What’s Better than Building a Trump Wall? Getting dramatically better results while saving $ trillions by cutting government.

Dear Donald Trump

We don’t need to build a wall. We need to build an invisible fence. As illustrated below, rather than costing taxpayers additional hundreds of $ billions to service, it will save $ trillions over the long-run.

We build an invisible fence by:

1) Rescinding the anchor baby laws. No longer do non-citizens’ kids get auto-citizenship.
2) Ending welfare and all entitlements for non-citizens. That means unless you are a citizen you don’t get any taxpayer-financed anything. No school for the kids you smuggle in, etc. No citizenship, no handouts. End of story.
3) Prosecuting employers who hire illegals to the fullest extent of the law. With those 3 items you’ve eliminated most all incentives for coming across the border. (I am open to eliminating this if other government interventions are removed that disrupt the labor pool.)
4) Eliminate most all entitlement welfare for most / all able bodies adults of sound mind. This will provide a massive pool of unskilled labor for U.S. employers who claim “no U.S. citizens will take the jobs”. When deadbeats don’t get paid to F off, they’ll be ready to work.

If you want to build the invisible fence higher:

5) rescind the minimum wage laws. There is no reason unskilled labor on one side of an imaginary line should be worth $15 an hour for knowing nothing compared to the other side of the line where it’s worth $1. All it does is drive up costs for consumers, including the low-wage earners this is supposed to benefit, while also encouraging employers to replace wages with automation that doesn’t need benefits, does not get sick or sue for discrimination, etc. And it draws people across the border for the extra, artificially created wage gap.

And if you truly want to solve the problem, we must:

6) Criminalize having children you can’t care for. The act of having a child is not a crime. However, dumping the costs of the kids you keep birthing onto taxpayers is anti-social to the ‘nth degree and is in EVERY WAY stealing from others so you can live without suffering the financial consequences of YOUR CHOICES.

You are not entitled to be financially incentivized / supported by taxpayers to have children!  After one kid the state will help, but you’re expected to both identify the father AND also work, OR YOU WILL BE JAILED. Fathers who refuse to assume financial responsibility for their children will go to jail.  The taxpayer is not your cuckolded husband. Financial obligations will be equally split between parents.  Siring kids on someone else’s dime is not your right.

If you have a second child that you are unable to support, you will go to jail for a mandatory 5-years because you cannot be trusted not to steal.  It will be a repayment jail and you will learn a work ethic and your labor will be sold by the state to compensate for caring for your children. You can always be released from jail if you 1) immediately assume financial responsibility for your children or 2) voluntarily become sterilized. After your five-years is done, you are welcome back, BUT if you have another child you can’t care for, you’ll serve 10-years. Then 20. Then 40.

While hard working, middle and upper class families self-regulate and have smaller and smaller families to make ends meet, we are insane to subsidize the least socially and financially responsible, often the lowest IQ types, to have many kids who grow up in broken families to learn zero work-ethic, who then contribute to 90% of crime / gun violence / murders, an who geometrically expand the same population demographic mimicking the learned cultural behaviors. The math on this is simply unsupportable and unless corrected, the U.S. will go bankrupt subsidizing births of those who can’t support their own progeny once they have become the majority.

7) Privatize all government-run charity by ending taxpayer redistribution for entitlements. Big Government run entitlements is a $ trillion MEGA business run by self-serving union workers, horsetrading politicians and private contractors whose self-interest lies in not solving problems, but expanding them to their own profit. The entitlement industry does not measure success by reduction of the number in poverty, but rather by increasing the numbers of beneficiaries reached = a twisted success metric of “the more poverty, the better”! Nobody with a hand in the till wants the market to provide lasting solutions because that would eliminate their political power.   In contrast, private charity must compete for contributions and, unlike government wastefulness / politics, therefore actually demands that those getting handouts assume behavior that is conducive to ending dependence.  This, vs. fostering a growing need for more and more handouts, ala # 6 above.

If you want to eliminate the need for high skilled labor exemptions to non-citizens often talked about:

8) End compulsory state education. Open government / union-run schools to 100% competition.  Migrate to end all compulsory / taxpayer financing of schools and end compulsory attendance.   Close the Department of Education. End all government subsidization of higher education, including loan-guarantees.  Economic gravity / real world human needs / consent-based demand should drive ALL education, not political self-interest.  End of story. The problem with lack of educated people is a broken system driven by politics and central planning rather than genuine market demand-economics.  Too many rack up debt used to earn economically useless degrees.  This will streamline our education to being purpose driven rather than political / hobby driven.

 

Truth disclosure:

Though the results of such policy changes might act like a wall or fence in ways pro-Trump folks like, these ideas are really not analogous to a real fence, electric, wall or otherwise. I used that term to get the attention of the pro wall-building crowd. But we don’t need a wall to stop these policies. We JUST NEED TO END THE STUPID POLICIES that created the problem.

None of these problems are natural to our environment. They are the byproduct of endless government meddling, the consequences of bad laws creating problems that are used by the politically motivated / self-interested to justify a whole new set of laws intended to fix the problems.  These, in turn, only serve to create a whole new set of unintended consequences, an endless cycle corkscrewing into dysfunction regardless of purpose withe the only winners being those with sufficient political power to earn a living off if.   Indeed, this is the essence of government run amuck: intervention begetting more intervention, begetting yet more intervention, never solving the problem.  Those in Government win while the policies, at first gradually and then with ever-increasing force, choke out the life of the rest of the nation, economy, etc. all at the expense of taxpayers / our liberty.

The point is: WE DON’T NEED AN $800 BILLION WALL, and we certainly don’t need the bureaucratic legacy it will enshrine.  This is just more government.  We just need to end the stupid policies that created the problem. By ending the policies, we’ll no longer have to argue about “who will pay for the wall”, and instead we’ll be talking about $ billions of taxpayer saved annually, lower deficits and hopefully a declining government debt for our kids and grand-kids.  Combined with elimination of complex regulation and excessive taxation — a consent-based business environment without all the intervention, flow of immigration would trickle to true economic demand in an economy growing more rapidly akin to the revolution in wealth creating and standard of living that occurred in the late 1800s.

Ronald Reagan is purported to have once quipped something to the effect of “if the answer to your question is “more government”, then you’re asking the wrong questions”.  The Wall is no exception. Like all politician-inspired ideas, without question the Wall addresses a genuine concern of many people.  But like nearly all government, it will over-promise and under-deliver — It will become a $ billion boondoggle requiring endless, ever growing government-run overhead to service.

Moreover, it only treats the symptoms.

The answer is to remove the government meddling that created the problems.

On Hong Kong and Protestors – What Should the U.S. Do?

The U.S. could simply issue a statement:

“The U.S. believes a nations’ primary, if not sole responsibility, is protecting the individual liberty of its citizens. We do not condone actions by governments that violate their citizens’ liberty, nor do we support populist democracy movements whose goal is to seize power only to swap the government with a different set of violations of individual liberty.

We hope those involved in the current problems in Hong Kong consider their ultimate goals in terms of human rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We denounce any and all efforts by any party that are contrary to that sentiment.”

It would be a lie, though, because most all in the U.S. Government don’t believe this in any way whatsoever.

Progressive sounbites only work as soundbites

I’m no republican, but found a post out on politico to to be the usual lame, twisted caricature of anyone against progressive authoritarianism.

The post was a bunch of soundbites directed at the GOP — but applicable to us all, so let’s address. each   Unfortunately, smugness can be one liners, but explanations require detail, so excuse the length.

Let the caricatures begin.

***

The (GOP folks, but you can insert anyone who disagrees with progressives policy here) all…:

“Admire the American farmer but are willing to help him go broke.

Actually, plenty of R’s are big into subsidies for their own states, so this ain’t so accurate. But on farm subsidies, let’s get this straight. U.S. policy on farms is an economic catastrophe, paying people to overproduce some crops, fighting tobacco at one level, while granting subsidies to farm it at others (recall, Dear Leader Al Gore is a gentlemen farmer who benefits); forcing consumers to overpay for some crops, exporting overproduction of others, even giving it away into the 3rd-world, which undermines developing economy markets for agriculture; then we get stupid things like the “ethanol mandate” that is actually worse for the environment and caused economic problems due to the subsidy chasing going on, etc. Then there is the Mosanto protection racket BS that’s all part of the same mechanism.

So, go ahead with the smug one liner and mock others who find this all distasteful as “being against the lil ol’ farmer”. I call BS.

Stand four-square for the American home but not for housing.

Because the housing bubble had nothing to do with massive intervention in the housing market at both the Congressional level or at the monetary policy level from the Fed and our twisted banking cartel system Nor did mandating that people who cannot afford homes should still be qualified for mortgages they don’t have the incomes for is a good thing. Nor did enabling an incompetent bureaucracy filled with political appointees hired expressly to make sure everyone got a mortgage, providing a defacto guarantee on all mortgages (Freddie and Fannie) have anything to do with it.

Yes – being against such short term, feel good lunacy (that buys votes, no doubt) is against “the people”. Dream on.

Are strong for labor but stronger for restricting labor’s rights.

Last I checked, the politically connected are for this.

Certainly big business does not like labor fluidity because they want to have workers stuck who can’t find jobs. Hence, big business is always at the forefront of writing regulation “to protect the people” which always, the shock of all shocks, coincidentally adds tremendous hurdles to entrepreneurial activity that would undermine market positions of the politically connected, which would equal their best employees jumping ship for the opportunity to excel / get paid more / enjoy the profits of creating something more consumer effective at a new job.

But are unions here to save us? Heck NO! They want to carve out their own monopoly on labor at the expense of the consumer who must pay more for the same or (as has been the repeated the case in experience) lower quality product. They don’t want labor fluidity — entrepreneurial job seekers moving around undermining their monopolies in certain industries, so they legislate against freedom of choice for labor.

So you try to make it sound that cutting back on Unionized labor’s monopoly to push others around and prevent freedom of choice is a bad thing?

No wonder unions are so isolated, and progressives so out of touch. Unions are not a solution. They doubled down on the problem of corporatism.

PS – if we all became union, there would be no benefit since everyone’s wages would adjust, and costs would universally go up, and the fraud would be exposed completely.

Favor the minimum wage. The smaller the better.

Nope. Wrong again. Anyone with economic sense understands price fixing of anything creates market distortions and affects prices in other areas. A forced above market minimum wage prices unskilled labor out of the market by putting it at a price above its actual economic output. Unfettered wages are a product of supply and demand of skill sets. To pretend that entry level burger flippers are worth more than they are merely encourages employers to seek alternatives — they fast forward investment into job eliminating machinery, off-shoring, etc. Or they pay a more skilled person with higher output. Does not happen overnight, but such is integrated.

Min wages, however, immediately force consumer to pay more / subsidize the extra wage as prices must go up to account for the increase in labor cost inputs. So they have less disposable income afterward / are poorer for it, as are all the folks who used to get that spending now cut off. Moreover, because min wage is tied to union wage scales, union wages go up (a big secret reason for minimum wage support), further increasing consumer subsidies to protected workers, and hurting those who were part of the previous consumption chain now with less $$ thanks to the new law.

Yes, some will benefit. But this is like me taking money from one person to give it to another. That is good for buying votes, but it is poor economic policy in the long run. Robbing Peter to pay Paul has always been folly, but not to the economically illiterate and desperate voter min wage advocates prey upon.

Endorse equal educational opportunities for all but won’t pay for teachers or schools.

How about teachers getting paid for their quality in an open market exchange of education alternatives?

Oh, I get it. You only want UNION-Government monopolized education, run by politicians for the benefit of the politically connected –e.g. The Education Industrial complex (testing, text books, etc.) and unions. So they can charge $550k per 35 kid classroom which is a typical big union / city run school district cost. ($15k per kid is average, but I’ve seen some cities as high as $18,400 like union heavy City of Pittsburgh).

When you actually put consumer choice choosing and defining quality — rather than unions or twisted politicians — as the chief priority, we can discuss funding education, and perhaps the best charitable method for educating those who cannot afford education vs. pure entitlements.

Think our medical care and hospitals are fine – for people who can afford them.

A system ruined by 75 years + of incremental government intervention, a system of legislated oligopolies and corporatism run rough shod over consumer choice and freedom.

A system that further guarantees that no matter how badly you take care of your body you’re supposed to be entitled to whatever care is necessary to bail you out?

yeah… And Obama-care triples down on that lunacy as a solution?

Let the market do its thing with freedom, and let’s carve out the discussion of handling the charitable needs of those who can’t afford it.

Consider electrical power a great blessing as long as private power companies get their rake-off.

LOL. Government created oligopolies (utilities) are indeed a problem. Of big government politicians killing liberty / choice.

Think the American standard of living is a fine thing as long as it does not spread to all the people.

Oh, I see — 80-years of increased redistributionism and expansionary monetary policy are not to blame for the existing economic malaise.

We’ve been raiding the economic seed-corn of wealth creators who improve the standard of living in this nation and redistributing it for political purposes through both govt. meddling and through Bank Cartel / Fed policy (fractional reserve multiplier effect, etc.). And we do so more and more each year. And now that harvests are coming in leaner and leaner, suggesting famine is on the horizon, your solution is to raid more seed corn?

We were warned extensively of this happening by sound economic folks back when this started and exactly what they warned of (more bubbles of increased volatility, wars financed on debt and money priting, etc.) has come to be.

But keep supporting the same looters, and blame those who want to end it as the problem.

Admire the United States government so much that they want to buy it.”

 

Harry Truman (funny how some things don’t change)

Blah blah blah.

XXVIII – The Liberty and Consent Protection Amendment

XXVIII

The individual liberty of The People (those residing in these United States) shall not in any circumstance be infringed upon by other individuals, groups, or governments of any type whatsoever.

1) The People are, and always shall remain, as a right of humankind from the moment of conception and birth, inherently full owners of their own lives, including their body, their labor, and the fruits derived thereof;

A) As full owners of their selves, The People individually own their present selves, their past selves, and their future selves;

i. As owners of their present selves, The People are the exclusive owners of their personal efforts and labor, to be voluntarily associated and dispensed as each chooses;

ii. As exclusive owners of their past selves, The People are inherently entitled to the exclusive ownership of their accumulated fruits of their present efforts, e.g. property, wealth, etc., to do with as they please, and in perpetuity;

iii. As exclusive owners of their future selves, The People are inherently entitled to remain free from unwanted influence and coercion, threats thereof, as affirmed forthwith;

2) The People shall always be entitled to the right of consent, whereby they reserve the opportunity to consent to, or outright reject, all initiatives of and associations with others;

3) This right to Individual Liberty shall always be reserved by all The People who are of sound mind;

A) The liberty of those medically deemed of unsound mind shall be protected from themselves and/or others by guardians as the law establishes.

B) Children, until the Age of Consent (age 18), being of limited faculty to make sound decisions, shall remain the legal responsibility of their parents or guardians, and shall have limited rights to self-determination until achieving the age of consent; but shall otherwise retain the rights to consent;

i. Laws shall be constructed to protect children from themselves;

ii. Laws shall be constructed to protect children from predators who would avail themselves upon the innocence of a child in order to violate the child’s liberty before the child is capable of sound consent;

C) Belief in the merits and defense of Individual Liberty shall solely never be deemed to be a mental illness, or classify any among The People as being of unsound mind.

4) The People, as heretofore described, shall always reserve the right to make their own informed and voluntary associations, and to consent to activities which they deem appropriate so long as their actions do not violate the Individual Liberty of others among The People.

5) The People shall be free to protect themselves from the unlawful coercion, fraud and force used by others wishing to violate Individual Liberty as a means of achieving their goals, and may associate as they wish to do so.

6) The sole exception where an individual, group, or group organized as a government may violate the consent of another person or group is when that other person or group is in the act of aggressing against the right to consent of others, or has aggressed in such a manner whereby prosecution for such crimes is necessitated as a matter of protecting this Amendment.

7) Individual Liberty shall always remain inalienable regardless of the justification of those who would choose exceptions or exemptions in order to violate it. Under no circumstances, save those exceptions noted in this amendment, may The Peoples’ rights to Individual Liberty and to consent ever be violated.

To David Horowtiz: Is Communism or Authoritarianism the Real Problem

I just read an article over at Breitbart discussing David Horowitz’s recent comments at a Heritage Foundation function where he, in no uncertain terms, labeled the entire Democrat Party a bunch of “communists”.

“My parents called themselves progressives,” Horowitz explained with regard to his communist parents. “The agenda was a Soviet America…the slogan of the communist party in those days was peace, jobs, democracy. Sound familiar?”

He continued:

“The communist party is the Democratic Party.”

Having watched Horowitz come out of the closet as a conservative in the early 1990s, I found Horowitz’s positioning and timing interesting.  The Heritage Foundation is influential among many conservatives who cling onto the GOP because they continue to believe that it somehow will throw them more than bones when it comes to liberty.  And, here we find many democrats and independents joining republicans in questioning the whole idea of Obamacare, with many critics of Obama using the “communism” and “socialism” to describe what Obama and D’s really want / intend.

I also found it to be a GOP-centric attempt at focusing Republicans on a legitimate foe, while avoiding the real issue at hand when it comes to communism.

Lets be clear: You or I really would not care one ounce about communism if communists just went off and bought some property on their own someplace in order to create a voluntary communist enclave that is populated by those who voluntarily choose to join and remain part of such a commune, while leaving the rest of us alone.

The problem is, most all communists want to foist their ideology on the rest of us without giving us a choice in the matter. THAT is the problem with communism, but for the few on the fringe who simply joined communes and were done with it: It is inherently authoritarian. (Authoritarian meaning “The State has the Authority to Do as It Pleases regardless of individual liberty / consent”, keeping in mind that democracy can be fully authoritarian at the expense of minorities.)

That said, I don’t care about communism per say, but I do care about the means people choose to implement it.

That in mind, we need to run ALL politicians through the lens of individual LIBERTY. There we quickly discover that Communism itself is not a danger, but rather AUTHORITARIAN communism (albeit a redundant phrase in practice, since 99.5% of communists wish to force their fellow humans into their ideology, even if it means nearly 100 million deaths, as we have previously witnessed in the 20th century).

In other words, we would have rooted-out / exposed Obama’s true problem — he’s an authoritarian at heart – and not gotten gummed up in the debate over if he’s a communist (socialist, etc) or not, a debate many still find themselves sucked into today.

That said, when we use the Lens of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, we can most assuredly discover that all progressives and most all democrats a quasi-authoritarian to full-blown authoritarian types, believing that, while some liberty should be protected,  Government should ultimately decide and may, when convenient, void whatever liberties it so chooses — ala, once again, Obamacare.    (Notice now how the whole “is Obamacare Socialist or not” debate similarly distracts from the real point: We’re all chained to it!)

However, we also discover the hypocrisy of many of those who shout loudly about the bogeyman of communism. While they have fingered a dangerous foe, they often promote a different, authoritarian-method-enforced philosophy or set of priorities which is similarly dismissive or dangerous to Individual liberty. In this we find most all progressives and a ton of liberty-lip-service GOPers.

What we will find, if we are honest and not hypocritical, is that most elections argue over various shades of authoritarian behaviors laundered through the ballot box,