United States Government
Department of Truth in Government
1 JAN 2020
To: Citizen Joe Blow
Dear Citizen Mr. Blow,
You will be pleased to know that this months government subsidy of your health care policy has been paid. It was paid this month by your neighbor, Citizen Ms. Kaputnick. She disagreed with the removal of funds from her bank account stating that she was “saving up” for a new stove. Our investigation showed that the stove was indeed broken and that she was cooking on an old hot plate so the BSLC (Bureau of Standard of Living Comparisons) was involved. Their SLCA (Standard of Living Comparison Analysis) showed that she in fact had a higher standard of living than you. Even after seeing this SLCA she protested at which point we had to employ the standard DAGD (Deputy Arrival with Guns Drawn). This appears to be the end of the situation.
Note: Thanks to HB4876239-776354/563865-p (Secrecy of Charitable Donation Act), Citizen Ms. Kaputnick will never know where her donation to your betterment went. In future, when you are dealing with Citizen Ms. Kaputnick, there is absolutely no reason for you to feel inferior or inadequate or in any way beholden to her. Know this, Citizen-You are just a good as anybody else.
Until next month,
XXXXXXXXX XXXXX-XXXXX
Department of Truth in Government
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Twenty Percent
A datum not generally acknowledged is that only about 20 percent of the population of the American colonies engaged in the American Revolution. Generally, about 20 percent of a population is seen to be dangerous and gets wiped out by totalitarian states (Germany, Russia, China). 20 percent seems to be a significant number.
Who are these twenty percent that the totalitarian governments so fear? They are the people with ideas: “What if?” people and “Who made you the boss?” people. They are the entrepreneurs, the dreamers, the artists and the leaders.
This suggests that a return to the fundamentals and principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States will not require the agreement or true education of the majority of the population (though this would perhaps be ideal) but that only the hard work and dedication of this twenty percent will be necessary.
The “Other” Twenty Percent
At the bottom of the socio-economic ladder we find approximately twenty percent of the population who seem to have no desire to climb out of a simple “comfort zone”. Given a simple roof, some clothing and enough to eat, they seem un-motivated to increase their survival level. The Lion might say, “If they won’t hunt they will surely die.” The Zebra might say, “If they won’t walk eight hundred miles to the next patch of green grass, they will surely die.” A purely Darwinist viewpoint is that as the “weakest” or “most unfit” of the species, they should be removed.
Humans (life organisms capable of violating the individual and species survival imperative for an idea), unlike the animals have a moral imperative. (Moral: The concept of right and wrong based on an idea, whether that idea comes from experience, education or some divine source.) We feel a moral imperative to cajole or educate this twenty percent out of this comfort zone and into a higher survival potential.
Why these people are in this state is a question for the Sociologists or the Religious Philosophers. (Unfortunately, the Sociologists are unlikely to solve this as they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo so it seems more likely to be solved by Religious Philosophy, the realm of thought and ideas.) The fact remains that so long as they are able to maintain their “comfort level”, no change will occur.
Certainly, some people at this socio-economic level are there from simple bad luck: Illness, national economic failure, etc. These people can be expected to climb back up the ladder as soon as their “luck” turns or the economy returns.
Some view the situation and say, “If we treat them like children, feed them, clothe them, provide them with adequate entertainment, put a nice roof over their heads and give them a good paying job, they will somehow, then, desire to climb out of this comfort zone and start to produce and survive.
Some would view this situation and say “There, but for the grace of God, go I”. Others might say, “There, but for the willingness to work 16 hour days, the willingness to go without or do without and the willingness to claw ones way through the fog and misery of a “modern” education, go I”.
History suggests that so long as society does no more than to maintain them at or just below their “comfort zone” there will be no change. Perhaps we should look to other technology than that provided by the Sociologist and the “Do-Gooder”.
Who are these twenty percent that the totalitarian governments so fear? They are the people with ideas: “What if?” people and “Who made you the boss?” people. They are the entrepreneurs, the dreamers, the artists and the leaders.
This suggests that a return to the fundamentals and principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States will not require the agreement or true education of the majority of the population (though this would perhaps be ideal) but that only the hard work and dedication of this twenty percent will be necessary.
The “Other” Twenty Percent
At the bottom of the socio-economic ladder we find approximately twenty percent of the population who seem to have no desire to climb out of a simple “comfort zone”. Given a simple roof, some clothing and enough to eat, they seem un-motivated to increase their survival level. The Lion might say, “If they won’t hunt they will surely die.” The Zebra might say, “If they won’t walk eight hundred miles to the next patch of green grass, they will surely die.” A purely Darwinist viewpoint is that as the “weakest” or “most unfit” of the species, they should be removed.
Humans (life organisms capable of violating the individual and species survival imperative for an idea), unlike the animals have a moral imperative. (Moral: The concept of right and wrong based on an idea, whether that idea comes from experience, education or some divine source.) We feel a moral imperative to cajole or educate this twenty percent out of this comfort zone and into a higher survival potential.
Why these people are in this state is a question for the Sociologists or the Religious Philosophers. (Unfortunately, the Sociologists are unlikely to solve this as they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo so it seems more likely to be solved by Religious Philosophy, the realm of thought and ideas.) The fact remains that so long as they are able to maintain their “comfort level”, no change will occur.
Certainly, some people at this socio-economic level are there from simple bad luck: Illness, national economic failure, etc. These people can be expected to climb back up the ladder as soon as their “luck” turns or the economy returns.
Some view the situation and say, “If we treat them like children, feed them, clothe them, provide them with adequate entertainment, put a nice roof over their heads and give them a good paying job, they will somehow, then, desire to climb out of this comfort zone and start to produce and survive.
Some would view this situation and say “There, but for the grace of God, go I”. Others might say, “There, but for the willingness to work 16 hour days, the willingness to go without or do without and the willingness to claw ones way through the fog and misery of a “modern” education, go I”.
History suggests that so long as society does no more than to maintain them at or just below their “comfort zone” there will be no change. Perhaps we should look to other technology than that provided by the Sociologist and the “Do-Gooder”.
Update on the “Fabulous No hunger Diet” Diet
I recently hit 103 pounds lost on this diet. I feel a lot better!
I'm selling the Diet now so if you haven't read it yet, now you have to pay $19.95 for it. Google www.myfirstrealdiet.com.
I'm selling the Diet now so if you haven't read it yet, now you have to pay $19.95 for it. Google www.myfirstrealdiet.com.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Did some Supreme Being cancel the Law of Supply and Demand?
It seems curious that the very people who are screaming the loudest to have open borders are the same people who are screaming about the inequities between Capital and Labor. Every “laborer” that crosses our border devalues labor that is already here and increases the inequity.
I’m not suggesting that open borders are good or bad, just that an unlimited labor supply has got to devalue the existing labor (per the law of supply and demand and the definition of value) and that is only good for Capital (and all who have it). Certainly the immigrants benefit also and just as certainly the immigrants who are already here and the Americans with zero skills do not benefit (at least immediately). If an economy requires a constant supply of zero skilled workers in order to expand, then so-be-it, but let’s not pretend that that expansion is being done any other way than on the backs of Labor (not that there is necessarily anything bad about that).
The Left needs to understand that unlimited workers crossing the border devalue the workers here and lower their wages (per the law of supply and demand).
So who has a solution to the Capital/Labor dichotomy? Isn’t the final result of the game we call Capitalism - One Guy Has All the Money?
Who benefits from the global competition between Capitalism and Socialism? The Bankers?
Isn’t there some dialogue possible between Capitalists and Socialists that doesn’t consist only of “ad hoc-post partum-sound bite zingers” .
I’m not suggesting that open borders are good or bad, just that an unlimited labor supply has got to devalue the existing labor (per the law of supply and demand and the definition of value) and that is only good for Capital (and all who have it). Certainly the immigrants benefit also and just as certainly the immigrants who are already here and the Americans with zero skills do not benefit (at least immediately). If an economy requires a constant supply of zero skilled workers in order to expand, then so-be-it, but let’s not pretend that that expansion is being done any other way than on the backs of Labor (not that there is necessarily anything bad about that).
The Left needs to understand that unlimited workers crossing the border devalue the workers here and lower their wages (per the law of supply and demand).
So who has a solution to the Capital/Labor dichotomy? Isn’t the final result of the game we call Capitalism - One Guy Has All the Money?
Who benefits from the global competition between Capitalism and Socialism? The Bankers?
Isn’t there some dialogue possible between Capitalists and Socialists that doesn’t consist only of “ad hoc-post partum-sound bite zingers” .
From "Fundamentals of Economics........"
In a Hunter/Gatherer Economy there is not much need for keeping track of things. Animals are hunted and eaten, seeds, herbs and roots are gathered and eaten. There are products produced such as preserved food, weapons, clothes and huts but nothing very permanent. Counting is not very important and consequently you occasionally find these cultures with only three numbers – one, two, and “more than two”. I guess it’s hard to eat more than two mammoths or if one has to walk more than two days, it is not worth going there.
The End of War
When Secular Progressives point out the horrors of religious practice like the crusades and the inquisition, it should be pointed out that Science has given us atomic, chemical and biological weapons. The “science” of Psychiatry has given us lobotomies, electro-shock therapy and eugenics (the justification of Hitler’s death camps and the end of six million lives). Atheism has justified the Pol Pot regime, untold millions of deaths in China and the destruction of thirty million lives in the Soviet Union. The end of war, criminality and the insane is far more likely to be solved by a religious philosophy than from the “scientific” man from mud theory.
From "Fundamentals of Economics......"
Thus, we can see that borrowing means to promise future production to someone else and that interest is additional future production promised. To be clear: When you borrow, you are not producing but there is the apparency of production since you gain the fruits of production without actually producing. You now must maintain your normal production level for survival plus additional production to pay back what was borrowed plus additional production to pay back the interest. So borrowing with interest is the promise of future production. In some backward places one can even borrow against the future production of one's own children and grandchildren.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
