Stand by for Police Brutality

When Cop Watching isn't enough

So many times when you watch a police brutality video or see a report of it in the news you see or hear about witnesses that stood and watched the entire event, some even capturing it on cell phone cameras. One thing that always stands out to me is that no one intervened to keep the officers from inflicting more injury or death to suspects. I understand the fear of involving yourself when in the midst of police making arrests, but at some point the thought has to become, "Will I just stand here and watch these cops beat a man to death?"

Eric Garner's death in New York City, caught on cell phone video, had many people as witnesses to police using tactics that ended up killing the man, but yet they stood by and watched. Helplessly, many say, people are forced to watch acts of savagery and murder at the hands of police, but why? Is it fear? Is it a sense that police are suppose to be a force of protection and service to a community. Is it the sense of authority that people dare not question police policy, procedure, or practices. Who were the police protecting in Garner's case? He was selling loose cigarettes; untaxed, singles to customers and passerby's.

Why didn't the story that a man who was close to the incident was able to save his life by intervening in the attack surface? Because it didn't happen. Multiple people sat by and watched it happen.

The same is true of a woman beaten by a California Highway Patrolman. A motorist stopped to record what was happening but made no move to actually stop the law enforcement officer from assaulting the woman. And again recently with an officer who is seen striking a homeless man who was not resisting the officer with any force.

I do commend those that film these altercations and abuses,I feel that Cop Blockers and Cop Watchers have added a great deal into the issue of abuse and corruption by law enforcement, but I also feel that we need to move past just filming and start intervening when we see these abuses.

Why Can't I Criticize Soldiers?

This week has seen the absolute pinnacle of nationalism and War Drum parades. All because of a movie, based on a soldiers life as he continued on an invasion of property and the killing of other human beings. My own view of it is to be critical of the act of War and the actions of those who were part of it, not everyone will share in this idea. Some will vehemently attack anyone who dares question the acts of soldiers. 

So I question: Why is it acceptable to criticize the act of war or the given reason for war, to criticize the politicians and Presidents who contrive the wars, but it is not acceptable to criticize the soldiers, who ultimately perform the actions in war? Why is it seen as unsavory or in the responses I usually get "unpatriotic" to criticize a person who has decided to cast off morals and principles, even religious doctrines, to do unspeakable things because they were ordered to do so?

I asked this question on my Facebook page and the responses varied from Emotional attachment, Mental Conditioning, Cognitive Dissidence and even it can be seen as a personal attack. I do agree with these answers but I add two more of my own; Nationalism and the Subjective View of Life and Foreign Ethnicity.

Personally I think the answers Emotional Attachment, Mental Conditioning and Cognitive Dissidence all go hand in hand. The mental conditioning that comes from what I wrote about last week; the War Culture. From the earliest of childhood all the way through the teenage years and into adulthood being inundated with images of war, compulsory deification of the war fighters and justification for their actions.It is almost mandatory to glorify the soldier and all that he does.
With slogans like "they are fighting for your freedom to say these things" and  " if it weren't for the troops we would all be speaking German/Arabic" (Whatever language the native speakers use in the particular region the military is engaged in at the time) Flag waving ceremonies, and recitation of the pledge of allegiance and the singing of the national anthem everyday for schoolchildren and even a host of other venues for those not in the schools. With that conditioning though comes the emotional attachment and in time the cognitive dissidence.
Of course we could include the point of Nationalism in this theory as well as it is the point of the conditioning and indoctrination to subvert any thought that the particular piece of ground you have been cosmically placed upon at birth is superior to all others and that all actions by the government or it’s military are somehow justified under the pretense of National Security or some other vague catchy slogan.

Cognitive Dissidence is a psychological term that refers mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values. It is in this area we see the backlash from speaking against or questioning the acts of soldiers, politicians and leaders who act in immoral ways or inhumane ways. Though it seems that more people have an issue with the criticism of soldiers rather than politicians or even the given reasons for war.

After all of these I think another aspect to be looked at is the subjective value of life and of different ethnic groups. Everything in life has a value attached to it by every individual, that value is subjective to each of us, and even the value of life cannot escape this process. The mental conditioning and Nationalism that is taught aims to place in the minds of individuals a value of one life over that of another based on where those certain people are located and the relationship between the governments they live under. We have, in the past, seen this subjective value lead to horrendous things as apartheid, slavery and genocide. We have seen it again and again lead to wars between people. It is this that I find the most dangerous aspect of nationalism and of the kinds of conditioning that is taught. Ethnic differences do exist in this world and will exist in this world until the day some men can justify to the rest that a reason exists to eliminate the differences. We have seen it in the past and I fear we will see it again in the future.

Images like this is why I believe there is room for criticism

The last reply was that of “some may see it as a personal attack”. It isn't a personal attack, it is criticism of the persons actions being moral or immoral, humane or inhumane, justifiable or unjustifiable, and it is exactly this criticism that needs to take place in order for the person and the public to see that no matter what uniform you may wear, no matter what orders you receive, you ultimately make a decision to do those actions and if those actions in any other setting are to be seen as immoral, illegal, wrong, inhumane, or atrocious, they should be seen the same way regardless of orders or uniform.  

This should not be taken as a general attack on soldiers. There are many who serve in the military that do not perform these acts, and there are some that refuse. Some countries military's actually give this instruction to their soldiers. "A soldier has the ability to refuse any act that can be seen as inhumane or immoral and report the officer who voiced the order to him." With that ability comes a choice, they can or cannot perform this or simply let it go and do as they are told.

It is a shame, I believe, that we cannot have a rational discussion on these matters without the name calling and shunning of the critic, without the threats of violence. It is a lack of logical thought that has led the world to wars, genocides, apartheid, slavery, segregation, holocausts, and the widespread demolition of native ways of life and indigenous peoples. We need to stop with the fear of criticism, and a stop needs to be made by those that justify atrocities with nationalism or government service and orders. The actions that take place that lead to barbarity and cruelty will never come to an end if we are silent about them. If we do not speak up and call out the inhumanity that is taking place it will forever continue.

Some further reading in the field of Psychology in relation to this issue.

The Milgram Experiment  sought an answer to the reason why people will perform functions or actions when ordered to do so by someone they see as authority, if authority has been placed in them, and when the responsibility for the results of their actions has been removed or placed into the hands of someone else. It is a fascinating psychological study.

Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. When inconsistency (dissonance) is experienced, individuals tend to become psychologically uncomfortable and they are motivated to attempt to reduce this dissonance, as well as actively avoiding situations and information which are likely to increase it.

In psychology, the Asch conformity experiments or the Asch Paradigm were a series of laboratory experiments directed by Solomon Asch in the 1950s that demonstrated the degree to which an individual's own opinions are influenced by those of a majority group.

Recently VeteransNewsNow.com released this story of the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Where US service members would engage in sodomizing Iraqi boys in front of their mothers and other women. It is this kind of treatment that causes such concern for what these soldiers mental states are that they would engage in this brutality. You cannot just sweep this behavior under the "for your freedom" rug.

9/11's Legacy of Lost Liberties

Originally from the Opinion page of The Chattanooga Times Free Press. Authors name was not present. This is not an original work of mine.

"Eleven years have passed since al-Qaida used a band of box cutter-wielding terrorists to the attack the United States. Many people will take a moment to reflect on what America lost that day in Lower Manhattan, at the Pentagon and in a field in southern Pennsylvania. Far too few, however, will consider what was taken from us as a result of that day, not by terrorists, but by our own government.

America's losses on 9/11 were staggering. Gone were 2,996 lives, $100 billion in property, the New York skyline as we knew it and the sense of security that Americans enjoyed. All of those loses were brought on directly by al-Qaida and its 19 hijackers.

But the losses didn't end there. Americans lost liberties. We lost privacy. We lost trillions of dollars. In many ways, we lost any reasonable claim of a limited, constitutional government. And all of those things were taken, not by a group of hijackers, but by our own government.

In the days following 9/11, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., declared, "the era of a shrinking federal government is over."

Shortly after the attack, Schumer's prophesy became reality. A new era of big government was born in the wake of 9/11 that continues today, with no sign of shrinking.

---

The new era of big government can be tracked back to a 14-month period between September 2001 and November 2002. During that time, government launched the War on Terror, ratified the Patriot Act, founded the Transportation Security Administration and created the Department of Homeland Security.

On Sept. 20, 2011, George W. Bush declared a War on Terror, sparking military operations that have, to date, sacrificed the lives of 6,594 Americans and will ultimately cost taxpayers approximately $4 trillion, according to a report by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies.

Later, in an 18-hour period on October 12, 2001, both houses of Congress rammed through the Patriot Act. The act imparted the federal government with a disturbing array of new powers, many of which fly in the face of the United States Constitution. For example, the Patriot Act allowed the government to:

• Force records custodians, such a libraries, schools, social work institutions and Internet service providers to turn over records to the federal government without explanation or justification.

• Seize assets from charities, even without probably cause.

• Require the release of records from telecommunications and financial services companies without any court order.

• Spy on citizens using a Cold War-era statute designed for tracking the covert activities of Soviet agents.

• Imprison American citizens without proper due process.

On Nov. 19, 2001, the Transportation Security Administration was born. The bureaucracy, best known for harassing and molesting travelers in airport terminals, not only cost Americans a total of $60 billion since 9/11, but a number of lawsuits are winding their way through federal court claiming that the TSA's screening tactics violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

If that weren't bad enough, the TSA is also bad at doing what it was designed to do. The TSA is responsible for allowing 25,000 security breaches, according to House subcommittee on National Security chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah.

A year later, in November 2002, the Department of Homeland Security was formed. Since it's founding, Homeland Security has cost taxpayers nearly $700 billion. The cabinet department has spied on Americans, been engaged in inappropriate data mining on American citizens and illegally intercepting mail. In addition, a Homeland Security database meant to track people who are considered threats to national security has been filled with members of groups that comprise about one-third of the American population, including pro-gun, anti-death penalty, pro-abortion, anti-abortion, pro-Second Amendment, anti-war and Tea Party activists, according to information compiled by the Cato Institute.

---

It was bizarre and disturbing when the government's response to 9/11, one of the biggest failures in the history of government, was to implement even more government.

Since 9/11, and largely as a product of the government's response to the terrorist attacks, the federal budget has doubled from $1.9 trillion in 2001 to $3.8 trillion today. To put it another way, in 2001, the federal government spent $6,752 per person in America. This year, the government will devour $12,090 for each American.

In fact, as hard as it may seem to believe today, the federal budget was balanced in 2001 with a $127 billion surplus left over. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the 2012 budget will finish $1.1 trillion in the red.

The price tag of the federal government's response to 9/11, including domestic spending and the War on Terror is now estimated at over $5 trillion, according to The Fiscal Times. This money came from the pockets of taxpayers -- and will continue to for years to come. It also came from lenders, such as China, and from the printing press, which led to a devalued, inflated dollar.

The sheer number of people constituting the federal government workforce has grown dramatically, as well. From 2000 to 2012, the population of the United States has risen 11.7 percent. Over that same time period, the number of federal workers (excluding U.S. Postal workers) has increased from 1.78 million in 2000 to 2.21 million in 2012, or 24.2 percent.

Perhaps the worst result of government's response to 9/11 was the total disregard for Constitutional rights resulting, not only from the aforementioned Patriot Act, Transportation Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security, but from the precedent that these bureaucracies set. Rights have been removed, rejiggered, ignored and trampled to the point that the Fourth Amendment has become a historical footnote, rather than an ironclad restraint on federal powers.

---

In the weeks and months after 9/11, it was poplar to declare "the terrorists did not win" as Americans returned to daily life, as if the American lifestyle was the reason for the attack. But it wasn't.

America wasn't subjected to terrorist attacks because America had too much liberty or too many freedoms. It wasn't because America was too rich or too powerful. The attacks, according to Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida masterminds behind the terrorist attacks, were due to the U.S. military and economic sanctions against Iraq, the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia and America's support of Israel.

In that sense, the terrorist did not win. America has continued to trip over itself to defend Israel, even when Israel is the aggressor. The age of expansionist American foreign policy is still alive and well. In fact, the 9/11 attacks led to military action which cost a total of 300,000 lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to numbers compiled by OWNI, a French media website. In the terrorists' attempts to make U.S. to become more limited and less intrusive in its foreign policy approach, it's fair to say they lost convincingly.

But Americans have lost, too. That loss didn't come to terrorists or to radical Islam. That loss came to our own government.

The government has done what terrorists never could: take away freedoms, privacy and Constitutional rights that were fundamental to what it means -- or, more accurately, what it meant -- to be American. Government has multiplied in size and exploded in scope. It has taxed, borrowed and spent until it is forever impossible to restore federal spending to what it was before 9/11. While America was not defeated by 9/11, American principles have been beaten to death in the 11 years since.

While terrorists and American principles both lost badly in the wake of 9/11, there is one undisputed winner: big government."

We Don't Speak To Evil - Why Is America Afraid Of Iran?

Reblogged from carsonspost.wordpress.com

“WE DON’T SPEAK TO EVIL”
Ted Rall

The nation is Iran. And the reaction is ridiculous.

“The Evil Has Landed,” shrieked the headline of the New York Daily News on the occasion of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speeches at the United Nations and Columbia University. A “madman,” Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post spat, setting the tone for a week of Bizarro News. On “60 Minutes,” the Iranian president said there was no reason his country and ours couldn’t be friends–even the best of friends.

“La la la la–we can’t hear you” was the response.

“Is it the goal of your government, the goal of this nation to build a nuclear weapon?” CBS News’ Scott Pelley asked Ahmadinejad.

He replied: “You have to appreciate we don’t need a nuclear bomb. We don’t need that. What need do we have for a bomb?”

Pelley followed up: “May I take that as a ‘no,’ sir?”

Ahmadinejad: “It is a firm ‘no.'”

Some Americans would pay good money to hear an answer as honest and straightforward as that from their leaders. Yet, minutes later, Pelley kept badgering: “When I ask you a question as direct as ‘Will you pledge not to test a nuclear weapon?’ you dance all around the question. You never say ‘yes.’ You never say ‘no.'”

Weird. Is Pelley hard of hearing? But what I really can’t figure out is how Iran qualifies as our–Very Big Word coming–“enemy.” We’re not at war with Iran. Neither are our allies. What gives?

Capitalizing on the reliable ignorance of the American public and the indolent gullibility of its journalists, the Bush Administration regularly conflates its numerous targets of regime change, pretending they love each other to death and are united only in their desire to slaughter innocent American children. There are gaping chasms in this narrative, but they vanish into our national memory hole.

After the 9/11 attacks turned the U.S. against the Taliban, U.S. media outlets put footage of a handful of jeering Palestinians on heavy rotation. Meanwhile, “In Iran, vast crowds turned out on the streets and held candlelit vigils for the victims. Sixty-thousand spectators respected a minute’s silence at Tehran’s football stadium.”

Wondering why you never heard that? The above quote comes from the BBC. Fox News didn’t report. American news consumers didn’t know, much less decide.

Finding an opportunity for rapprochement and a mutual foe in the Taliban, Iran became a silent America ally after 9/11. The Iranian military offered to conduct search and rescue operations for downed U.S. pilots during the fall 2001 war against the Taliban. It used its influence with the Afghanistan’s Dari population to broker the loya jirga that installed Hamid Karzai as president of Afghanistan.

Everyone expected U.S.-Iranian relations to thaw. There was even talk about ending sanctions and exchanging ambassadors. A few weeks later, however, White House neocons had Iran named as a member of an “Axis of Evil” in Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address. “We were all shocked by the fact that the U.S. had such a short memory and was so ungrateful about what had happened just a month ago,” remembers Javad Zarif, now the Iranian ambassador to the U.N.

Bush accused Shiite-majority Iran, a mortal enemy of Sunni-dominated Al Qaeda, of offering sanctuary to Al Qaeda fighters fleeing Afghanistan. “Iran must be a contributor in the war against terror,” Bush railed. “Either you’re with us or against us.” The allegation was BS. No one–not the CIA, not one of our allies, no one–believed that Iran would harbor, or had harbored, members of Al Qaeda. “I wasn’t aware of any intelligence supporting that charge,” says James Dobbins, Bush’s special envoy to Afghanistan. But we never took it back.

In May 2003, Iran shook off its annoyance and again tried to make nice. The Iranian overture came in the form of a letter delivered to the State Department after the fall of Baghdad. “Iran appeared willing to put everything on the table–including being completely open about its nuclear program, helping to stabilize Iraq, ending its support for Palestinian militant groups and help in disarming Hezbollah,” reported the BBC.

U.S. officials confirm this overture.

“That letter went to the Americans to say that we are ready to talk, we are ready to address our issues,” says Seyed Adeli, an Iranian foreign minister at the time. Larry Wilkerson, chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, says the Bushies made a conscious decision to ignore it. “We don’t speak to evil,” he recalls that Administration hardliners led by Donald Rumsfeld said.

In the minds of the hard right, the case for Iran’s evilness rests on three issues: the 1979 hostage crisis, its opposition to Israel, and its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Readers of Mark Bowden’s “Guests of the Ayatollah” can’t help but sympathize with the American embassy staffers who spent 444 days in captivity from late 1979 to early 1981. But the right-wingers’ real beef over this episode concerns our wounded national pride.

What they fail to mention is that President Carter brought the mess upon himself, first by continuing to prop up the corrupt and brutal regime of Reza Shah Pahlavi long after it was obviously doomed, and then by admitting him to the U.S. for cancer treatment. Carter knew that his decision to coddle a toppled tyrant could stir up trouble.

“He went around the room,” said then-Vice President Walter Mondale,” and most of us said, ‘Let him [the Shah] in. And he said, ‘And if [the Iranians] take our employees in our embassy hostage, then what would be your advice?’ And the room just fell dead. No one had an answer to that. Turns out, we never did.”

Iran finances and arms Hezbollah, the paramilitary group-cum-nascent state based in Lebanon that wages sporadic attacks against Israel. If proxy warfare and funding Islamist terror organizations that despise Israel were a consideration, however, the U.S. would cut off relations with and impose sanctions against Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. (Can we stop talking to ourselves? We supported the Afghan mujahedeen.) It is possible to maintain friendly relations with nations that hate one another, and we do.

There are two points missing from most discussions of Iran’s nuclear energy program and whether it’s a cover for a weapons program. First, Iran ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970. Leaders of the Islamic Republic inherited the NPT from the Shah. The revolutionaries voluntarily chose to honor the agreement after they threw him out.

Second, the U.S. practices a double standard by threatening war against Iran while ignoring Israel’s refusal to obey a U.N. resolution calling for a nuclear-free Middle East passed in 1996. As of the late 1990s, U.S. intelligence agencies believed Israel to possess between 75 and 130 nukes. Iran has zero. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, there’s even less evidence against Iran than there was against Saddam’s Iraq.

There are many legitimate reasons to criticize the government of Iran. They’re just a regional rival in the Middle East–another frenemy.

(Ted Rall is the author of the new book “Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?,” an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America’s next big foreign policy challenge.)

Torture in self defense and other fallacies.

Over the past week, since the Senate Intelligence report on the use of torture to detainees in the custody of US officials and agencies, I have had many conversations with those defending the acts of torture on the basis of self defense. What these people claim is that in self defense the act of torture is justifiable, this is a wrong idea of self defense and I will show why.

In a case of true self defense when a threat to life or property presents itself as clear and present danger (one cannot say a threat made from someone hundreds or thousands of miles away to be a clear and present danger if the means to carry out the threat are not present), one has a choice to act to protect that life or property or to not act at all. Far from being a pacifistic, the use of defensive force is approved under the Non Aggression Principle (NAP) I and many others live our lives by. But the torture of another human being is not and should not be a means of force under anyone's code of conduct. When one tortures another it is usually done to an incapacitated or imprisoned individual. Being incapacitated or imprisoned, a captive, would negate a threat being clear or present. Now this being established that the threat has been neutralized, confined, dealt with or captive the further abuse of this person would be an aggression against them.
Anything past stopping the threat is the pursuit of justice or retribution and not defense in itself.

Justifying the use of torture by self defense is against the basis of the Non Aggression Principle, but we all know not every can or will live their lives in accordance to this axiom.


There are other justifications for torture being made. Let's take a quick look at them as well

Another justification that is being tried is the "I would rather" explination.

In this scenario the supporter of the means of torture will say "well I would rather be tortured than killed" but does that make the act moral at all? Let's see. I can say "I would rather be raped than killed" yet this doesn't justify raping me does it? I can say "I would rather be stabbed than set on fire" does that make stabbing be moral? Not at all, it does not make an immoral act moral just because you or anyone else would rather have one over the other.

There is also the "what if someone you loved were being held captive and you had the kidnapper, would you torture them to help your loved one?"

This one employs emotional attachment to a person in place of morals or principle and many people thus fail at explaining it well. Emotionally, people would react in different ways under this scenario so it is hard to give a generalized definitive answer. My own personal answer is there is no justification for the use of torture, no reason or result makes it moral, no excuse makes it right and no amount of social acceptance makes it humane.
It has been phrased that it would be "morally imperative" to act to save your loved one and I would agree, but this action does not need to be a torturous act. Questions does come to mind with this scenario as well. Would you stand by as your loved one is tortured for information they may or may not have and would you stand by as your loved one tortured another for the same? Would that make it "Morally Imperative" to stop torture? Neither of these exonerate the act or somehow turn this immoral act into a moral or just one.

One more to tackle is the "retaliation for evil" justification.
In some conversations I have had I have encountered this line. "We should do whatever those would be fine doing to us."

This line is one that I think brings the most brutality of society to light. Doing an act that is wrong in response for another wrong does not make it right, it just continues the cycle of wrong. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
It is simply a way to divert the weight of the wrong to the first aggression rather than handle it in a more humane or moral way.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"

America Does Not Have A "Free Market Capitalist" Economy

I say quite often that America does not have a Free Market Capitalist economic system and sometimes the befuddled looks I get from those that hear this provokes them to question what I mean by it. The answer is simple and can be broken down into two parts, the two definitions of what is being asked.

"What is a Free Market?" and "What is Capitalism?"

The answers to these two questions together with an understanding of the current mode of economic activity gives a clear indication that the statement, "America does not have a Free Market economic system" is true.

So what is a free market economic system?
Free Market principles point to an economic system where business are unfettered by regulation, licensing, special fees and taxation, a system where all manner of salable goods are on the market without prohibition or exclusion. It is a system where the buying habits of those consumers would drive the manufacturers and distributors to produce or stock items that were valued by customers and discontinue or remove goods that have lost favor or marketability and sales numbers. This provides that customers are able to actually drive the economy by their buying habits and wants, without the interference of an outside entity.

This would of course be in contrast to the current system of high regulation, increasing taxation, special licencing, educational requirements and so on the American system is plagued by. Economists who advocate this idea of unfettered markets, also see that allowing prices and wages to form naturally and the availability and manufacture of goods to lie in the interest of those who have the capability to produce and the want to produce in trade for profit is a nearly unfailing concept in the ways of maximum efficiency of producers as well as maximum favorable market conditions for consumers.

With this some may say that the deregulation of businesses will (could/would) lead to businesses being able to skirt environmental concerns, livable wages, price gouging, and so on. In response to this one can argue on the case of environmental concerns that the information that a retailer or manufacturer was damaging the environment, the consumers voice could be heard by lowering or altogether abandoning or boycotting the product, manufacturer and retailers and distributors. When profits and sales decrease a signal is sent that certain practices are not favorable or condoned. This is the aspect of "market self regulation".

On the issue of wages. Wages should be set by employer and employee. If in the scenario an employer is offering too little pay the potential employee can ask for more or refuse. By no means should the wage of any person be determined by anyone other than the laborer and the job provider. In the system we have now wages are set by government decree, in an attempt to make a fair wage government actually provides yet another hurdle for a prospective employee to jump in order to gain employment. If the set wage is too high for the business, they will refuse to hire. Minimum wage laws also hinder the ability of these businesses to adjust wages based on experience of each employee, there is always a floor that they cannot overcome. Again a control on the level of wages offered by businesses is not a Free Market principle. It is a system of control.

Pricing controls work similar to wage controls, being that wages are prices and vice-versa, it stands that any interference in the marketable value being set by someone other than the seller negates the definition of free market practice.

So what is Capitalism?

Capitalism is defined many ways depending on the social structure lense those defining it look through. To make this easier we can go with two differing opinions, one from Wikipedia (which I use because of it's high use of editing from other editors) and then a definition from the website WorldSocialism.org (including this one because it highlights the idea that the word has different meanings depending on who you ask and how they define it).
According to Wikipedia Capitalism is "is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets and wage labor.  In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged."  This is the definition, or close to it, that most non socialists agree upon.

With this definition in mind we can see that there are a large number of businesses and services that are not privately owned, ran, or funded but are so called public services and are controlled by government, whether county, state, or federal, and are funded through taxation instead of consumerism. This leads me, to say that we may define America as a mixed economy, but definitely not a pure Capitalist economy.

According to the website WorldSocialism.org though Capitalism is something to be feared and abhorred based on their claim of worker exploitation. The definition they detail is,"Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the world. Under this system, the means for producing and distributing goods (the land, factories, technology, transport system etc) are owned by a small minority of people. We refer to this group of people as the capitalist class. The majority of people must sell their ability to work in return for a wage or salary (who we refer to as the working class.)"

They go on to say,"The working class are paid to produce goods and services which are then sold for a profit. The profit is gained by the capitalist class because they can make more money by selling what we have produced than we cost to buy on the labor market. In this sense, the working class are exploited by the capitalist class. The capitalists live off the profits they obtain from exploiting the working class whilst reinvesting some of their profits for the further accumulation of wealth."

And with this in mind we can ask the socialist this question, "isn't the worker also a capitalist, as they value their time and effort less than the wage they are paid? If they did not value the wage more than the time or effort they would not work, as in a socialist society, goods are given freely based upon need and taken based upon production, or better said by their economic muse Karl Marx, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". This proclaims that no matter how productive you are, your effort is only for the benefit for the others who wish not to work or do not perform as you do. What incentive does that leave to work hard, or even harder? What incentive does that leave to work at all? What incentive does that leave to create, to innovate, or to improve upon goods? If there is no benefit for someone to excel at a good or service it will be done at a minimum speed and quality.


With that being said we can look at the American economy as a partial capitalist economy and a partial socialist economy. There are many areas that the State has complete control over production or service. Roads, Schools, Protection Services, Old Age Insurance are a few of the largest and easiest to see. In that the capitalist is still beholden to government entities in order to start or continue in their business. We can also see THAT is in no way a "free market" system.

On the US Torture Report

As Americans are hearing now from their government of the "enhanced interrogations" taking place in CIA held facilities. The US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released its "Torture Report", and with it a flood of charges of inhumane treatments, murder, brutality and absolute detestable behavior from government employees and military service members. Of course there is no shortage of those who try and justify the treatment of detainees. Those that clamor for the reduction of the government, it's footprint into the lives and actions of people and claims of fiscal conservatism, have been using their loudest bullhorns to defend the actions of government officials and the military industrial complex, calling these actions "right for the public interest".

I am not sorry to say that any man who wishes these actions to continue or to propagate some idea of immunity for those involved are of the lowest respectable people of this earth to me. The idea that in order for "the good of the public" this evil must exist and be administered to other humans is completely asinine and reprehensible.

"No good can come from this evil,

 no justice can come from torture 

and no light from this darkness."

Torture is Torture no matter the reason or the results.
Torture is not acceptable when those you vote for say it is and those that follow them allow themselves to commit it. Shame not only for the politicians who contrive this action but all those in uniform or suit in the name of the government that facilitated or propagated torture of any other person. No act that is immoral for an individual to do unto others suddenly or miraculously becomes moral with the sanction of a State or central authority.

As Murray Rothbard states "In contrast to all other thinkers, left, right, or in-between, the libertarian refuses to give the State the moral sanction to commit actions that almost everyone agrees would be immoral, illegal, and criminal if committed by any person or group in society...if we look at the State naked, as it were, we see that it is universally allowed, and even encouraged, to commit all the acts which even non-libertarians concede are reprehensible crimes." (Ch. 2, "Property and Exchange")

Austrian Economics with Glenn Jacobs

This economic presentation with Glenn Jacobs, aka Kane, was documented on September 5, 2013. 

0:00:00 - 1:03:16 - Austrian Economics Presentation
1:03:30 - 1:16:33 - Q & A 

"It really ticks me off when I hear leftists and statists talk about how the free market causes wealth inequality, the free market doesn't. The free market though out history has allowed poor people to pull themselves up and has given people more socio economic ability to move up and down the socio economic ladder, up, than anything else in history.
Paul Krugman, who is a keynesian economist par excellence, just wants to inflate like crazy, but yet he writes a column for the New York Times and it's called 'Conscience of a Liberal', because he loves poor people despite the fact that he's the guy that's killing them, but then he'll look at someone like me and say you hate the poor. I don't hate the poor, I hate the fact that they're poor." 
—Glenn Jacobs (41:33 - 42:22)

Voters, Non Voters, Law Makers and Law Enforcers

Who is to blame for the current state of affairs in the U.S.?

It is said that politics is a game(this is not something that I concede), that it is played by the voter and the politician alike, and in that, it would seem that both parties should make a win of successes and loss of the failures. But who is to be responsible for those wins and failures, who should hold blame for bad policy, theft of personal wealth,  dead citizens (through multiple means), crippling regulation and environmental destruction by way of legalese and mandated governance.

Voters.

If anyone should be to blame it should be these people who have chosen to let other people do things to them right? These people have asked that their own affairs and that of all others should be up for governance by those few who seek to be elected. It can be said that without voters the will of the majority would not be known and therefore tyranny would be rampant, but what is to be said that tyranny is not already rampant on those who disagree with the majority, or those that recognize their own right of self governance? It can also be said that without the voters, those officials who seek to rule over others would not be subject to popular opinion or have the approval to attain those positions, but then what do we make of those positions of governance that do not require the voters to fill? It is said that the voter is the ultimate tool to remove bad politicians, but they are also the fault to those bad politicians having power to execute bad policy.

If the voter is to be held accountable for their actions of tyranny over dissenters, for those actions by their politician of choice that results in the loss of freedom, life or the ability to live in accordance with one’s own responsibility, then it must be concluded that without the voters at least some instances that make up current affairs could be or would be avoided altogether. Without the majority to interfere with the choices and decisions of those others, natural state of man would be held until some person or persons tried to rule with another form of governance that does not require the voice of the people to be enacted.

Would it be better to rid ourselves of voting altogether? Some would say yes and others no.

On the “Yes” side, the actions that lead to politicians using power to decide on policies, make and continue wars, regulate peaceful interactions or actions of people, could not come about through representative governments, or ones run from a democratic value. On the “No” side, there is the openness of what would replace what is currently in place. That void could be taken over by something far worse, or it can be not taken over at all, leading the way to a more anarchic world, one where the social responsibility and responsibility is held to every person instead of transferred to some central organization to be used on all person inside a geographical location by mandate, force, or coercion. It is this fear of the unknown possibilities of human action that keeps a lot of people from entertaining such ideas of relinquishing control from governments and turned to their own interactions between people, their own morals, and their own actions.

Voting transfers the power of the individual to the collective agent (politician) that, in theory, is supposed to recognize and relay the wishes of the voters to the central government body they inhabit to create policy that adheres to the basic conditions for which they have been elected. Voting is said also to remove the responsibility of the voter and of policy that politicians create with the vested power by the voters. It creates, also in theory, a separation of what is done and what should be done by the simply collective voice of those who have voted in favor of the specific politician in power. That being said leads to another point on democracy in American politics and in general political theory. The majority vote is decidedly the winner of the contest and the wishes of those that are included in that majority are furthered in effect as wishes of ALL those in that general geographical area, but this is not so. Those voters who have voiced opposition to the elected candidate have not had their wishes furthered and in fact may be in stark contrast to what is being proposed or executed by the politician of the majority. This leaves us with a minority that is having policy being made and regulations and mandates being passed that hinder or transgress the minority. In this theory we see that even with a majority voice in a democratic system of governance, some still lose their individual morals or ideas to the overwhelming odds of collective politics.

Politicians

On the other end of the fiasco of central governments imposed on the US people are those men and women who seek power to create laws, regulations, create hoops, create issues, intervene in the very private affairs and relationships of people, to take from them their wealth as some tribute to their power, and to wage conflicts in and outside the invisible boundaries of their supposed power. It is the politician that creates the policy for which the citizen must adhere to or face punishment. It is the politician that makes his livelihood from taxation, the forced removal of wealth from private citizens. It is the politician that creates the mandates and laws that dictate the actions of the people.

Politicians are those people who have ideas of being able to control and mandate the people in their representative area into the laws and policy they put forth. Politicians make up a small group in power to control the larger mass of citizens. They use political power and power vested to them by the voters to try and regulate and systematize the actions of individuals whether they agree with the policy or law or even with that person having the power in the first place.

Democracy has given the US a system of control by majority, claimed by a small group of power hungry individuals and delusional voting individuals to give way to a standard of compulsion and decrees. It is this violation of individuals that democracy fails on every level.

But can we blame the politician? Of course we can blame the politician. Without the want to rule over someone else or some group of people the system is gone, the chains of perpetual imbalance of free versus serf, tribute payment versus voluntary contribution, war versus defense of property, and all other issues the state holds monopolies on vanish to be accomplished by free people or cast aside as not of importance or value.

Without the ability to govern being granted by popular decision these people would either not have a job with those capabilities or would grant them by more violent and less voluntary means. It can be said that if the voter did not have a person to vote for, the same ends could occur, either rule by self or despotic takeover and complete tyranny of citizens of the area would be made possible. This is not to say that without our state of faux democracy we would be ruled by tyrants or brutal regimes, since in their own ways both these things happen under democracy, but that it is only another option after democracy has ceased.  I do not want to be taken as having endorsed democracy in any way, it is my intention to live only at the will of myself and for the sake or purpose of any other in coercive fashion or mandated compulsion. This does however leave open the ability that all others make this choice for themselves and that each individual's idea of governance cannot interfere with or proscribe itself onto any other in any involuntary manner.

The Law Enforcers

Another area to look into is those people that enforce the laws and compulsion of the state and its agents. Those that use state sanctioned power and authority to dispel morality and true justice at every turn. It is the Law Enforcer, any enforcer at all, that commits the force and aggression in the name and tribute of the state. It is through the state commission of theft that these agents are paid their wages, and it is through decree they achieve their ends. The action committed by these enforcers is what is felt at the individual level, it is this that we see most visibly when a law that is unjust is enforced and a peaceful action with no victim at all is quelled and a member of the whole makeup of society is transgressed and violated himself, by harassment, compulsory forfeiture of wealth, kidnapping and/or imprisonment by these enforcers.

We could say that without the enforcers the states decrees, their mandates and laws, their regulation, prohibitions, and intervention into the lives of others could not take place. I always say that to some degree when you are an agent of the state (in any capacity) you have at least some small area of agreement with what is taking place and are endorsing these transgressions by your mere employment and justification for the state’s action by completing their actions.

The permit approvers, the police, the tax collectors, the bureaucrats that assign themselves this special status by employment have only to say no to the oppressive state, to cast themselves as an individual of their own governance and to return to the role of productive producer instead of a political and economic bloodsucker.

The Non-Voter

A lot of blame is put on those of us who choose not to participate in the actions of government any longer. Those who recognize the immorality and inconsistency of the state and their actions are often labeled as the real problem and have simply given up, not trying or flat out totally to blame for everything that has happened or will happen. The Non-Voter is the man or woman who has taken their consent away from the state, they have said that they will no longer allow their will to be decided by whatever person had the most vote or the policy endorsed by the majority. Non-Voters vary in reasoning so there is no use trying to place them into a specific mold or reason for their abstinence.

The Non-Voter is without a doubt not to be blamed for the actions of politicians or their results. Maybe one can say that the Non-Voter is to blame that bad politicians are able to do bad things because the non-voter did not help another candidate to win. But in that defense non-voters, generally speaking from my own experience, recognize that no matter which person fills that space they are there for the power over other people, they want to be in control and believe they have everything worked out how it should be. The non-voter recognizes, again from my own experience, that the institution of government is the key problem with a lot of the brutal actions we see in humanity everyday, and the removal of that institution would benefit all, but at last we cannot make that choice for others.

Whenever freedom is reduced to permissions from state offices after fines, permits and threats of punishment if not done in accordance you can be sure government is the disease and not the cure. Voting for politicians is one way to subscribe to the idea that someone else knows what is good for you and your neighbors and will give it to you whether you agree with the means or not. The enforcers of bad laws, regulations and restrictions hold their own blame, for if they were to choose to not enforce bad or immoral laws and legislation, to only interfere with human actions if those actions reduce or eliminate the rights of another person or persons. The politician, power hungry as they come, aims to be the arbitrator of morals and justice to the mass populace with or without consent or justification beyond their own want or will.

On Immigration: Legal and Illegal

Immigration seems to be the brightest blip on the map right now, and it seems it is the most popular topic among people. Immigration by itself doesn't seem to be the real issue, at the heart of it is the economics of Immigration. That is what needs to be addressed. Together and separately, the economics aspect, at least for some, can resolve these issues in a mutually beneficial way. This is not to say that other aspects of the issue are not important, the supposed health risks for example cannot be simply eradicated by economics, but addressing the issue at the root helps us to get past the emotional reactions and allows us to clearly define and resolve the issue completely.

Immigration is nothing new. The moving of people from one place to another for various reasons has been a mainstay of human life since the beginning. A chance to increase the quality of life or to advance knowledge or social rank have been the previous reasons for migration of people from homelands. For centuries this was the way cities and towns, and eventually states and countries grew. From the dust of the immigrant workers, nations grew to their current levels. But now it seems, this belief has been replaced with fear, misunderstanding, ignorance, nationalism and hate. Could the solutions to what some call a crisis be found in economics?



While the media portray a rising tide in illegal immigration, statistics shows another story.

According to statistics from Pew Hispanic Research and the Department of Homeland Security the estimates of Unauthorized or "Illegal" immigrants has remained roughly unchanged from the past year but has seen a relative decline since the recession began in 2008. Looking over the graphs provided on that page we can also see that the rise in Immigration happened between 2002 and 2007, adding almost 4 million more immigrants between those years. Fig 1.

While the current fuss is being made during the Obama Presidential administration the real blame should go to the prior administration. Under President George W. Bush an average of 4 million immigrants found their way to the US. But where was the outrage then?

There wasn't one. Why? The economy seemed stronger under Bush due in part due to the Housing Market Bubble that eventually, in late 2007, burst. This false prosperity brought in a higher demand and a need for more workers. Immigrants filled the void of low-skilled workers as native born citizens took over higher skilled positions. In 2007 unauthorized immigrants made up a total of 5.5% of the labor force in the US. And very few minded having these immigrants come here at the time, because a financial strain was not being put onto American workers, and jobs were plentiful and expanding. These points will not be made in the current discussion on Immigration.

The additional production gave way for American and Legal immigrants to take up higher skilled jobs while "illegals" took in the lower skilled jobs. Immigrants play a large part in the unskilled and low skilled workforce, in part to the barrier in language and education or experience. These "illegals" will take lower paying jobs due to these shortcomings, where citizens and legal immigrants will tend to be drawn to higher skilled jobs with higher pay ranges.

After the "They Took Our Jobs" line the next line will be "They took our Government Handouts"

Another issue in the immigration debate is that "illegal" immigrants use government programs more than they put into them through taxation, since most believe illegals are not taxed this would make sense. Next we can look at the claim that illegal immigrants do not pay taxes. This claim has been around for years, I even at one time believed it. First the point should be noted that ALL Federal, State, and Local "Welfare Programs" are funded by taxation, it is a redistribution of wealth.

Are they really costing more than they put in?

According to Shikha Dalmia in her 2006 article at Reason Foundation more than 8 million of the then 11 million immigrants actually paid into social security, medicaid and other taxes. But how is that you say...


In 1996 a welfare reform bill was passed. In this bill were "restrictions on benefits for noncitizens accounted for 44% of this total, and food stamp revisions for 43%. The 105th Congress rescinded and modified some 1996 budget cuts, restoring SSI, Medicaid and food stamp benefits to many aliens at an estimated 5-year cost of $12.3 billion. Further, Congress in 1997 created Welfare-to-Work (WtW) grants ($2.7 billion in estimated outlays for 2 years) to help states move severely disadvantaged TANF recipients into jobs, and it boosted funding for food stamp employment and training."

Another thing that happened is a bill that allowed the IRS to issue identification numbers for those illegal aliens that did not have social security numbers. This reform does two things, it allows those aliens to pay into the system to be in accordance to what citizens do in a hope it is seen as favorable if and when they file for legal statuses. Number two, it adds those tax monies into a system that because they do not have an official Social Security number, they cannot benefit from. This adds millions of dollars into the federal coffers. Damlia writing, "Last year, the revenues from these fake numbers — that the Social Security administration stashes in the "earnings suspense file" — added up to 10 percent of the Social Security surplus. The file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year.

Her statement is pointing to the 2005 numbers. 

This data points to the fact that overall immigrants are not a drain on any programs but actually contribute. Add to this that even illegal immigrants pay sales taxes, adding millions more to their local community coffers. Roads, Schools and other services in and around their homes are partially contributed to through this tax. More info on taxes paid by illegal immigrants click here.

So how can we solve the Issue through Economics?

Can we simply abolish the Welfare State?

In order to tackle this we have to look at the statistics of those receiving this assistance and address it properly. Many have been saying for decades that the welfare state needs to be completely dissolved and regulations restricting voluntary aid programs given their chance to return. Prior to the 1930's the welfare state did not exist, it was before this that private organizations were the main source for any form of welfare or aid. Donations given by Individuals and Businesses alike kept Americans fed and housed on a larger scale than today. So where did this go? After government aid programs began the amount of funds used in voluntary donations were extracted by taxation and those who gave some were able to give less. This caused the great plethora of charities, to be replaced by bureaus and departments, each getting larger and larger, taking more and more to run their offices, less and less aid actually made it to those that needed it.

Where does that lead us to today?

Spending on largest Welfare Programs Federal Spending 2003-2013*[33]
Federal Programs	Spending 2003*	Spending 2013*
Medicaid Grants to States	$201,389	$266,565
Food Stamps (SNAP)	61,717	82,603
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)	40,027	55,123
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)	38,315	50,544
Housing assistance	37,205	49,739
Child Nutrition Program (CHIP)	13,558	20,842
Support Payments to States, TANF	28,980	20,842
Feeding Programs (WIC & CSFP)	5,695	6,671
Low Income Home Energy Assistance	2,542	3,704
Notes: * Spending in millions of dollars

Would abolishing the Welfare State actually have any effect on the economic issue of Immigration? It could, in a way, rid the system of an incentive to the minority that use the system without contributing. Taking away that incentive could cause many to rethink the opportunity costs of coming in illegally.

Benjamin W. Powell writes "Before, immigrants assimilated into a culture of hard work and self-reliance. Those who failed here often had to go home. Few go home today because of failure today. Instead, they are taught to assimilate into a system of government reliance where failure and laziness are not punished. The post-1965 immigration wave is the first that has come once we had a welfare state in place. Unfortunately, that welfare state not only makes them less productive, it also teaches them to undermine our old culture that made America successful."

Since there would be no guaranteed way for them to live off of the state, many may just decide to go the legal route or choose another place to move to.

Getting the Government out of businesses and allowing the markets to work properly could be the greatest and most needed change in policies. Deregulation, Getting rid of barriers to work, Abolishing minimum wage laws, stop with the corporate welfare programs, price controls, sending false signals and creating bubbles and busts in markets would easily give everyone, Immigrant or Natural Citizen, a better chance at building wealth and prosperity. Add along with this the ability for all people to keep 100% of their earned wages and abolish taxation, all taxation. Leading us into a voluntary state, a way for the preferences, wants and needs of everyone to be met by competitive businesses and entrepreneurs. 

Speaking of legal immigration, one way to reduce the amount of illegal migrations is to make the legalization process easier to navigate and less costly. Those persons not willing to wait months on end and pay in thousands of dollars usually opt for the illegal route knowing the risk of deportation is lower than shelling out money and time. Reducing the time it takes to get through the legalization system and the amount of money put into legalization could drastically reduce the amount of people who enter illegally. 

The real issue of the Illegal Immigration debate isn't at all about the moving of people into a certain geographical area, but rather the implications and effects those people have in current models of operation. Looking at the issue form a reasonable economic standpoint can lead to real sustainable answer rather than the tug of war political party lines being offered now. Turning America into a thriving economy can give incentive to those wishing to better themselves, their families and their new homes as well.

Here is another post I wrote dealing with Borders and US Marine Tahmoorsi being held in a Mexican Jail.

More reading on this issue.
http://www.cato.org/policy-report/septemberoctober-2013/tear-down-wall-immigration-versus-welfare

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/immigration-friend-or-foe

http://www.fee.org/files/docLib/547_24.pdf


Follow me on Twitter @PatriotPapers
Find me on Liberty.Me @BeardedLibertyGuy
And remember to like the FaceBook page HERE