especially Trump wasn't the usual Republican politico who avoided political conflict in the name of bipartisanship. He couldn't be shamed or guilted into anything. Go after Trump publicly and he would hit back harder than you ever dreamed. Later he might call you up after and invite you to dinner and drinks, but that was after the hand was played.

This was Trump's background before he was elected.

And after? He was the Chief Executive. He just cleaned house a bit, put the right people in place at the right time, and was patient. He trusted in the American people and the rule of law. That law was on his side. All Trump had to do was the right thing. Talk about irony.

It could have been different if Democrats had gone after Trump for things he actually had done. Eminent domain abuses come to mind.

But no, everything was bet on one spin of the wheel. Democrats forgot that Trump built casinos. A well-run house never loses as long as it obeys the law and doesn't mess with the odds too much. All he had to do was the right thing.

Trump didn't "win" this one because of his virtue. He won this one because he played by the official rules. Not the unspoken rules that Washington has been using, but the actual official ones based in law and the faith of the American people. Because the Democrat elites didn't play by those rules, it gave Trump the Moral Authority to do what comes next. Not Absolute Moral Authority, but none of the Democrat leadership can challenge Trump when he goes after those who tried to take him down. Just for doing his job, Trump is going to be that much stronger in 2020.

So the Democrats are discredited.

If there is one piece of advice I hope you take from this, it's that you need to abandon the false narratives. Be true to your beliefs. By all means call Republicans out for breaking their word, but do the same for your own leadership. Don't look the other way because somebody famous claims to support your goals. Words matter, actions matter more, intentions don't. Don't take their word for it, see what they actually do.

If you are going to claim moral authority, you need to be true to your own morality.

Tags: ☆ ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ virtue ∙ Barack Obama ∙ Republicans ∙ Demorcrats ∙ goverment

““Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.””

— Abraham Lincoln

Tags: Abraham Lincoln ∙ goverment ∙ people

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ John Stossel ∙ ReasonTV ∙ sugar ∙ subsidies ∙ price controls ∙ Ross Marchand ∙ Taxpayers Protection Alliance ∙ goverment ∙ Vincent H. Smith ∙ Marco Rubio ∙ Ryan Weston ∙ Diana Thomas

GFC Lessons Not Learnt

Tags: rights ∙ goverment ∙ agency ∙ agents ∙ power ∙ power of the state

GFC Lessons Not Learnt

““In reality, the real causes of the financial crisis lie deeper; to problems going back a century. In the early 20th century, the American government faced an alarming problem. The Russian Revolution of 1917 terrified government officials. They believed that to deter the rise of communism, more Americans needed to become invested in the system of private property: the best way to make the average American a good capitalist was to make him a homeowner.

The federal government thus began insuring bank mortgage lending, thereby expanding finance available for middle class consumers. But there was a catch: any new housing must be racially segregated to gain federal insurance. No insurance was to be extended to African-American purchasers or to white purchasers moving into African-American neighbourhoods. This practice, known as “redlining” of neighbourhoods, largely provided home ownership for whites while denying it for African-Americans.

Unable to own their own home and forced into poor quality neighbourhoods, African-Americans missed out on generations of wealth-building opportunities. As house prices rose over time, the gap between minority and white household wealth grew greater. So by the time President Bill Clinton was inaugurated in 1993, he faced a familiar problem—too few low-income and minority Americans owned their home. Clinton was under enormous pressure from housing activists to radically expand homeownership. Activist groups were particularly critical of banks’ strict underwriting standards for home loans, such as requiring high credit scores and solid downpayments. They claimed these higher standards disproportionately hurt low-income earners and minorities. Their answer was to wield the power of the federal government to force the mortgage market to loosen its underwriting standards, so that more and more marginal borrowers could qualify for a home loan. Prominent community activist Gale Cincotta made this clear, testifying before Congress in 1991, that “lenders will respond to the most conservative standards unless [federal government agencies] are aggressive and convincing in their efforts to expand historically narrow underwriting”.””
     — Daniel Press

Tags: clipping ∙ guest content ∙ Daniel Press ∙ American ∙ goverment ∙ 20th Century ∙ Russian revolution ∙ Communism ∙ capitalists ∙ financial mess ∙ African-Americans ∙ segregation

Now, see, I was going to make nice here and just touch on the subject.

Tags: video ∙ guest content ∙ John Stossel ∙ government shutdown ∙ goverment ∙ goverment failure ∙ government accountability

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: insurance companies ∙ sleep apnea ∙ police misconduct ∙ victim's rights ∙ shooting ∙ tech companies ∙ regulation ∙ Theresa May ∙ Britain ∙ Brexit ∙ EU ∙ United States ∙ INF Treaty ∙ climate alarmist ∙ Mi6 ∙ classified intormation ∙ carbon dioxide ∙ plastic ∙ goverment ∙ Paris ∙ riots

““The Merriam=Webster Online dictionary defines Libertarian as: “a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action.”  I agree with that definition.  The same dictionary defines liberty as:” the power to do as one pleases.”  This definition I do not agree with because it is incomplete.  It differs from the definition that was universally accepted by those who wrote and ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  They believed that liberty is the freedom to do as you please, as long as you do not hurt others, or interfere with the rights of others.  It is freedom with the responsibility to not hurt others or prevent them from exercising their rights.

A Libertarian believes that preventing individuals from harming others, or interfering with the rights of others, are the only legitimate functions of government.  They believe that individuals should be free to live their lives as they choose, free from any government interference, as long as they treat others properly.  They believe that government assistance, of any kind, is unacceptable, unneeded, and harmful.””

— Jon Fournier, Why do Conservatives and Libertarians squabble so much?

Tags: Jon Fournier ∙ libertarian ∙ individual ∙ liberty ∙ thought ∙ action ∙ hurt ∙ rights ∙ goverment

“Amazon lobbies for government favors and bad regulations.”

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ John Stossel ∙ capitalists ∙ Amazon ∙ goverment ∙ crony capitalism ∙ workers ∙ minimum wage ∙ mercantilism ∙ progressive ∙ regressive

I called the U.S. House election wrong.

Tags: maxims ∙ trust ∙ enemy ∙ goverment ∙ power ∙ friend

But none of that is a reason to impeach him.

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ like ∙ trust ∙ economics ∙ tariffs ∙ exaggerations ∙ spending ∙ threatening reporters ∙ crassness ∙ popularism ∙ stock market ∙ Instability ∙ impeach ∙ 2016 election ∙ none of the above ∙ hexes ∙ publicity ∙ deep state ∙ The Octopus ∙ goverment ∙ disrupt ∙ status quo ∙ institutions ∙ context for change ∙ politicos

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Elizabeth Warren ∙ Native American ∙ Honduras ∙ caravan ∙ Rush Limbaugh ∙ sexual harassment ∙ allegations ∙ Title IX ∙ Joe Arpaio ∙ New York Times ∙ Facebook ∙ Apple ∙ goverment ∙ DoJ ∙ Treasury Department ∙ Donald Trump ∙ gay ∙ Federal appeals court ∙ State Department ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ deep state

“I don’t give a s**t if that is a crime.”

Tags: Jamal Khashoggi ∙ Elizabeth Warren ∙ DNA test ∙ Room 101 ∙ Google ∙ China ∙ smart house ∙ surveillance ∙ goverment ∙ snitch ∙ Venezuela ∙ capitalists ∙ puppicide ∙ police ∙ Facebook ∙ purged ∙ Washington Post ∙ tech workers ∙ Silicon Valley ∙ TSA ∙ biometrics ∙ censorship ∙ Portland ∙ civil liberties ∙ social media ∙ conservatives

“Project Veritas has released the next in a series of undercover reports which unmask the Deep State. This report features a Government Accountability Office (GAO) employee and self-proclaimed Communist actively engaged in potentially illegal political activity. Natarajan Subramanian is a government auditor for the GAO and a member of the Metro DC Democratic Socialists of America (Metro DC DSA).”

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ Project Veritas ∙ GAO ∙ Natarajan Subramanian ∙ deep state ∙ goverment

“I don’t give a s**t if that is a crime.”

Tags: guest content ∙ video ∙ deep state ∙ Project Veritas ∙ IRS ∙ Austin ∙ Washington D.C. ∙ non-profit foundations ∙ conservative ∙ goverment

““Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.””
     — Margaret Thatcher

Tags: Margaret Thatcher ∙ socialist ∙ goverment ∙ financial mess ∙ other people's money

❝❝Did I ever mention how the income tax isn't designed to produce revenue, but to spy as needed on American citizens?

---

Yep.

You can start with how the IRS is the "go to" agency whenever someone does something the Federal government doesn't like.

You can continue with the fact that your employer and any financial institution you do business with are required "under penalty of law" to report any transactions on demand. There's a reporting threshold for "as they happen," but the IRS still has the (questionable) power to demand any and all going back for years.

Speaking of penalty of law, have you read that bit on the 1040? In fact, take a close look at the entire form. It doesn't say you are required to report your income, it just says that it must be accurate reported on the form before you sign.

No one, including the IRS understands the tax code. It can be manipulated and interpreted as needed. And remember, the first few levels of the tax courts are administrative courts run by the IRS with their own rules of evidence. The presumption of innocence doesn't apply. You have to prove the IRS wrong, and then you might get your seized money back.

By definition, a "standard" deduction means taxes are too high.

---

What, you wanted it stated in the authorizing law?

Everything I said was drawn from truth.

From Al Capone on, the IRS has been used against those the Federal government doesn't approve of. Or occasionally found politically inconvenient. Any other uncovered crimes are just a bonus.

Reporting financial transactions have proven so useful in so many cases that it has become literally the reason the IRS exists.

The 1040 form is unusually and carefully worded.

Since at least the 1970s, IRS agents and supervisors have been shown to have a very focused knowledge of the tax code and an appalling ignorance about the rest.

The IRS does have it's own court system with it's own rules of evidence. And you are not presumed innocent until proven guilty.

More importantly, look at how Presidents have used the tax code against their enemies.

---

Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion because they couldn't get anything else to stick.

You tell me, if you were a prosecutor and you knew you had a guilty man and you had the evidence, would you want to charge them with murder or tax evasion?

Prove me wrong instead of labeling it conjecture and innuendo. It's right there, I showed you were to look.

Remember, it took amending the Constitution to make a Federal income tax legal.

---

Going after him for tax evasion wasn't even part of the plan.

Pay attention, because that is a critical point.

Did you know that the IRS was used to enforce Prohibition?

That was a critical point too.

I understand your confusion. Many assume that Government is a Good Thing. It's not commonly acknowledged that taxes can be some of the worst abuses of government authority. Might I suggest Adams' For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization as a starting point?

---

No I am not.

I'm stating that law is not good in and of itself, and that law is more likely to be abused than not.

For example, people are usually taught that the progressive income tax in particular is a way to get the rich to pay "their fair share." That's not true and it never has been. We know that whole histories industries have grown up to help people use tax loopholes. What's more, we know that politicos and technocrats benefit from selectively applying the law.

Which returns to my comment, that the income tax as designed is intended to spy on American citizens. It's not uniformly applied. It's subject to change and political influence. And the majority of the public is locked out of changes. And for what? A mala prohibita law. Not paying taxes is does not harm someone, it's just bad because government has declared it to be bad.

The graduated income tax has done more harm and destroyed more freedom than any other law in American history. "Innocent under proven guilty" stopped because of the income tax and no longer applies in American law.

I should have warned you. Never argue taxes with a libertarian.

---

Yeppers.

That standard deductions line makes people think. And it should.

That's usually when I point out that if they are getting a refund, they just gave the government an interest free loan.

---

Oh my, that's just so adorable!

Look at it this way.

Taxable income = 100 dollars
Standard deduction = 17 dollars
"Taxed" income = 83 dollars

You are still paying taxes. It's only on paper that there is a difference. They messed with the rate, not with the tax.

They lie.

Don't even get me started on itemized deductions.

ETA: I'm the one with the line of "by definition, a standard deduction means taxes are too high." I'm proud of it, so I want credit.

---

Yep, and the claim stands.

The politicos and technocrats are playing word games to convince people that the IRS is looking out for the little guy.

They don't reduce the tax, they tell you that there is a standard deduction.

Speaking of which, let's look at that word standard. As in, everyone gets it. If it were really about "giving something" to someone with lower income, you'd think the deduction would be less for higher incomes. But then it wouldn't be a standard deduction.

Nope, we give everyone a standard deduction.

And that certainly looks like taxes are too high.

---

The fact is that the government hides to actual tax rate to make people think they are getting something for nothing.

The tax rate is too high, so they play word games.

The graduated tax is another issue.

The point is, the mere existence of a standard deduction means that the standard is to deduct. Hence, by definition and the admission of the government, taxes are too high.

---

That's the same form that is worded to hide the fact that they don't care about you paying your taxes as much as they don't want you to lie about it and make sure that it is correct, right?

The whole thing is deceptive from the payroll deduction to the falsity that a progressive tax that impacts higher tax brackets more to which deductions may be allowed this year if you are lucky enough to know about them.

Not to mention the undeclared interest free loan that many make to the government every year without realizing it.

If it were really just about the income, the whole thing could be done on half a postcard.

Including the instructions.

---

But this US doesn't do it simply. The code is created to distract, to obfuscate, to hide what government wants.

It's not about the revenue.

It's about tracking the flow of money. Something which isn't authorized by the Constitution.

The whole business of a "standard deduction" is just another way to confuse citizens and convince them that they are getting something for nothing.

It's three card monte by government regulation. You aren't supposed to look close.

Meanwhile there is a surveillance system that is the envy of tyrants all over the world. And Americans accept it even as they complain about it.

---

Tax income, but not track money.

The 16th was a product of the time, and NO ONE at the time expected it to be used against the poor and the (emerging) middle class. It was sold as a way to make the rich pay "their fair share." I'm pretty sure that if people knew then what the income tax would become, there would have been another revolution.

The graduated income tax was intended to foster class envy. At that point, the upper class did not have the political clout to protect themselves.

Don't you find it interesting that a sales tax doesn't require nearly the administration that an income tax does?

Don't you find it even more interesting that no one understands the tax code and just accepts that is how it is supposed to be?

And then there is the fact that in the name of "protecting" the poor, they still have to declare their income under penalty of law.

---

As I said and have shown, the American income tax system is more about spying on the American people than producing income.

All you are doing is saying that the system is necessary.

---

One of the things I quickly learned as a Corporate Clone is that the budget expands to consume the sales income. It's always easier to spend someone else's money.

Remember I said that taxes are too high.

Still, I stand by my point. The spying on the American public is more important than the revenues.

---

If you state a tax rate and then give everyone a "standard deduction," then taxes are too high.

Taxes are too high for many other reasons, but I agree that distracts from this argument.

---

A standard deduction goes to everyone, not someone on a graduated scale.

Deductions have nothing to do with a graduated tax, especially since most deductions go to the middle and high end income groups.

---

It's not a reduction of tax on graduated income, it's deliberately confusing what the rate is.

Which isn't necessary for the higher ends of the income scale who can afford to have someone do their taxes. On the very high end, that means hiring a professional accountant to minimize tax liability.

Deductions are not intended to help the poor. Even if they are standard.

Of course the easiest thing of all would be actually lowering the tax without deductions.

---

Not true.

The modern version of the income tax started as a class tax. It was not expanded to a mass tax until WWII. Even then (in 1944), the "standard deduction" started as ten percent of taxable income. When the standard deduction was changed to a flat fee, that fee deliberately wasn't linked to the rate of inflation. Which means that over time, people on the lower end of the income scale paid more. But that wasn't the justification in 1964 when the deduction was changed from a percentage to a fee.

Because the fee amount wasn't linked to inflation, inevitably people started falling through the cracks. Meanwhile the income tax provided an unprecedented (and expanding) monitoring of cash flow (not the economy). That monitoring power could not be sacrificed.

And that is where the Earned Income Tax Credit came from. A direct payment from government that did not interfere in the existing tax structure or the government's ability to monitor cash flow. If anything, it expanded the latter.

---

And if you lower taxes, you don't have to lie about deductions to convince people that they are getting something that they are not. The actuality is that it's easier to manipulate a fee than a percentage all while hiding that people are paying more and getting less while being told what a Good Thing it is.

Reagan signed the expansion of the EIC, but it was originally created in 1975. It's also constitutionally questionable.

---

And if you eliminate the standard deduction and lower the tax rate to 8%, they pay less.

Manipulating the process is not the answer.

---

Um,yes.

Because now we are going to talk about the unintentional side effects of a graduated tax system.

Higher taxes aren't just absorbed by businesses and those with more income. The higher costs are passed on. In the case of a business, that means higher prices. In the case of an individual, that means they will buy less, which means few jobs creating or selling.

All this results in lower economic opportunity overall, but especially on the margins. That in turn means that those trying to increase their income will be most affected, especially if they are on the lower end of the income scale.

These are well known second order effects. Look them up.

Simply put, modifications and exceptions to the rules usually benefit those most able to influence the system. Or, as I like to put it, government authority tends to be used against those least likely to resist.

The more complex and convoluted a law is (any law), the bigger negative impact it has on the lower levels of income.

---

Extra rent and utilities due to displaced costs $50 per month or $600 per year.

Extra costs of food $15 per month or $180 per year.

Extra costs of clothing and miscellaneous $60 per year.

Company downsizing and freezing salary, adjusted for inflation $200 per year.

Just for the stuff I've listed, $1040 additional costs per year due progressive and distributed taxes.

---

Taxes are costs. They certainly aren't revenues to the people who are paying them.

The costs I provided were approximately middling. See, it's not just the amount of the tax that is shifted. It's also the cost of collecting and administering the taxes. Not to mention all the other costs of government, from the salary of Congressional pages to the paperclip allowance in the Department of the Interior.

Economies are based on the movement of value, we usually talk cash flow as a shorthand. The movement of value acts a lot like water. You can block it off, you can divert it, you can tap it, and you can channel it. Every change influences the whole system, you can't isolate one bit from the other without removing the cash flow. Think water pressure and you're close to the mark. The more you mess with the pluming, the more unstable the system becomes.

Governments tend to use the myth that the economy can be managed and controlled. But it is a myth. The only reason some governments can get away with it is because the cash flow is usually high enough to compensate for the really stupid things.

But if the goal is more money and not lower taxes, then the people with the lowest cash flow (i.e. water pressure) will be most impacted by any changes.

That's why lower taxes alone is a false and misleading measurement.

---

If you reduce taxes and costs go up, then there is no benefit to a "standard deduction"

Manipulating the system at a higher cost is going to hurt the people the deduction is supposed to help. The government sells a line, "We're going to reduce your taxes." But the politicos never admit the obvious, it's going to cost more.

Revenues are not neutral, that is another lie. There is an increased cost to administer the system. Any changes in process will increase this cost. And government has no incentive to reduce this extra cost.

So in the name of compassion, the system screws the people least likely to resist.❞❞

Tags: spying ∙ taxes ∙ IRS ∙ tax code ∙ tax courts ∙ politicos ∙ Prohibition ∙ income tax ∙ technocrats ∙ goverment ∙ standard deduction ∙ Constitution ∙ Al Capone ∙ economics ∙ movement of value ∙ cash flow

❝❝Liberty demands more than just deciding who is "in charge." If government means electing people who are kinda-sorta on your side on alternate Thursdays when there's no rain, what's the point?❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ election ∙ kinda-sorta ∙ alternate Thursdays ∙ no rain ∙ goverment ∙ tweeted

Tags: goverment ∙ rule of law ∙ Republican ∙ religious right ∙ progressives ∙ major parties ∙ politicos ∙ rescue ∙ false equivalence ∙ Their Cause Is Just ∙ expand ∙ government power ∙ increases taxes ∙ increased costs ∙ more laws ∙ more regulations

““Those who cry out that the government should 'do something' never even ask for data on what has actually happened when the government did something, compared to what actually happened when the government did nothing.””
     — Thomas Sowell

Tags: Thomas Sowell ∙ do something ∙ did nothing ∙ goverment

Tags: memes ∙ guest content ∙ capitalism ∙ corporatism ∙ competition ∙ company ∙ goverment

““Government is a non-producer; like any parasite it is wholly dependent on its host for sustenance. And so the only way it can accomplish anything is to force others to do it by the threat of violence.””
     — Maggie McNeill, The Gun in the Room

Tags: Maggie McNeill ∙ parasite ∙ force ∙ goverment ∙ gun ∙ violence ∙ parasite

This is a page from the original version of Pagan Vigil. There are some formatting differences. Originally published at www.paganvigil.com/C1415225799/E20070313134228

Chinese government tries to target bloggers

Some will tell you that this article is bad news.

I don't agree.

What this tells me is despite ever increasing efforts to control the internet in China, it is slipping from government control and into the hands of individuals.

And the government is afraid. Very afraid.

Every time I look at articles about the internet and world wide web in China, I am amazed. It's self-organizing, capable of withstanding terrible tyranny, and incredibly adaptive.

The Chinese government can't put the genie back in the bottle.

Fun to watch them try though.

From shore to shore, let freedom ring.

Posted: Tue - March 13, 2007 at 01:42 PM

Tags: China ∙ internet ∙ Original Vigil ∙ goverment ∙ Chinese government ∙ clipping

This is a page from the original version of Pagan Vigil. There are some formatting differences. Originally published at www.paganvigil.com/C1415225799/E20070210153538

A new category and a story about defying government authority with the internet

““Zhang's ban, which was reported by several Chinese newspapers, was regarded as extreme even by the censorship authorities in Beijing. But it was emblematic of the Communist Party's determination to retain control of what this country's 1.3 billion people see, hear and read despite the vast changes in other realms brought on by economic reform over the last two decades.

Ever since Mao Zedong brought the party to power in 1949, information, art and entertainment have been regarded here as government property, distributed to the public -- or not -- according to what party officials think best. But in recent years, as the number of online Chinese climbed to 137 million by the end of 2006, the Internet has challenged this power in many ways. Zhang's experience in Gedong dramatized how robust the challenge has become.

Eager to speed modernization, China's leaders have professed a desire to see people use the Web widely to seek knowledge and economic advantage. But they also have expressed determination to keep it under party control. The goal, they have said, is to keep Chinese away from sites deemed unfit because of pornographic or politically sensitive content -- or, in the case of Fangshan County, because they waste teenagers' time with frivolous games.

"Whether we can cope with the Internet is a matter that affects the development of socialist culture, the security of information and the stability of the state," President Hu Jintao said at a Politburo study session last month, according to the state-controlled press. Hu, who also heads the party, said the solution is not to deter development of the Web but to "nurture a healthy online culture."

Reporters Without Borders, the Paris-based media watchdog group, said Hu's government has deployed "armies of informants and cyber-police" and sophisticated computer programs to prevent Chinese Internet users from connecting with sites the party disapproves of or reading postings that stray from political orthodoxy. Sifting the acceptable from the unacceptable costs China "an enormous amount," the group said, without providing a specific number.””

The kids are finding a way. It's games today, but tomorrow it will be political.

And if the kids are finding a way and there are enough of them to get attention, there are plenty of adults who you haven't heard about who are networking and doing their best to undermine all the restrictions.

Let freedom ring.

Posted: Sat - February 10, 2007 at 03:35 PM

Tags: Original Vigil ∙ goverment ∙ authority ∙ internet ∙ freedom ∙ Firefly ∙ Babylon 5 ∙ China ∙ Gedong ∙ Zhang ∙ Reporters Without Borders ∙ clipping

❝❝That's the essence of libertarianism you see. It's not that we don't care, we just don't see government as an effective way to deliver what needs to be done.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ goverment ∙ libertarianism ∙ effective ∙ tweeted

When the press shows that it can't be trusted with even some truths, why should the press be trusted?

Tags: rights ∙ privilege ∙ power ∙ goverment

““Society is produced by our wants and, government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices.””
     — Thomas Paine, Common Sense

Tags: Thomas Paine ∙ society ∙ goverment ∙ wants ∙ wickedness ∙ happiness ∙ uniting ∙ affections ∙ restraining ∙ vices

❝❝You are perfectly capable of making your own decisions. That is your right, that is what makes you human, and fuck all to anyone who tells you different.

KYFHO now and forever. The only protection you should get is the certainty that NO ONE ELSE can use government to control you.

But, if you expect that right for yourself, you’d better damn well defend if for others. Even if you don’t like them. Even if you don’t trust them. Especially if you don’t trust them. Otherwise you will lose your choice.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ KYFHO ∙ human ∙ right ∙ choice & consequence ∙ goverment ∙ other guy

““Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.””
     — Milton Friedman

Tags: Milton Friedman ∙ goverment ∙ military ∙ contract law ∙ mala in se ∙ good intentions ∙ morality ∙ special interests ∙ inefficiency ∙ motivation ∙ freedom ∙ referee

Under what circumstances does the state or the people have the moral authority to compel someone to act against their beliefs?

Tags: kosher ∙ pork ∙ BBQ ∙ equality ∙ past wrongs ∙ equal rights ∙ granting privilege ∙ denying rights ∙ moral authority ∙ freedom ∙ Eric July ∙ discriminate ∙ mala in se ∙ mala prohibita ∙ goverment

❝❝I'm not a Trump fan. I don't trust him and I don't like him.

That being said, when some of us said we didn't like Obama, we were told to sit down and shut up. Obama won, and it was his ball game.

That alone should raise people's hackles.

Right after Trump was elected, there was the woman's march thing. I asked a very progressive group just what was it that Trump had said or done that presented such a threat to women in particular. The only real answer I got was something about woman's reproductive rights. That's when I pointed out that Trump supported Planned Parenthood.

One year later, the same group was talking about supporting the next woman's march. I asked what Trump had done in the previous year that was a particular threat to women. I got something vague about the judges he appointed. I asked how that was different than a liberal President appointing liberal judges.

The complaints about Trump not being legitimately elected are mostly recycled from Bush the Younger. The complaints about Trump being a danger to world peace and being totally incompetent are being recycled from Goldwater and Reagan. I know, I went back and checked. Progressive will complain about Trump tweeting from the toilet, but they can't tell you what he has done that they find repulsive. Except judicial appointments, of course.

We've reached the point where we're told that Trump is E-V-I-L, but they can't say why. And meanwhile with overwhelming bad news coverage, he still has an approval rating of more than 50%.

I don't like him. I don't trust him. I think he is going to make some very bad decisions that will be very bad for the country. But meanwhile, he's screwing up the established government traditions and driving the technocrats crazy. He's disrupting things that need to be disrupted. He's changing government. I have to give the man credit for that.❞❞

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ Barack Obama ∙ election ∙ Women's March ∙ Planned Parenthood ∙ Bush League ∙ reproductive rights ∙ judicial nominees ∙ World peace ∙ legitimately elected ∙ incompetent ∙ Barry Goldwater ∙ Ronald Reagan ∙ evil ∙ approval ∙ establishment ∙ disrupt ∙ goverment

““The same government that has repeatedly violated privacy laws and illegally collects data from all it's citizens, is lecturing the CEO of a company about violating privacy laws and collecting data from all their users.””

Tags: goverment ∙ picture ∙ privacy ∙ data

This 1868 classic helped lay the groundwork for the 19th Amendment securing women's right to vote

Tags: Elizabeth Cady Stanton ∙ goverment ∙ women's suffrage ∙ 19th Amendment ∙ 1868

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Hillary Clinton ∙ election ∙ Broward County ∙ sheriffs ∙ banking ∙ free checking ∙ goverment ∙ Amazon ∙ Civil War ∙ Trump campaign ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ progressivism ∙ geoengineering ∙ climate control ∙ Robert Mueller ∙ Rod Rosenstein ∙ human progress ∙ newspapers ∙ machine learning ∙ markets

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: gun control ∙ Facebook ∙ 2nd Amendment ∙ vote ∙ social justice ∙ oppress ∙ exploit ∙ Alabama ∙ marriage ∙ food ∙ Democrats ∙ DACA ∙ Obamacare ∙ diversity ∙ Tenth Amendment ∙ Google ∙ Twitter ∙ internet ∙ Donald Trump ∙ goverment ∙ victim disarmament ∙ Oscars ∙ armed guards ∙ universal basic income

❝❝There comes a time when the only way to win is not to play.

---

Just pointing out again that if you don't like government power, maybe the real answer is taking the power away from government.

---

At that point I'd have to stand and say no.

You can't exile someone because of what they believe. It's what they want to do to you. That doesn't make it right.

We need to have our ideas challenged by people we don't agree with. If the ideas are good, they will stand on their own merit.

---

Maybe it's time the libertarians (small l, not the party) were in charge. We could start by abolishing any political party, reducing the total amount of taxes to ten percent and making the politicos pay for anything government spends above that amount.

Then we can talk about who is allowed to have influence.

---

And organizing everything from the words anyone is allowed to say to the calorie count of a pizza slice, just how well is that working out?

The problem isn't who is calling the shots. Experience has shown that no matter what promises someone makes, as soon as they have power they will be just as tyrannical as the opposition. Look at this discussion. You are literally writing about who is and is not allowed to have influence. And making sure that capital L Libertarians are on display, but not allowed to influence policy. That's better for people how? We are supposed to trust in the benevolence of conservatives?

The answer is massively reducing the size and scope of government. Let people make their own choices.

---

Can you do that without pointing a gun at people?

Do you have enough courage in your convictions to do it without force?

---

And I am not convinced that conservatives can be totally trusted. As I rule, I trust conservatives more than I do progressives, but I don't trust you that much.

It's not easy to do it without a gun, but it's possible. The thing is, progressives don't start with guns. They start by establishing Moral Authority. You can do more by taking that away than you can with guns. Hurting them or killing them just makes martyrs to the "cause."

The Left doesn't like it when I do a lot of things. That doesn't stop me much.❞❞

Tags: goverment ∙ power ∙ exile ∙ believe ∙ challenged ∙ ideas ∙ libertarian ∙ political parties ∙ taxes ∙ spends too much money ∙ tyrannical ∙ conservatives ∙ progressives ∙ gun ∙ Left

It's not a right unless the other guy has it too.

Tags: goverment ∙ power ∙ rights ∙ America

I remind you that no American political fact for the last two years has been easily ascertained. Or static.

Tags: facts ∙ Donald Trump ∙ HRC campaign ∙ DNC ∙ verify ∙ USAPATRIOT ∙ NSA ∙ military spending ∙ audit ∙ reporters ∙ news outlets ∙ War on Drugs ∙ as a rule absolutes don't ∙ Islam ∙ Other ∙ Higher Truth™ ∙ American politics ∙ subjective ∙ Great Depression ∙ government experts ∙ capitalism ∙ myth ∙ goverment ∙ rules ∙ Republicans ∙ guilt by association ∙ Barack Obama ∙ White House ∙ 2008 ∙ 2016 election ∙ email probe ∙ Pied Piper candidates ∙ Bernie Sanders ∙ BLM movement ∙ grassroots ∙ experience

Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.

We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear.

Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. You have neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you. You do not know us, nor do you know our world. Cyberspace does not lie within your borders. Do not think that you can build it, as though it were a public construction project. You cannot. It is an act of nature and it grows itself through our collective actions.

You have not engaged in our great and gathering conversation, nor did you create the wealth of our marketplaces. You do not know our culture, our ethics, or the unwritten codes that already provide our society more order than could be obtained by any of your impositions.

You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems don't exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own Social Contract. This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.

Cyberspace consists of transactions, relationships, and thought itself, arrayed like a standing wave in the web of our communications. Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live.

We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth.

We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.

Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter, and there is no matter here.

Our identities have no bodies, so, unlike you, we cannot obtain order by physical coercion. We believe that from ethics, enlightened self-interest, and the commonweal, our governance will emerge. Our identities may be distributed across many of your jurisdictions. The only law that all our constituent cultures would generally recognize is the Golden Rule. We hope we will be able to build our particular solutions on that basis. But we cannot accept the solutions you are attempting to impose.

In the United States, you have today created a law, the Telecommunications Reform Act, which repudiates your own Constitution and insults the dreams of Jefferson, Washington, Mill, Madison, DeToqueville, and Brandeis. These dreams must now be born anew in us.

You are terrified of your own children, since they are natives in a world where you will always be immigrants. Because you fear them, you entrust your bureaucracies with the parental responsibilities you are too cowardly to confront yourselves. In our world, all the sentiments and expressions of humanity, from the debasing to the angelic, are parts of a seamless whole, the global conversation of bits. We cannot separate the air that chokes from the air upon which wings beat.

In China, Germany, France, Russia, Singapore, Italy and the United States, you are trying to ward off the virus of liberty by erecting guard posts at the frontiers of Cyberspace. These may keep out the contagion for a small time, but they will not work in a world that will soon be blanketed in bit-bearing media.

Your increasingly obsolete information industries would perpetuate themselves by proposing laws, in America and elsewhere, that claim to own speech itself throughout the world. These laws would declare ideas to be another industrial product, no more noble than pig iron. In our world, whatever the human mind may create can be reproduced and distributed infinitely at no cost. The global conveyance of thought no longer requires your factories to accomplish.

These increasingly hostile and colonial measures place us in the same position as those previous lovers of freedom and self-determination who had to reject the authorities of distant, uninformed powers. We must declare our virtual selves immune to your sovereignty, even as we continue to consent to your rule over our bodies. We will spread ourselves across the Planet so that no one can arrest our thoughts.

We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.

Davos, Switzerland
February 8, 1996

Tags: John Perry Barlow ∙ Davos ∙ Switzerland ∙ 1996 ∙ guest content ∙ cyberspace ∙ goverment ∙ transactions ∙ relationships ∙ thought ∙ mind

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: FEMA ∙ rent control ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ George Soros ∙ Brexit ∙ #MeToo ∙ women ∙ corporate accountability ∙ Senate ∙ budget ∙ nutrition rules ∙ Congress ∙ goverment ∙ government spending ∙ government accountability ∙ Lee E. Goodman ∙ FEC ∙ regulation ∙ Drudge Report ∙ internet ∙ Nunes Memo ∙ Grassley-Graham Memo ∙ Christopher Steele ∙ FBI ∙ FISA ∙ Barack Obama ∙ Rose McGowan ∙ New Orleans ∙ strip clubs ∙ Ivanka Trump ∙ Democrat ∙ conservatives

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: conservatism ∙ progressivism ∙ civil forfeiture ∙ posse comitatus ∙ military surplus ∙ common good ∙ higher taxes ∙ more laws ∙ increased regulations ∙ less freedom ∙ goverment ∙ military spending ∙ law enforcement ∙ emergency aid ∙ War on Drugs ∙ someone else's money ∙ limiting government ∙ Ronald Reagan

““Government is force. Every government program, law, or regulation is a demand that someone do what he doesn't want to do, refrain from doing what he does want to do, or pay for something he doesn't want to pay for. And those demands are backed up by police with guns.””
     — Harry Browne, Principles of Government

Tags: Harry Browne ∙ goverment ∙ force

““Government is politics. Whenever you turn over to the government a financial, social, medical, military, or commercial matter, it's automatically transformed into a political issue — to be decided by those with the most political influence. And that will never be you or I.””
     — Harry Browne, Principles of Government

Tags: Harry Browne ∙ goverment

““Every government program will be more expensive and more expansive than anything you had in mind when you proposed it. It will be applied in all sorts of ways you never dreamed of.””
     — Harry Browne, Principles of Government

Tags: Harry Browne ∙ goverment ∙ expensive ∙ expansive

““Power will always be misused. Give good people the power to do good and that power eventually will be in the hands of bad people to do bad.””
     — Harry Browne, Principles of Government

Tags: Harry Browne ∙ goverment ∙ power ∙ misued

““Government doesn't work. Because government is force, because government programs are designed to enrich the politically powerful, because you can't control government and make it do what's right, because every new government program soon wanders from its original purpose, and because politicians eventually misuse the power you give them, it is inevitable that no government program will deliver on the promises the politicians make for it.””
     — Harry Browne, Principles of Government

Tags: Harry Browne ∙ goverment ∙ does not work

““Government must be subject to absolute limits. Because politicians have every incentive to expand government, and with it their power, there must be absolute limits on government.””
     — Harry Browne, Principles of Government

Tags: Harry Browne ∙ goverment ∙ limits

Standard Approved Government Solution

Tags: Harry Browne ∙ goverment ∙ limits ∙ does not work ∙ power ∙ misued ∙ control ∙ expensive ∙ expansive ∙ 2003

Tags: goverment ∙ reason ∙ eloquence ∙ force ∙ servant ∙ master ∙ apocryphal ∙ George Washington ∙ memes

You didn't think they were serious, did you?

Tags: politicos ∙ left-wing ∙ right-wing ∙ children ∙ fighting poverty ∙ family values ∙ fighting drugs ∙ goverment ∙ bigger ∙ Harry Browne

Great quote that's right on the money

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ pure democracy ∙ unconditional surrender ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ progressives ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ misogynist ∙ racists ∙ sore losers ∙ ever expanding ∙ goverment ∙ self apponted ∙ elites ∙ demonized ∙ protesters ∙ positive changes ∙ sacrificing freedom ∙ smash storefronts ∙ we're here now

Tags: racism ∙ segregation ∙ leftist establishments ∙ Border Patrol ∙ civil forfeiture ∙ Senate ∙ internet ∙ for the children ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Left ∙ violence ∙ wiretap ∙ Barack Obama ∙ blue state ∙ red state ∙ goverment ∙ James Comey ∙ CIA ∙ Lee Harvey Oswald ∙ Venezuela ∙ sociaism ∙ United Nations ∙ Hurricane Irma ∙ Miami-Dade County ∙ FOIA

Older headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: religion ∙ Christianity ∙ voter fraud ∙ RussiaGate ∙ climate change ∙ skeptics ∙ Maine ∙ FedGovs ∙ regulation ∙ nullifying ∙ advertising ∙ civil forfeiture ∙ Red Cross ∙ Hurricane Irma ∙ Florida ∙ Amazon ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ Fourth Amendment ∙ cops ∙ iPhone ∙ Amazon ∙ patent ∙ Silicon Valley ∙ technology ∙ goverment ∙ nun ∙ economic freedom ∙ Democrats ∙ State Department ∙ Benghazi ∙ UC Berkeley ∙ California ∙ Antifa ∙ violence ∙ hexes ∙ Google

This is a page from the original version of Pagan Vigil. There are some formatting differences. Originally published at www.paganvigil.com/C1319896483/E20090323134948

Beacon Quick Links for 23Mar2009

Roundup of the headline links

Kroft to Obama: Are you punch-drunk?

I've begun to wonder that myself.

Wikileaks taken offline after publishing Australia's banned websites

Turns out that the server couldn't handle the traffic.

Resistance grows to Obama's bigger government

Encouraging signs

DHS Officials Skirt Open Meeting Laws to Promote REAL ID

Evidently the law only applies to the little people.

Montana's Sound Money Bill

I am not convinced that this one isn't a big dose of wish fulfillment, but it could be. Also here, but consider the source.

US Mint Suspends Production of More Gold and Silver Coins

Granted it's collectable coins, but certainly worth watching close. Especially if states start requiring gold and silver for payment.

US bikini wax ban plans ditched

New Jersey officials found they had a fight on their hands.

Law puts non-offenders on state's sex registry

Another example of the tyranny of the sex offender laws.

Posted: Mon - March 23, 2009 at 01:49 PM

Tags: Original Vigil ∙ Barack Obama ∙ Steve Kroft ∙ Wikileaks ∙ Australia ∙ banned websites ∙ goverment ∙ DHS ∙ Real ID ∙ Montana ∙ sound money ∙ gold ∙ silver ∙ coins

As it exists right now, local, state, and Federal governments allow and protect area specific telecommunications monopolies.

Tags: net neutrality ∙ cable service ∙ telephone ∙ network ∙ unused capacity ∙ monopoly ∙ goverment ∙ regulation ∙ competition ∙ Facebook ∙ Google ∙ Twitter

❝❝Do you really want pagans and heathens begging government for table scraps that they might give us? If we're really REALLY good and cute enough?❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: pagan ∙ heathen ∙ goverment ∙ good ∙ cute ∙ maxims

❝❝If I have a single issue, it's less government and more freedom.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ freedom ∙ goverment

❝❝When government starts defining, it starts regulating.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ goverment ∙ regulation ∙ define

❝❝If someone has served honorably, then they should have whatever they want on their headstone up to and including Mickey Mouse. Government issue or not, it's not about what is “approved.” It's about honoring someone who chose to serve and fulfilled that duty.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ honor ∙ headstone ∙ Mickey Mouse ∙ goverment ∙ duty

❝❝The question isn't which politico is better. The question is why we're allowing ourselves to be manipulated into believing that government and Our Elected Officials™ know what's best and will serve us.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ politicos ∙ goverment ∙ know best ∙ will serve us