End welfare as we know it

End welfare as we know it.  Welfare is not who we are.

Welfare is an explicit example of the “tragedy of the commons” (3).  Commonly owned resources almost always fail miserably in the long term.  Long-term interests of individuals and the common good benefit from private property.  But socialists, who in all their various names hang on to the failed 19th century ideas of Karl Marx, are set to rid the world of private property.  Their tactic is identity politics, pitting one group against another group in class warfare.

“In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began.”(1)

The lessons of the tragedy of the commons are that resources owned in common tend to be overused and that the cure for the tragedy of the commons is private property.  It is necessary to know who owns the private property, the ownership must be protected by law, the private property itself as well as rights and anything else produced from the private property must be freely transferable by the owner.  A private owner will profit from the resource and thus have incentive to protect it.  Even the best intended government is a common collective of citizens and thus it will eventually fail as an owner or protector of private property.  Government’s role is to protect the rights of private property and owners of private property, but not to own or manage the property or the owner of the property.

Trump has proposed selling off property held by the U.S. government to private companies and people.  Trump’s proposal is a good one.  He has learned the lessons of the tragedy of the commons.  His proposal would take exactly the right action, so long as the private owner is a U.S. citizen or U.S.-based company; that needs to be specified.  The United Nations, for example, would do the opposite.  The UN under its Agenda 21 policies would nationalize and then internationalize all resources into the common, a strategy which is guaranteed to fail, but a strategy which the Iron Law of Bureaucracy guarantees will be attempted.

Socialists and the politically correct will argue that government can regulate and thereby protect community property.  And that is true for a short time.  But, like the “war on poverty,” the best intentioned idealists who set up the EPA, the FDA, the Bureau of Land Management, the departments of Education, Health and Social Services, Agriculture, the Office of Economic Opportunity, etc. the true believers who fought to establish these civil service agencies have been replaced by career bureaucrats and politicians who succumb to the Iron Law of Bureaucracy.   

“Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representative who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.”

Like the commonly owned pasture that becomes barren dirt due to overgrazing, left to regulation and control by bureaucrats who are supposedly civil servants for the community, the air will become unbreathable, the water will be poison, the oceans will be lifeless, national parks and lands will be used to benefit bureaucrats and politicians, and so forth until there is no more common resource to be plundered.  Eventually the government will sell the resources government has destroyed, ignored, or obligated to private owners at rock bottom prices.

Trump apparently believes we are already there.  Will you have the assets and vision to be a buyer when the government is ready to sell?

The benefits of exploitation of a common resource accrue to individuals or groups, each motivated to maximize use of the common resource until they become reliant on it.  Meanwhile, the cost of the exploitation is paid by all, until eventually the costs exceed the ability of the government to pay at which point the resource is sold to the highest bidder or a corrupt crony.

The benefits of exploitation of a private resource accrue to the private individual or company, each motivated to maximize use of the private resource until they become reliant on it.  In this case the private individual or company is motivated to manage and care for the resource and the cost of the exploitation of the resource is paid entirely by the private individual or company.  The private individual or company manages the resource to make a sustainable long term profit.

In other words, the resource is best managed in the hands of private individuals or companies.  However, many millennials, talking heads, academics and of course politicians and bureaucrats express doubts about that.  They seriously consider electing a openly socialist government.  We have an entire U.S. political establishment including a slave voting constituency that is working to transfer private property into the commons.  In other words, they want to redistribute wealth.  That is also the expressed intention of the United Nations.

As Margaret Thatcher said,

“Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalisation, and they’re now trying to control everything by other means. They’re progressively reducing the choice available to ordinary people. Look at the trouble now we’re having with choice of schools. Of course parents want a say in the kind of education their children have. Look at the William Tyndall School—an example where the parents finally rebelled. Of course they did. These schools are financed by taxpayers’ money, but the choice to parents is being reduced.”

“Look at the large numbers of people who live on council estates. Many of them would like to buy their own homes. Oh, but that’s not approved of by a Socialist government …   . oh no! But that’s absurd. Why shouldn’t they? Well over thirty per cent of our houses are council houses. Why shouldn’t those people purchase their own homes if they can?”(2)

In the case of welfare, the common resource is the money collected as taxes from citizens and borrowed on behalf of citizens.  When people have the ability to use a common resource, they will do so.  And they will continue to do so until they rely on it.  The various well intended uses and explanations form a spectrum of responses limited only by population count.

The fundamental element of private property rights is the right to own yourself and your own thoughts.  But can one own oneself if the government is paying you to exist?  You would not have to do anything.  You will receive your monthly check no matter what. No matter that you neither offer nor perform any function to the commons except to consume.  However, there are certain situations wherein you lose all control.  Ultimate control over your own self is taken over by your government.  The same government that once upon a time long ago contracted to protect the states and you.  As a ward of the government, you may be drafted into war, bailouts and almost unlimited causes.  You are almost there now.  What is your recourse in such an event?

If you become a slave to the government, whether you work for them, or whether the government pays you to exist, or whether you pay them taxes, then you have for all practical purposes sold to the government the right to own your self.  Your ass is theirs now.

Accepting welfare is essentially selling to the government your right to own your self, and you wrapped it nicely on a silver tray for them.  At least if you work in the private sector and pay taxes, you have the flexibility to rearrange your personal affairs so that taxes are greatly reduced or eliminated.  At least if your job is in civil service, you have the flexibility to quit and find a position in the private sector.  But if you are long term on what is known as “means-tested” welfare, for example food stamps.  True entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare where you have paid for decades handsome premiums for insurance to the government, but now your income is dominantly from Social Security, your taxes are very low or none, and you depend on Medicare for health services, yes, then your ass is theirs too.

Politicians and bureaucrats manipulate the system, manipulate the government, so that they benefit from the commons more, and their benefits received are more than the market value of the civil services they provide.  They are parasites.  They play the system to their own benefit as does the overconfident rancher or shepherd who overgrazes the common range.  Career civil servants moving into a private company after retirement will either corrupt the company or destroy it; they have learned to overgraze.  U.S. Federal government employees as a group on average are making twice the salary and benefits of the average of private sector employees as a group.  They are overgrazing the commons.  It is unlikely they will see the problem until they are standing on bare earth and starving.  Private sector employees paying for the salary and benefits of the “civil servants.”  Taxes paid by “civil servants” are merely a discount on the amount paid by private sector employees.  The private sector is paying for the “civil servants.”  In these days of the likes of Bernie Sanders, incredibly, one has to remind and even persuade voters that the private sector is paying for all civil servants.   Some people just can’ believe it.  “Civil servants” are motivated to increase the commons…that is to keep bringing into the commons more and more private property.  They justify it by creating ever more regulations which require more expense to execute which in turn increases the amount of tax that must be collected from the private sector or else the amount of debt that must be created and laid upon the private sector and the necessity to control more and more resources.

It is time to declare an end to the “war on poverty” (4) and an end to the Democrat’s “Great Society.” (5)  The only free man is the man who has his own private property, who has assets in great excess of his liabilities.  And even then the government can and does tax your private property.  But when a resource is not privately owned, eventually there is insufficient profit paid to the commons to produce an incentive to protect that private resource.  The resource becomes abused.  Then cost for the government to administer the common resource exceeds the price that qualified buyers would pay to own the common resource.  Amtrak or the U.S. Postal Service are examples.  When a resource is privately owned, there is sufficient incentive to take care and maintain and even fight for the resource.  That is strictly not true with community held property.   The resources in the commons must be sold to private owners BEFORE the resource is abused.

“Beach shorelines in Oregon are public property — in other words, they are owned in common. Periodically, beach clean-up days are organized and citizen groups are urged to volunteer. Why is that public service effort necessary? A nearby private lake owned by a group of fishermen has absolutely no trash floating in the water or littering the beach.”

“Suppose that following an earthquake that destroyed the water system of a large city, producers of bottled water contributed a convoy of trucks full of water to the citizens of the city. Predict what would happen, how people in the city would behave, if the water was a common resource. Predict what would happen and how people would behave if the water was given to a local fast-food restaurant to sell, under the condition that the owner donate 95% of the money to charity.” (6)

Many of the concepts here are borrowed from this reference and there are excellent teaching examples here:  http://www.fte.org/teacher-resources/lesson-plans/ewelessons/lesson-5-the-tragedy-of-the-commons-3/   Teach your children well.

We need a law or a Constitutional amendment that specifically prohibits the federal government from “owning” or controlling any resource other than the 10 square miles of Washington, D.C. Another amendment should specify that the federal government can only maintain such amount of fully prepared military as necessary to protect the United States and their sovereign citizens from external forces.  As the founders and framers intended, all other resources of the nation should be private property held by private citizens or to be converted to private property owned by citizens unless needed for the national defense.  To accomplish this, private citizens may associate with each other as shareholders to own the private property of the nation.

“Institutions evolve in market economies to help individuals and groups accomplish their goals. . . [One] kind of institution, clearly defined and well-enforced property rights, is essential to a market economy.” (6)

On the other hand, institutions evolve in socialist, non-market economies to help politically correct and connected individuals and groups accomplish their personal goals, not the goals of the common, and that institution is government.

Why isn’t there enough to go around for everyone?  The answer is: without private property, no one has the incentive to protect resources.

Your self should be your own private property.  But you are not.  So long as you are on welfare or rely on the government, you are a resource owned by the government by the commons.  Like any other commons property, no one in government has the incentive to protect you unless that person or group in government is corrupt.  The corrupt and the socialist, they are too busy covering their own asses and figuring how to take or are actively taking your private resources to enlarge their department, and its budget and power.  That is who they are.  They are redistributing you and your private property to the commons despite the fact that the commons always fails.

Your only hope, our only hope, is for us to free ourselves from slavery.  Get out of debt.  Resign from your government job.  Stop paying taxes in so far as is legally possible.

The strong arm of government and its cronies will be used to intimidate us, to prevent us from freeing ouselves.  That is happening now.  Ranchers in the western U.S. have been trying to protect their private property.  Veterans are denied their contractual rights.  Citizens and their associations are targeted, spied upon, and intimidated if not killed.  EPA claims control over water on your property.  You are forced to pay a tax if you do not buy certain government-required services or you are forced to pay a third party for certain government required services.  There are many examples.

Unfortunately for the 50 states and citizens of those states, interpretations of the Constitution and its amendments as well as subsequent laws since the Civil War have worked to usurp the contracted rights of the states and citizens and increase the powers and assumed authority of the federal government.  Government by its self-promulgated laws of the common can and frequently does declare imminent domain or similar control over private property and then sell or lease that property to a third party to exploit it.  In other words, government takes private property from one private owner and sells or leases it or its resources to another private owner.  The government is legally required to pay fair market rate for private property it takes under imminent domain.  But government also invents many reasons to drive people off their private property.  Often the government retains the property or the resources on the property as a park, a military base or a reserve.  Far too often.

In all cases, imminent domain is a redistribution of wealth.  Sometimes the wealth is re-distributed to the commons, and sometimes the wealth is redistributed to cronies.

A law or amendment is needed which prohibits the government from taking private property, or owning or controlling property except in certain very limited and specified places and circumstances.  Who would write and pass such a law?  Certainly not the federal government, politicians or bureaucrats.  They and their cronies are the primary beneficiaries of redistribution of private property.  An Article V Convention of the States may be the only way to reverse your and your state’s loss of sovereignty and rights.  Private property is but one example.

A conservative or libertarian, strongman U.S. President supported by a small number of Congressmen and Senators could reverse our rapid regression to socialism and a repeat of the tragedy of the commons.  We must elect more than enough because some who are elected will succumb to intimidation and temptation even if they first appear to be principled people.  Since the majority of the people in most voting constituencies are already slaves to the government in one way or another, this will not be an easy election or an easy thing to accomplish.  The road ahead is uncertain.

It is imperative that citizens help their states to regain states’ rights and powers relative to the federal government.  It is already too late for citizens to march in the streets.  The federal government has already obtained too much power.  The federal government would easily turn that power against citizens and has already done so.  But, the states want to regain their rights and powers.  It is not so easy for the federal government to invade a state.  And without the support of the states, the federal government cannot intimidate citizens for long.  These things must happen in sequence.

“The historical fact is that the Civil War was a conflict between TWO slave nations – the USA and the CSA. Granted, the USA had already banned slavery in some states, but the same movement was growing in some CSA states as well. Historical revisionists have spent a little over 100 years trying to paint the Civil War as some idealistic holy crusade against the injustice of slavery. That image doesn’t hold up to the historical facts. The Civil War was mainly about money and power – particularly taxes and investments. What the South did was no different than what America’s Founding Fathers did during the American Revolution. Both were acts of rebellion and armed insurrection. Both attempted to establish free and independent nations. Both were dominated by slave economies. The only difference between them is this. In the American Revolution the rebels won. In the American Civil War they didn’t.” (7)

It could be necessary for some states to secede from the union again.  The federal government claims to own 50% or more of the land in some western states.  Some of these states are mounting court actions that would require return of these lands to the states.

These days, it is almost certain that the U.S. Supreme Court will support the positions of the federal government over the states, and that includes the right of states to secede.  During and for a time after the Civil War, the U.S. Supreme Court supported the right of states to secede.  “In Texas v. White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the States could lead to a successful secession.” (8) It is key that as many states as possible get on board.

A July, 2015 poll by Rassmussen found, “Fifty percent (50%) of GOP voters now believe states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings, compared to just 22% of Democrats and 30% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Interestingly, this represents a noticeable rise in support among all three groups.”

“Fifty percent (50%) of conservative voters share this view, but just 27% of moderates and 15% of liberals agree.” (9)

“Only 20% [of likely voters] now consider the federal government a protector of individual liberty,” the Rasmussen Poll finds. “Sixty percent (60 %) see the government as a threat to individual liberty instead.”

“One hundred and fifty years after the end of the Civil War, it is becoming increasingly clear that there are two Americas—one where the principles of constitutionally limited government and individual liberty are still revered, the other where statism and the trampling of individual rights are on the rise.”

“Widespread resistance at the state level, however, will require two elements: strong governors and strong state legislatures willing to vigorously assert their 10th amendment rights.”

“At the local level, we’ve already seen the first indications that a movement may be afoot. In Tennessee, for example, the entire Decatur County Clerk’s Office resigned rather than enforce the recent gay marriage decision announced by the Supreme Court.”

“Isolated pockets of resistance are springing up around the country.”

“And yet, even among “The Great 38 States”—flyover country where President Obama either lost or won less than 56.2 percent of the vote in the 2012 election—leadership at the executive level is lacking.”

“The next electoral battle for the preservation of the constitutional republic will be fought not only for the highest office of the executive branch in 2016—it will also be fought in the gubernatorial races of those “Great 38 States” where the vast majority of voters still believe in America, and still believe in constitutionally limited government.”

“Freedom of the individual states from the usurpations of the federal government does not mean secession from the constitutional republic. It is, instead, the surest realistic mechanism that remains to preserve the constitutional republic.”

“By limiting the role of the federal government to the exercise of that very narrow set of specifically “enumerated powers” ascribed to it in the Constitution, state governments can guarantee that our constitutional republic will continue to flourish for generations to come.”

“The alternative is a constitutional republic in name only, a dystopian oligarchy where words have no meaning, right is wrong, good is bad, truth is deception, and the rule of law is invented anew each day by the ruling class of federal royalty.”

“As for that dirty dozen of liberal blue states, like California, New York, and Massachusetts? Let them continue on their path of reckless spending and experience the fate of modern Greece.”

“Meanwhile, the rest of us can continue to choose liberty.”

I could not agree more with those words above by Michael Patrick Leahy on July 15, 2015 in Beitbart. (10)

Beware.  You have heard or seen the term RINO, i.e. Republican in Name Only.  Some conservatives and libertarians have argued that this is an inaccurate term and counterproductive.  Don’t believe it.  That argument is demonstrably false.  This is a serious problem and represents the continuing erosion of the checks and balances that are supposed to exist in our government.

There are active elements of so-called progressives and Democrats disguised to take conservative or GOP elected positions at the state and federal level.  For example, take a look at Hawaii’s Republican Party.  “In this state, you can’t tell the Republicans from the Democrats.” (11)   In Hawaii, liberals and closet Democrats are firmly in control of both the GOP party organization and the “minority caucus” of the seven elected Republicans at the State House of Representatives.  There is only one Republican state Senator, Sam Slom.  Hawaii GOP party chair Fritz Rohlfing put Radiant Cordero, an active Democrat campaigner for Hillary Clinton and current Democrat staffer for former vice speaker of the Democrat-controlled state house, on the executive committee of the Republican Party for the entire island of Oahu, which is 80% of Hawaii’s population, just months before the 2016 election.  The Hawaiian Republican Assembly says, “For decades, Democrats have infiltrated and infested the top leadership positions of Hawaii’s Republican Party.”

http://hira.hawaiideservesbetter.com/images/HIRA_2014_Road_Show_Slides/Slide27.JPG

In 2013, according to CNBC, Hawaii dropped to last place among all 50 states as “the worst state for business in the country.”  CNBC added, “It is hard to find a category where the state does not finish at or near the bottom.”  There are two categories where Hawaii is 1st:   Hawaii comes in 1st for “Quality of Life.”  And, thanks to Hawaii’s perverted politics, according to Cato and Grassroot Institute, Hawaii ranks number 1 nationally in welfare benefits, averaging more than $49,175 per capita…much higher than a full time minimum wage job.  The best paid slaves in the nation.  How can this ever change if elected Republicans are actually Democrats in disguise?  Ignore RINO warnings at your peril.

It is beyond time to end the failed experiment called the “war on poverty.”  End welfare as we know it.  It is not who we are.  It is slavery to the government.

       

 

About budbromley

Life sciences executive, retired
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s