I found this article very informative. Social security, government funded welfare programs have always been a step in the wrong direction. Some say it is for the good of humanity, for those that are broke, poor, whatever can get back on their feet. It is easy to make a premise, does it hold up to be a correct affirmation? In a few cases perhaps it has had a good effect on the beneficiaries. Also there is the other side, the people paying for theses programs. You know who they are. They are called tax payers. That is less money for the people paying these programs. The advocates of welfare say that it is not a grave problem for the people paying it. Alright then, what if it isn't a big problem for the taxpayers? What are the factors that can be examined. Well, the aforementioned article gives a thorough description of that. Let me elaborate partially on the issue as to not take away or add to the aforementioned article.
Ive elaborated before on other articles how the idea of forced confiscation is wrong and unethical but for those that are new let me explain. When you work through a job or another economic endeavor and gain monetary resources( or barter), who is the owner of those resources. You or the government? The government never did part of the work and only takes away from what you earn. The practice is seen among the mafia and petty street gangs. Some say the taxes are good for us all: they help people in poverty, pay for firefighters, police, "public" services, and so forth. Why couldn't any of these services be on the market where people can freely choose them?
Many organizations are dedicated to fight poverty without forced confiscation. Of course these organizations also operate in a free market so they have to weigh in the costs and benefits of their endeavors. With that in mind it is not cost effective to help a person by continuously giving them a check. It would be in the best interest of the organization to give the person a start and teach them how to be successful in life. Through this endeavor it is possible to save money and also to make the beneficiary a productive person. There in fact is a net gain. While the organization spent a little in the beginning to help the person, that person is now more productive and possibly might give back to the organization that helped him. It is better for civilization as a whole to have the most productive people, that way their resources can be spent on other commodities(houses, food, toys, etc.) which will then require more workers to make. With welfare it is a net loss. I rather live in a world with more productive individuals.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
John Milton: Man of genius
Recently I read Paradise Lost, Lycidas, and Samson Agonistes. All fine works that I felt leveled my artistic senses. John Milton writes with such vigor and passion; the imagery is profound and the dialogue is succinct. Here is a brief synopsis of the largest,Paradise Lost
Paradise Lost
This poem is very long.. In fact its a book in itself with 12 chapters. I really got alot of enjoyment from reading the whole thing. The language was from the 17th century so there was some difficulty in reading but never the less I was able to grasp the ideas. The story is about the fall of Satan from heaven, the subsequent fall of man, and the hope for a new future. The book itself is influenced by the stories of the Bible but just adds to the dialogue and imagery without taking anything away from those stories itself. I don't want to necessarily describe every single event, i feel it would be in the best interest of threader to grasp it and take their own conclusion from it. So I implore you to read the poems of John Milton.
Paradise Lost
This poem is very long.. In fact its a book in itself with 12 chapters. I really got alot of enjoyment from reading the whole thing. The language was from the 17th century so there was some difficulty in reading but never the less I was able to grasp the ideas. The story is about the fall of Satan from heaven, the subsequent fall of man, and the hope for a new future. The book itself is influenced by the stories of the Bible but just adds to the dialogue and imagery without taking anything away from those stories itself. I don't want to necessarily describe every single event, i feel it would be in the best interest of threader to grasp it and take their own conclusion from it. So I implore you to read the poems of John Milton.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Pixelated Decompositions
Ive come across another fantastic art site full of wonder. This is a very interesting surreal site. Has alot of scketches, illustrations, and what not. I think youll find it suitable to your liking.
Death
'Alas, both for the deed and for the cause!
But I have now seen Death? Is this the way
I must return to native dust? O sight
Of terror, foul and ugly to behold,
Horrid to think, how horrible to feel!'
-Paradise Lost
While reading through Paradise Lost (which I am almost finished with) it shown me the viciousness of life and how humans return to the Earth. Death is never an act devoid of suffering. Suffering comes to the receiver of the sentence and the people around him. I consider this to be the tragedy of life. The tragedy that we were born in suffering and we die with suffering. Though, the universe may be full of this kind of negative march, we can be hopeful that what we do in this life may reflect on what is to become in the afterlife. For with the tragedy of life , there is also the beautiful and sublime of the universe we can look forward too. Let us now build a path of art, life, and spirituality.
But I have now seen Death? Is this the way
I must return to native dust? O sight
Of terror, foul and ugly to behold,
Horrid to think, how horrible to feel!'
-Paradise Lost
While reading through Paradise Lost (which I am almost finished with) it shown me the viciousness of life and how humans return to the Earth. Death is never an act devoid of suffering. Suffering comes to the receiver of the sentence and the people around him. I consider this to be the tragedy of life. The tragedy that we were born in suffering and we die with suffering. Though, the universe may be full of this kind of negative march, we can be hopeful that what we do in this life may reflect on what is to become in the afterlife. For with the tragedy of life , there is also the beautiful and sublime of the universe we can look forward too. Let us now build a path of art, life, and spirituality.
Monday, March 12, 2007
An Introspection
Recently I've been reading Paradise Lost by John Milton. Considered by many to be one of the greatest epic poems of the western world. Suffice to say I am only 8 chapters into the poem out of 12. The poem, its prose and style, has opened up a path of inner creativity that has raised my intellect. On the other hand, with the opening of the intellectual faculties, there has been great introspection into my soul. It was as if I was able to re account past knowledge I have learned. Such is the power of poetry.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
1000 Eyes
An interesting article has come about on Truth Out. It's in regards to the Federal government wanting more surveillance on the Internet. One of the concerns according to the justice department is the tracking of suspected criminals. In this regard the justice department is pressing ISPs(Internet Service Providers) to retain data of customer Internet usage. One of the proponents is attorney general Alberto Gonzalez. He points out that data retention should be mandatory, calling it a "national problem that requires federal legislation". I call this another grand scheme by the State.
Whether these proponents of the data retention proposal are genuine about theses concerns is irrelevant to me. The only relevant question is does government have a right to infringe on the private matters of individuals? The answer is a resounding NO. Government doesn't even have a right to exist let alone verge into someone's private world. The natural rights of a non-aggressor should never be violated. If someone were to be a criminal(i.e. stealing, property damage,murder) then the one that was aggressed would demand restitution from the initiator. In this case there was no aggression involved in these government infringements.
The State makes everyone a criminal in this new proposal. Censorship of the web, of the kind seen in China, could possibly linger. With the advancement of interventionist policies such as the "drug war",tariffs,taxes,environmental measuures, the State will assert more control over the populace. Many may look at this as a step closer in the right direction. Now Ill admit, there are criminals that need to give restitution for their actions, but being invasive on the internet will not help the situation. Molesters, thieves, and murderers will always find a way to commit their deeds. The best method to stop these criminals in the first place is personal determent. With the intervention of the State into a person's self defense, such as laws on personal conduct and gun control, an individual is now suspected as a criminal and is defenseless. I do not see how the State can be revered as protector. Then again it never was in the first place.
Whether these proponents of the data retention proposal are genuine about theses concerns is irrelevant to me. The only relevant question is does government have a right to infringe on the private matters of individuals? The answer is a resounding NO. Government doesn't even have a right to exist let alone verge into someone's private world. The natural rights of a non-aggressor should never be violated. If someone were to be a criminal(i.e. stealing, property damage,murder) then the one that was aggressed would demand restitution from the initiator. In this case there was no aggression involved in these government infringements.
The State makes everyone a criminal in this new proposal. Censorship of the web, of the kind seen in China, could possibly linger. With the advancement of interventionist policies such as the "drug war",tariffs,taxes,environmental measuures, the State will assert more control over the populace. Many may look at this as a step closer in the right direction. Now Ill admit, there are criminals that need to give restitution for their actions, but being invasive on the internet will not help the situation. Molesters, thieves, and murderers will always find a way to commit their deeds. The best method to stop these criminals in the first place is personal determent. With the intervention of the State into a person's self defense, such as laws on personal conduct and gun control, an individual is now suspected as a criminal and is defenseless. I do not see how the State can be revered as protector. Then again it never was in the first place.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Protection: A contemplation
I write this article in an attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of protection from the State. Yes, this is a long article, so brew some coffee.
Protection?
People tend to feel content when there is a form of protection guarding them. Protection is the act of X being guarded against outside interference,Y, by means of B. B could be anything in particular. For example, X is a person and is walking down the street; he is confronted by Y who wants to physically harm him. X can use B as his/her form of protection, whether it be a gun, knife, or X's own body, all of that represents B. If a company had commercial property, in their best interest they would have B to guard them. B could be a wall, an alarm system, or even a security guard. All of these measures are to insure the survivability and productiveness of the property. The matter of protection insures the survivability for an individual as well. From antiquity the State has assumed the role of absolute protector over its own dominion. Let me explore my first reason why the State cannot be a rightful protector on economic grounds.
Factors of scarcity
Imagine if the State's aggression, wherever you live, were to be magnified that every facet of industry was completely subordinate. You only have 1 hamburger company, 1 car company, 1 bread company, 1 radio station, etc. Everyone would be in a cohesion of regimentation where the pursuit of goals are marginalized. No one could compete against the monopoly industry. Without this competition there is no assurance of quality and price. A business cannot calculate costs without competition from other businesses because in that scenario the consumers can properly show the level of demand for a given product. With that demand the business can adjust costs and prices. This is the norm in a market economy, when there is competition the prices will go down and the quality will go up.
The State is a monopoly on the use of force and protection. Although in the present age there are many private security companies, the State is overseer over all of them. I know this from personal experience because I am a security guard. The most I do is observe and report. I have no police powers. The State has assumed primary specialist in that field. For that reason, the State has no competition from anyone else from that region.If the notion of competition is universally viable, then the monopoly of the State is inefficient. The possibility of competing companies can bring about more efficiency and less cost. The companies would be subject to the demands of the consumer and for a protection company to assume a State-like role(i.e. murdering, stealing, destruction of a client/non-client property) then they would be subject to the scrutiny of the consumer and fault er like any business would. It doesn't have to be business companies to provide protection. Communities,churches, guilds, organizations of differing degrees can provide that needed service. As long as they're voluntary it is all perfectly fine.
The State as aggressor
The very nature of the State is aggression. Whatever power or wealth it accumulated, it came about through the initiation of violence. In the book, The State, Franz Oppenheimer details how the State was developed through conquest. The initiation of aggression is not grounds for legitimate protection. It is up to the property owner if he/she would like protection or not. If that person wants that protection, then he or she could be able to decide what type of protection they need. Considering that the State forced its will on the populace, it's hard to see how the State could rightfully protect a property owner. A private security company can be hired voluntarily, an alarm system company can be hired voluntarily but the State cannot be done away with voluntarily. It will not allow it. It yearns for power. Is that protection or is that slavery? If 4 men for example were to invade your property and then say you have to be under their "protection" is that really protection? Just think about it.
People tend to feel content when there is a form of protection guarding them. Protection is the act of X being guarded against outside interference,Y, by means of B. B could be anything in particular. For example, X is a person and is walking down the street; he is confronted by Y who wants to physically harm him. X can use B as his/her form of protection, whether it be a gun, knife, or X's own body, all of that represents B. If a company had commercial property, in their best interest they would have B to guard them. B could be a wall, an alarm system, or even a security guard. All of these measures are to insure the survivability and productiveness of the property. The matter of protection insures the survivability for an individual as well. From antiquity the State has assumed the role of absolute protector over its own dominion. Let me explore my first reason why the State cannot be a rightful protector on economic grounds.
Factors of scarcity
Imagine if the State's aggression, wherever you live, were to be magnified that every facet of industry was completely subordinate. You only have 1 hamburger company, 1 car company, 1 bread company, 1 radio station, etc. Everyone would be in a cohesion of regimentation where the pursuit of goals are marginalized. No one could compete against the monopoly industry. Without this competition there is no assurance of quality and price. A business cannot calculate costs without competition from other businesses because in that scenario the consumers can properly show the level of demand for a given product. With that demand the business can adjust costs and prices. This is the norm in a market economy, when there is competition the prices will go down and the quality will go up.
The State is a monopoly on the use of force and protection. Although in the present age there are many private security companies, the State is overseer over all of them. I know this from personal experience because I am a security guard. The most I do is observe and report. I have no police powers. The State has assumed primary specialist in that field. For that reason, the State has no competition from anyone else from that region.If the notion of competition is universally viable, then the monopoly of the State is inefficient. The possibility of competing companies can bring about more efficiency and less cost. The companies would be subject to the demands of the consumer and for a protection company to assume a State-like role(i.e. murdering, stealing, destruction of a client/non-client property) then they would be subject to the scrutiny of the consumer and fault er like any business would. It doesn't have to be business companies to provide protection. Communities,churches, guilds, organizations of differing degrees can provide that needed service. As long as they're voluntary it is all perfectly fine.
The State as aggressor
The very nature of the State is aggression. Whatever power or wealth it accumulated, it came about through the initiation of violence. In the book, The State, Franz Oppenheimer details how the State was developed through conquest. The initiation of aggression is not grounds for legitimate protection. It is up to the property owner if he/she would like protection or not. If that person wants that protection, then he or she could be able to decide what type of protection they need. Considering that the State forced its will on the populace, it's hard to see how the State could rightfully protect a property owner. A private security company can be hired voluntarily, an alarm system company can be hired voluntarily but the State cannot be done away with voluntarily. It will not allow it. It yearns for power. Is that protection or is that slavery? If 4 men for example were to invade your property and then say you have to be under their "protection" is that really protection? Just think about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
