A Critique Of Modern Day American Politics

The Democrat-Republican debate has been controversial and has been heated as elections were upon us. However, before we attempt to find societal solutions through government. We must evaluate whether the system of the structure itself is functioning as it should. We must fix this system, before we elect political pundits to go represent us under this paradigm.

A government is a structure enacted to facilitate the development of a society, or as the American founding fathers simplified it; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We call government workers civil servants, because government is put in place primarily to serve its people. This way we can measure a government's efficiency in its capability to serve the people.

Thomas Jefferson reiterated the dangers of consolidating power under a central government. He warned of factions, self interested groups with political mobility and capital that would exploit government funds for self interested benefits at the expense of the public interest. In modern day terminology, we refer to this practice, as lobbying. The consequence is that it makes the structure of government parasitical to the people, instead of supportive. The government is fighting to maintain its interests, rather than the interest of the people.

Due to the influx of media such as T.V. which is passive information, as opposed to if he or she was reading a book or newspaper. These "programmes" we watch, allow for mass programming ironically, and propaganda dictates elections election winners. Perception is everything and media can shape a public's perception of a candidate based on the information they choose to share. So aspiring political incumbents, if they are to have a chance in Congress, have to appeal to popular media sensationalism and lobbying to consolidate funding for campaigns.

This is essentially the flaw with the bi-partisan two party system. An honest politician with the interest of the people in mind is unlikely to be voted for. Simply because their interests is in actually helping the people, would conflict financial interests of the media, and multiple other entities with financial interests in mind.

The reason is that lobbying entails financial compensation to politicians in exchange for political favors. Which manifest as bail outs to only a certain number of companies, subsidies and what is refered to us as "pork". Unrelated government funded projects to individuals hidden in the jargon of legislative paperwork. The bills passed in modern day times are generally lengthy, unnecessarily complex, with hidden lobbying agendas. Only lawyers and a few legislators actually take the time to decipher the content of these bills, essentially American people are expected to follow laws they are not even aware of, and are persecuted for not following them. The legal profession, has essentially become a profession of finding loopholes in the legislation.

The two party system is essentially perpetuating the parasitical nature of government. It is essentially "Frankenstein" a monster. A structure created to serve the people, but has ran amok and is instead serving itself. For a candidate to be nominated for either Republican or Democrat primaries, there are lots of strings attached. Some of these people mean well, but the political spotlight comes at the cost of compromising values, morals, and ideals; not only for the media and their interests, but also lobbyists who are funding their campaigns. Surprisingly they are indebted to other party members and if a piece of legislation has to be passed, it has to be passed or compromised drastically, with under the table negotiations and deals.

The government is not being held accountable for its actions, by the people because the people supposed to represent us are in Washington rather than local areas. The only real solution is localizing government, to the state, and municipal localities to maximize accountability, and to vote for third party root-movement candidates, who do not have lobbyist ties.

Turning Adversity Into Opportunity; Within Political Upheaval.

We will elaborate first, on what we can do within the system, to counter the fascist tendancies and executive power grab. Using the constitutional mechanisms that limit power and the other branches of government to limit deleterious political actions. Second we will encounter what we can do, outside the system to protect our wealth and our liberties. Using the political instability to benefit, regular American people and investors.

Let us see what the system can do within the system. Judges must counter the executive

Legislative branch, make sure things are lawful, by reviewing the legality of laws through the mechanism of judicial review; where the supreme Court and other courts can determine the legality of laws, based on their constitutionality. Only problem is that this will take years, and the problems must be encountered within the trials that address them. 

This is especially useful by making sure that those deported get due process of law, if murderers and rapists, can get the right to an attorney and due process of law; there is absolutely no reason as to why, those being deported cannot have a fair day in court to determine as to whether it is lawful, for them to be deported and be separated from their families. This is not to say that border crossings should be legal, as fentanyl kills one person within the United States every fourteen minutes, the raw materials are shipped from China, processed in Mexico, then shipped through our borders. 

This is a precarious situation, and the executive branch should be allowed to stop this, but within a legal framework and granting people due process, so that legal citizens will not be deported, as a political plot against those criticizing the government for one, cutting jobs and making social security and veterans affairs, less efficient in providing services to those who paid for it, there entire lives and serving and getting wounded for the nation.  The executive branch, should be  limited with their executive orders, the executive branch is not supposed to make laws, but only enforce them.

Also, this is an opportunity for the people to use town halls to address their grievances amongst their elected government officials in town halls. Also, colleges should stand up against the government using denial of college funding against those who are standing up against the situation in Palestine. It is not wrong to have the free speech, to just say that innocent people should not be bombed or killed.

People must realize, that this will affect research into debilitating diseases and new technologies within universities. The truth is that, every dollar invested research in medicine and technology, has a double fold return in the future. So the government cutting investment in research within colleges is not a good idea.Instead of consumerism, perhaps people could learn to be more financially disciplined as prices go up. Refusal to buy expensive products, ultimately will force those prices to go down. 

The government should not be allowed to use denying college funding as a mechanism against free speech. That should be illegal. Federal college funding should not be used as a tool, against free speech, by denying those who are against the injustified war being waged by Israel on Palestinian civilians. Protests should not be vilified by denying funding to colleges against these monstrosity occuring.

Using adversity as opportunity for growth.Use this as a mechanism of awakening, as to how the rich and congress use subsidies and insider trading in stock market to enrich themselves; this however is an opportunity for regular people to get a share in the stock market while the prices are still cheap. Also an opportunity for the people to voice their grievances against a Congress stifled with lobbying and cooperate interests. It has literally become democracy for sell to the highest bidder, it is obvious and unfortunate.

America's global dominance is on the decline unfortunately, imperialist bullying with trade wars, has made the world more economically secure by seeking partners within their own regions, and making them less reliant on American businesses. A strong dollar is making American goods less affordable with their exports, and other countries receiprical tariffs.

 Forcing foreign countries to invest, within their own markets and a safe way is investing in gold and antique art, to maintain value and the value increases with inflation, protecting you against inflation and high tarrifs. A savings account is loosing money with inflation. Invest in real estate and more stable assets. With a weaker economy, stocks are cheap to buy, once this tarrriffs end, the stable Businesses will recover. This the best opportunity to buy stocks, while they are cheap. However one, must be aware that every investment has a risk within it.

What we can do outside the system? Protections exist against this, people are rising up against this, nationwide people have stood up against unlawful acts such as D.O.D.G.E. Although I agree that the government is wasteful. It is important to understand that only Congress has the power to create an agency, usually after a law has been passed, and the agency is created to enforce it. That power is not within the executive branch and also the moral decadence of that fact, the Elon Musk bought his position in the government, by giving millions to Trumps campaign. 

They went as far as turn the Whitehouse into an advertising agency for Tesla. People were upset because they did not vote for Elon Musk, and also conflict of interest, the government regulates the car industry and now we have someone within the industry, with the power of firing the people that regulate him. 

The extent of the rich in politics is obvious people have woken up,  create protests against the corporate oligarchy, tariffs shouldn't last long,.the higher prices will reduce consumer confidence, the federal reserve might lower its interest rate, perhaps some deals may succeed, the stock market is in shambles but only represents 10 percent of rich people and the top of the economy. 

The decline in stocks is an opportunity for regular people to get into real real estate, while prices are low and to buy stocks while they are cheap. Facilitating an opportunity for everybody to acquire partial ownership of businesses buying stocks, while they are cheap and profiting when they recover. 

With higher prices in groceries, people should turn their backyards into gardens, those with more than enough should sell at local markets, this creates self sufficiency, better health and also jobs. People should move more towards self sufficiency and that would coincide with green technology, decentralize electricity as a massive amount of electricity used is derived from using coal. A move towards a more independent citizenry, coincides with renewable green technology. 

However the technocrats that own the social media, now have control over what information people can see on their sites. Facebook has created revolutions that toppled governments, so social media can be a useful tool to pass information, however the algorithm rarely favors unbiased truth, that may not be in their favor.

In conclusion, we are living in a time of unprecedented political change in a dizzying race; no one knows what will come next. Nonetheless we need to be prepared, so we can maintain our peace in the middle of all of this political upheaval, and turn the adversity into opportunity.

The Dangerous Demise Of U.S China Relations.

The trade war, has accounted for a tumultuous time in our history. The stock market declined significantly, and is still in a state of limbo. As neither head of states nor, investors do not know what to expect from these trade wars. It is difficult to see how the tarrifs could be reciprocal, regardless Americans are getting federal jobs slushed, the veterans affairs is slashed, among many other critical administrators who are seeing both their budgets and employees slushed

I get it, the D.O.G.E. whatever it is, because only congress has the power to create agencies and administrations. It by definition, does not get any of its power constitutionally, and neither does the executive branch have the power, to arbitrarily create agencies. It is rather ironic, that Elon Musk who is supposedly taking a chainsaw to the waste in government; has been himself a big recipient of large government payments for space-x and subsidies for Tesla. As a matter of fact most billionaires, become billionaires because of the government.

Besides that, America has initiated a trade war with China. Needless to say it is a little too late. What China practices is controlled capitalism, meaning the state is in charge and in control of businesses and are ultimately the deciding factor, as to whether they will pivot this company to success or not. China having a large population without jobs, and the government investing extensively in manufacturing and creating deals with Western countries. Have let their human rights abuses go unchecked. From unfair wages, to horrible working conditions.

As Americans our original instinct, would be to leave the job, and find something that pays better. Whereas the Chinese create millions of graduates, thousands of them send to the United States for education for a reason. Now in China there is a massive influx of individuals with education, a large chunk of them getting education abroad.

This comes down to whether you believe intellectual property is justified. Unlike other libertarians I believe in intellectual property, some maybe against it, stating it doesnt take capital to create information, therefore all information should be open source. However it takes money to research, and resilience to persevere with a new product, until it gets public recognition, and the brand is trusted enough to gain the profits they aspire to. Them stealing intellectual property allows them to profit of what American companies are making, by making it a cheaper price but at the expense of American profits. One of the consequences of outsourcing jobs, is that the people learn how to make the product, and can make the products, outside the company.

With all these graduates coming from America. This has supercharged the stealing of intellectual property, of which the Chinese government has secretly funded or turned a blind eye to. This is not just a problem that happened, the American people caused it on themselves by moving manufacturing to China, to exploit the lack of human rights and meager working conditions, perpetrated and kept hidden by the C.C.P. at some point the American oligarchs chose profit over human rights, cause it makes more money.

Thus the companies that chose not to outsource their labor overseas, lost out on the competition as they could not compete paying fair American wages. Now, women who you used to take care of households entered the market, and then minorities that weren't allowed to work, were released to the market. Though both of those things are a good thing, everything comes at a cost.

The sudden influx of minorities and women to the work force, created more demand than supply of jobs, but technology was increasing productivity and the wages increased along with productivivity. With the sudden influx of all these workers, wages could stay stagnant while prices increased with persistent inflation. Our manufacturing jobs all gone to China,.America has come to rely heavily on finance and the service sector.

Most of what we use from iPhones, to androids, to computers are made in China. In sweatshops and avenues they cannot make that much. Trump relented on the tariffs on electronics, whereas China's tariffs stand and have cancelled a multimillion dollar deal with Boeing for their planes.

This is not a good idea because the chinese own large chunks of united states bonds, and debt. If they dump these, it will cause problems with financing the federal government. It seems to me that this government has bitten of more than they can chew. America no longer has the leverage that it use to.

While America was busy implementing their policies by forces, the Chinese were building infrastructure in Africa and Asia, and joined the BRICS alliances. Since Trump trade wars more than half the population of the planet are a part of the BRICS countries. Our push to have the United States dollar as the global reserve currency by force, has pushed other countries to join BRICS use their own currencies or currencies with large stable countries within the organization.

I understand Trumps frustration the C.C.P is not playing by fair free trade rules. Trump can't have his cake and eat it too, we cannot have a strong dollar and strong exports simultaneously, this will always result in a trade deficit. As the American consumer can afford more, with little currency, but it will take lots of capital for people to afford American goods,because the wages and high prices for resources are included in the price,.plus a strong currency, makes it harder for the world to afford American goods. 

China has participated in currency manipulation, to keep their exports affordable and sometimes the government will fascilitate dumping of products for cheap in countries economies, to run the domestic companies broke. The price of cheap commodities, is the loss of domestic jobs, and a further dependence on China. With the Belton road initiative, china created the infrastructure for trade with developing countries that have resources needed for near future technologies.

China now processes more than 80 percent of all the Earth's rare earth, and is exporting most of its goods to Asia and Africa, not the United States. Some have stated that seventy percent of what is in Walmart, is made in China or has parts made in China. Trump had to make an exception to technology as most of our phones,.and computers are made in China.

Protectionist policies won't bring back manufacturing, maybe a few companies getting government favors, will bring back it's manufacturing to America, but most will not, and the tariffs will move more jobs to India, where labor is cheaper. It seems that America is frantically struggling to hold on to its position as the global hegemony.

Unfortunately times are changing and we are witnessing the slow collapse of an empire. We need China way more than they need us. Our own manufacturing is done in China. They know how to make our own products for cheaper, we cannot compete at those prices. Our greed for profits moved all our manufacturing to China, and the tarriffs will only serve to make everything more expensive,.and pushes China and other countries away from the dollar and towards the BRICS nations. The West depends too much on China, to have leverage in trade wars. This will not end well for us, it's already crushing the stock market.

This seems less than a strategy, than America frantically struggling to maintain its global super power position. However the Chinese economy is now larger than our own, or is in the process of surpassing it. China posses nuclear submarines capable of hitting the United States, and has been doing military drills around Taiwan.

Taiwan, makes the chips we use for our computers. Though china does not yet posses the possibility Taiwan does, they want to annex it back to mainland China, so they can posses the technology; control United States access to badly needed chips, silicon valley badly requires, and trade routes between Asia and China which is largely facilitated by the Taiwan straight.

The United States has bases in Japan and south Korea, and has vowed to protect Taiwanese democracy, and has patrolled multiple air craft careers and other sea vessels in the Taiwan straight to deter Chinese attempts at Taiwan. However the tariffs have weakened American soft power in Asia, and the tariffs have pushed counties suck as Vietnam, to side with China,as they are now a more stable and reliable trading partner and ally. 

The tariffs have created global uncertainity as they are not recipripricol but are unilateral nonetheless. The United States has more money, therefore they buy more than everyone else, therefore trade deficits are inevitable, a tarrif because we need them more than they need us. Only hurts the American consumer, and China is no longer dependent on American imports, so the United States will suffer more from the tarrrifs than China will, with its Belton road initiative, facilitating greator global trade, than it doea with the United States.

The United States has isolated itself from its allies. Will make products more expensive from the consumers, and it will take years, even if somehow American labor will become cheaper, and will attract those companies back; which is highly unlikely. The tariffs will not compensate for the tax cuts to the rich, and if it seems that it is, it's only because the sales tax will be higher for the rest of us.

These protectionist policies will only serve the oligarchs, and it is doubtful that the tarrrifs will be successful, as they are already cutting back. Because of lobbying the rich control the government and 10 percent of them, own 90 percent of the stocks. So they are not happy with the stock prices dropping so low, concessions will have to be made.

 As the stocks drop, will we witness another large transfer of wealth to the top 1 percent, who own more than the bottom 50 percent own more, as they have the capital to buy cheap stocks and once the tariff fiasco is over, will profit millions as the market corrects itself and millions will have lost their I.R.S. We are witnessing the collapse of the Chinese American relations, and a war might be provoked over Taiwan.

Predictive History

Using past precedents, to establish principles; we is the dilemma of centralization of the power over vast jurisdictions. Have eventually relegated to using uiform laws, to different jurisdictions. Therefore, people of different demographics suffered because the laws did not suit their needs or predicaments. Therefore the more the government Centralizes more jurisdictions and demographics, the more we are to see more suffer, under uniformly applied laws to people with different needs and lifestyles.

Government intrusion in the economy causes declines on living for entire populations. Due to reduction in innovation and productivity; due to arbitrary laws promoting identity politics that disenfranchise the people from seeking actual proper market initiatives, in order to satisfy government mandates.

The worst of a civilization is, the slower it could Improve. At least in a closed system. Thus an open system that includes foreign trade, would be an open system. Open trade devoid of governmental protective barriers such as sanctions. This is true also in physics; closed systems that don't get energy from outside themselves, it violates the laws of thermodynamics. Economic systems, are not devoid of entropy if closed.

The problem stemmed outsourcing of jobs from our own sector, to other nations, because the United States has put too much red tape. Obstructions to economic productive economic innovation. Our lack of awareness of consumer choice have obstructed our capabilities to decipher companies that are benefiting from cheaper work forces, but benefiting from American consumerism.

Customer Choice Vs Bureaucratic Monopoly.

Customer Choice Vs Bureaucratic Monopoly.

The choice is whether you have better capacity to spend on what you need, or need to be taxed more to ensure that you do. It is essentially an individual choice between how you spend your money or the government spends it for you.

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."—Immanuel Kant. Would it be more desirable to live in a society in which the government makes economic decisions over your family's well-being from your earnings, or would you rather bear it yourself? If the government were to provide all social goods, it is self-evident from the failed communist and social experiments in the past, that it ends in disaster. If we apply Kant's maxim we would realize how dangerous it is, if the whole world depended on bureaucrats.

We must understand incentives. Government bureaucrats are not motivated by profit, or by the possibility of losing their jobs; however inefficient and inconvenient, it is shouldered by the taxpayer. The government ends up costing more because it either inflates by printing currency to cover its costs, or by higher taxes from its citizens. However, business owners must be efficient and provide value, to stay in business.

It is becoming a choice between the invisible hand that Adam Smith used as an abstraction; to describe the cooperation and prosperity, that emerges out of individuals serving their own self-interest, via serving others with labor or products. This actually creates value, whereas value is lost by incompetent government bureaucrats through the magnanimous size of the invisible costs of government.

The alternative costs of government could have been spent to better a person's life or property. Every dollar earned is an opportunity to invest or spend. The government is incentivized to spend exuberant amounts, and it benefits from them. However, the taxpayer could have used that funding to improve his family and by extension the society. They won't lose their jobs if they don't perform. The private sector must be efficient to survive, governments do not

It boils down to whether the government has a monopoly to acquire and distribute taxes for whatever causes. We either entrust our well-being to bureaucrats who have usurped their power, to get paid by lobbyists who have been pursuing aggressive military intervention in foreign countries. As well as not balancing the budget, and leading to a 34 trillion dollar deficit. A bubble that hasn't burst, because the dollar is the reserve currency, for the whole world.

The dollar was originally backed by gold. Currency needs to have an actual commodity or services that add much needed. Now, it is simply backed by the faith of those who are willing to accept it in exchange for a good or service. Therefore, resulting in persistent inflation. The more money is printed to cover government expenses, the more the dollar loses value. Oddly enough, only government services can stay open even if they are not profitable.

The consequence of the government having control of the money supply, which isn't backed by any services or goods, is that taxation isn't the only mechanism governments can spend the public's money. The Treasury can just print money. Here is the dilemma. Let's say a good is ten dollars, and then let's say the government prints 20 dollars and hands them out, through one of their wealth distribution mechanisms. Unless the amount of goods increases with the money supply, the price of the goods will increase, without having to add any value because many people have added purchasing power, but the amount of goods has not increased.

This creates shortages, and also the dollar loses value because you will need more money for the same good or service. These are some of the consequences of government monopoly, the quality of goods or services does not improve but the public servants get wage increases. Since government services are not facing any competition. There isn't much incentive to be efficient, but they have a mechanism to lobby for wage increases through unions. However, in the free market, if a good or service isn't needed, it's not bought, and the company holds on to what sells,  and may discontinue what is not. Saving costs and resources.

Inflation is theft, slowly and steadily. The people in power, print money to cover expensive pursuits. The government spends plenty of money on munitions, and the military budget is large and does not have restrictions. Companies such as Raytheon are raking in billions. That is why, spending should be left to the individual and for the providence of his family. Also, many do not agree with wars and foreign military or political intervention, it does not benefit the average working man.

Therefore, it is only rational that consumer choice should take precedence over government spending on goods. Instead of taking higher taxes from people's wages, and using that money for pursuits that don't benefit any persons or their property, but deprive them of their life, dying for wars funded by taxpayer money, lobbied by the military-industrial complex. I believe that people are better at choosing what they need, over the government's provision. Instead of adding more government services through higher taxation, there should be lower taxation and smaller governments.

This way, companies in the private sector can grow to meet those services, and this opportunity is affordable, but primarily the competition in the free market; results in increases in productivity and a higher yield in value. Taxpayer money should not be spent on subsidies either, or exuberant contracts governments give to certain industries. As well as providing jobs to people, for things people actually want. The only way a business can stay afloat is if it provides a commodity or service that is profitable. The problem with the government is that the lack of competition from the monopoly of the administration results in lower services and goods that are mediocre. Consumer choice is tantamount and utterly in dissonance with government monopoly. Consumer choice is greater than government handouts, and services.

Crony Capitalism Isn't The Free Market.

Many on the left proclaim that capitalism doesn't work because of inequality and wages. However, wages are agreed upon by the employer and the employee, no one forced anyone to take a job; at least it is voluntary. However, I will admit corporatations have misused their wealth, to gain advantages that otherwise they couldn't garner.

Corporate personhood is something I disagree with completely. The idea that the corporation is a person, because they can be penalized is ludicrous. Merely because you can fine an institution such as a corporation, but you cannot jail them, such as you could do an individual. 

If we abolish corporate personhood, then people would personally be held responsible for the actions they perpetrated with their corporations. With people knowing they would personally be held liable, corporate abuse and other absurdities they commit would decrease as people would be subject to the consequences of their actions directly, not just their businesses paying fines.

Alot of those C.E.O's make their money, and when their company gets caught doing whatever illegal endeavor, the company is fined and pays penalties but those individuals don't pay out of their own pocket books and rarely go to prison.Ultimately it's the investors in the market whether rich poor who burden the loss.

Many would be surprised that a lot of billionaires have amassed their wealth working with government contracts. We complain a lot about how government should fix inequality; whereas they are producing most of it. Raytheon among other companies are paid billions in tax payer money to be funded and manufacture munitions.

That is why wars are perpetual. In order for these companies to keep profiting billions of tax payer money. The American war machine must continue indefinetely. If they are to make a profit, we must be involved in some conflict some where; as you have noticed most of those intitatives have nothing to do with us or our property.

So why should we put our persons and property in constantly propagating war? If it brings no benefit to us, and most Americans would rather be at peace than in be at war. Not only is it costly, but it has cost so many families their dear ones life. Many more trillionares have amassed their wealth by guaranteed government contracts even for years, at ridiculous costs at the tax payers expense.

So to suggest that the same mechanism that prevents people from getting wealthy, and allows others to get wealthy; is the same one you will use to reduce inequality is ridiculous. We all know that lobbying exists. A lot of politicians cater to their donors and those donors must be wealthy enough to influence politicians, thus they amass more wealth than they would through the market.

Unless we can decentralize more power to the states, and disenable lobbying; the federal government with its special interests cannot be the mechanism to achieve more prosperity or equality. A lot of their economic policies harbor special favor privileges to those wealthy donors that funded their campaigns. The fact that people think this same government, can create actual income equality whereas it is causing it, is illogical to any reasonable person.

Subsidies are also another mechanism the government benefits one business over the others. Why should tax payers money be used to keep afloat inefficient businesses? If they are not making a profit, it means people are demanding less of what they have. To reward them for it, does not make any sense. To make more of what less people want, isn't economical.

Also that labor and capital that has been proven to be inefficient to the market in that particular industry, could be used in other sectors of the economy. Those people would have to seek other forms of income, thus the standard of living of society would rise, due to the rise of capital brought in by these people. Either through labor or even creation of new businesses.

The last point I'd like to emphasize is barriers to entry. They make it more complicated and expensive for smaller businesseses to start, by creating an unnecessary and costly expense just to start a business. If such barriers would not exist, many businesseses could be established and compete mostly locally.

Capitalism has eliminated poverty more than any other system we have ever practiced. However to throw away the whole free market because a few have abused it, is not logical. What we must do is examine the law, or even lessen it; so it won't be able to be misused to profit the already wealthy. The inequality between the super rich and the people wouldn't be as big, without government. What we have is crony capitalism, this truly isn't the real free market.

Horrors Of The Abstraction of 'Government'

Government does not exist in the same way an indvidual does. However an individual can commit atrocities via government, we do not say  that person in particular committed murder, they reason that specific individual didn't kill somebody but the government of that region did the atrocity. It obscures the reality of individuals acting in the name of government, and therefore eliminates accountability.  

Positive rights are a misnomer, it is a way the government obscures it's tasks. You have the right to govern; from persons and their property but you do not have the right to people or their property. There is a difference; individuals acting under the authority of the government are not justified acting contrary to that maxim.

The free market via voluntary exchange and the profit initiative, can create cheaper and better goods. It should be the mechanism of use. The government costs more than the private sector, a good example would be the existence of administrative costs and also it's tendency to become more inefficient over time.

If businesses become inefficient, they go out of business; if government agencies poorly provide services they are kept afloat by the tax payers. One has an incentive to create value as to gain profit, the other has the incentive to maintain their beuracratic position, even if it does not add value to the society. 

Most wars would not happen, if people were not forcefully mandated to fight in wars through drafts or those who serve to go fight wars that go against their values. War is mostly a confluence of people fighting for the elitists agendas. Millions of people have died under this collectivist abstraction, and billions have been stolen.

The problem is that people are not held accountable while in office; they merely commit mass attrocities and wars and simply leave office. In a state of nature, there's potentially 100,000 people that could harm your person or steal your property. However, they have an incentive to protect their own persons and property, thus we made government to protect persons and property.

 Beyond that, government actions are unjustifiable. However, the problem with government is that, whereas it's unlikely that among thousands of people, maybe one or two may harm or steal from you. However, instead of having 10,000 individuals acting on their own; you have ten thousand soldiers acting under one man's objective. It becomes clear that if this person is despotic, it will wreck havoc and history has shown us repeatedly, that this is the case.

The average working man is not terribly concerned with foreign affairs, and neither should he be subjugated to involuntary servitude via the draft unless if it is to protect his people and their property, nor should he be economically forced to pay for wars, that don't involve any of his affairs.

We have poor people living in tents that are veterans. Instead of helping Americans suffering, tax payer money is used to help fund wars overseas that have nothing to do with us. If the government activity does not protect persons and property, but endangors and misuse them in foreign agendas. This is beyond the scope of what government should do.

The free market is the real path to making wealth honestly and reducing poverty. The free market requires the production of a commodity or service or value, that will benefit, both the producer and the customer through voluntary exchange.

When the abstraction of government is expanded to the point that it interferes with voluntary exchange via high taxation or creating barriers to entry through regulations and mandates, it becomes an impediment. It's job is merely to facilitate the voluntary exchange of property, not take more of it or distribute it.

Government is an abstraction that allows the populace to absolve themselves from personal responsibility. Such as colonialism and imperialism, as these individuals under the title of government; stole both property and persons with slavery. As a matter of fact American policing started when they rounded up slaves that escaped, under the fugitive slave act.

Government is defined as the institution that has the monopoly of violence. Just because we get to vote, it does not change the nature of it. Most of us function in our daily lives perfectly fine without government. Usually when the government is involved there is an issue at hand.

Socialism and communism fail, because "the people" is an abstraction, there are only individuals. It becomes even more of an abstraction when a few people, are concidered or consider themselves the voice of all people. The danger of marxism, is that you are replacing one elite with another, and giving them authority to take people's property or even lives under the justification, it is for 'the people'.

Thus delegating decision making to the political elites, who use it to subjugate all those who oppose them, and enrich themselves on others coerced labor, and property is not logical. In a democracy, we could just call that higher taxation and inflation, because of government spending.

You can't hold entire countries accountable for genocides and such, if it's the military doing it. You can't jail a country, no such accountability exists.There lies a paradox, the people won't take the accountability for bad militarisitic actions but would celebrate incessantly if it benefited them. This abstraction is able to kill and steal, under the banner of authority of 'the government or 'the people' but this is only an abstraction, society is composed of individuals.

 Individuals can be held accountable for attrocities through fines and jail and other measures, whereas we can't jail the government and even if they are fined, they will have to take it from the people. We have to realize collectivist ideologies are abstractions, there are only individuals and everybody is personally responsible for what they choose to do.

The Hidden Costs of 'Social Justice'

Social Justice warriors arrive from the proposition, that they are the oppressed; be it by color or sexual preference, or whatever class can afford the endorsements to promote their cause, regardless of how small of a minority they may be. It is Marxism repackaged in a modern form.

The narrative is Marxist by nature, though Karl Marx attributed to the proletariat (the working class) and the bourgeoisie (the people that own those means of production). They call profits surplus value and justify that this should be equally distributed to the workers.

This sounds like it makes sense, it has good intentions but has inhumane outcomes. 'Tax the wealthy goes the maxim', but we forget the simple fact that incentives motivate behavior.

Higher taxation results in the exiting of businesses from where it is no longer profitable. Thus consequently places with lower taxes attract more business and eventually collect more money, than they would if they just unjustly increased the cost of current businesses.

In the name of social justice, businesses that provide employment, goods and services are destroyed. Out of an outrage of race or sexuality, this ends up being injurious to the people that live in the area. The businesses leave, and people are forced to resort to welfare. Riots destroy businesses and don't further the cause either.

We are so far from the ages of slavery and even from Jim Crow laws, that race is still being propagated as an issue to be addressed by legislation. I agree wholeheartedly that laws should provide equal opportunity to every person, race, sex, or whatever based on competence and not arbitrary superficial demographics.

I agree with laws that stop discrimination and provide an equal playing field. However, I would not give certain people priority over others who may be more competent. Most of us just want equal opportunity, not quotas or privileges. We are privileging the few, at the cost of the many.

Social justice is often a ruse for redistributive justice, you see equal opportunity does not necessarily mean an equal outcome. However, people will use outcomes, as proof that a race is being discriminated against even if given the same opportunities 

Redistributive justice requires higher taxation, to be able to fund the bureaucracy that will be doing it, thus discouraging businesses from those areas. The more the government steps in with welfare programmes, and then demands higher taxation; the more businesses leave, those people are left to poverty and resorting crime, especially in the states where welfare exists the most.

In conclusion, we must stay clear of this social justice phenomenon. It is merely Marxism as one labels themselves a victim based on race, sex, or whatever arbitrary distinction and society must pay for it, in one way or another. 

The truth is, nothing we do, will be enough for these plunderers; there's always more and more to take from people who earn their living honestly. Reduce taxes for everyone; for higher standards of living benefit everyone equally, not just the upper class or the middle class; so down with social justice, it is divisive and costly.

Why Race And Identity Politics Destroy Us.

It is unfortunate that we have fallen to the Marxist idea of the ploteriate and the bourgeois; yes, it is true that some people produce the labor, and some people own the companies. However, to claim that because labor produced the profit, the return of investment should be equal to the one who owns the franchise. The risk essentially validates the reward. The unfortunate thing is that identity politics especially targets white straight Christian males, because many have authority in business or politics. However, the majority of the population is white, therefore it is indicative in the situations. I can't say this always the case, but often the case.

Well, for obvious reasons we know that, it takes money to start a business. It is a massive investment that potentially could not pay of. The owner is rewarded for taking that risk, by the profit that he gains. The laborer neither provides the machines or the building, he gets to earn a living by the investors self interest.

People arguing for ridiculous wages, because they feel they deserve more or because they feel they are being discriminated against, must evaluate the situations rationally.Perhaps get more education or learn a trade, and earn more. I am not saying that discrimination does not exist.

Despite the portrayal of the media, who subsequently are the ones dividing us through identity politics, we have more values in common than we differ. Most Americans agree on the virtues of hard work, common decency, voluntary trade and association. Honestly, this is all that is needed for a society to progress, without the impediment of artificial government policies.

Do you know, near misses between planes are now happening more often, due to airlines restructuring and their mandates to diversify. Air traffic control has had more issues than it ever has, since it hired on diversity but not competence.What's wrong with diversification you might ask? Well, it's obvious.

You don't hire people based on their sexual preference, race, or any other superficial distinction but based on what they can actually provide in labor or services. We want competence, not necessarily diversity. It's also insulting to say, people of color cannot make it without government assistance. 

Martin Luther King wanted a day, when people would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Promoting certain demographics of people, in favor of others goes against that whole principle.

Yes, there are bigots out there, but it's the exception and not the norm, and they reap the consequences of that compacensy especially today. No one should get an upper hand, in terms of opportunity. Policies that promote hiring based on race or sexual preference or whatever other mechanism, are disregarding that the function of business, is to have competence and profit.

We can't really claim to be an equal nation, if any group whatsoever gets an upper hand in college or the work force, not because of the content of their character but by their superficial characteristics. The irony in all this, is that by promoting programs that are supposed to help only to help minorities; you are establishing government dependence on those communities.

That is the reason, heavy sets beuracracies in mostly democrat states with heavy welfare, and programmes for the minorities. Are most ridden with crime, corruption and still the poor exist in multitudes. Heavy taxes discourage businesses from those areas, thus not providing adequate means for people to earn a living.

The rioting and looting of businesses, in response to some racial outrage. Is one of the stupidest things I have seen justified by the media. You are destroying the businesses of the people, who provide your neighborhood resources and for some a livelihood, in protest of one individuals actions? Yes, anyone who violate the law should be prosecuted.

That is why the law should apply equal to everyone or it is despotism. No law should favor one citizen over another, or stop a more qualified individual from getting a job, because of diversity quotas. Despite the common understanding it's merely victim mentality.

Identity Politics and race biters, need to stop embracing the victim mentality. The idea that any form of financial or societal problem I face is merely a consequence of my race or sexual preference. Sometimes your just not good of a worker, or not qualified. We can't abandon objective standards, for diversity quotas.

The Blank Slate Deception

It is important that it be clarified, what is meant by a blank slate. It is the erroneous idea that people are born as blank slates. Therefore the solution provided, is controlling the population, via public schooling and through the media.Exposing this blank slate deception, is critical in understanding, how the world has become so absurd.

 Apparently people are born as empty vessels, and it necessitates that society fills the vessels, with whatever is popular..Most woke ideology stem from this understanding, is what leads to people attending to attempt to legislate morality or convict those who don't accept their norms.This idea is dangerous because it ignores reality. This is the tyranny of the majority, but truth is truth even in the majority of one.

 The idea necessitates the elimination or suppression of speech. Due to the fact that any speech if misinterpreted,is capable of making another person uncomfortable. According to these form of reasoning,the public is to blindly accept whatever the so called experts and authorities narratives about everything.

We have reached a dangerously toxic level of self deception.These have dangerousy crept into our universities and public opinion. It is simply the idea that society creates what people become, and thus altering the norms of society would inevitably lead to a different even better type of individual. 

I am not against society becoming better, but we must stick to our principles nonetheless. People masquerade sinful and debauchiaries, justifying that the reason for their erroneous behavior, it's because they were raised under a toxic environment.

Instead of taking accountability for their anger, you blame your parents for being around you, as an example. Claiming you do the despicable things you do because you were raised that way. Yes, this has an element of truth to an extent, yes we are affected by our environment but we can also affect the environment.

To say that all human behavior is merely a product of social construction, is rather fallacious. The irony is that the idea of a social construction itself erroneous, and is bound to fade into obscurity. People employ blank slate reasoning to justify indoctrinating children to their agendas.

To the point people are literally ignoring biology. Today in public discourse, we are incapable of having a civil discussion of what's the difference between, a boy and what's a girl. The simplest backed scientific fact is that a female, is one who has the organs that allow them to give birth.

However people have denied the biology behind gender among under things. The government is stepping is overreaching unconstitutionally, into our capacity to speak freely. You can get arrested or face some consequences for not using the right pronouns.

Unfortunately this idea amalgamates into every facet of our society. Especially in regards to the difference in equality of property. Since every one is merely a product of social construction, it bares to this reasoning, that merely changing the social circumstances would change the individuals' economic predicaments.

It is primarily a mechanism of denying accountability. People blame their society for their lack of success; whereas many haven't endevored to learn new skills, get better education or worked enough to raise their own company. 

So they would rather blame their predicament on their choices but on society. For example, a feminist woman may be angry that she has not had a raise in her job and blame it on the patriarchy; whereas it would just require a change of attitude. 

It goes further, some would even argue that the women are discriminately being compensated less, for the same tasks. In fact in restaurants female sevors make more for the same tasks, yet we fervently  and demand equality.

 I wonder if there would be as much fervor, if they wanted equality in people in prison, homelessness or committing suicide, which is mostly men. Not everything is a social construction, different genders are more likely to pick different professions and be better at different jobs. 

It doesn't mean one gender is superior to the other, but that, they are better at different things. Denying that is denying basic biology, thus the influx of men dominating women's sports. The irony is that, those advocating from that are eliminating top women competitors from having a shot.

This is accommodated by the blank slate idea that people are born like a blank page and society has the right to write whatever on their minds, and we can alter even biology just by changing society. True insanity. Society is not just what determines who we are, we have biology and instincts but most importantly free will and that comes with accountability.

This has led to many abandoning their core principles, their institutions and their traditions.Some roles are not because of oppression.The man providing and the women taking care of kids is not oppression. I understand the society has changed. It is critical to elaborate that our physiology affects our psychology.

All of this is a product of the blank state idea that we are simply a product of our environment. Therefore government should not enforce social norms, those should be a consequence of voluntary exchange that best facilitates the functioning of a society. Not arbitrarily, enforcing and pandering to whatever the current popular mob demands. Human nature is real, not just a social construction.

My Christmas Miracle

I was lost, travelling all alone,

I could fill this emptiness in my bones,

I thought I was going to be all alone,

But then you became my home,

I don't feel like I knew what love was,

Internally I was disturbed and at war,

More anxious and depressed than before,

I felt this alienation to my core,

Then it just happens you came my way,

Everything changed, I was in dismay,

You turned my world, from grey,

I was feeling down, now I feel okay,

My affection for you is uncontainable,

You appeared to my life, it was a spectacle,

My love for you burns and is unquenchable,

You are truly my special Christmas Miracle