Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Trump and the 1st Amendment

President Donald Trump has blocked a woman on his Twitter account.  I don't think she is the first, but who knows.  I know that just him blocking one person is enough to bring up a valid issue.

No, not that he has thinner skin and is more easily offended and triggered than the most delicate of liberal snowflakes, though that is patently true.  Conservatives who love to think of their leader as "tough" should do some serious re-evaluating on that one, though of course they will not.



And it's not even the issue about how immature and childish he is in general, both in what he tweets on twitter and how he responds when it's ever dished back.

No, it's a Constitutional issue and a real one.  It's about his violation of the 1st amendment rights of various citizens, of which this model who hurt his wittle itty-bitty feelings was just the latest to be so deprived of her inalienable rights.

What violation?  What right?  Deprived of what?

Oh, my dear conservatives, you who are so able and willing to quote the 2nd amendment in full (and I'm pro-2nd amendment, so don't go there!) don't remember the 1st amendment?

Here you go:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I would draw your particular attention to the "or of the press" and the "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

You see, just like the 2nd amendment is not a right to a musket, but to whatever gun exists nowadays, so the right to a free press and to petition your government is not speaking of a quill and ink on parchment, or the ability to hitch up your wagon to a mule and visit the White House.

If a President - say Barack Obama - had set a policy that said that any of the press could see his press releases, but not Rush Limbaugh, you'd have been furious.  And if a President - say Barack Obama, still y'all's favorite boogeyman - had said that any could call up the White House and petition him for a redress of grievances, except Glenn Beck, you'd have been furious again!

And if any one said, "But hey, Rush can just learn of what the President is saying second hand, so no biggie!" you'd justly be against that, and cry out the louder!  And if anyone said, "Well, Glenn can't call, but he can still email, so he's still okay!" you'd be whining your bottoms off about discrimination and undue burden!

Well, conservatives, it works both ways.  The Whiner-in-Chief has shut out a citizen of the United States from reading of his pronouncements.  Everyone else - save a select few others that frighten him and wound his wittle feelings - can see what he tweets each day at three or four in the morning, but these ones cannot.

And everyone who wants can tweet a complaint against the President and have at least there be some chance of him seeing it, but not this model.  Nor any of those in general that triggered or offended the Donald.

And that not only is unfair, that not only is childish, but it is a bona-fide violation of the First amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

And it needs to stop.

The President of the United States needs to learn what the least Mayor of the least village already learned.  That if you're going for public office, if you're then holding public office, you must be there for the public.  ALL the public, not just those who praise your name to the skies, but those who dislike you, your policies and any and all that you might stand for.

That's the deal, that's the rule, and it's been in place since Democritus and Republicus duked it out for who'd be Mayor of Athens back in whatever century BC!  You're elected by the majority of the people, but you serve the totality of the people.  That obvious fact is obvious.

So.  Our President now needs to use his tiny hands to wipe away his wittle tears and unblock those citizens who wounded him in his buttocks.  If there are some from other nations, he may Constitutionally leave them blocked, though maturity would dictate otherwise.

Or he may resign to the private sector, where you're allowed to ignore others who say things that frighten or upset you.  Yeah.  Really.  And I doubt I'm the only person to have this occur to them, I fully expect some legal scholars to write on this at some point.

Sunday, July 16, 2017

Welfare Bums

A conservative is a person who is against welfare...for everyone else.  His own kind, he loves, and will not part with it.  And no welfare is more loved by conservatives than Social Security.  It's what let's him not have to take care of his aged parents, and what lets him have a retirement income not dependent on any foresight or saving on his part.

But wait!  I hear the cries of a thousand conservatives right now!  "Social security isn't welfare, I pay for that with my taxes!"

If you think they're not on welfare, you're probably white.
Well, for one, and has been shown in previous articles, unless a person is making at least $150,000 per year, their tax liability is generally LESS than the amount of taxes invested in each citizen of the United States, so that they are already on "welfare" to that extent.

But for two, there is no way in which one may regard the income received from Social Security at 62 as "getting your taxes back".  Here's why:

I'm 48 years old.  According to the actuarial tables published by the Social Security Administration, I'm going to live to 79.  Actually, till I'm 79 years and 5 months.  Okay, actually, I went ahead and calculated the exact time of my death, and if they are correct, and it's going to be on March 27, 2048 4:48 pm!

But I turn 62 on November 10, 2030.  Which means I'll have 17 years 4 months to collect the $660 per month they say I am currently eligible for, assuming no enormous increase in my income.  17 years and 4 months is 208 months, and that times $660 is $137,280.  But it's just my taxes back, right?   

Nope.

Paid by me:  $20,943
Paid by my employers:  $21,172

That's the total.  While it may be charitably assumed that more will be put in between now at the age of 48 and then at the age of 62, I can assure you that even in the fantastically best of circumstances, the next 14 years will not see me pay in more than I did in the past 32 years.  It would work out to about $18,425 more, if you're curious, and that's including employer contributions.  

Thus of the $137,280 I am expected to get, $76,740 will be welfare.  That is the amount above and beyond the $60,540 I'll have - if all goes well - put in by the time I'm 62.  

Now, not everyone is me, some earn a lot more.  But they then also get back more.  No matter how you slice it, what you put in is one amount, and what you get back is another amount, and the two are NOT the same.

"But...but...muh interest!", I hear some saying.  Uh huh.  But there is no "interest" as "your" money paid in was never put in any savings account.  It was paid in to the government, then your elected representatives spent it as soon as it came in.  

They'll be paying you not from a savings account marked "Your Name" but by taxing the next generation of workers.  Their taxes, when you're 62, will then go to you - just as your taxes, now, are going, in part, to the current generation of welfare bums - er, "social security recipients".  

"But...but...it's not my fault the thieves in Congress stole it!", I hear the same voice saying.  Uh huh.  I wonder who's fault it is then in a nation in which 98% of the citizens routinely vote for the two main parties that ALWAYS spend the Social Security money that comes in.  I also wonder then why that conservative doesn't view the other folks on welfare the same way.

Usually a person on food stamps has done some previous work.  So he or she has paid some taxes. Why doesn't the conservative speak of how it's "their money", and if they notice that there is more in food stamps flowing out to the individual than they paid in taxes say, "It's the interest" of that person's contribution?

Usually a woman on welfare for her dependent children has done work and paid taxes, too.  But even if she has not, the father sure has, and so has her whole extended family.  Weren't their taxes then simply being paid back out to her?  And if she brought in more in welfare for her seven children then you believe her, the father and the family paid in then why would you not just chalk that up to "interest"?

See, there is no "interest" on any of these, as none of those taxes are ever saved.  And, sorry to say, Social Security is no different.  So the point is that you do not get to look at Social Security and say, "Well, see now, there was supposed to be interest!" but then look at everyone else's benefits and say, "Now I don't see how there was supposed to be any interest on that!"

It's been known that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme from - oh, yeah, since it was created.  If you didn't get the memo, if you're the last person not to know that, then that's on you.  Everyone else - for decades - has known it.

There.  Is.  No.  Interest.  

"When we lay off our maid and she applies for food stamps,
that's 'welfare'.  When we expect a 250% return on a savings
that we never saved, that's 'interest'."

Nor is there interest on the taxes everyone else pays for everything else.  It goes in.  Various aid programs are paid out.  That's it.  You cannot condemn everyone else for holding out their hands to get some of their taxes back - and even to grab more taxes back then they paid in - while you then see your parents living off the EXACT same trick, and even while YOU plan on pulling that EXACT same trick!

"But...but...muh interest!  For realz!", I'm still hearing conservatives screech like a goth stoner hearing that he has to do community service work to keep his food stamps.  

Let's look at that "interest".  My life time contribution is expected to be $29,943 total, or the same as me saving $650 per year for 46 years.  No, I did not count the employer's contribution, because in the event that he was not being made to pay the slightly above "matching" amount, what makes you think he would?  Is it more likely he'd give it to me as an hourly raise, or give it out as a quarterly dividend to the shareholders?

But fine, we'll do the $60,540 amount, too, or the same as if "I" had invested on my own $1,316 per year for 46 years.  

First, reality - just my contribution.  It comes to $67,139.50, or half of what I'll be receiving.

Second, the conservatives unicorn and rainbow-land estimate where corporations pass the savings on to the working man and the working man responsibly saves that for his future.  That comes to $135,931.

"Ah ha!", I now hear conservatives chuckling in relief.  "See?  That's pretty much what he said earlier he'd be getting back, so the system is just giving him back what he put in plus that interest!"

Wrong.

For one, as I said, no corporation is going to "match" your contribution just on it's own.  Certainly none ever did before they were made to by the government.

Secondly, could you tell me please which bank is giving 3% interest on savings accounts?  Because that's what I used - the government's made up calculation of a hypothetical 3% interest rate that does not exist.  The actual average savings account interest over time is .06% which is a bit shy of 3%.  If we count being only 1/2 of 1/3 as "a bit shy".

Using that actual figure, and still assuming your employer really loves you, it comes out to $62,750. And you're back on welfare.  Double that, and you're still on welfare.  Cut it however you like, but only in the fairy land of chocolate rivers and 3% interest rates for half a century and no inflation and employers paying you double out of love do you even come close to that which some foolishly claim as their "right".

A "right" to get what they put in doubled each month.  A "right" to have OTHER PEOPLE - their employers - made to do that for them at gun point.  A "right" to have a pretended interest SIX times greater than reality.  A "right" to elect people who will take what they "put in" and spend it on stuff they tacitly agreed to like roads and military and courts and rocket ships and such.  A "right" to have then TWICE as much as they "put in" (and then had promptly spent) handed back to them after they quit working, as we really don't live in a utopia of high interest on savings.  

And a "right" to have that pure self-serving fantasy paid for by OTHER PEOPLE as it turned out that I was right - as I and others before have been right for the past 75 plus years.  That there is no savings. That there is no interest.  There is only you with no retirement savings holding out your hand for welfare.

You are taxed when you work and your elected representatives spend it at once.  And when you get Social Security later, it is no more or less welfare than any food stamps or subsidized rent.  Either it is all welfare - a gift from the government that you did not earn - or it is all owed, just for you being a part of the nation.

Folks like me advocate that it is owed for being a part of the collective nation state called "The United States".  Conservatives argue that it's only owed if some can kid themselves that they've "paid in". (Because as we've just seen, most are not really "paying in" in any kind of meaningful way.)

Conservatives who then have heard the phrase "Don't judge a sinner for sinning differently than you." should now learn the phrase, "Don't judge a welfare bum for taking different welfare than you."

Thursday, July 13, 2017

The Conservative's Morning

Bob woke up one morning, and like every other morning, gave thanks to God.  He thanked God for many things, but among them was that he was smart enough to be a Conservative, and not some socialist liberal whining snowflake, always looking for a handout.

"All these withholdings, the poor are robbing me blind!"
Bob did not think to thank the police and military for that he woke up peaceably by his phone alarm, and not by slavers or looters or killers, like had been likely throughout much of history in areas that did not have such armed forces on call 24/7.  He thanked them on other occasions, but he rarely specifically applied their service to his own personal safety, or the safety of his family.  Nor did he stop and ever calculate just what the private cost of such a team of security professionals and mercenaries would be.

Team?  Even for just one person per shift, unarmed, and only at minimum wage, would cost around $90,000 per year.

It was 6:02 am, he saw by glancing at his iPhone, with tech from lavish government research grants and receiving it's up to the nano-second time from a government atomic clock kept in perfect order by government workers.  He jumped into the shower, and enjoyed the hot and clean water that came out - as it always came out - courtesy of the municipal water department that made sure that all the pathogens and bugs and germs and disease were out of it.

Bob had never lived through, or even heard of, a city-wide pandemic in which even as few as 1 out of 100 died.  Let alone 1 out of 3.  The public sewers that he had flushed his waste into shortly before the shower saw to that.

He made himself a quick breakfast, and at no point in any of the foods that he selected did he wonder if they were safe.  Up until the 20th century, that had been a problem, a lack of standardization - or even standards - had made meals somewhat risky for his ancestors, with one never knowing just what the "meat" really was or how well things were packaged and stored.  Yet Bob lived in an age of the Food and Drug Administration, where thousands of men and women he had never met made sure that all of his food was clean and safe for he and his family.

Blowing his still sleeping wife a kiss, he exited out of his house, a house built to standards undreamed of in the past for a man of his economic status, and kept safe by dozens of men who's job - without Bob worrying about it - was to do nothing but make sure that he did not have to worry about it.  Bob admired his neighborhood as he went to his car, not in words, but just a vague feeling of contentment at it's quiet prosperity.

He could admire it because he could see it.  Street lamps were not only on every corner, but all up and down each block, so that all could see and there were no dark spots for muggers or rapists to hide in. On they were, without Bob having had done anything for that to happen, and off they'd go, and without him doing a thing, or even noticing.  So had it been for every day of his entire life.

One single street light, installed, is on average about $5,000.  Bob neither knew that, nor cared.  But he relied on this socialist single payer, universal illumination system all the same.

That there were no feral dog packs running loose, or for that matter, no feral child packs running loose, did not occur to him by thought or feeling as a thing to be content about.  It would not have occurred to him that it could be any other way than it was, he not thinking about the Animal Control Officers and Department of Child and Family Services bureaucrats who worked tirelessly to guarantee he did not have to think of it.

Getting in his car, he did not worry about it exploding.  Those "standards" again, this time applied to this and all manner of other consumer products, all that had to meet various standards, all that had to be safe.  All made by companies that not only had to comply with those government standards, but would be held strictly accountable in government courts in the form of fines and damage claims were they to fail.

But Bob didn't think much about the courts, or how so many judges and bailiffs and such were on call, round the clock, to make sure not only that the various companies treated him and his family correctly, but that various of his neighbors did not get as out of hand as in nations without such systems.

If he'd been reminded, he might vaguely recall from a National Geographic article about how in some villages in Sub-Saharan Africa or Eastern Europe neighbor spats were automatically turned into blood feuds, but at this moment, he just was glad that he was driving through such a great neighborhood.

On a public road, of course.  There being no other kind.  And at no point did he give thanks to not have to pay a toll every few blocks.  He also did not think about the cost of just one intersection worth of traffic lights, which cost more than he'd see in half a year.  He did not wonder who paid a $56,000 per year technician to re-time the lights at that one intersection every few years at a cost of $10,000 to $12,000.  He did not marvel that should he drive to the furthest corner of his nation, that such lights, at an annual maintenance cost of nearly a billion dollars a year would be there to guarantee his safety.

Nor did he think to be grateful for an interstate network so vast and so comprehensive that he could safely go to those furthest corners, and indeed, navigate the entirety of his continent spanning nation with never any fear of being stranded, or set upon by marauders, or lost.  No mile of it was not ceaselessly patrolled, endlessly maintained, and provided with free illumination and guidance.

Having exited his bedroom community - which was only possible in these times, in prior parts of history, raiders or nomads would have laid it to waste - he quickly traversed the interstate and made it to the city where his job was.   Bob was a foreman at a factory that made parts for an assemblage which then was part of something else, and that ended up in some kind of weapons system.

It was the excessively large expenditures that Bob's government spent on military hardware that made Bob's job possible, but he didn't think of that.  Nor did he ponder about how if America's military were not so excessive, that the factories overseas that made other parts of what all was required would hardly be left intact to make sure that Bob's company had those parts.  Or indeed the supplies they needed for the parts they made here.

Bob also didn't think about massive corporate subsidies and bailouts that had kept manufacturing corporations like his solvent.  Or the bonuses paid to those who had mismanaged his and other companies, corporations, and banks in the first place.

Bob's factory was clean and ordered and well lit, and Bob walked through it without a care in the world. He did not worry - more than a foreman should, anyway - about work place accidents that as a child he had read of in books about Victorian England.  Machines in his factory - like every other factory in America - had safety feature after safety feature built into them, all by law, all enforced by many thousands of government workers.

Bob also knew, as did everyone, that any work place injury was covered by Worker's Compensation, a program funded not by the loving kindness and charitable impulses of his and other corporations, but by the mandate and order of the government who made sure of it.  In his great, great grandfather's time, a broken arm could have happened, and had it, perhaps bankrupted him.  In Bob's time, the broken arm was unlikely to happen, but would only be a vacation if it did.

Bob's not got to his first break yet - a break that he has guaranteed by law, as when it was left to private employers to decide, there was barely fifteen minutes for lunch in a 16 hour day.  No, he's not got to that government enforced 15 minute mid morning break - the first of two breaks and a lunch that he'll have in a mere 8 hour day.  We'll take a break though, to evaluate Bob.

Is he truly that much of a free-loader?  Living off of a variety of socialized services and government programs?  Well, if he ever thought about any of these mentioned so far, he'd still think "no".  Bob was a proud man, a good and hard worker, a staunch conservative, and he honestly believes he is pulling his own weight in all of this in the form of his taxes.

As a foreman, he makes $70,000 a year, which gives him, roughly, an $8,300 tax liability.  Well, before he claims his two kids and his wife, that is.  Given this and that, he's looking at between $5,000 and $6,000 a year in Federal taxes, or less than half of what his nation spends on him.  Yes, the total cost of each citizen per year is over $12,000, as of 2015, and that's just at the Federal level.

At the State level, Jim pays $2,500, or thereabouts, to the State of Illinois.  On his $70,000 income. That actually doesn't even reflect the deductions he'd get for his two kids, but let's go with that, anyway. It's still under half of what the State of Illinois pays per resident, which is over $5,000 a year.

At the local level, the city he lives in spends over $2,200 per resident.  Bob is proud of his $70,000 house, but his taxes on it are only $1,860.  And if that was all he paid in local taxes, he'd be falling a bit short.  But he also pays sales tax, or more accurately his wife does, and that amounts to about $1,200 per year.  Looks like he's $860 ahead of the game!

But wait!  No, Bob does have those two kids, and the city's cost of $2,200 is per resident, not per adult. Those two kids represent an additional cost of $4,400, so at $6,600 in local money coming his way, in goods and services and such, he's still - after the $3,060 he pays out - $3,540 short.

And let's not get started on his wife, which some would say he's responsible for her $2,200 in local costs - and $5,000 in State's costs and $12,000 in Federal costs.  Those are in no way defrayed.  Nor is the $10,000 in State costs and $24,000 in Federal costs of his two children, they paying per citizen, not per adult.  All told, his whole family is a $76,800 drain on all levels of government, with him not even earning - let alone paying - that amount.

Yeah, really.  That's called "math".

And this does NOT take into account that some single and childless citizens would say that since almost $12,000 per child per year is spent by the public schools, that such is more on Bob than them, to the tune of $24,000 specifically spent for Bob that in no personal way benefits the guy with no kids.

Bob does not care to pay the $5,000 to $15,000 per student per year that many private schools charge, nor does his wife care to home school.  That would be $10,000 per year, minimum, and would cut into other things Bob would rather spend his money on.  Like his nice car, or large flat screen television. Maybe the guy getting a $64,000 plus a year subsidy for he and his family should sell that stuff and live on that.

Bob could thus be viewed - and is viewed by the 1% he so admires and identifies with - like one of those much talked about "welfare moms" who have kids just because they know they'll be paid for by others.  Who only get to have their iPhones and flatscreens because others are paying for their kids. Right?  Uh huh.

Let's get back to him, though.  He's on his break, reading the newspaper that one of the guys insists on still getting.  Everyone else is glued to their iPhones.  He likes getting the local news, though.  In this case, he's reading about how the school his kids are going to is going to raise the cost of lunches from $2 to $2.50.  Darn, he thinks, another $20 a month total, what do they think he's made of money?  That they get good, clean, healthy meals that if purchased privately would be $5 each does not occur to him.

What's this?  Funding issues at the state supported facility his grandmother lives in?  Oh, just a budgetary quibble, no real worries.  The legislature was voting on how much of an increase for the next fiscal year.  But he made a note to himself that he needed to take the kids to visit her again sometime this month.  Hopefully her leg was fully healed, that break had been nasty.  And that neither she, nor he, nor any of her family had had to pay for it to be set and fixed did not occur to him.

Nor did it occur to him that the only reason he had one of the bedrooms at the house as his "office" was because the Federal government was paying his grandmother a social security check and the State government was subsidizing her nursing home.  Never minding the free medical care and the food stamps that the facility had applied for - and got - in her name.  All things he could have provided out of his own pocket - but all things he left to the taxpayer.

Idly he thought of the much needed vacation he was planning on taking in a few months.  He and his family were going to go out to Yosemite National Park, where'd he'd not be worrying about bandits or bears, not given the numbers of park rangers paid to be there for just in case he should ever wish to see the place.

A dozen other examples of what Bob gets could be cited and worked into this narrative.  Tax funded stadiums for the sports he watches, his subsidized electrical power, free GPS, his cousin's food stamps meaning that Bob wasn't having to have him over for dinner every week, the fact that all the roads are kept clear of snow each winter, the state universities that have subsidized loans waiting for his kids, "loans" that are statistically unlikely to be paid back, never minding the Pell grants, tuition aid and assistance, and etc., the entirety of the internet, the entire U.S. Postal Service - but wait, Bob's seen something that has made him angry!  What could that be?

Oh, yes.  Bob is reading the national news now, and he's seen where there is some protest from some who want a single payer universal health care system!  "Oh, those socialist freeloaders!" Bob is thinking, "Why don't they get a job?  And earn their own care?"

"Like I do", he mutters aloud.  And setting his perfectly safe and pure coffee down - that only costs $8 per container as the U.S. Navy keeps the pirates away from the trade ships - he got back to his job.

Because he believes in capitalism, and in pulling his own weight.


Tuesday, July 4, 2017

A Treatise on Basic Income

Picture a baby born in a field, for whatever reason you care to imagine.  Having been born there, on that patch of grass, she is instantly branded a trespasser.  You see, that field is private property.

She could be liable for punishment, but no one cares to expend any effort on her behalf, so she is simply left there to die.  Within a few days, she does.  The property owner then claims the remains for partial compensation for his time and trouble.

This, my friends, is what I think every time I hear someone say, "The world doesn't owe you anything!" or see one of those posts of a blank piece of paper with the title, "List of Everything the World Owes You!"

Because that's what that phrase literally means.

Child on Left: "We get a bowl of gruel per day."
Child on Right:  "And we're grateful."

Oh, true, that's not how it's meant.  It's meant to teach children to be self-reliant, productive, hard workers, and to not go about begging and whining for alms.  It's meant to get them to participate in the great economic game that's been going on for centuries now.

But it does get took too far.  It gets used, by some, to excuse a multiplicity of abuses that while not quite as egregious as letting a newborn girl die alone in a field before rendering her body for the chemicals, comes a bit too close to that at times.

First off, let's clear up the obvious.  The "world" is not a person, nor has it even sentience, let alone sapience.  So "it" cannot owe you a thing, for good or bad.  It just is.  The "world" here is being used as a synonym for "humanity" as in "all of".  The saying might well be rephrased to "No one owes you a thing" and it sometimes is re-phrased that way.

Second, let's get parents out of the way.  Everyone on all 1,000 sides of this, gets that parents do, in fact, owe their kids some minimal amount of care.  It might be debated "how much" and for "how long" and the answers might range from "food, clothing and shelter till 12" to "a million dollars to be a hotel magnate at 24" but "something" is owed for "awhile".

The parents tried to have a kid though, or at least engaged in activity that could reasonably have been foreseen to lead to one.  What of everyone else who did not get even that modest amount of fun out of this nine months prior to the birth?

This is where the liberals are likely to say, "food, clothing, shelter, education and healthcare till he's 18", or to hear some, till he dies of old age.  So there's that.  And this is also where conservatives are likely to say, "I only owe leaving him alone".  So there's that.

And while this might surprise some of my conservative friends, I agree - you personally only owe "leaving him alone".  But are you intending on leaving him alone is the question.

You see, there's a lot of assumptions about our current culture, our current way of life, that is took for granted.  I don't blame people for taking it for granted, because it's the culture that "won" over all the other tens of thousands of cultures, and now exists - in various forms to various degrees - over the entire planet.

And has for almost 500 years.

What am I referring to?

Private property.  By which I do not mean "personal property", even communist societies let the individual have "personal property" of food and clothes and such.  "Private property" refers to ownership of stuff not simply for personal use.  Notably land, but also companies and corporations and machinery and ships and such.

Private property - and the concept of "corporations" - make up the system that is generally called "capitalism", even though capitalism in a pure form does not, and has not, ever existed.

So what does that have to do with whether we can - after the parents raise the kid till 12 or 18 or 21 - "leave him alone" to fend for himself?

Well, in a state of nature, that guy would have been exploring about as a child, finding fruit trees, roots, berries, small game, maybe even big game.  He'd know where to get his food, and how to get it, and by adulthood, even if as young as 12, he'd be pretty competent to feed himself off of that, and clothe himself, too.  You could safely leave him alone, and he'd do just fine.

But such children are not allowed to roam about learning how to hunt and gather nowadays.  They quickly find out that their parent's property is not so vast, and that others do not wish their gardens raided or house pets hunted.  Nor does the city they are in care for them to hunt the birds that may be available, or the squirrels.

Not only do they not then get to learn those life giving skills, they will NOT be allowed to use them - if they some how acquire them - when they reach any age of adulthood.  They will not be allowed to hunt and gather, but instead will be expected - by conservatives most of all - to comply with what the majority of people in our culture think is a good way of doing things.

Now, if one is leaving a man alone, one may well make a case that you "owe him nothing".  But when you are actively thwarting him from feeding and clothing himself in the most natural way possible? Ahh, then yes, you do owe him something.

You are expecting that new adult human to play by rules that you so take for granted that you hardly grasped that they are "rules".  Rules that are one way, a way you're familiar with, but could as easily been other ways, that others around the globe are familiar with.  If I want a man to play any game I enjoy or find desirable, then I must consider what is in it for him, and offer him inducement.

Historically, the "inducement" we principally offer is "fear" as in "do it our way according to our rules or we will hurt you until you do".  Thus the child in school who wants to sneak out to play with his dog gets paddled or confined to a spot, and the adult who doesn't recognize private property gets arrested and confined for trespassing and/or theft.

But one of the Founding Fathers of America, Thomas Paine, realized that it would be fairer to offer a positive for people to comply with those rules, not just negative punishment.  He actually recognized it then as not a "gift", but a payment owed.  Owed by who?

Owed by all those who were accepting of, and benefiting of, the current order of things.  You see, a person who is freshly an adult did not agree to the Earth being divided up in such a way that he has nothing, and not even a place to hunt or gather in peace.  That's an arrangement that is no doubt satisfactory to those who already have land, but not so much to those who do not.

And of those who would say that they worked for their bit of land or property, well, I am glad that they overcame the inherent disadvantage they were at during the start, and I'm glad that they agreed explicitly or at least implicitly with the rules of the game that they've apparently scored some points in. But surely they can understand that not everyone is so willing to forgo their share as they were, and nor do I think they'd decline their share were it offered now.

Some still will resist, and really think that their "earning" of the land is in some way making the whole system appropriate.  It does not.  Tracing back the titles of land, it all goes back to the original "owners" who owned it by "right" of their sword.  Later it was inherited by their children, who the landless had to call "Lord" and "Lady".  Only more recently has that been swapped about for any who cared to play the game that - rather than be agreed to by all - was set up centuries ago by a few, and chiefly insisted upon by those who have benefited by it since.

No 18 year old has ever been asked to sign consent to the lands of Earth being divvied up as we see them divided today.  None are currently being asked to agree.  That 18 year old is thus the infant in the field, and unless he does as he is told by those who came before him, he may starve.  That you don't see any starving is simply that faced with that "choice", obviously everyone "chooses" to play the game.

But such coercion takes away the consensual nature of that "choice", and means that any who wish to now remind the world that a Basic Income is owed as a duty, not charity, gets to.  Or conversely, if no Basic Income is desired to be paid, then one forgoes the right to complain about folks running over farms and factory lands to hunt, fish, pick fruit and dig for roots!

Besides being owed for the land and resources withheld from him, there is the matter of the common inheritance from his ancestors that is currently being withheld from him.  As Edward Bellamy pointed out in "Looking Backwards", most of the productive value of your labor does not come from you, but from all the processes, technologies and machinery that you've inherited from those who came before you.

Consider your standard of living.  On average a two bedroom house, a car, televisions and computers and such.  Your standard of living is incomparably greater than a person of your equivalent social station 100 years ago, let alone 1,000 years ago!

Is this because you are 1,000 times the superior of a man from the year 1017?  Is it because you work 100 times harder than a man from 1917?  Or is it that mankind as a whole has grown and progressed, learning more things, specializing in more things, cooperating in more things, and accumulating more wealth and knowledge each year, each generation, each century, so that your own labor - no greater or lesser than that of your ancestors, is magnified by the accumulation of the entirety of humanity?

I think we know - as Bellamy pointed out - that only 10% of what you have is the result of your own labor, the rest, the 90%, is a gift from all the billions who have worked and strove and studied and learned and such before you, and have left you all that as an inheritance that you did not earn, and hardly even recognize as a gift, let alone as a gift to be grateful for.

When you then see a man - or woman - who is disabled, or even simply claiming a disability whether you perceive it or not, whether they are faking it or not, who are you to deny them their portion of the wealth that we are all common heirs of?  Is your brother denied a share of your father's inheritance because he failed to meet your standards?  Is your sister to be left without any thing of her mother's as you do not believe that she is "really" ill?

Such an inheritance was theirs whether they met your standards or not, whether they worked or not. As an anarchist, I would advise a different and more peaceable way of apportioning their share to them, but you, with your belief in the morality of a government have left such to a government.  You cannot then complain and try to withhold from your fellow man that which is theirs by right.

And you cannot, as Bellamy pointed out, add "insult to the theft" by telling them that the "table scraps" you dole out to them grudgingly are an imposition.  The disabled are not imposing upon you by receiving such scraps, rather they are being insulted and robbed by those who were blessed with a health that they were simply given, and had no part in earning.

Nor is the possibility of some of them "faking it" any concern.  For one, the presumption of guilt before any trial is remarkably evil, and generally supposed to be against Anglo-American common law.  For two, if some were faking, would that not mean that their disability was just different than they claimed? That rather than they truly suffering from this or that ailment, that they instead suffered a condition that made them shy away from what you think of as productive work?

But for three, what if they were to be just purely lazy?  Would that be any different from those who have never served in the armed forces of their nation?

What's that, you ask?  What's that got to do with anything?

Ahh, but military service, or lack of it, has everything to do with this supposed "welfare".  As Bellamy pointed out, only a very few are called to defend a nation with their strength, and those who can't - or won't - are not deprived of their citizenship for not doing so.  Maybe they couldn't fight.  Maybe they found it immoral.  Maybe they were too busy with other concerns.  Maybe they were just cowards.  No one questions why a man did not serve, it's a choice left up to him.  He is still a citizen, he still receives - unearned - the protection of the very military he did not support.

Likewise, and industrially, if a man cannot - or will not - support the great industrial complex that is the American economy, why would that deprive him of his inheritance?  Or his benefiting from the industrial complex the same way a non-veteran benefits from the military complex?

So you see, "welfare" is not your taxes.  Your taxes are pretty much as filthy rags compared to the combined and collectivized might of any nation, let alone this one called the United States.  "Welfare" is but the odd name we assign to the pittance we dole out to those who have had their inheritance - in land and in cultural heritage - robbed of them by the elite.

That welfare deserves then to be re-named "Basic Income" and ramped up to be as fair as anything that the elite are already awarding themselves.  No, not so that everyone gets the same billion dollar bail out that a Wall Street CEO gets.  But that so that CEO then receives no more or less of a "bail out" then any other man, woman and child in America.

That Country

This Fourth of July I pray that we stop being "that country". You know, the kind of nation that we always pretend we're "liberating" others from.

We spend more on war - not defense, war - than any other nation on Earth. We spend more on war than the next 25 highest war spending nations combined. And 24 out of those 25 are our vassal states.

We occupy more nations than any other country on Earth. You weren't aware of that? Google "American Military Bases", it will show each nation that we occupy.

Oh, didn't realize that we occupy German and Japan? You thought those were our allies, with we having bases there because we're so gosh darn nice? Care to guess which state those nations have their bases in over here? Don't know?

That's because our "allies" do not get to have military bases here. That would infringe upon our sovereignty.

This always says so much more about those who do it,
then those who have it done to them.

We regard the oceans, and atmosphere and orbits of the planet as ours. We get to go and conduct war exercises any where we want. And patrols and inspections. And incursions. Other nations, were they to approach within 500 miles without our permission are engaging in "aggressive war-like actions" that demand an "immediate response".

We kidnap and hold without charges, and torture and detain, not only any one on Earth we care to, but our own citizens as well. Without trial. Up to, and including, executions. Like the Soviets and the Nazis did. Two other examples of "that country".

We let the citizenry have no rights that the government is bound to respect. Oh, yes, lip service, sure, like the Soviet and National Socialist constitutions had, but the only time you really get to speak or act freely is if you are too small, or they don't notice you.

Block a road, resist in any fashion, or be too loud, and you'll be noticed - and dealt with by black clad armored police using chemical warfare outlawed by the Geneva Convention. Yes, even on students.

I pray for an end to the tyranny of every activity needing a license, every citizen needing papers, everyone needing to have such papers while traveling any where by any means. I pray for the end of everyone needing a number, of no one being able to work or buy or sell without it. I pray that one day we live in a nation where to not comply with that is not to be subject to arrest, detention, and torture.

I pray that we can stop with the modernized camps we call prisons that house a higher percent of our population than the Soviets did in their hey day, or the Nazis did in their hey day, or the PRC and North Korea do in their hey day. I pray that sexual torture and solitary confinement of such who are sent there stop being a national joke and start being a thing of the dark past.

I also pray that I can one day read the Declaration of Independence, and not see that all the complaints we had against King George are now ten times worse under any administration that has ever ruled in my life.

Today, I would encourage everyone to read the Declaration of Independence, and try and find a complaint against King George that could not be levied against our own government over the past 50 years.

And then ask yourself why what they had the right to do back then is something that apparently no one has the right to do now - secede and form their own state. With their own freedom. With their own dignity.