I often read that local politics is what really matters the most in people's daily lives, and that is where the activism and involvement should be. I'm of the opinion that if you really wanted to help people's lives for the better, politics is the last thing you should get involved with. Your time would be so much better spent working for charity or entreprenuership. Politicians, even local ones, don't fight for the poor. They are nothing but parasites, feeding off their host, the people, until civilized society is destroyed.
This past week held many examples of stunning abuse from local governments, from city up to state. For one, in Cleveland's Tremont neighborhood, they bulldozed a man's house because they didn't think it was well kept enough. The man ended up going to jail for allegedly threatening demolition workers with a gun. I can't say I blame him for trying to protect his property. Maybe there is an argument somewhere in here for allowing people to own any means of protection they can get their hands on. Especially larger explosives and missiles. In cases like this, firearms or handguns are woefully inadequate to protect your property. Perhaps if this poor man had some heavier artillery they would have thought twice about razing his home.
It's astonishing that such a dysfunctional, wasteful, abusive city government can find the time and inclination to level some old man's house. Especially one in such an old and historic community. Where does it ever end? I wonder how much power will people give these locally organized criminals before they realize they made a terrible mistake.
There should be an important distinction here made between a city government and a homeowners association. When I bought my house in Ohio, I had to agree that I would follow certain rules and restrictions on the property. I knew this before hand, and voluntarilly signed the contract, allowing them to have that power over me. If people want to live in a community where standards like this are enforced, they should form homeowners associations like this. Frank Giglio lived a neighborhood that didn't have this type of voluntary enforcement rules. He was perfectly within his rights to have unkempt property. City government's job, incompetent though they are, is not to enforce cleanliness standards in privately owned homes. Screw you, Cleveland government. You should all quit your political jobs and work in private industry.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Ohio government steals $10,000 worth of food and materials from private co-op
In yet another alarming police state action, the Ohio Department of Agriculture "seized food, electronic devices and documents from a Pittsfield Township organic and natural food cooperative believed to be unlicensed." Thank goodness we have the government to protect these idiots from themselves.
Who do these people think they are, trying to operate a food co-op without a license from the state? They are clearly incapable of feeding themselves without approval from the state. They need to be locked up by the government to teach them a lesson.
Other internet sources have reported that the faimily living at this residence was held for 9 hours at gunpoint by the friendly neighborhood SWAT team while their stuff was being carried away. They lost their whole supply of food for the year, essentially because they didn't purchase it from a government approved food conglomerate.
According to another story posted from the Plain Dealer regarding this incident (thanks to Matt for the link), the Lorain County Sheriff's Office disputes having a SWAT team there or holding the family at gunpoint. Well, Mr. Sheriff, if I thought the police were an honorable organization I might be inclined to believe you. Unfortunately, I don't. Also, even if they didn't have a SWAT team there, they didn't deny stealing these people's stuff. Either way, this incident is still a great example of why we shouldn't allow the government to have power over food inspections.
At what point did our society decide it is okay for the government to treat people like this? Does anyone seriously believe the government is only trying to protect these poor ignorant people from eating bad food? I hardly suspect that is the case.
As we clearly see here, even granting the government power over something seemingly harmless like food inspection ultimately results in this kind of tyranny and opression. Statists make fun of libertarians when they compare the government to mafia and organized crime. It seriously makes me wonder what they think of actions like this.
Who do these people think they are, trying to operate a food co-op without a license from the state? They are clearly incapable of feeding themselves without approval from the state. They need to be locked up by the government to teach them a lesson.
Other internet sources have reported that the faimily living at this residence was held for 9 hours at gunpoint by the friendly neighborhood SWAT team while their stuff was being carried away. They lost their whole supply of food for the year, essentially because they didn't purchase it from a government approved food conglomerate.
According to another story posted from the Plain Dealer regarding this incident (thanks to Matt for the link), the Lorain County Sheriff's Office disputes having a SWAT team there or holding the family at gunpoint. Well, Mr. Sheriff, if I thought the police were an honorable organization I might be inclined to believe you. Unfortunately, I don't. Also, even if they didn't have a SWAT team there, they didn't deny stealing these people's stuff. Either way, this incident is still a great example of why we shouldn't allow the government to have power over food inspections.
At what point did our society decide it is okay for the government to treat people like this? Does anyone seriously believe the government is only trying to protect these poor ignorant people from eating bad food? I hardly suspect that is the case.
As we clearly see here, even granting the government power over something seemingly harmless like food inspection ultimately results in this kind of tyranny and opression. Statists make fun of libertarians when they compare the government to mafia and organized crime. It seriously makes me wonder what they think of actions like this.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
True heroes refuse to fight in government wars. Why I don't support the troops.
I was very impressed that a soldier from Cleveland deserted the army rather than going back to Iraq. However, I was less than impressed with the 70+ comments that followed the story. It comes as no surprise that most people in this country believe you should "support the troops" even if you don't "support the war". The number of troops I can actually support is few and far between. This guy from Cleveland is one of them. Bravo, Andre, bravo. I can only hope more soldiers follow your lead and refuse to take part in this senseless, state sponsored campaign of murder and mayhem.
One of the common complaints people have in that thread is that the guy signed a contract with the army and he should follow through with it even if he disagrees with the war. Well, first of all, everyone should know by now that the Iraw war was started under completely false pretenses. I don't understand how anyone could possibly believe American troops are there legitimately. If you join up with the army believing that they are defending America and later discover they are not, you should not be obligated to follow through on your commitment.
Secondly, contracts to commit murder are not valid or enforcable. If someone in the mafia hired an assassin to knock off a rival and they failed to do their job, that contractural agreement cannot be enforced under the law. I don't see any difference between soldiers in the military who falsely believe they are doing the right thing by killing innocent people. It's no different than murder in my book. Even if the government approves of this type of killing.
These troops have made a choice to follow through with the government's plan. They know full well their actions result in the death of innocent women and children who never did anything wrong. They know the difference between right and wrong. If the government came to my house and told me that I should kill my neighbor because he is a threat to America, I sure as hell wouldn't do it. Even if they threatened me with physical harm (which governments are prone to do).
There are moral reasons I do not support the troops. They are the ones making war possible. They support a corrupt government who goes to war for the profit of their buddies in the military industry. I hope that eventually, the rest of the government's troops would stand up and refuse to kill. Then they would be someone I could support.
One of the common complaints people have in that thread is that the guy signed a contract with the army and he should follow through with it even if he disagrees with the war. Well, first of all, everyone should know by now that the Iraw war was started under completely false pretenses. I don't understand how anyone could possibly believe American troops are there legitimately. If you join up with the army believing that they are defending America and later discover they are not, you should not be obligated to follow through on your commitment.
Secondly, contracts to commit murder are not valid or enforcable. If someone in the mafia hired an assassin to knock off a rival and they failed to do their job, that contractural agreement cannot be enforced under the law. I don't see any difference between soldiers in the military who falsely believe they are doing the right thing by killing innocent people. It's no different than murder in my book. Even if the government approves of this type of killing.
These troops have made a choice to follow through with the government's plan. They know full well their actions result in the death of innocent women and children who never did anything wrong. They know the difference between right and wrong. If the government came to my house and told me that I should kill my neighbor because he is a threat to America, I sure as hell wouldn't do it. Even if they threatened me with physical harm (which governments are prone to do).
There are moral reasons I do not support the troops. They are the ones making war possible. They support a corrupt government who goes to war for the profit of their buddies in the military industry. I hope that eventually, the rest of the government's troops would stand up and refuse to kill. Then they would be someone I could support.
Monday, December 1, 2008
The poor performance of county courts
The Plain Dealer has a piece up detailing the many failures of government administered justice in Cuyahoga County. As in the failure of the government to provide the basic right to a speedy trial as outlined in the 6th amendment. They are so incompetent that the average disposition time for criminal cases under this jurisdiction is 173 days, longer for the more serious crimes. Even under an expedited system they are trying out in some areas, the time averages at least 80 days. Of course, they can't seem to find the money to make even this faster time widely available to everyone.
The administration of justice is one of the areas which even many libertarians claim is a rightful perogative of the government. However, the economic arguments against government intervention in other areas of the economy apply just as easily to criminal justice. The claim that free markets can't effectively do this essentially rests on the same assumptions as everything else. Just because the government does it now doesn't mean that markets are incapable.
Libertarian economist David D. Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism provides a very interesting framework for how this could be done. Some of the text is available for free on his website, including chapter 29: Police, Courts, and Laws--on the Market. Essentially, his argument rests on protection from coercion being an economic good. Another book I also plan on reading by the same author is "Law's Order: What Economics Has to Do with Law and Why It Matter". Which I will eventually get to... if I'm not so busy with writing blogs, family, and other things.
The administration of justice is one of the areas which even many libertarians claim is a rightful perogative of the government. However, the economic arguments against government intervention in other areas of the economy apply just as easily to criminal justice. The claim that free markets can't effectively do this essentially rests on the same assumptions as everything else. Just because the government does it now doesn't mean that markets are incapable.
Libertarian economist David D. Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism provides a very interesting framework for how this could be done. Some of the text is available for free on his website, including chapter 29: Police, Courts, and Laws--on the Market. Essentially, his argument rests on protection from coercion being an economic good. Another book I also plan on reading by the same author is "Law's Order: What Economics Has to Do with Law and Why It Matter". Which I will eventually get to... if I'm not so busy with writing blogs, family, and other things.
Friday, November 28, 2008
City budgets vs. services
Here we go again, with the question of who will provide services if not the government. I always say that private groups of individuals acting together can provide services better than the government. Now that city budgets are having such a hard time in this economic downturn, it's easy to see how shortsighted and inefficient they are.
We all know what happens to city services when times are bad. They end up cutting services, from public swimming pools to police and fire. Either that or raise taxes. Governments know they don't have to provide efficient services because they can just take more money from the people with the excuse that they need it to function better.
The cold reality of it is that extra money might as well go into a sinkhole. The excuse is used time and time again for public schools. We need to keep throwing more money at the problem and it will somehow be fixed. Then they take the liberty of putting the same taxes on their ballots over and over until people finally give up and pass it.
They even screw up things as simple as trash collection. They have to resort to alternating trash and recycling days in order to make ends meet. Toledo already has a trash fee, $7 for people who recycle and less for people who do. It will eventually be raised to $10 in the year 2010. I'm not saying you wouldn't have to pay fees for trash collection in a free market. Just they they would be much more efficient and cost effective.
From what I can tell, history has shown that as products and services get more and more efficient, prices for them will gradually drop. This happened with Standard Oil's prices, until the free market for energy was taken away. It happens with the relatively unregulated markets of computer and electronics today. Not so with governments, holds true right down to the smallest of city services.
We all know what happens to city services when times are bad. They end up cutting services, from public swimming pools to police and fire. Either that or raise taxes. Governments know they don't have to provide efficient services because they can just take more money from the people with the excuse that they need it to function better.
The cold reality of it is that extra money might as well go into a sinkhole. The excuse is used time and time again for public schools. We need to keep throwing more money at the problem and it will somehow be fixed. Then they take the liberty of putting the same taxes on their ballots over and over until people finally give up and pass it.
They even screw up things as simple as trash collection. They have to resort to alternating trash and recycling days in order to make ends meet. Toledo already has a trash fee, $7 for people who recycle and less for people who do. It will eventually be raised to $10 in the year 2010. I'm not saying you wouldn't have to pay fees for trash collection in a free market. Just they they would be much more efficient and cost effective.
From what I can tell, history has shown that as products and services get more and more efficient, prices for them will gradually drop. This happened with Standard Oil's prices, until the free market for energy was taken away. It happens with the relatively unregulated markets of computer and electronics today. Not so with governments, holds true right down to the smallest of city services.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Spying on the people in downtown Cleveland
There's a rather short news report from the Associated Press making the rounds in all of the area's news media. So far, four cameras are now up and there will be nine more coming on soon. According to Cleveland's Public Safety Director Martin Flask:
Somebody unaware of the huge privacy issues associated with government surveillance might not understand what the big deal is. To see why we people might be concerned about privacy, this would be a decent starting point. There is further discussion about government related privacy issues in chapter 5 of David D. Friedman's latest book "Future Imperfect." If you're still in doubt, read George Orwell's 1984.
Furthermore, from Wikipedia, There is little evidence that CCTV deters crime.[8] According to a Liberal Democrat analysis, in London "Police are no more likely to catch offenders in areas with hundreds of cameras than in those with hardly any." [9] A 2008 Report by UK Police Chiefs concluded that only 3% of crimes were solved by CCTV. [10]
As usual, the state throws away our money and resources on solutions that don't work while criminals literally get away with hurting real people. At this point, I am certain that public officials really don't care whether the measures they take are effective. They have to give people the idea that they are "doing something" about these problems or they will get thrown out of office. Meanwhile, stuff that would actually work remains untouched.
Property owners in the area might as well be allowed to keep their own money and use it to take private security measures on their own. People continue to claim that we must have a government in order to fight crime. Yet it is increasingly known that their actions do next to nothing to improve the situation. Inner cities continue to be a haven for gangsters, while the government spends more money on areas that don't need as much protection.
I wouldn't claim that getting the state out of the crime prevention business would magically make everyone safe. Of course there would still be criminals. The question is whether the government does a decent job, or whether private individuals and companies could do it better. This is just more evidence of the latter.
The cameras have blue strobe lights attached to them so people can see them and feel safe.Damn, if blue lights are all we need to feel safe I guess we no longer have anything to worry about. We can finally walk around Public Square safely, knowing that these flashing lights will be there to protect us. Maybe they could also quit sending cops to patrol the area as well... assuming they actually did useful crime fighting work to begin with.
Somebody unaware of the huge privacy issues associated with government surveillance might not understand what the big deal is. To see why we people might be concerned about privacy, this would be a decent starting point. There is further discussion about government related privacy issues in chapter 5 of David D. Friedman's latest book "Future Imperfect." If you're still in doubt, read George Orwell's 1984.
Furthermore, from Wikipedia, There is little evidence that CCTV deters crime.[8] According to a Liberal Democrat analysis, in London "Police are no more likely to catch offenders in areas with hundreds of cameras than in those with hardly any." [9] A 2008 Report by UK Police Chiefs concluded that only 3% of crimes were solved by CCTV. [10]
As usual, the state throws away our money and resources on solutions that don't work while criminals literally get away with hurting real people. At this point, I am certain that public officials really don't care whether the measures they take are effective. They have to give people the idea that they are "doing something" about these problems or they will get thrown out of office. Meanwhile, stuff that would actually work remains untouched.
Property owners in the area might as well be allowed to keep their own money and use it to take private security measures on their own. People continue to claim that we must have a government in order to fight crime. Yet it is increasingly known that their actions do next to nothing to improve the situation. Inner cities continue to be a haven for gangsters, while the government spends more money on areas that don't need as much protection.
I wouldn't claim that getting the state out of the crime prevention business would magically make everyone safe. Of course there would still be criminals. The question is whether the government does a decent job, or whether private individuals and companies could do it better. This is just more evidence of the latter.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
now just northern ohio
So I already had one going for the cleveland area, but I recently moved out of town. Still in northern Ohio though, so now I am starting this one in an attempt to be more inclusive of my new region. I'm sure some Cleveland stuff will still make it in here since I will still be over there fairly often.
If anyone is wondering, "the 'shoe" is a reference to the Ohio State Buckeye football stadium down in Columbus, the horseshoe. Even though the school and football team are wrongfully subsidized by the government with taxpayer money, I still root for them. Cuz hey, college football is great and they are one of the best.
Thankfully, my alma mater is a completely private school, not beholden to government money - at least directly. I would rather deal with Mormons than the government any day. It's actually a pretty decent school too, a testament to the success of privately funded education. Anyone who insists that society must have the state must fund universities through funds confiscated from the people needs only to look there. An alternative is always available, and it's almost always better than political force.
If anyone is wondering, "the 'shoe" is a reference to the Ohio State Buckeye football stadium down in Columbus, the horseshoe. Even though the school and football team are wrongfully subsidized by the government with taxpayer money, I still root for them. Cuz hey, college football is great and they are one of the best.
Thankfully, my alma mater is a completely private school, not beholden to government money - at least directly. I would rather deal with Mormons than the government any day. It's actually a pretty decent school too, a testament to the success of privately funded education. Anyone who insists that society must have the state must fund universities through funds confiscated from the people needs only to look there. An alternative is always available, and it's almost always better than political force.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
