BRILLIANT! Can’t have an inflation induced business cycle if the market is too regulated to function and the people too taxed to invest.
When one walks into a business, most often you are greeted. As part of treating customers as their very livelihood, companies usually enact policies that make it a requirement for employees to acknowledge the arrival of a client or customer.
Imagine, however, if instead of getting a “hello” or “good morning,” the manager of the store asks you to greet him. Further, imagine if the manager holds you at gunpoint and threatens you with imprisonment. Assuming you could escape, chances are that you’d never go back to that store. Yet this is what happens in the courts.
Virtually everyone in the courtroom has to rise when the judge enters. Failure to do so might result in contempt of court – you can get a fine or be sentenced to jail time for your audacity. This is, of course, absurd. First of all, government courts are financed through taxation. People who do not use the system at all, for example, still have to pay. This is a form of redistribution, also known as socialism. Aside from the fact that the resources to run the system are extracted aggressively, often the accused are victims rather than victimizers.
Laws and ordinances regulating peaceful drug or firearm possession or usage, municipal codes regulating assembly, zoning, prostitution and gambling, for example, violate no rights and therefore have no victims. Thus, when an innocent person is brought (violently or through the threat thereof) to one of those government courts, the last thing one expects is to be further humiliated by having to stand for the judge. If anything, the judge should be kissing the defendant’s feet and begging for forgiveness.
We should not be surprised that the state does whatever possible to ascertain its aggressive political power in every instance; the courtroom is not an exception. Perhaps in the old days it was customary to rise for the judge. So what? Today, however, I see this not as a gesture of respect but as a demand for obedience. The judge, a state bureaucrat, has no authority over anyone. Prove that the judge and the court deserve any respect. After all, they were the ones (along with the legislative and executive branches) to kidnap people from their homes, families and places of employment, only to be dragged to face “justice.” Show that, especially in the case of victimless crimes, the defendant should stand for the judge. The concept of contempt of court, so long as the state holds a monopoly over this institution, is a farce. I believe is the court, along with all the thugs it employs, who is in contempt.
Anyone willing to show the violence of the court by refusing to obey is a hero. Rising for the judge is bowing to the state.
November 17, 2008
Manuel Lora [send him mail] works at Cornell University as a TV and multimedia producer. Visit his blog.
According to Gateway Pundit the new site Change.gov said this as of November 7th:
As of today, November 10th, though apparently changed the 8th it says this:
The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.
In a December 5th, 2007 post to his website, still available, said:
So when I’m President, I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year. This means that by the time you graduate college, you’ll have done 17 weeks of service. We’ll reach this goal in several ways. At the middle and high school level, we’ll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities.
I’ve pointed this out to Tim Zimmermann given he recently said that:
Mandatory service simply does not make any sense. It is not a good idea, there is no infrastructure for it, no public support for it, no leadership support for it, and no money for it. Frankly, it is not something I spend a lot of time worrying about….
I agree it doesn’t make any sense hovever Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel think otherwise. It’s intelectualy dishonest to make these changes without an official announcement of policy change. It’s also dishonest to act as if this is not effectively mandatory. It’s the same trick used by the federal government to get the drinking age to be 21 and there be state laws for seat belts to be worn while driving. Only one state disobeys the federal government. New Hampshire. And that’s only for the seat belt request. Should a state refuse they will see their income tax dollars go out of the state and not come back in. At least a significant portion of it. It’s even worse in this particular case given the government mandates children attend school, continues to tax those who home school or use private schools, and not only would a school not receive federal funds but you can guarentee the local tax payers would continue to be taxed by the federal government at the same rate. If the locals don’t wish to pay higher local taxes and no reduced income taxes they’d have to comply meaning the children would be unable to graduate without doing the national service. Therefore it’s mandatory. And given the requirements for private and home schools imposed by the State it wouldn’t be surprising if they mandated national service for those children too.
You can find the poster digitally at http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/. An impressive amount of work.
> Thanks for answering our questions, very nice from you.
>
> 1- First of all we would like to know what is exactly SERVICE NATION
> SUMMIT and what’s your position there?
Service Nation (http://servicenation.org) is an organization which
is attempting to get more people to be volunteers. Primarily by
increasing US federal government programs such as PeaceCorps and
AmeriCorps. The Service Nation Summit was to “bring together 500
leaders of all ages and from every sector of American life from
universities and foundations, to business and politics to celebrate the
power and potential of citizen service, and lay out a bold policy
blueprint for addressing Americas greatest social challenges through
expanded opportunities for volunteer and national service.”
I’m not a member of the organization. I attended as a member of the
press representing the Manhattan Libertarian Party
(http://manhattanlp.org), Free Talk Live (http://freetalklive.com) and
my own blog, http://blogofbile.com.
> 2. Then, why do you think Jon Bon Jovi there?
He is a well known celebrity and well liked. He’s made significant
charitable contributions and created his own organization to help
people. Inviting that sort of individual would gain attention for
Service Nation and the summit.
> 3. How was the speech of Jon Bon Jovi?
I thought it was fine. What I disliked was that Service Nation is
advocating expanding government funded service and yet most of their
examples of service, like Bon Jovi’s, are in fact private voluntarism.
I whole heartily support private individuals volunteering their time and
money to charities they believe in. However, taxing the populous to
provide similar services which they may not agree with is both an
inefficient use of resources and immoral. Incentivising people with
education grants and the like negates the meaning and nature of voluntarism.
> 4. What is the feeling there in the States about the charity things
> Jon does? People like them or they think “God! he’s doing this with a
> purpouse!”?
The United States is the most charitable nation
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16638810/,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm) and
voluntarism is a major component of many people’s lives. You may find
people who disagree with his methods or target but the fact he’s doing
something to help those in need likely gains the respect of most
Americans.
> Thanks so much iambile, feel free to add any comments to the interview
> outside the questions.
>
> Regards
>
> Javier
I just want to make sure it is clear that those in the liberty movement
completely support true private voluntarism. What we don’t and can’t
support is government funded service, so called voluntary service or
compulsory service. Compulsory because it’s tantamount to slavery and
so called voluntary because the government is inefficient and the
taxation process is theft. Taking from John to give to Paul is wrong
regardless of the reason it’s done or the individual doing it. So
called voluntary service is what Service Nation is advocating. However,
several members of their coalition desire compulsory service and the
natural progression of government increasing the size and scope of
voluntary service is toward mandatory service.
UPDATE:
You can find the interview, translated, here.
I’m not sure how well the translation is… putting a couple things into Babel Fish I’m not so sure my points get across. Though the one comment made on the post seems to understand that I’m being critical.
An $85 billion government rescue of insurer American International Group Inc looked increasingly likely on Tuesday to stave off a bankruptcy that would have thrown world markets back into turmoil.
The Federal Reserve will extend AIG $85 billion in exchange for a nearly 80 percent stake to bail out the troubled insurance giant, a person briefed on the matter said.
The deal would avoid the biggest corporate bankruptcy ever and follows a government bailout of mortgage lenders Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae just over a week ago.
Then AIG shares, which had sunk 21 percent in regular trading, fell as much as 48 percent in after-hours dealings after reports of a rescue that could wipe out shareholders.
The New York Times, which had reported that AIG could file as soon as Wednesday for bankruptcy protection, later reported the deal with the Fed.
“This would mean another shareholder wipeout,” said David Ader, head of government bond strategy at RBS Greenwich Capital in Greenwich, Connecticut.
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson were briefing members of Congress on the deal on Tuesday evening, a Treasury official told Reuters.
“They’re too big to fail. AIG touches too many people and too many companies globally, and it would be much more of a disorderly event if it went bankrupt than it was with Lehman,” said Anton Schutz, president of Mendon Capital in Rochester, New York.
Of course they did. The government goes back on it’s claim, tax payers get it in the ass and the economic problems will continue that much longer.
I bet Lehman Bros. is a bit pissed.
UPDATE:
A bit more info over at CNN:
The line of credit to AIG, which is available for two years, is designed to help the company meet its obligations, the Fed said. Interest will accrue at a steep rate of 3-month Libor plus 8.5%, which totals 11.31% at today’s rates. AIG will sell certain of its businesses with “the least possible disruption to the overall economy.”
AIG will sell certain of its businesses with “the least possible disruption to the overall economy.” The government will have veto power over the asset sales and the payment of dividends to shareholders.
The company’s management will be replaced, though Fed staffers did not name the new executives. The board will remain. For customers, it will be business as usual, officials said.
Two years ain’t no bridge loan.
 |
|
|
|
