The upper class discovered the keys to success long ago. They learned how to manipulate the system, to extract wealth from it, and to use it to enjoy many privileges for generations. The primary tool, of course, is the control of the state and her resources. This is done at the expense of the middle and lower classes. As in all things, however, the example the upper class sets will eventually be mimicked.

They, the masses of the people, imitating the upper classes, cry in their turn for privileges. They demand their right to employment, their right to credit, their right to education, their right to pensions. But at whose expense? — Bastiat

If the poor were to obtain these privileges, who would be left to pay? There are no lower classes to extract from or to ultimately confer the responsibility of payment. Because the upper and lower classes are constantly in a battle over control of the state’s coercive powers, wealth and power are unevenly and deleteriously distributed amongst the people. The wealthy use their vast influence over the state to sate the desires of the poor–at the expense of long term outcomes–in an effort to reduce their desire to gain influence.

We could always turn the tables on the well-off; the privileges the poor seek could be easily gained from them through taxation. But, and this goes for all classes,

If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.–F.A. Hayek

Wealth and resources are not obtained and distributed in zero-sum fashion. Value can be created, and in a level playing field, sans the coercive resources of the state, all classes of people can be free to obtain and create without issue. This is justice: freedom from coercion.

Yes. It can get worse. The DJIA went from close to 13k to a little above 10k in a few short weeks.

Our economic outlook hasn’t been particularly positive for over three years. Our political system is failing to live up to its own lofty standards, and I’m getting tired of this sense of uselessness I feel. I have only so much control over my future, and the rest is at the feet of politicians pretending to know what is best for my life–how they think I should live, what they think my needs and desires should be.

Perhaps things will turn around and our futures will get brighter. But that can’t happen until our national, and personal, budgets are in order. The debate surrounding the national debt is likely to continue for some time–the debate concerning entitlements needs to happen soon and with earnest if the national debt is to ever be retired.

But we can’t do anything about it if citizens are unwilling to sacrifice in the form of increased taxes and heavily reduced benefits. And before that happens, politicians need to sacrifice their careers in order to nudge people in that direction. The more people receive, the harder it is to ween them from it, and the harder it is to get a politician to vote to reduce it.

If you’re not aware of what this is, I’ll give you a quick run down. The city of Benton Harbor has had it’s share of financial woes of late due to mismanagement, corruption, closing businesses, decreased tax receipts, etc. The problem goes deep, needless to say. If left to its devices, the city would likely have sought bankruptcy protection. In the past, to stave off such happenings, the state could appoint a financial manager to help steer the local government towards a sound fiscal future.

A recently enacted law gave that financial manager a great deal of power; the law also strips power from local officials, though this has been widely reported as the removal of elected officials. The governor’s office, in a document that originates from the ether: “Despite the misinformation being spread by the media and on the Internet, the legislation does not give
the governor the ability to remove elected officials at will. Claims that it does are simply not true. ¹”

And this last bit is what set off a nationwide storm of misinformed rhetoric, overblown generalizations, and many videos posted from Rachel Maddow, the Glenn Beck of the left.

I wholly support this law; from what I can tell the state has every right under its laws and constitution to do what it is doing. Cities are chartered or incorporated through the state government, and as a result are subservient to it. This philosophy was codified quite a long time ago and is essential to municipal law–it is known as Dillon’s Rule. Simply put, the rule gives local governments only the powers specifically granted to it, powers that are necessary to execute those that were granted, and those that are deemed essential.² While this may sound a lot like Federalism under the American arrangement–with a federal government, and state governments subservient to it–it is not. Theoretically, the Federal government was given power by the states that ratified the constitution. State governments were not created by an act of any cities.

I’ve been told a number of things about my position on this issue, as has my wife. Namely that we’re crazy for holding such views. “How can you give up your rights and civil liberties?” I’m not giving up anything when my local officials have power because of a state act and the state takes that power away. One particularly onerous anarchist-libertarian seems to believe that I am supporting tyrannical acts of government to gain a little financial security. I’ll claim to be libertarian–of at least one flavor–but this individual goes beyond a decreased state role to seeing all acts as illegitimate.

There was a time when I could have written a much longer diatribe, but I’m burned out on this one. Less emotion wrapped up in defending myself when it looks like the law is on my side; I participated in a city government simulation when I was in High School, called Operation Bentley. The one fact I remember hearing was what I described above, that cities are chartered through the state. That one little fact has been the basis of my thinking here. So, there.

Full transcript at the source (h/t):

Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your familes will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks. Please explain to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell. Read below for more information on possible scenarios in which you will die. ¹

While it is possible that this email is real, it is also just as likely that it is as fake as it gets. BUT, if it is real, it presents a rather disturbing example of the hyper-partisan world we live in.

I’ve not participated in many discussions about the public union disputes going on throughout the country because of the kinds of attitudes represented in that letter, though most clearly do not hold views that are as extreme as exemplified above. So much emotion is tied up in anti-republican sentiment that people are not looking at their proposals rationally. Not that Republican ideas have been perfect, but this situation demands that cooler heads approach the problems.

All of this makes me want to step back from thinking about and digesting politics for a while. Its all getting to me. I get the feeling that people view me with pity when they find out I disagree with most Democratic ideas. As if I’m an uneducated slouch with no hope; why can’t I just see that only one party is for the little people and the other for ‘big-business?’

Unfortunately, over the course of the United States’ historically brief existence many localities have restricted speech, and so while we respect free thinking in principle we do not hold it to be a universal truth–we make a habit of restricting that which is most difficult to restrict–and we lose an important opportunity to weigh our views in light of a diverse array of opinions.

In this context then I want to visit something that has been vexing me since I first heard commentary relating the tragic shooting in Arizona–a view that will hardly seem unique, but will promptly relieve me the anxiety I have felt.

Perhaps it is the blatant lack of evidence supporting such hypotheses that perturb me the most, but it is likely the charge that the views I hold, and the resulting rhetoric that supposedly surround it, is a contributing factor in the shooting death of so many that I find to be infuriating. Once such a charge is leveled, how can you defend yourself? Once you try, you’re promptly accused of living up to the expectation.

The fact is, you’re accused of being so uncivil, while your opposition has merely been trying to speak with you in meek, soothing tones in order to have a “national conversation.” Why can’t you just get along with them, give up your ideas, and move on?

Because my ideas hold as much legitimacy as yours, and you were just as antagonistic when your ideas held less sway.

I’m a libertarian. Some think that means I’m an anarchist, which is ridiculous, or that I favor some other nefarious out-of-the-mainstream views; but what it really means, in sum, is that I favor maximizing liberty at the expense of government largess. How this gets construed as extreme is…perplexing.

Does it matter who incited this? No. All that matters is that this gunman was a nutjob, who apparently bought into a lot of loony conspiracy theories purported by the extreme right. You know, just like almost all would-be political assassins and domestic terrorists.

Where in the world did these ideas come from? Conspiracy theories on the right somehow are responsible for “almost all” of the reasoning behind acts of political assassination and domestic terrorism? This makes no sense.

Claims like this are even more infuriating because I fail to see any evidence to support them:

In contrast, when Beck declares that the non-profit organization Tides Foundation is the driving force behind leftists who want to illegally seize control of the government, destroy capitalism and dismantle organized religion, and is assembling an army to this effect, he supplements his conspiratorial rhetoric with explicit calls to violence. Again, in contrast, his supporters frequently follow-up his comments with violence.

Where are all of these violent acts being committed because they’re not being reported anywhere?

I really am curious as to the origin of the notion that right-wing ideology leads to violent extremism. Conservatives are really only after a certain set of things, and that is the preservation of traditional mores, laws, and ideas (I hate that I even have to say this, but that does not include the abhorrent treatment of any social class).

It really is a shame that political/philosophical debate is impossible; everyone wants us to go back in time to a place where both sides discussed so nicely the merits of their ideas. But it didn’t happen. Politics is a contentious affair. Frankly, it has and always will be. That doesn’t mean that a set of philosophical ideas certainly lead to violence–particularly when those ideas are mostly interested in increasing liberty–but what it means is that it will always be a highly partisan, dog-eat-dog experience.

But stop blaming one side for something that has nothing to do with its philosophy.

People are out voting because they either approve of the way things are going or hope for a change in philosophy; either way, they’re there and doing the one thing average folks can do to participate in government: vote.

Personally, I didn’t vote for Change™ last time, though I wanted it in some form. And now that we’ve got it, I can’t help but wonder why anyone would want this particular brand. In some ways I understand the desire for social justice/equality. These are noble concepts, but the problem is, these concepts are used to justify things that are inherently bad for people in the long term. Sure, there are immediate benefits to be had, but these are fleeting.

Do not interpret this as approval of the record of Republicans either. They are as guilty as any Democrat of spending and approving intrusive regulations¹. It is not the Bush agenda that I am seeking, but something entirely different.

This morning, I voted for divided government. A roadblock to the progressive/conservative agenda. I want the republic to do nothing over the next few years; maybe roll something back, keep expenditures down. Perhaps something classically liberal could take the place of the status quo.

In reality,we’ve got to start talking about reforming the social insurance framework we have in this country, because it is broken, and it will bankrupt us. This is worse for us than people think. I guess we could always inflate the dollar to pay down the debt right?

I did not put my name up for consideration, however I had a great desire to assist others in their campaigns. I put my name out there to a few candidates and expressed great interest in volunteering in any way that I could for their campaigns. The election in Michigan is tomorrow and I have yet to hear from any of them.

I went to the Berrien County Youth Fair with my wife and stopped by the Republican tent to see who was there and grab a little literature and see what I could do to help out. I entered the tent and was soundly ignored and dismissed by the folks running everything.

Additionally, I was informed that delegates in my county have had many different evens they’ve been involved in over the past few months. Apparently I should have been receiving information about all of this, but have been mostly left off of whatever mailing/emailing lists they have.

The one candidate I received anything from, however, was Mr. Troy Rolling running for Berrien County Commissioner, and so I will fully support and vote for him and urge you to do the same. He’s a great, hard working individual, the kind of person we would want involved in the workings of the county.

I must express my utter disappointment with the process…I would like to be more involved, but what more can I do beyond just giving my contact information and expressing an interest in doing the work I signed up for?

Let’s take a look at a few of the claims and see what makes sense.

We’re working hard to create jobs here at home. On it’s face this sounds fucking awesome if you’re unemployed. Yes, hell yes bring me that job–so long as I don’t have to work too hard. Look, don’t believe this lie. Politicians can’t create private sector jobs. They can help to foster an environment that might produce an incentive to start or expand a business, but it’s not like they’ve done anything other than deliberate a policy and vote on a bill. No job creation here. Hell, the new law they just created might not even bring business into the state, and most of the time their incentives amount to subsidies that pervert the true cost of doing business until it’s too late. Verdict: complete and utter nonsense.

My opponent (maliciously) supports taking jobs away from constituents and giving them to workers in China. What an evil thing to do! We need jobs here at home. The thing is, they’ll be there but they won’t be the same types of jobs we’ve relied on in the past. The fact is, after the two great wars our manufacturing base was left largely in tact, while the rest of the world was in tatters so to speak. As a result, we enjoyed a golden age of manufacturing for the better part of the 20th century. We won’t return to that time. The world caught up.

Plus, manufacturing is a global process now. Companies spread costs around to maximize profits, and that means making parts here, in China, in Japan, etc. and assembling said product wherever. This keeps consumer costs low and makes determining actual origin a little tough. Keep this in mind: many of those foreign cars we buy are assembled here. Some parts are even made here. And we still have manufacturing, it’s just so much more efficient that it requires less workers to keep production up. Verdict: who cares, the economy is global.

My opponent is in the pocket of big business/special interests and I’m a champion of the people, never swayed! Liar. You’re both in the pockets of special interests, and especially big business. Why? Because that’s where the money is. Don’t get the impression that they pass business regulations to keep consumers safe, because it’s mostly to protect the livelihood of a competing interest. Believe at your own peril!

My opponent is un-American/communist/socialist/racist etc. Meh. This doesn’t say a whole lot. These charges are designed to be difficult to defend against and frankly the person leveling them rarely ever provides evidence to suggest they’re true. Ignore these charges.

Is it just me, or do all of these bums seem like dirty liars?

“A new report, backed by the NAACP, has found what it says are efforts by white nationalist groups and militias to link themselves to the tea party movement.”¹ Oh, well that’s not quite the same is it? If this sentence is taken on it’s face it merely implicates the groups themselves, rather than the Tea Party. Except that in the next paragraph it states that the report claims “that tea party events have become a forum for extremists ‘hoping to push these (white) protesters toward a more self-conscious and ideological white supremacy.’”¹

A little further down you find out that the report isn’t necessarily concerned with the movement as a whole, rather it’s focused on the smaller county level groups that can be more easily infiltrated by these racist, nefarious groups.

It isn’t until you find yourself still sort of reading the article near the end of the first page that you get a Tea Party member defending themselves:

The national coordinator of Tea Party Patriots, one of the groups mentioned in the report, said the report’s claims were not credible. “The Tea Party has only articulated three core values for the entire movement,” said Jenny Beth Martin. “They are limited government, fiscal responsibility and support for free markets. Everything we say and do is in support of these values. There is no credible method of making these values racist.”¹

Plain and simple, that’s what motivates these guys. I call this disingenuous reporting because the headline and story structure make it easy for an individual to conclude that yes, yes indeed these Tea Partiers are associated with some racist scum. Not only that, but evidence pointing to a conclusion other than racist collusion is placed on the second page, almost the last paragraph:

Other analysts who have begun to study the burgeoning political force have come to the opposite conclusion. A report on political signs displayed at a tea party rally in Washington last month found that the vast majority of activists expressed narrow concerns about the government’s economic and spending policies and steered clear of the racially charged anti-Obama messages that have helped define some media coverage of such events.

BAM! In your face (if you made it this far) defense of the movement.

It’s pretty clear that what motivates opposition to the Progressive Democrat agenda is purely related to disagreement over policy. I’m no Tea Partier, but I’ve been around enough of them to draw this conclusion without any hesitation.

I’m tired of Democrats painting these sorts of pictures of opposition to their ideas. And the media is happy to spin the same yarn. Good God am I tired of it.