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.

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.