|
|
She concludes with this question:
What’s wrong with soaking the rich for their fair share of tax revenue when they have all made their fortunes on the backs of the working poor?
[facepalm]
I’m afraid Ms. Altenhofen is beyond hope. Nevertheless, there are many others who may well be saved from such ignorance. For those that can still be saved, keep citing F. A. Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Thomas Jefferson, Frederic Bastiat and others. Cite those who, unlike the hopeless Ms. Altenhofen, understand it is the government that decides what is a “fair share” and uses guns to extract it; that without the “rich” there would be no job jobs for the “working poor;” that taking money from one group to give to another is not “compassion;” and that wanting to keep one’s own money earned from voluntary exchange is not “greed.”
Colorado State Troopers are spending your tax money prosecuting someone that made a rude gesture to them. Yep, that is right. Thin-skinned traffic cops clearly have too much time and resources on their hands if they have time and resources to spend on this. ( See the Denver Post’s article, “ Man who flipped off trooper faces harassment charge.”) State troopers don’t provide a single service not already provided by local sheriffs or police. They write traffic tickets and investigate car wrecks. That is all. They are not state police that investigate crimes. The Colorado Bureau of Investigation is the state agency that does actual police work. The Colorado State Patrol is another example of a duplicative, wasteful government program. The State Patrol should be discontinued and the money saved. Instead of traffic cops with cool hats we could spend the money on teachers or additional $9 million phone systems like the one JeffCo Schools bought.
I created quite the discussion thread on Facebook, by asserting that there is no social contract, not even metaphorically. This upsets some people and they responded, in essence, that I am wrong. For example, it was asserted that we “consent” to our government by living under its protections. I responded:
Consent is an affirmative act. The concept of “implied consent” by silence is untenable. If a person comes to you and says “I’ll give you $500 for your car” and you ignore him, he cannot take your car regardless of whether or not he gives you the $500.
Words have meanings. Consent means consent.The social contract loyalists are applying the notion of consent when it does not exist. They are unilaterally applying it to me as an individual against my will. They are telling me I have consented when I have not. Black is white. War is peace. Welcome to Newspeak, the official language of statists of all stripes.
My overall point is not that government is always illegitimate. It was asked “what justifies the government if not a social contract?” It is not about “justification.” I summed up:
I am simply agreeing with George Washington: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.” The only thing keeping any government in place is force or the threat of force. That is an undeniable fact. Let’s not gloss over it. Statists come up with all kinds of nonsense to justify that use of force, but even if it is justified, it is still force.
Whenever forms of government are discussed, the discussion is actually “when is the use of state sanctioned force justified?” Right now, today, how many U.S. citizens would pay taxes in support of the federal government but for the threat of jail? Some. I submit a small percentage of those currently paying income taxes would still do so without the threat of a federal agent eventually coming to your house with a gun. Most would not. That is force.
Is it justified? That is a different conversation. I say it is not.
When is government force justified? Definitely to stop criminals, to try those of accused of crimes and to punish those convicted of crimes; definitely to enforce contract and property rights; definitely to defend the state’s sovereignty from outside attack; definitely…. well, after that, it starts to become a bit dicey.
Is government force justified to feed the poor? Absolutely not. I may have a moral obligation to feed the poor, but that is a personal obligation. I submit mankind is generous and charitable. The statist, like Thomas Hobbes, believes us mere common men are beasts that need to be controlled by our betters in government. They, of course, believe they are our betters. If the statist is right, and it the forcible taking of money from one to give to another is justified, lets be honest about it: The government act is neither generous nor charitable – it is theft. The statist then justifies the act of theft by calling it “compassion.” I’m just calling “bullcrap” on the Newspeak. Let’s call it by its proper name.
by David K. Williams, Jr.
A.
One of my adamantly “progressive” Facebook friends recently said opposing universal health care is “unchristian.” It is not an uncommon charge.
The accusation, however, shows both a fundamental misunderstanding of economics and Christianity. The economic fallacy is that universal health care will result in universally better health care. This assumption is belied by recorded history. That, however, has been widely explained. This post is not about the economics.
This post is about Christianity. Jesus’ summed up his teachings in Matthew 22:36 – 40. He was asked by a Pharisee “what is the greatest commandment in the law?” Jesus replied:
“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Consider Jesus’ answer the Cliff’s Notes on all of Christianity. In sum, Jesus said to be Christian is to “love God” and “love your neighbor.”
This is where progressives get lost. They mistake Jesus’ command for us to “love our neighbor” with a command to make OTHERS love their neighbor. See, progressives want to take other peoples’ money – via forcible taxation – and give it to their neighbor. That’s not what Jesus said.
In short, Christianity is about helping others voluntarily. It is about charity. Jesus said you should help others – and if you do not, you have to live with it and the consequences.
Progressivism is the opposite. Progressivism – indeed, all statism – is brute force, nothing else. Progressivism says that, by government dictate, some of us must help others – or go to jail.
The two could not be more different.
I’ll make a final comparison: Walking next door and giving your neighbor in need some of your bread is Christian. Walking across the street, taking bread out of the window, and then giving it to your neighbor in need is progressivism. They are opposites. One is love. The other theft.
B.
Can a case be made that Christians are not voluntarily loving their neighbor, as Jesus commanded? Absolutely. The answer, however, is not to abandon Christianity and institute force to make Christians love their neighbor.
How absurd is that notion? You will love your neighbor or we will MAKE you! It is nonsense.
George Washington was right when he said, “government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.” One might add that “government is not charity; it is not love; it is force.”
The progressives, therefore, make a fundamental, and crucial error: They equate love with force. They equate compassion with force. They equate charity with force.
They might as well equate war with peace, day with night or lies with truth.
In fact, they do.
God is love. Government is force. Using one in the name of the other is not only futile, it is destructive.
Neither war can be won.
Both wars exacerbate the problem it tries to solve.
Both wars create massive, monstrous and corrupt government agencies.
Both wars have wasted gazillions of dollars.
And neither group has the ability to recognize their abject failure.
It is the time of year when several unwanted, large phone books covered with refrigerator magnets start arriving on our door steps.
Some say the government needs to step in and stop the waste of the unwanted delivery of phone books. You may have heard the indignant refrain: “There oughtta be a law! We need to BAN the delivery of these unwanted and wasteful phone books!”
Surprisingly enough, however, no government action is required.
As the ad salesmen for the phone books continue to pitch their delivery numbers when they call on local business owners, the potential ad buyers will say:
“Yeah, you deliver a gazillion phone books, but none of these people you deliver to actually LOOK at the books. Most just throw them away the same day you deliver them. (The more environmentally-minded will, of course, recycle them). In any event, they ain’t being read. They ain’t bein’ looked at. I’m not going to spend my ad budget on your soon-to-be-extinct, useless paper phone books. I’m sorry, but I have an appointment with a Search Engine Optimization guy, followed by a Google Ads and Facebook advertising expert coming over now. Please excuse me.”
The paper phone book will soon be in the same category as the eight-track tape.
Until then, I’ll deal with throwing them away. I do not want the government banning them or mandating some “opt out” process overseen and administered by the Department of Unwanted Phone Books, with accompanying regulators and a schedule of fines and penalties for those that try to skirt the ban or regulatory scheme.
Picking them up off our front porch and throwing them away is annoying. It is inconvenient.
Surprisingly enough, Thomas Jefferson had something to say on the topic of unwanted phone books. He said, “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
As usual, he was right.
Postscript: A Facebook commenter noted that she did not want people leaving litter on her property. Fair point. I responded thusly:
“Fair enough. Trespassing and littering laws already exist. It is up to you if it’s worth the hassle of enforcing the existing laws.”
This will drive up the cost of cars. The government admits new cars in 2016 will cost $926 more under these new standards than they would otherwise.
If they admit to an increase of $926, you can bet the increase will be substantially more. Rich people will just write a check for the difference. Poor people will not. They can not. The government says “no big deal.” The new standards will actually save you money.
According to the government, we will all save $3000 in gas money over the life of the car. If this were true, government force would not be required.
Whenever the government says force is necessary for people to save money, they are spewing nonsense. They do not care about saving you money. They care about control over what you can buy.
They know better than you. You are too stupid to know that you can save money. Therefore, the government must pass a law requiring you to save money.
It is absurd on its face. It is tripe. And too many of us say, “Thanks, oh benevolent state, for the tripe. It is so tasty.”
As the Denver Post reports, “Major metro grower jailed,” federal agents have asserted their authority, primacy and superiority over its mere subjects in the district of Colorado.
I say “district,” because states have rights. Districts are mere political subdivisions of, and exist at the whim of, the larger federal government.
Last night the feds, asserting their supremacy, arrested a man who was in full compliance with Colorado state law.
With the federal government’s decision to completely ignore the Colorado Constitution and assert its statutes, any semblance of Colorado autonomy has been crushed.
=====
Lest there be any doubt, Special Agent Jeffrey Sweetin, who is in charge of the DEA’s office in Denver, was very clear:
“Technically, every dispensary in the state is in blatant violation of federal law. The time is coming when we go into a dispensary, we find out what their profit is, we seize the building and we arrest everybody. They’re violating federal law; they’re at risk of arrest and imprisonment.”
And you thought the Governor, state legislature and state Supreme Court had some say what goes on in Colorado.
Not if the feds decide they do not like it.
====
TAKE ACTION
Remember, this is not about medical marijuana. It is about Colorado sovereignty.
In a polite, reasoned manner, tell the feds you do not appreciate them stepping into a Colorado law enforcement matter. Tell them if they have enough time and money to spend usurping Colorado’s sovereignty to enforce federal policy, they have too much time and money.
Tell them to leave us alone. We can handle our own business.
CALL NOW IF YOU CAN
Here is the Denver DEA office contact information:
Media Contact – Special Agent Mike Turner
Phone: 720-895-4214
Email: Robert.M.Turner@usdoj.gov
You can also call these other Colorado field offices:
Colorado Springs, CO — (719) 866-6100
Durango, CO — (970) 385-5147
Glenwood Springs, CO — (970) 945-0744
Grand Junction, CO — (970) 683-3220
And let your U.S. Representative and Senators know you want him/her to get the federal agents out of Colorado state business:
United States Representatives
District 1 – Diana DeGette
(303) 844-4988
District 2 – Jared Polis
D.C. # (202) 225-2161
District 3 – John Salazar
D.C. # (202) 225-4761
District 4 – Betsy Markey
D.C. # (202) 225-4676
District 5 – Doug Lanborn
D.C. # (202) 225-4422
District 6 – Mike Coffman
D.C. # (202) 225-7882
District 7 – Ed Perlmutter
D.C. # (202) 225-2645
Colorado Senators
Mark Udall
Toll free # 877-7-MUDALL
(877-768-3255)
Michael Bennet
Toll free # (866) 455-9866
====
Please forward this to any other citizen concerned about Colorado’s sovereignty.
David K. Williams, Jr.
Little Brother had an idea, but he knew his big brother did not approve.
Little Brother went ahead and tried it, but tried to keep it small so as not to bring undue attention to himself. Big Brother eventually noticed, however, but said, “sure, Little Brother, go ahead and play with your little idea, I don’t care.”
Little Brother, no longer concerned about undue attention, really expanded his idea. He still had lots of issues to work out, but he felt he could work them out eventually.
Well, Big Brother decided one day he did not like Little Brother’s idea any more. So he stepped in and stopped it. Just like that.
He does not need a reason. He is Big Brother.
======
This is exactly what has happened in Colorado and its burgeoning medical marijuana industry.
And Big Brother is not in a fairy tale or contained in an Orwell novel. He wears a windbreaker with “DEA” across the back in yellow letters.
See “Major metro grower jailed.“
This is part one of 3. At the end of each clip, you can click to see the next one.
I ask you to watch all three parts. His comparison to the frog in the pot is 100% accurate.
I ask you to fight the expansion of state power.
And notice how hot the water is getting, before it is too late.
|
Help Liberty on the Rocks (Denver) Grow. Donate Today!
Get Happy Hour Reminders!
|
