The Unwritten Rules of Integrity in the Free Market

Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” The Founding Fathers alleged many times that liberty would not work unless they had a morally righteous citizens, and well-informed intelligent citizens. Part of economic liberty and the free market, and the way to ensure it works, runs by unwritten rules. It assumes that people will take responsibility for their own negative actions.

According to studies done by the Huffington Post and other sources, it can be estimated that almost one half of Wal-Mart employees live off of public assistance because their wages are too low to function in today’s society (food costs, rent costs, etc.). As a result, the petite bourgeoisie, middle-middle class, and blue-collar working-class fund the public assistance through tax dollars for employees of a one-percenter, the Walton family. The Waltons are number six on Forbes list of American billionaires, and yet the middle classes have to fund the survival of their proletariat abyss.

The behavior of the Walton family is inherently no different than a man who impregnates a woman, and abandons her and the child, causing the child and its mother (in many situations) to require a subsidized income from the taxpayers. The father’s behavior is now at the expense of everyone else. The child’s father cannot just walk away and say “oh, don’t infringe on my liberty,” and neither should the Waltons (and other shareholders) be able to.

In the United States, the Founding Fathers intended for a particular code of ethics to be followed. Keep in mind that ethics is not synonymous with morality. It should be assumed that a free market capitalist will practice ethics by taking responsibility for his actions, cleaning up after himself, and taking care of his workers as needed. This has nothing to do with either social justice or human rights, but is simply a civic responsibility to prevent a burden on society. Here is the economic libertarian argument in favor of self-regulation, and eventually raising of the minimum wage.

No matter how many times an Ayn Rand libertarian simply screams, “economic liberty, economic liberty,” or “the Walton family owes nobody higher wages in a free market,” we are still living in the cynical real world that exists as of now. And in this world, the reality is that the middle classes are paying for the public assistance of Wal-Mart employees because the shareholders and executives do not want to raise their wage. Forbes list billionaires are embezzling money from the working US taxpayer. That means that the Waltons are objectively a parasite on the economy.

Of course there are many other things that must be taken into account for the bigger picture. Raising wages always inevitably means raising prices, no matter what. Wage-raising means nothing, because the product purchased will take the same percent from the wage as it did when the wage was low. It causes inflation. Many Ayn Rand fanboys and Austrian economists would also make the argument that, “the Waltons pay so much in taxes for people’s food stamps that they can’t afford to pay workers any more. If food stamps were cut, they would pay more.” This is an issue involving serious mathematical analysis of markets and economics and cannot be fixed with a simple world view, whether it is blind faith in Atlas Shrugged or the bleeding heart of a social justice activist.

Well Atlas has not shrugged as of yet, and public assistance is not going away anytime soon. Until it does go away, then all capitalist bosses who underpay their workers causing them to get on public assistance, must be viewed as economic parasites, and the enemy of economic liberty and the middle classes. This is not small mom-and-pop business, but big, heavily regulated corporations, especially Wal-Mart and McDonald’s.

Just because a capitalist SHOULD do something does not mean that the Federal government should MAKE him do something. Here is an example of the civic responsibility of a successful capitalist. If a worker breaks his leg on the job, that capitalist employer should pay to fix his leg, so the worker he can get back to work, and provide for himself. A.S.A.P. If the capitalist just says “oh sorry… it’s economic liberty,” then the worker will get let go, will get on public assistance, and will objectively become a burden on the taxpayer. But that capitalist who caused that situation is the far greater parasite.

Costco is known to pay their workers a fairly high wage. They also sell more expensive, high quality products wholesale. That is simply called a high standard of living. A well-paid worker buying a well-made product. This is also known as a first world economy. You can be an economic capitalist and still a social collectivist. McDonalds and Wal-Mart produce a third world product. As a result, they pay a third world wage, they sell to third world markets, and create a third world society. They deteriorate American society and make it rot. In order to make a little extra profit, Wal-Mart and McDonalds are literally willing to let the US devolve into a cesspool.

There are many different ideologies on the left and the right who support this idea. Just because a market is free does not mean the market is free to take a dump everywhere and turn society into a cesspool for the sake of “economic liberty”. For example, Dr. Ron Paul, as would be expected of someone his age, believes in American-made, and an end to outsourcing. That does not mean he believes in federal regulations enforcing that scenario, but it is still the world he WANTS to see. Pat Buchanan, who identifies as paleoconservative instead of libertarian, believes in US non-intervention, closed borders, and economic nationalism. He ran for president unsuccessfully on the Reform Party ticket in 2000, like Ross Perot did in 1996, who also cannot be called a libertarian. On what is known as the “far right fringe,” or ultra-nationalism, there is great hatred towards free markets, libertarianism, Ayn Rand, and borderless capitalism, mostly due to illegal immigration, outsourcing, and backroom corporate deals with China.

One such capitalist from the 20th century was Mr. Henry Ford, a right-wing extremist with voluntarily progressive economic practices. Henry Ford is well-known for his paranoid rants about “the Jews” infiltrating labor unions to bring the communist revolution to the US, as was a typical canard from the era. The way he dealt with his Red Scare paranoia, however, was peculiar, yet constructive. He began paying his workers at the motor plants higher wages, so he could build a product that his workers could afford. He wanted to give the communist-infiltrated unions no excuse to organize and agitate on his plant grounds. As a result, he could not be the evil, greedy capitalist they wanted to paint him as. With happy, well-paid workers, professional labor leaders from communist or socialist organizations had no audience at Ford’s motor plant.

The libertarian in me knows all too well that Wal-Mart and McDonalds are ALREADY meeting the tax bracket and red tape that federal regulations are throwing up, which kill mom-and-pop businesses in record numbers. Progressives must understand that just “raising the minimum wage”, because their hearts bleed for human rights will not be a long-term solution. The populist in me however, realizes that corporate shareholders evading a living wage is not a long-term solution either. Any Atlas Shrugged disciple who puts the “economic liberty” of the Waltons above the well-being of the working-middle classes who have to pay taxes for Wal-Mart employees’ public assistance is just as delusional and ignorant as liberal activists who support policy based on emotion.

How China could Conquer the US

The US owes big money to China. And sooner or later, the Chinese are going to come collect it. And they will conquer the US. But the question is, how will they do it? There will not be a military invasion, nor an armed war between the US and China. Chinese troops will not land in the United States. Unless, of course, they are invited by the US government. So how will this happen? It will likely be a slippery slope. This article draws upon real things that have already happened in history, and compares them to things that could easily happen today.

Disclaimer: This article is about the government of the People’s Republic of China, and its affiliated state-owned corporations, not Chinese people in China, nor Chinese-Americans.

obama and chinese

Step One. The Chinese will take the private sector.

While young American professionals are often underemployed after majoring in liberal arts, students in China focus on training in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) fields. Many Chinese professionals are already being invited over in droves to work at American companies. Many end up becoming naturalized citizens, many do not. The Chinese are stereotypically a very stern, serious and hardworking people. They are known to not shirk tasks, and not to complain. Many  cultures in the Far East teach their youth to show limited emotion, and keep the collective of society in mind. The same cannot be said about Americans, who are often narcissistically individualist.

As more and more American businesses are vacuumed into conglomerates, they will focus on the international market. There will be capitalism with no borders. The Chinese have already begun to buy some American companies, such as Smithfield Pork. They will buy more and more. Americans will not see dozens of Chinese employees walking around big companies, but the top corporate executives of the major international companies will be from China. Americans will remain in management. Eventually, the Chinese executives will begin planting fellow Chinese in management, until it becomes obviously noticeable.

Step Two. The Chinese Raj in America.

On April 13, 1919, in Amrtisar, India, hundreds of Indian men women and children were shot dead. The officer who yelled, “FIRE!” was a British colonel named Reginald Dyer. But he was born in India. And every finger that pulled a trigger that day was one that belonged to an Indian native. The British did not land in India with guns blazing. They arrived as merchants. And were welcomed by the rich Brahmins ruling India at the time. Britons and Brahmin Indians lived side by side. The Indians were not slaves to the British, they were slaves to other Indians. Some Britons grew up in India and never even saw Great Britain (covered in films the Secret Garden and the King and I).

The British Raj was corporate first, government second. And that is exactly what the Chinese could do to Americans. Also, notice that the British did not start converting to Hinduism and assimilating with the Indians (at least not until the days of the Beatles). They remained 100 percent British. Because they considered themselves superior, and the Chinese corporate executives will act in a similar way. Keep in mind, these are not poor immigrants coming to a work a low-wage labor job; they will arrive with a position of corporate power waiting for them. A new generation of Americans, thirty years down the road, could grow up speaking Chinese as second language, and adopting some aspects of Chinese culture.  Yes, it can happen, as that is what it may take for Americans to succeed in business, especially international business. We are fully aware that most American politicians would sell Americans to a foreign government for profit. That much is perfectly clear.

british raj

Step Three. The Chinese take the International Military.

It is highly unlikely that Chinese and American soldiers will ever shoot at each other with guns. But a peaceful, quiet, military takeover is possible and probable in the long-term. To those who believe this is an out-in-space idea: it is not when you realize that the US did to Great Britain in 1917, and sealed the deal by 1944. US troops joined UK troops in the trenches, and General Pershing and General Haig co-commanded. By the Second World War, there were many UK marshals and generals, but most accept that General Ike wore the trousers in that relationship.

The US troops never packed up and went home after WWII. The base in Germany is still there, protecting Europeans. It is likely that China will act as a neutral mediator as things get gradually more aggressive in the Middle East between the USA and Russia. China has a shoe in each door. China does not need to make one military threat, but they can pull financial plugs. The Middle Eastern foreign policy will continue in a more UN-overseen way, with cooperation between the US and China.

The Chinese Army has three million soldiers. Although few Americans would ever entertain this, it is possible that China could have better soldiers. In the same way as the stereotypical Far Eastern work ethic, their use of pure logic and their hidden strength behind humility makes them the most ruthless of soldiers. A cool, calculating, collectivist mentality is the backbone of a powerful military. Add to that the fact that they have ample bodies to throw. This is what won the war for the Soviets on the Eastern Front, and the Union Army in the Civil War.

Step Four. Robots, Technocracy, and the New Age future.

Much of the ideas of Chinese nationalism or American nationalism will fade into obscurity as the Chinese corporatist government will begin building rapidly advanced technology, push towards technological singularity, and become the ultimate technocratic progressives. When the main business language becomes programming language, the linguistic differences between Chinese and English will matter very little. The STEM-oriented Americans (future versions of people such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg) will unite with the Chinese to move forward in the Space Race. The cultures will be indistinguishable because everyone will think in a technological mindset. Of all the world’s peoples, the Chinese certainly need what they call “living space” and space is the last frontier.

bill gates and jinping

Liberty Movement Cannot Just Rely on the Right

In order for the liberty movement to make things work, they need to do a little bit of the left and right at both times. For every “liberal” government program they cut, they have to cut a “conservative” government program. For every right-wing cause they champion, they must champion a left-wing one. The severity of this problem really sunk in when I noticed how much the Koch brothers had co-opted the Liberty Movement. If libertarians do not stress their common ground with liberals, they are going to be screwed. Sure, it is important to take over the Republican Party, but at the same time, they have to appeal to a significant portion of liberals and Democrats.

I’ve been to many events that I suspect were likely funded by the Kochs, to one degree or another. Although I support the economic ideas promoted, they speak half-truths and promote half-ideas. They use silence to omit half of the core libertarian message. They use the word “liberty” over and over again, until the word loses meaning. They are obsessed with “taking over the Republican Party”, and marginalize all those who support the Libertarian third party. They talk about repealing Obamacare, cutting taxes, loosening regulations, and cutting welfare, but that is about it. Koch-sponsored events barely scratch the surface on the following topics: the drug war, the police state, the neoconservative Middle Eastern foreign policy, the growth of the defense department, corporate bailouts, corporate subsidies, private prisons, CIA-backed dictatorships overseas, or any of the social issues linked to the Christian Right.

I have become incredibly jaded and exhausted with the talk about “appeasing to the Republican base”. There is no longer any reason to care what pro-lifers and evangelicals say, or cater to their opinions. No one need care what some old, chubby, white haired, closet racist, small town gladhanders have to say. They are old, and will be dead or retired by the end of the decade. Their opinion should be irrelevant. It is time to pick the battles. The old Republicans are stupid, senile, and reactionary, and are completely incapable of challenging political enemies on a modern stage. Meanwhile, liberal Democrats have brainwashed the whole younger generation, and are on the verge of causing us economic collapse (not entirely their fault – ie. Bush). And all the Republicans can come up with is to scream the same reactionary, obstructionist things instead of coming up with new ideas. Here is a link to an article discussing the demographic reality.

Hosting forums on fighting Obamacare, heavy-handed regulations, gun control, and high taxes is all well and good. When taken out of context from the rest of the libertarian message though, it makes libertarianism repulsive to the left. It looks like a bunch of straight white males wearing bowties, complaining about welfare and taxes. We all know what reaction this triggers from liberals. The paragraphs below contain are the message that libertarians actually say. The highlighted bracketed sections are what liberals hear them say, at least when Koch Industries controls the message.

Poor people are arrested for drugs and other embellished charges because of the police state, and are sent to private prisons, and leave their families behind, and when they get off they have no choice but welfare. We need to stop the police state that ruins the lives of the poor, and then {cut the welfare that the poor have become dependent on} as they no longer will need it.”

or

“{We need to loosen regulations on American companies and remove mandatory union laws}, because corporate robber barons will go overseas to countries with CIA-backed dictatorships and exploit poor people in the third world, causing blue-collar Americans to lose their jobs and get on welfare. When the jobs return to America, {we should cut welfare}.”

Taken out of context, the libertarian looks exactly like the stereotype that statist liberals want to play up. The statist liberals are viciously dedicated to ruining the libertarian image in front of anti-war, pro-civil liberties liberals who should join the cause. And with their four-fifths of the media, Obama’s Hollywood friends, and poorly informed immature university students trying to rage out against their parents’ corny world, they have far more campaign power than any conservative or libertarian.

That brings us to Rand Paul, and his modus operandi for 2016. The word on the street is that Rand is a libertarian like his father, pretending his best to be an “establishment Republican”. As a result, he is incredibly careful about the libertarian things he says. Or is he? Despite the fact that Roe vs. Wade is upheld by the Supreme Court, that no one will ever overturn, he’s still wasting his time trying to appeal to the pro-life evangelical crowd. Supporting pro-life legislation does more harm than good in today’s climate, especially with the venomous reaction it causes from four-fifths of the media and the young activists. It is not a battle worth fighting.

Here is what Rand Paul has going for him.

  • He opposed the Syrian War

  • He’s opposing mandatory minimums for drugs

  • He’s opposed NSA espionage

  • He said GOP needs to “agree to disagree” on gay marriage

  • He filibustered drones

  • He supported an end to foreign aid (specifically to countries who persecute Christians)

  • He has pledged to filibuster Janet Yellen’s taking office of the Fed until it is audited. (Of course, given that most people know nothing about the Fed, the media outlets will likely portray this as Rand “being sexist and opposing a woman taking an key position”)

Of course, many Obama supporters will stick their head in the send and ignore all of these things. In terms of Syria, NSA, and drones, all liberal Democrats have to say is, “OF COURSE HE’S OPPOSING THE WAR BECAUSE HE’S JUST OBSTRUCTING OBAMA!!!!! IF BUSH WAS PRESIDENT, ALL THOSE STUPID FUCKING REPUBLICANS LOVE WAR AND WOULD BE SUPPORTING IT!!!!!!” Statements like the above were floating all over the media and internet during Rand’s filibuster.

Rand Paul is obviously not afraid of stating his opinion on the Civil Rights Act, which is that although he believes any discrimination enforced by law is utmost unconstitutional, and should be overturned, he believes that a privately-owned establishment has the right to refuse service to whomever for whatever reason. (To put this in context, private establishments in Southern states before 1964 had to comply with Jim Crow regulations enforced by the state government. The greater blame falls on state politicians, as opposed to private business owners.) Like Barry Goldwater in 1964, Rand Paul believes that the free market would end private discrimination.

If Rand Paul is willing to come out and state this rigid extreme libertarian opinion, then why the hell is he so afraid of promoting libertarian ideas about drug wars, foreign policy, the military-industrial complex, and the prison-industrial complex. Let everyone be warned, if Rand runs in 2016, his Goldwaterite opinion on the Civil Rights Act is the only thing Democrats will talk about it. They will repeat this over and over again, making it the headline every time Rand’s name is mentioned on the news.

I just trust that with every move Rand Paul makes, he is listening to his father on how to go about it. It is just time for Rand to come out as a libertarian on more issues than the typical Tea Party ideas. I am not sure why so many libertarians want to kiss the tushes of “establishment Republicans”, as Republicans are statistically and numerically doomed, by demographics and age. There are characters all over the media who will do whatever it takes to see Rand destroyed. The time to think ahead is now.  It is equally important to garner the support of common ground liberals and progressives as it is to take over the Republican Party. Anyone who does not see this is a fool.

What the Hell is a “RINO” Anyway???

I have serious problems understanding the definition of the term ‘RINO’. The term is supposed to mean a Moderate Republican, i.e. a Republican that shares views with a Democrat. However, the term is used by so many contradictory parties that it lacks real meaning. Many people hold up President Reagan as the hard definition of a true conservative, with his quote of “the soul of conservatism is libertarianism”.

In the 2012 election, the four Republican candidates each represented a key demographic of the current Republican base. There was Mitt Romney, a Mormon westerner who had become merged with the moderate eastern Money Trust Rockefeller establishment. There was Rick Santorum, a right-wing Catholic obsessed with social issues and ready to wage a Christian jihad. There was Newt Gingrich, a Baptist-turned-Catholic career politicians who’d passed centrist legislation throughout the Clinton administration. And of course, Ron Paul, a libertarian carrying the youth vote, ironically carrying views of a politician born in the 1890s, who would have been a member of the bipartisan anti-Roosevelt Old Right coalition.

The idea of a RINO came into existence around the campaign of Barry Goldwater, an Arizona Senator, who won the 1964 nomination instead of Nelson A. Rockefeller, the grandchild shared by John D. Rockefeller of Standard Oil and Senator Nelson Aldrich, who pitched the original idea for the Federal Reserve. Even though he won the nomination, Goldwater was written off as an “extremist” by many, and Rockefeller was considered a “moderate”. But what does this really mean?

As America was still very homogenous in 1964, most regions had a strong local culture. At the time, the Republican base was comprised of Midwestern Lutherans, Western Mormons, wealthy New England Episcopalians, and transient career military families. At the time, most Southern Baptists and Catholics were still largely Democrats. Goldwater winning Southern states in 1964 did not permanently secure the Solid South as red states, despite the widely toted myth. (Third party Wallace of 1968 and Democrat Carter of 1976 prove this.) As a general phenomenon, the lower-middle-class flyover demographics were known as the extremists, while the upper-middle-class city and suburban folk were known as the moderates.

Despite being categorized as a “right-wing extremist” in 1964, Goldwater still had little in common with the heartland evangelicals of today. Goldwater had no connection to fundamentalist Christianity like Governors Perry or Palin. One side of his family was Jewish, and the other side was Yankee Episcopalians, and Goldwater was an Episcopalian his whole life. Goldwater supported no legislation in regards to gay marriage, drugs, or abortion. Goldwater is directly quoted as saying, “Mark my words, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and sure they’re trying to do so, there’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly these people frighten me”.

Everything Barry Goldwater predicted about the Christian fundamentalist hijack eventually came true. Now the term RINO has a whole new meaning than when two socially liberal Episcopalians were vying for the nomination in 1964. Many Republicans referred to John McCain (a career military man with no regional ties) and Mitt Romney (a flip-flopper from the far left state of Massachusetts) as RINOs or moderates. But when Obama ran against them in 2008 and 2012, his campaign spent countless efforts painting the two candidates as right-wing extremists

Since 2008, the mainstream liberal media outlets have generally painted all Republican candidates in the same stereotype: old, uncool, racist, sexist, cranky, corny, money-hoarding, miserly Mr. Scrooges, obstructing Obama’s hip-and-groovy “CHANGE”. It mattered little how moderate McCain’s and Romney’s records were, the media rhetoric implied that anyone running against Obama had a closeted agenda with the same motivations as the Thurmond, Wallace, or Duke campaigns. Vice President Biden shouted out to an audience during a debate with Paul Ryan, “Romney is gonna put you all back in chains”. The MSM saw no problem with this.

So what are the concrete issues that make or break the difference between the RINOs and a non RINO? Is it the military, war, and foreign policy? Is it economics? Is it Christian social issues? (a dead horse, as far as I’m concerned) Are the rants espoused by Limbaugh, Hannity, and other Fox News anchors the policies that anyone who runs as a Republican are “supposed” to have? Fox anchor Ann Coulter referred to libertarians as “pussies”, and implied that supporting drug legalization was RINO/moderate, by mashing  different ideologies from left and right. Everyone has different definitions of RINO.

So this brings up the question: Was Ron Paul a “RINO”? Fox News certainly said so in the 2012 election. Were Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater “RINOs”? Many Democrats who hate the Tea Party would say so today. Although one must acknowledge Ron Paul’s ultraconservative personal views, one should realize he would give power back to the fifty state governments, with the intention that each American demographic can carve out a haven. There is no point pretending that Ron Paul is a hip guy with young libertarian social ideas: his views have changed little since he was a medical student in the 1950s.

Despite this, Ron Paul had the potential to represent a purge of many issues that the left hates about the Republicans; policies relating to drugs, gays, abortion, corporate bailouts, but most importantly, the wars in the Middle East. This was only exacerbated by Rick Santorum’s extremist Christian authoritarian rants, and his comment that he wanted to “fight against libertarian influence in the Republican party”. Despite the Obama administration’s continued drone warfare allover the Middle East, the Obama 2012 campaign repeated the same 2008 rhetoric that this was Bush’s personal, Republican, corporate, Islamophobic war. Simultaneously, the other three Republicans called Ron Paul an isolationist coward for his foreign policy. Ron Paul could have been the perfect moderate with ideas compromising from both sides, and yet they trashed and defamed him every possible chance.

Unfortunately, it is the Tea Party, and not moderate Republicans or Democrats, who have been blamed for the government shutdown. Personally, I think the Republicans handling the shutdown is a poorly planned reactionary idea. This kind of political activism only works if the libertarian-leaning Republicans were to shut down the government about the wars in the Middle-East, or the incarcerations of non-violent drug offenders. Otherwise, the MSM will just paint them as quintessential obstructionist right-wing cranks, as they have done so far.

McCain’s machine of moderate Republicans have marched in lockstep behind Obamacare, in an attempt to make Ted Cruz and other libertarian-leaning Republicans look like the “extremists”, Obama-haters, and Confederate secessionists. Despite the fact that libertarians are supposed to share a good bit ground with progressives, Democrats and moderates are together pointing to libertarianism “the far right fringe”. Moderate Republicans need to keep in mind that when is all over, the liberal media outlets will put all Republicans, moderate and conservative, in the same category as tongue-speaking, back-alley-abortion-causing, end-of-times, Limbaugh-hypnotized, warmongering, theocratic neo-confederates no matter what.

If liberal Democrats prefer moderate ‘Rockefeller Republicans’, or big government Republicans, let them have each other. If they think the enemy is small town, small business people, let them feel that way. Democrats can have Republicans like the Bushes, an old New England Money Trust family, long term ally of the Rockefellers, with CIA connections and investments in the baby Standard Oil corporations. After all, when corporate exploitation, global imperialism, and war profiteering makes millions, they can cash in and use the money to look humanitarian later in life. Just don’t dress him up like a Texas good ol’ boy, and then blame flyover folk for him.

Not Reagan, Goldwater, Taft, Coolidge, Eisenhower, or possibly even Bush, Sr. would ever have done what George W. Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan, or what Nixon did in Vietnam. (both cited for the claim: “Republicans are warmongers”) Meanwhile, Democrats Wilson, Truman, and Johnson started long wars based on the idealistic grounds of “spreading democracy”. It is the imperialist Republican war machine and CIA added to the liberal Democrat dream of international government that make a poisonous combination together.

Maybe a RINO is what we want. If RINO means secular Republican; with no evangelical Christian dogma influencing government policy, then RINO is good. If RINO means Republican who embraces science and new technology, then RINO is good. If RINO means anti-war Republican, who wants to cut military spending, then RINO is good. If RINO means socially liberal Republican, then RINO is good. If RINO does not recite unoriginal reactionary propaganda from Fox News, then RINO is good. If RINO is opposed to neo-conservative foreign policy, then RINO is good. Maybe RINO is what we need after all.

barry-goldwater-on-preachers

The Government Shutdown of 2013

Due to the lack of compromise over the budget plan for fiscal year 2014, involving the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare, there has allegedly been a “government shutdown”. One would imagine that the traffic lights are out, there’s people throwing bricks through windows to steal loaves of bread, cars are abandoned all over the roads; etc… etc…

Nah.

Wikipedia has compiled a list of the services of the government that have been shut down. Around 800,000 “unessential” federal workers from have been furloughed. Wikipedia’s official statement is: “The Federal Reserve is not affected by the Government shutdown as it is not dependent on Congressional appropriations for its funding.”

However, one should pay very careful attention to the agencies that have remained virtually untouched. Notice that none of these particular services have been shut down: police forces, military, and all the three letter agencies. What do all of these have in common? They all carry a loaded weapon at work.

The fact that all the Federal government’s armed personnel are still alive and well should wake people up to the reality of government’s purpose. “The government is not your friend”. This is not a silly anarchist slogan, nor is it statement that the government is your enemy. But it is not your friend, and is not there to be your friend, and was never intended to be your friend.

This is not an endorsement of an immature, egocentric Ayn Rand worldview. Or an implication of “Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? Bah humbug!” But Americans need to take a good hard look at how they’ve allowed themselves to become so dependent on a system that has proved to be unsustainable. In Matthew 7:24, it states clearly: “Do not build a house on a sandy foundation”.

This is not some cruel desire to see people in abject poverty, sick and dying in the streets. Those who talk of drastic government slashes overnight are as foolish as those who believes in the centralized government subsidizing everything.

Sustainability should always be the goal. It should not be considered unfair to ask why there are close to a million “unessential” people paid with Federal tax dollars. If such a catastrophe as this can happen, it is clear as day that the model is not sustainable. There’s no use blaming Obama or the Republicans because we as a nation have let things get out of hand.

The US is still in serious debt to China. The US government is using Chinese gold to pay for its projects. And he who foots the bill calls the shots. If the US government proves itself to be incapable of balancing their budget, then maybe the Chinese will do it for them. They are already starting to buy US companies. Maybe they will demand to manage and supervise government programs themselves.

This is not a tea partier rant. This is not an Ayn Rand pipe-dream. This is not an unoriginal Obama bashing. There is clearly a problem that has to be tackled.