I recommended this article about the relationship between gold and freedom to my in-laws in general. The good sister-in-law responded. "This was an excellent article, easy to understand and informative. So is there any of the "gold standard" left in our country to any degree today? and if not, why is it important to buy gold for saving if it doesn't have any set money value, or does it? Why not stock up on food or other precious commodities instead? And the most important question, when and how fast do you think that inflation is going to start rising again?" My way-too-long answer:
Short answer at the bottom.
Nixon officially ended any link to gold in 1971. Foreign countries were allowed to redeem US dollars for gold although American citizens (or individuals of any nationality) weren't. To keep the dollar from falling straight to zero (which it did for a few weeks anyway) he and whoever was actually in charge made a deal with oil producing countries that oil would trade exclusively in dollars, making dollars unofficially backed by oil. This has been the case until the last few years, when some countries decided not to accept dollars for their oil. The list of countries that have made their intentions public might be of interest. Iraq was one of the first, probably because Saddam Hussein was so belligerent and thought he was untouchable. Everyone knows what happened there. Iran is one of the most vocal about ditching the dollar. I don't recall much concern for the rights and freedoms of the terribly oppressed Iranian people until the matter of dollars and oil came up. Venezuela is also on the list, and the US happens to be building seven military bases in Columbia right now. Columbia is next to Venezuela. I probably don't need to fill in many blanks. A short and informative article about the whole mess.
As far as buying gold, I have no idea. It would have been nice to have bought some ten years ago. It doesn't have a set dollar value because the dollar doesn't have a set value. As soon as the oil countries stop using the dollar it will go straight down to zero. It has no actual, inherent value, except the value a piece of paper that size generally has. You can ponder what that value is next time you visit the restroom or need to light a fire. And hopefully those two things aren't going on at the same time. So, if all of your savings are in dollars, someday you will have literally no money. I don't know when that day is. Gary North (I like Gary North) doesn't know either, but he does have some indicators and potential scenarios.
We've been told it's a good idea to have a lot of food stored. We haven't been instructed to buy as much gold as possible. Food and other useful commodities are better than gold in a Mad Max situation, but if there is some remnant of normal economic activity then garbage cans full of wheat are extremely inconvenient to use if you want to buy gas or shoe laces. 9mm or .45 rounds are better, but gold and silver are even better than that, and the market will determine prices and values in the absence of a functioning dollar. I guess it just depends on what you expect to happen. In the short term, if everything chugs along like it has, then at the very least you can beat inflation with gold. Gold has increased almost 50% in the last year, and over 250% over the last ten years. Beat that with the stock market Dave Ramsey! Silver is up 60% from a year ago, and just under 250% over the last ten.
The Fed has been quietly monetizing chunks of debt since the first bailouts. That just means they're printing more money (or just creating it on computers), which means more dollars chasing goods, which means prices go up. Inflation! How fast inflation rises depends on how much they print and how long it takes people to catch on. They'll have to print at least several tens of trillions over the next few years to pay off Congress' handouts because China, Japan, and Russia are not buying our debt anymore. They figured out we have too much of it and we don't make anything to sell to pay off our debt. All we can do is start a war with them to try to force them to use our (non)money. That is not very near the top of my list of good reasons to start a war. You can probably guess the likelihood of me encouraging any of my six sons to sign up for killing Chinese, Japanese, or Russian people (or Iranians. I didn't forget you Iranians!) in order to force them to use worthless dollars. No fighting for The Fed at my house.
Short answer: The dollar is absolutely unbacked by anything other than the good faith and credit of the United States, which is the same thing as nothing. I don't know when and how fast inflation takes off. Sooner than anyone is ready for, and faster than we think.
Black Mass in the White House
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Letters to the Whitehouse
When a white house flunky requested we citizen-soldiers report any "fishy misinformation" we heard about health care reform, I couldn't help but do my patriotic duty. I hope I made an impact and was of some help in getting people straightened out about this whole thing. Unfortunately, so many patriots reported things that the mini-program had to be discontinued. Here are my reports.
Aug 5
Hey Macon Phillips,
I found some fishy stuff. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/31690.html This guy over at lewrockwell.com seems to think that the health care plan is an evil plot covered up by some sort of Soviet-style Stalinist propaganda. Ha! We all know that the propaganda leans to the Maoist style. Anyway, you might want to check it out. Also, I've been hearing some fishy misinformation on AM radio. You know the guys, I'm sure. Anyway, good luck correcting all of this fishy misinformation.
Isaac
Aug 5
Are you a czar? That would be cool if you were a czar. Which spelling do you prefer, czar or tsar?
Thanks,
Isaac
Aug 6
Did you see that video of everyone yelling at Arlen Specter? You should be able to identify at least some of them and track them down, then you could give them a good talking to about the real health care truth. Give that a shot and let me know how it goes.
Isaac
Aug 7
You know who's been saying fishy stuff lately? My wife. It is so fishy what she says. Things like, "They already regulate the medical field almost to death anyway, why do they need to completely take it over?" Please! As if the federal government (or do you guys prefer "national" now? Federal has such a 10th amendment ring to it) regulating something would be motivated by anything but altruism. Ha! We know you're just trying to help, especially children. But you know, my wife just isn't getting it. She thinks rich doctors will be able to figure out what patients need and not be driven by sheer greed and lust for money. Without the government involved, rich doctors and insurance companies would be running this country like warlords by now. Maybe you can talk some sense into her. She lives at **** Butternut in Richland, Washington (not DC). But you probably already know that since the census people have been getting GPS coordinates and stuff. She can be reached at 509-***-**** if you don't have time to make a personal visit.
Isaac
Aug 7
Hey,
I know I already wrote today, but I figure the more the merrier, right? Am I right? So I found another fishy naysayer. Tom DiLorenzo, another guy who writes for lewrockwell.com. He has the audacity to compare health care reform to food rationing. Does he think he's some kind of genius economist or something? The problem with people like this is that they're too educated. Or at least they think they're educated. Maybe you could suggest to the president, or some other person in charge, a new program that would help people become educated about important things. You could even call it the Re-Learning program. It could be like rehab where people go to a special resort or camp and relearn important facts about government and government programs like health care reform. Re-Learning isn't a very catchy name, I know. There's probably a better name for it, but I know you guys can come up with something. But doesn't a Re-Learning camp sound like fun?
Til next time,
Isaac
Aug10
Hey Macon,
Long time no email! I went camping this weekend, which I think is a Green activity, but on the way up there I hit a deer, which I'm guessing is not Green at all. But one thing I did do was pick up a bunch of junk from the stream near the camp site, like cups and cans and things like that. Even though it is good to pick up litter, I regret that I didn't do it under the direction of a government sponsored program like Americorps or whatever else you have like that. It would have been way better if an official group was down at the stream officially picking up trash and creating jobs for Americans! Like House Speaker Pelosi said recently, Green bills like the cap and trade bill are all about jobs, jobs, jobs, and more jobs! Green = jobs. Yes.
Speaking of House Speaker Pelosi, did you catch what Ron Paul is doing right in Congress? He's trying to get some bills going that will hinder health care reform as envisioned by President Obama and others. For instance, HR 3394, The Health Information Protection Act, inhibits the FTC from acting against any entity for communicating the health benefits of its products unless the FTC presents "clear and convincing" evidence that those statements are false. Talk about fishy, right? So if the FTC can't protect people from misleading information, they might take a bunch of non-FDA approved stuff, and then when they got sick they would cost the health care system billions or trillions of dollars. Ron Paul is costing the government trillions of dollars! This is fishy misinformation! Someone get a handle on this guy before people start listening to him. That's the idea, right? Am I right?
Can't wait to hear from you,
Isaac
Aug 12
Macon,
Did you catch Laura Ingraham's show yesterday? Whoa. Super fishy. She even got angry at her guest and started almost yelling. As we have seen, those kinds of words and that kind of behavior can be a stepping stone to maybe possibly starting to think about pondering some violent actions, or inciting others to possibly start pondering them. This has gone too far, do you not think so? Anyway, she asked the expert guest if the democratically-minded health care reform bill would allow you to keep your own plan or your own doctor under various circumstances. He said that yes, of course, as long as it was government approved, and then she flew off the handle. As if we don't need the federal (or is it national? You haven't answered that one yet) government to help us sift bad plans from good ones. The guest even compared it to the auto industry—and you guys know a thing or two about that now, don't you? Am I right?—by saying that the government wouldn't allow people to buy cars that were dangerous, so obviously dangerous insurance plans were out of the question also. I think that was a good point. I mean, if no federal regulation existed, I would almost for sure be dead from driving a car with no windshield, no brakes, and an inefficient NASA surplus rocket engine. I would not be able to tell the difference between safe and dangerous. Air bags are another good example. People are safer now, lives have been saved because of the air bag requirement. Except those kids who were sitting in the front seat and were killed from the airbag deployment. An insincere person could argue that a case could be made that government policy and regulation actually caused those deaths, and that if car buyers had an opportunity to choose whether or not their car had an airbag then some children would still be alive. What they aren't taking into account is collective safety. Collectively, we are safer now because of mandatory airbags, and that's really what matters, right? The collective.
So you might want to put Laura Ingraham on the list. I mean, I know there is no list, but you know what I mean. Maybe you could also sign her up for one of the re-learning camps when you get those going.
Talk to you later,
Isaac
PS Write back soon!
Aug 5
Hey Macon Phillips,
I found some fishy stuff. http://www.lewrockwell.com/
Isaac
Aug 5
Are you a czar? That would be cool if you were a czar. Which spelling do you prefer, czar or tsar?
Thanks,
Isaac
Aug 6
Did you see that video of everyone yelling at Arlen Specter? You should be able to identify at least some of them and track them down, then you could give them a good talking to about the real health care truth. Give that a shot and let me know how it goes.
Isaac
Aug 7
You know who's been saying fishy stuff lately? My wife. It is so fishy what she says. Things like, "They already regulate the medical field almost to death anyway, why do they need to completely take it over?" Please! As if the federal government (or do you guys prefer "national" now? Federal has such a 10th amendment ring to it) regulating something would be motivated by anything but altruism. Ha! We know you're just trying to help, especially children. But you know, my wife just isn't getting it. She thinks rich doctors will be able to figure out what patients need and not be driven by sheer greed and lust for money. Without the government involved, rich doctors and insurance companies would be running this country like warlords by now. Maybe you can talk some sense into her. She lives at **** Butternut in Richland, Washington (not DC). But you probably already know that since the census people have been getting GPS coordinates and stuff. She can be reached at 509-***-**** if you don't have time to make a personal visit.
Isaac
Aug 7
Hey,
I know I already wrote today, but I figure the more the merrier, right? Am I right? So I found another fishy naysayer. Tom DiLorenzo, another guy who writes for lewrockwell.com. He has the audacity to compare health care reform to food rationing. Does he think he's some kind of genius economist or something? The problem with people like this is that they're too educated. Or at least they think they're educated. Maybe you could suggest to the president, or some other person in charge, a new program that would help people become educated about important things. You could even call it the Re-Learning program. It could be like rehab where people go to a special resort or camp and relearn important facts about government and government programs like health care reform. Re-Learning isn't a very catchy name, I know. There's probably a better name for it, but I know you guys can come up with something. But doesn't a Re-Learning camp sound like fun?
Til next time,
Isaac
Aug10
Hey Macon,
Long time no email! I went camping this weekend, which I think is a Green activity, but on the way up there I hit a deer, which I'm guessing is not Green at all. But one thing I did do was pick up a bunch of junk from the stream near the camp site, like cups and cans and things like that. Even though it is good to pick up litter, I regret that I didn't do it under the direction of a government sponsored program like Americorps or whatever else you have like that. It would have been way better if an official group was down at the stream officially picking up trash and creating jobs for Americans! Like House Speaker Pelosi said recently, Green bills like the cap and trade bill are all about jobs, jobs, jobs, and more jobs! Green = jobs. Yes.
Speaking of House Speaker Pelosi, did you catch what Ron Paul is doing right in Congress? He's trying to get some bills going that will hinder health care reform as envisioned by President Obama and others. For instance, HR 3394, The Health Information Protection Act, inhibits the FTC from acting against any entity for communicating the health benefits of its products unless the FTC presents "clear and convincing" evidence that those statements are false. Talk about fishy, right? So if the FTC can't protect people from misleading information, they might take a bunch of non-FDA approved stuff, and then when they got sick they would cost the health care system billions or trillions of dollars. Ron Paul is costing the government trillions of dollars! This is fishy misinformation! Someone get a handle on this guy before people start listening to him. That's the idea, right? Am I right?
Can't wait to hear from you,
Isaac
Aug 12
Macon,
Did you catch Laura Ingraham's show yesterday? Whoa. Super fishy. She even got angry at her guest and started almost yelling. As we have seen, those kinds of words and that kind of behavior can be a stepping stone to maybe possibly starting to think about pondering some violent actions, or inciting others to possibly start pondering them. This has gone too far, do you not think so? Anyway, she asked the expert guest if the democratically-minded health care reform bill would allow you to keep your own plan or your own doctor under various circumstances. He said that yes, of course, as long as it was government approved, and then she flew off the handle. As if we don't need the federal (or is it national? You haven't answered that one yet) government to help us sift bad plans from good ones. The guest even compared it to the auto industry—and you guys know a thing or two about that now, don't you? Am I right?—by saying that the government wouldn't allow people to buy cars that were dangerous, so obviously dangerous insurance plans were out of the question also. I think that was a good point. I mean, if no federal regulation existed, I would almost for sure be dead from driving a car with no windshield, no brakes, and an inefficient NASA surplus rocket engine. I would not be able to tell the difference between safe and dangerous. Air bags are another good example. People are safer now, lives have been saved because of the air bag requirement. Except those kids who were sitting in the front seat and were killed from the airbag deployment. An insincere person could argue that a case could be made that government policy and regulation actually caused those deaths, and that if car buyers had an opportunity to choose whether or not their car had an airbag then some children would still be alive. What they aren't taking into account is collective safety. Collectively, we are safer now because of mandatory airbags, and that's really what matters, right? The collective.
So you might want to put Laura Ingraham on the list. I mean, I know there is no list, but you know what I mean. Maybe you could also sign her up for one of the re-learning camps when you get those going.
Talk to you later,
Isaac
PS Write back soon!
Monday, June 29, 2009
Butler Shaffer on Monopoly
"Police officers killing innocent persons with impunity (and immunity) is essential to the nature of the state. Given that the state is an institution with a monopoly on the use of violence, to make functionaries of the state responsible for their wrongs is to erode that monopoly; to impose upon the state some standard higher than its own will. Such behavior is but an extension of the logic that underlies every state system, a truth the founders understood quite well when they created the Second Amendment as a partial check on that monopoly."
Butler Shaffer
Butler Shaffer
Friday, June 26, 2009
Three Related Essays
Pep Rallies and Public Schools: How the State Programs Us for War
Why Do They Just Giggle?
Question Authority: Always and Forever Hereafter
There is a common thread running through these essays. If you find it, you get a prize. The prize is a free trip to an undisclosed detention camp for an indeterminate period of time, or one .22LR bullet. Your choice.
Why Do They Just Giggle?
Question Authority: Always and Forever Hereafter
There is a common thread running through these essays. If you find it, you get a prize. The prize is a free trip to an undisclosed detention camp for an indeterminate period of time, or one .22LR bullet. Your choice.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Taxpayers in Revolt, Chapter 4
Taxpayers in Revolt, David T Beito
Blog: Chapter 4, part 3
In further attempts to destroy resistance and prevent the "overthrow of government," the county/city contingent threatened to cut the strikers off from government services. Fred Sargent, chairman of the Committee on Public Expenditures, proposed strategic elimination of water, police protection (how that would be accomplished I don't know), and even legal standing in court. Sargent insisted the strikers should pay their taxes "if they are to claim the rights of American citizenship," which is an interesting concept, but one that doesn't have much backing. A quick perusal of the Declaration of Independence reveals that all men are created equal (which is a self-evident truth), and are endowed by their creator with certain* unalienable rights. So was Fred Sargent claiming the government of the city of Chicago to be the creator of the people who lived there? Or was he claiming that paying taxes gave these people life? Maybe he was stating his belief that the ambiguous and officious entity of bureaucratic government in general provided the validation people needed for existing. I can't say for sure what he was thinking (if he was at all, but I think he and his ilk were just getting desperate), but I do know that any one or any thing that claims to be the source of freedom has appointed themselves in the place of God. A government that claims to provide people with rights that come from God is committing blasphemy.
So after a few measly and cowardly attempts at making an example of high profile ARET members by revoking their government-provided privileges, the executive arm of government turned to the judicial arm for support. Judge Edmund Jarecki dismissed ARET's objections and entered a judgment for the sale of the tax strikers' properties. In a moment of graciousness and charity, he "announced a tempting 50 percent reduction in accumulated penalties for all taxpayers who came into court (bowed before the throne), received judgment (threw themselves at the mercy of the agent of the omnipotent state), and made partial payments (repented of their grievous sins)." I added the parenthetical statements, but is it really that much of a stretch? Is it really so ridiculous to say that government has appropriated God's right to bestow and revoke liberty? Government also attempts to make itself the granter of life, allowing and disallowing as it's mediums see fit, so how far does it have to go before we recognize it as blasphemy?
"And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil." "Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil."
*in this context, does the word "certain" mean a few specific rights, or does it mean rights that are certain, as in secured and unassailable?
Blog: Chapter 4, part 3
In further attempts to destroy resistance and prevent the "overthrow of government," the county/city contingent threatened to cut the strikers off from government services. Fred Sargent, chairman of the Committee on Public Expenditures, proposed strategic elimination of water, police protection (how that would be accomplished I don't know), and even legal standing in court. Sargent insisted the strikers should pay their taxes "if they are to claim the rights of American citizenship," which is an interesting concept, but one that doesn't have much backing. A quick perusal of the Declaration of Independence reveals that all men are created equal (which is a self-evident truth), and are endowed by their creator with certain* unalienable rights. So was Fred Sargent claiming the government of the city of Chicago to be the creator of the people who lived there? Or was he claiming that paying taxes gave these people life? Maybe he was stating his belief that the ambiguous and officious entity of bureaucratic government in general provided the validation people needed for existing. I can't say for sure what he was thinking (if he was at all, but I think he and his ilk were just getting desperate), but I do know that any one or any thing that claims to be the source of freedom has appointed themselves in the place of God. A government that claims to provide people with rights that come from God is committing blasphemy.
So after a few measly and cowardly attempts at making an example of high profile ARET members by revoking their government-provided privileges, the executive arm of government turned to the judicial arm for support. Judge Edmund Jarecki dismissed ARET's objections and entered a judgment for the sale of the tax strikers' properties. In a moment of graciousness and charity, he "announced a tempting 50 percent reduction in accumulated penalties for all taxpayers who came into court (bowed before the throne), received judgment (threw themselves at the mercy of the agent of the omnipotent state), and made partial payments (repented of their grievous sins)." I added the parenthetical statements, but is it really that much of a stretch? Is it really so ridiculous to say that government has appropriated God's right to bestow and revoke liberty? Government also attempts to make itself the granter of life, allowing and disallowing as it's mediums see fit, so how far does it have to go before we recognize it as blasphemy?
"And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil." "Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil."
*in this context, does the word "certain" mean a few specific rights, or does it mean rights that are certain, as in secured and unassailable?
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Taxpayers in Revolt, Chapter 4
Taxpayers in Revolt, David T Beito
Blog: Chapter 4, part 2
The All-City Publicity Committee (ACPC) and their summer jam plan "gave teachers a golden opportunity to turn their publicity for tax collection into an all-pervasive operation." A dream come true, all-pervasiveness! Every government school's fondest wish. Mary Leitch (what an unfortunate but oh-so-appropriate name), the chair of the committee (can we call her a commissar?) pledged 10,000 teachers to volunteer as special collectors. To show what a special lady she was, here's what she said about collecting taxes: "It's a selling job—this collection of taxes. You must make it easy for the customer to buy. You must break down the sales resistance, and there is resistance to paying taxes. There is a mental complex that we must look for." How convenient that the victim can become the customer at the convenience of the state.
So an army of unimind slave trainers was slated to go house to house and convince families to hand over the dough by studying the "mental complex" and breaking down resistance. I've never been to a re-education camp (not including my government school years), but that sounds ominously similar to what might happen at one. This is proof that teachers are underpaid!
Hilariously, the attempt to buoy up a massive parasitic bureaucracy was stifled by bureaucracy—"Swearing in the teachers to serve as deputy collectors presented difficulties because of the prohibitive expense of bonding requirements." In addition, there was a threat of "racketeers posing as teachers to collect money for themselves." (That would be horrible. It's much better for racketeers to pose as tax collectors to collect money for the state beast. As always, don't steal—the government hates competition.) Due to this unfortunate turn of events, it was decided that the teachers would still visit homes to break the will of the tax dodgers, but wouldn't actually collect the money. They would escort the broken mental complex to an official and authorized collector. Somehow that seems even more insidious.
Alas, the whole despicable plan was sunk due to Ms Leitch's lust for power. She was "adamant that teachers be authorized to collect money." Although it would be interesting—but not extremely difficult—to dissect and examine the reasoning behind such a demand, there is no need. The Leitch said it herself. "We want to capitalize on sociological effects of asking for taxes. If we are not deputies our work will be futile." Not only did she want control of the minds of all children, she also wanted teachers to become gendarmes.
And thus we see that government schools are inevitably and inextricably linked to state power, so much so that there is no visible link—they are the same body. One in purpose, you might say. Like the court system, it can't be reasonably expected that there would ever be a significant opinion or practice from the government school system that would result in the promotion of individualist ideas or behavior. Some people refer to this as "socialization," as in "It's important for kids to go to school to become socialized." Indeed, but important for who? Or is it whom? I didn't pay attention in school.
But the teachers could not be discouraged from their righteous cause. A mass meeting of teachers was held in July "to consider what steps to take against those taxpayers who ignored appeals to civic pride and patriotism." Interesting that they thought it was their right to decide what to do about it, but not surprising, since they had already fancied themselves as an elite constabulary. "Among other demands, the gathering endorsed prosecution of tax strikers for criminal conspiracy." Again, the government and all it's tentacles obviously hate competition. Hayden Bell, State's Attorney for Cook County, supported the teachers in their demands because an organized strike is "always immoral, always criminal, as it brings loss and suffering to public workers, and tends directly to the embarrassment and overthrow of government." Nothing is worse than something that exposes the uselessness of government, eh Hayden? Without the complex and criminal apparatus of government you might actually have to work for a living, and that would be a terrible tragedy. Once again, irony is displayed in full view, but goes unperceived by the glorious instructors of youth. Tax strikers are a criminal conspiracy because they conspired to avoid monetary deprivation by an even larger criminal conspiracy which has the resources to extract the property of others by force*. I see. Turns out might does make right.
Next, tools of the state claim the throne of God.
*A more thorough examination of this idea can be found here.
Blog: Chapter 4, part 2
The All-City Publicity Committee (ACPC) and their summer jam plan "gave teachers a golden opportunity to turn their publicity for tax collection into an all-pervasive operation." A dream come true, all-pervasiveness! Every government school's fondest wish. Mary Leitch (what an unfortunate but oh-so-appropriate name), the chair of the committee (can we call her a commissar?) pledged 10,000 teachers to volunteer as special collectors. To show what a special lady she was, here's what she said about collecting taxes: "It's a selling job—this collection of taxes. You must make it easy for the customer to buy. You must break down the sales resistance, and there is resistance to paying taxes. There is a mental complex that we must look for." How convenient that the victim can become the customer at the convenience of the state.
So an army of unimind slave trainers was slated to go house to house and convince families to hand over the dough by studying the "mental complex" and breaking down resistance. I've never been to a re-education camp (not including my government school years), but that sounds ominously similar to what might happen at one. This is proof that teachers are underpaid!
Hilariously, the attempt to buoy up a massive parasitic bureaucracy was stifled by bureaucracy—"Swearing in the teachers to serve as deputy collectors presented difficulties because of the prohibitive expense of bonding requirements." In addition, there was a threat of "racketeers posing as teachers to collect money for themselves." (That would be horrible. It's much better for racketeers to pose as tax collectors to collect money for the state beast. As always, don't steal—the government hates competition.) Due to this unfortunate turn of events, it was decided that the teachers would still visit homes to break the will of the tax dodgers, but wouldn't actually collect the money. They would escort the broken mental complex to an official and authorized collector. Somehow that seems even more insidious.
Alas, the whole despicable plan was sunk due to Ms Leitch's lust for power. She was "adamant that teachers be authorized to collect money." Although it would be interesting—but not extremely difficult—to dissect and examine the reasoning behind such a demand, there is no need. The Leitch said it herself. "We want to capitalize on sociological effects of asking for taxes. If we are not deputies our work will be futile." Not only did she want control of the minds of all children, she also wanted teachers to become gendarmes.
And thus we see that government schools are inevitably and inextricably linked to state power, so much so that there is no visible link—they are the same body. One in purpose, you might say. Like the court system, it can't be reasonably expected that there would ever be a significant opinion or practice from the government school system that would result in the promotion of individualist ideas or behavior. Some people refer to this as "socialization," as in "It's important for kids to go to school to become socialized." Indeed, but important for who? Or is it whom? I didn't pay attention in school.
But the teachers could not be discouraged from their righteous cause. A mass meeting of teachers was held in July "to consider what steps to take against those taxpayers who ignored appeals to civic pride and patriotism." Interesting that they thought it was their right to decide what to do about it, but not surprising, since they had already fancied themselves as an elite constabulary. "Among other demands, the gathering endorsed prosecution of tax strikers for criminal conspiracy." Again, the government and all it's tentacles obviously hate competition. Hayden Bell, State's Attorney for Cook County, supported the teachers in their demands because an organized strike is "always immoral, always criminal, as it brings loss and suffering to public workers, and tends directly to the embarrassment and overthrow of government." Nothing is worse than something that exposes the uselessness of government, eh Hayden? Without the complex and criminal apparatus of government you might actually have to work for a living, and that would be a terrible tragedy. Once again, irony is displayed in full view, but goes unperceived by the glorious instructors of youth. Tax strikers are a criminal conspiracy because they conspired to avoid monetary deprivation by an even larger criminal conspiracy which has the resources to extract the property of others by force*. I see. Turns out might does make right.
Next, tools of the state claim the throne of God.
*A more thorough examination of this idea can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
