Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Fwd: Here is part of a Perfect Storm................



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Here is part of a Perfect Storm................
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 12:05:56 -0500
From: Kerwin, Michael <Michael.Kerwin@ssa.gov>
To: 'dick thompson' <rhomp2002@earthlink.net>


If one looks at the current inventory of house that has remains constant since 2007 – 12 million;
 
Estimate the current Foreclosures and Under Water Housing in this Country…--- 8-10 million
 
Estimate of additional Homes going into Foreclosure or Underwater for one percentage of Interest Rate increase-------- 3 to 5 million homes
 
Government and private Economists estimates of Interest rate increases when Fannie and Freddie go south under the current proposals ----- 3 to 3.5 percent..……
 
Estimate of increase of Long-Term Interest Rate actions taken by the Federal Reserve in next 5 Years ---------   3 to 4 percent
 
Not factored into equation  ----- Inflation Rate….
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Re: Who the hell did THIS to government unions!

OH, even better!

Carter and the democrats forced Reagan's hand to fire the ATC's.

Whao!

On Mar 1, 12:49 pm, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> NO right to strike.
>
> Picketing is limited to informational picketing only. NO picketing in
> a labor-management dispute.
>
> The scope of collective bargaining is limited to personnel employment
> practices only.  Basic working conditions such as wages, hours of
> work, AND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS are instead subject to statutory
> provisions.
>
> Union and agency contract provisions as well as all other forms of
> compulsory union support are prohibited.
>
> The government supervises or conducts union representation elections
>
> Ah, a dem House, Senate and President.
>
> Where was and IS, the outrage!
>
> That DWARFS anything even being considered in Wisconsin.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

The Children's Jihad (video)




The Children's Jihad (video)

via Gates of Vienna, The Children's Jihad The following video shows footage from Sudan of a jihad terror training camp for boys, some of them very young. What is particularly chilling about it is that these scenes of brainwashing and weapons training are being used as propaganda directed at Muslims in Europe and North America [...]

Read more of this post

Add a comment to this post


WordPress

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Reach out to your own subscribers with WordPress.com.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

The OBAMAS: Peabrains


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Leftovers gleeful over censoring websites -- Koch Bros. Targeted by "Anonymous" Hackers | Michael Moore: We Face Global War on Middle Class | Wisconsin Protesters Won't Leave Capitol



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Brawny <brawny@twlakes.net>
Date: Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 7:08 AM
Subject: [hoosiermaster] Koch Bros. Targeted by "Anonymous" Hackers | Michael Moore: We Face Global War on Middle Class | Wisconsin Protesters Won't Leave Capitol
To: NewJersey_for_Kerry@yahoogroups.com, knoxdemocrats@yahoogroups.com, democratsunited@yahoogroups.com, Democrats_2012@yahoogroups.com, Democrats@yahoogroups.com, ohio <ohio_for_kerry@yahoogroups.com>, hoosiermaster@yahoogroups.com, Michigan_for_Kerry@yahoogroups.com, G Sutton <firebase_blackhorse@hotmail.com>, alabama_for_kerry <alabama_for_kerry@yahoogroups.com>


 

 
 
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 3:02 AM
Subject: Koch Bros. Targeted by "Anonymous" Hackers | Michael Moore: We Face Global War on Middle Class | Wisconsin Protesters Won't Leave Capitol
 

AlterNet Newsletter

Alternet
TODAY'S TOP STORIES FEBRUARY 28TH, 2011
<--->
<--->

Workers' Uprising: Madison Capitol Protesters Ignore Gov. Walker's Order to Leave, Key Wisconsin Republicans Defect

Follow the latest developments and analysis on the democratic uprising spreading from Wisconsin to the rest of the country. READ MORE

/ AlterNet

Threat of Benefit Cuts in Wisconsin Prompts Wave of Sudden Retirements

Many public employees have been advised that if they don't get out quickly, they stand to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits they were counting on for retirement. READ MORE

Ruth Conniff / The Progressive

Billionaire Koch Brothers Next Target of "Anonymous" Hacker Group

The hacker group says they are going after tea party financiers Charles and David Koch for their attempts "to usurp American Democracy." READ MORE

Stephen Webster / Raw Story


Support AlterNet by supporting its advertisers

--
-

Michael Moore: We Face a Global War on the Middle Class

Regular people across the world are standing up to elites and saying "No!" to the future they have planned for us. READ MORE

By Michael Moore / MichaelMoore.com

-

10 Ways Scott Walker Is Selling Out His Constituents to Corporations

Walker's assault on public employees is only one part of a larger political program that aims to give corporations free reign in the state. READ MORE

By Kevin Donohoe / Think Progress

-

Want to Stop Overeating? Play With Your Food!

The drive to play with our food -- to handle, shell, peel, pound, grind, cut, cook and carry food -- may be built into our genes. READ MORE

By Carol Deppe / AlterNet

-

"This Is a Magic Moment": Will Wisconsin Change America?

"Kill the bill!" the protesters chant en masse, day after day, while the drums pound and cowbells clang. The spirit of Cairo is here. The air is charged with it. READ MORE

By Andy Kroll / Tomdispatch.com

-

Pakistani and Indian Newspapers Say US CIA Contractor Raymond Davis Organized Terrorist Activities

Davis is the CIA contractor in jail in Lahore facing murder charges for the execution-slayings of two young men believed to be Pakistani intelligence operatives. READ MORE

By Dave Lindorff / This Can't Be Happening

This is an outtake from the 2010 Sex Blogger Calendar. -

Why Lesbian Porn Is the Best

Mainstream porn traffics in male fantasies crafted and executed by men, with not much of women's fantasies or pleasure in mind. READ MORE

By Lisa Gillespie / Campus Progress



DNC Pressures Obama to End Afghanistan War Faster
By AlterNet

South Dakota Passes Law to Require 'Counseling' for Women Seeking Abortions
By Kaili Joy Gray | Daily Kos

The Consequences of the GOP's Budget Plan
By Steve Benen | Washington Monthly

How the Right Launched a Coordinated, All-Fronts Attack on Planned Parenthood.
By digby | Hullabaloo

Why the White House Is Soft on Walmart
By Marion Nestle | Food Politics

You are subscribed as: brawny@twlakes.net

--
<--->
<--->
<--->

SUPPORT ALTERNET | CONTACT US | PRIVACY POLICY | UNSUBSCRIBE

© 2010 Independent Media Institute
All Rights Reserved
77 Federal St., 2nd Floor,
San Francisco, CA 94107

<-->

--
You can unsubscribe from this mailing list at any time.

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Who is Ed Mezvinsky??

Me too. Or better yet - Who cares? I hope Chelsea is happy, and she
and her husband have cute, healthy and wonderful kids.

"Hey! Teacher! Leave them kids alone!"

On Mar 1, 10:26 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I saw this back before the wedding.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  *Who is Ed Mezvinsky* *???*
>
> >   Why the media did not disclose this information? Who is Ed
> > Mezvinsky???
>
> >  http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/mezvinsky.asp
>
> > "Snopes" has a more complete article, all affirming this.
>
> > Edward "Ed" Mezvinsky, born January 17, 1937, is a former Democrat
> > congressman. As a Democrat, he represented Iowa 's 1st congressional
> > district in the United States House of Representatives for two terms, from
> > 1973 to 1977.
>
> >  In March 2001, Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69
> > charges of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud.   Nearly $10 million
> > was involved in the ponzi scheme.
>
> >  After serving five years in federal prison, he was released in April 2008.
> > He is expected to remain on federal probation until 2011, and still owes
> > $9.4 million in restitution to his victims. So who is he???
>
> >  He's Chelsea Clinton's father-in-law.
>
> >  Nary a mention of this in any of the media. If this guy was Jenna or
> > Barbara Bush's, or better yet one of Sarah Palin's daughters, father in law,
> > the news would have replaced the oil spill.
>
> > __._,_.___
> >  Reply to sender<cres...@erols.com?subject=Re%3A%20Who%20is%20Ed%20Mezvinsky%3F%3F>| Reply
> > to group<Individual-Sovereig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Who%20is%20Ed%20Mezvinsky%3F%3F>| Reply
> > via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Individual-Sovereignty/post;_ylc=X3oDMT...>| Start
> > a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Individual-Sovereignty/post;_ylc=X3oDMT...>
> > Messages in this topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Individual-Sovereignty/message/230165;_...>(
> > 1)
> > Recent Activity:
>
> > Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Individual-Sovereignty;_ylc=X3oDMTJlY2U...>
> > Report any problems, suggestions or abuse to
> > Individual-Sovereignty-ow...@yahoogroups.com
>
> >  MARKETPLACE
>
> > Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get
> > the Yahoo! Toolbar now.<http://global.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=15oh9qmie/M=493064.14543979.14365478....>
> >  ------------------------------
>
> > Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.<http://global.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=15oaon6ur/M=493064.14543977.14365476....>
> >  [image: Yahoo! Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkYmVyMm9hBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycEl...>
> > Switch to: Text-Only<Individual-Sovereignty-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>,
> > Daily Digest<Individual-Sovereignty-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>•
> > Unsubscribe<Individual-Sovereignty-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>• Terms
> > of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
> >  .
>
> > __,_._,___
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Public Sector Unions in Wisconsin

NO right to strike.

Picketing is limited to informational picketing only. NO picketing in
a labor-management dispute.

The scope of collective bargaining is limited to personnel employment
practices only. Basic working conditions such as wages, hours of
work, AND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS are instead subject to statutory
provisions.

Union and agency contract provisions as well as all other forms of
compulsory union support are prohibited.

The government supervises or conducts union representation elections


Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.

Dem House, Senate and POTUS.

Where is the dem outrage?

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Who the hell did THIS to government unions!

NO right to strike.

Picketing is limited to informational picketing only. NO picketing in
a labor-management dispute.

The scope of collective bargaining is limited to personnel employment
practices only. Basic working conditions such as wages, hours of
work, AND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS are instead subject to statutory
provisions.

Union and agency contract provisions as well as all other forms of
compulsory union support are prohibited.

The government supervises or conducts union representation elections


Ah, a dem House, Senate and President.

Where was and IS, the outrage!

That DWARFS anything even being considered in Wisconsin.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: EMERGENCY

oh darn Eric

I don't have a Western Union office nearby

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Eric Encina <eric_enciina@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanks for your kindness, Please i will explain more better to you as soon as i get back home.Kindly send the money to me Using Western Union Money Transfer.I will be able to get the money in minutes after you transfer fund with ease. i will explain things to you better when i get home and re-pay back your money,I will get a temporary document in replacement of my stolen passport from the embassy.

Here is  the information you need:
Receivers Name: Eric Encina
Receivers Address: Méndez Alvaro, 30 28045, Madrid, Spain


Write me immediately so that i know when you will have sent it,scan and send me the western union money transfer receipt or just  write out the MTCN on the
receipt and send to me.this mystery is enough..
Thank you.
Eric Encina

--- On Tue, 1/3/11, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: EMERGENCY
To: eric_enciina@yahoo.com
Date: Tuesday, 1 March, 2011, 5:15 PM


sure

can you use an amex number?

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Eric Encina <eric_enciina@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hope you get this on time,sorry I didn't inform you about my trip in Spain for a program, I'm presently in Madrid and am having some difficulties here because i misplaced my wallet on my way to the hotel where my money and other valuable things were kept.I want  you to assist me with a loan of (2,600 Euro = $3300) to sort-out my hotel bills and  to get myself back home.

I have spoken to the embassy here but they are not responding to the matter effectively,I will appreciate whatever you can afford to assist me with,I'll Refund the money back to you as soon as i return, let me know if you can be of any help. I don't have a phone where i can be reached. Please let me know immediately.
    Thanks
    Eric Encina



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

The Libyan Fox at Bay



The Libyan Fox at Bay
by Eric Margolis

Watching Col. Muammar Gadaffi deliver a bombastic, defiant speech last week from the ruins of Tripoli's Bab al-Azizia barracks brought me back to 1987 when Libya's leader led me by the hand through this same wreckage of his former residence.

On 14 April, 1986, US aircraft attacked Libya after a Berlin disco frequented by US soldiers was bombed. US President Ronald Reagan blamed Libya and denounced Gadaffi as the "mad dog of the Middle East."

But a defector from Israel's Mossad later claimed the US had been duped by a false flag operation into believing Libya was behind the attack.

A 2,000-lb US bomb crashed through the ceiling of Gadaffi's private quarters. He was outside in his trademark tent. But his 2-year old adopted daughter was killed. Some 87 other civilians and a few French diplomats also died in what was called a "surgical air strike." Americans thought this raid was dandy.

"Why, Mr. Eric," a clearly confused Gadaffi plaintively asked me, "why were the Americans trying to kill me?" He really seemed at a loss.

"Because, Leader (he liked to be addressed this way) they think you are funding every kind of anti-western group," I replied. "And they will never forgive you for provoking the rise in Arab oil prices."

In those long ago days, Gadaffi, who considered himself a passionate revolutionary, supported every militant group that asked for Libyan help, including Nelson Mandela's African National Congress, various Palestinian groups fighting Israeli occupation, Basque separatists battling Madrid, the Irish Republican Army and Abu Nidal's killers. To Washington, Gadaffi was the world's arch "terrorist."

I was one of the first western journalists to interview Gadaffi (or Khadaffy as it was then spelled) after the US attempt to assassinate him. I also met the senior members of Gadaffi's regime, including his chief of intelligence who was later accused by France of organizing the bombing of a French UTA airliner over Niger in 1989.

After Gadaffi and I spent the evening talking in his colorful Bedouin tent, I had some fun with him. "We may bomb you, Leader, but we also think you are the best-dressed Arab leader." The dazzlingly vain Gadaffi, dressed in a custom made, silk Italian jump suit and zippered kidskin boots, beamed with pleasure. He asked me where he could get the Ralph Lauren safari jacket I was wearing, adding, "you look very militant, Mr. Eric."

I could never get a good fix on Muammar Gadaffi. When he seized power way back in 1969, he was young and very handsome, with movie-star good looks, and an ardent reformist. Gadaffi's hero and father figure was Egypt's charismatic Gamal Abdel Nasser. He was expected to become the second Nasser.

Gadaffi was never the same after Nasser's untimely death in 1970. He grew eccentric, then very odd. He styled himself a revolutionary leader, not a head of state. Libya was to be in permanent semi-anarchy, without any real government or institutions. As the craziness spread, oil billions poured in, allowing Gadaffi to romance foreign heads of state and influence Africa. But his fellow Arabs rejected him as a rich but dangerous, mercurial clown.

Watching Italy's PM Silvio Berlusconi, France's President Nicholas Sarkozy and other world leaders squirm with embarrassment walking next to Gadaffi decked out in flamboyant, clownish uniforms straight from an Italian "opera buffo" was always amusing. Everyone mocked Libya's madcap "Leader," but loved his money even more.

However zany and bizarre, Gadaffi was clever as a fox and had more lives than a cat. He survived many attempts on his life mounted by US, British, French and Egyptian intelligence.

In 2003, in a brilliant ploy, Gadaffi bought a pile of nuclear junk on the black market, then told Washington he was giving up his nuclear weapons program. The Bush administration fell for this ruse and ended its punishing boycott of Libya, thrilled it could claim a nuclear victory after finding no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Col. Gadaffi bought peace with the western powers by cutting them into Libya's rich oil fields, investing billions in European industry and banking, and joining George Bush's faux "war on terror."

But now that Libya is convulsed by revolution, Gadaffi seems to have used up all his nine lives. His area of control is shrinking fast, though there are many Libyans who still support him – for the moment.

Events in Libya are moving very fast, and their outcome remains uncertain. "Leader" Muammar Gadaffi is hunkered down in Tripoli, defended by loyal army units from his tribe and mercenaries from black Africa. But opposition forces appear to be closing in on Tripoli as the threat of all-out civil war in Libya grows.

While Libya burns, there are serious discussions afoot in Washington and Europe about imposing an Iraq-style "no fly zone" in Libya, followed by possibly western military intervention. Libya would be "stabilized," a client regime made up of CIA-organized exiles installed, and Libya's oil fields made safe for western companies. A western invasion and occupation would be decked up as a peacekeeping/humanitarian mission.

Libya would return to pre-Gadaffi days when it was ruled by a British-managed figurehead king, the doddering Ibn Idris. That is, if Libya does not dissolve into tribal and clan warfare, or break up into western and eastern parts.

Italy, Libya's former brutal colonial ruler, and now main oil customer, may be eager to get involved. So, too, Egypt, France, and, of course, the US and Britain. Oil remains the ultimate geopolitical aphrodisiac.

If driven from Tripoli, Gadaffi will take refuge in his tribe's territory, or bolt to Italy or Venezuela. His five spoiled, feuding sons are unlikely to emerge as Libya's new rulers. All dictators seem to have terrible problems with their out-of-control sons.

Gadaffi is a sad example of the maxim about absolute power corrupting absolutely. People like me who relish political theater of the absurd will miss the "Leader;" but most of his people, I suspect, will not.

While Gadaffi prepares for his last stand, the next storm to hit North Africa may come in Algeria and Morocco, two western-supported regimes that are considerably more brutal and repressive than Gadaffi's ramshackle "people's jamuhyria."

The revolution now burning across the Arab world – and perhaps as far east as Central Asia, even China – has just begun.

www.ericmargolis.com

Lessons from a Bloated Budget


"The issue is the proper role of government. Limiting government to its proper role will automatically cause the spending problem to disappear. The government needs to be gotten completely out of the places it doesn't belong.
...
"Consider just two issues that are always in the news: health care and education. Because the proper role of government is not the issue that it should be, the debate over health care and education among liberals and conservatives and Democrats and Republicans is always how government should fix or reform health care and education instead of why the government should do it. It is precisely because of government intervention into health care and education that they are in the condition they are in."

Lessons from a Bloated Budget
by Laurence M. Vance, Posted March 1, 2011

President Obama has just sent to Congress the largest federal budget ever in U.S. history. His $3.518 trillion budget is also the most unbalanced in history, with a built-in deficit of $1.413 trillion.

The United States has rarely in its history had a balance of receipts and outlays. Deficit spending has been the norm, with the last real budget surplus occurring in 1957 under Dwight Eisenhower and a Democratic Congress. The handful of budget surpluses since then under Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton were the result of creative accounting practices involving the Social Security "trust fund."

Although the Constitution doesn't mention a federal budget, and it is ultimately up to Congress to decide how much the federal government will spend in any given fiscal year, according to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, the president must annually submit a budget to Congress by the first Monday in February.

The government's fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30. That means that the budget submitted in February is actually for the next fiscal year that begins in October. On February 1 of this year, President Obama submitted to Congress his proposed FY2011 budget.

This is some budget. Not only does it promise to expand AmeriCorps, education funding, job training, biomedical research, and space exploration, it also aims to provide "opportunities for the LGBT [lesbian-gay-bisexual-transsexual] community" in the form of increased AIDS treatment, care, and prevention activities; federal employee domestic-partner benefits; and more funding to strengthen anti-discrimination efforts.

But as dark a cloud of a budget it is, this budget does have a silver lining. It should forever put to rest two ideas sometimes touted by conservatives as ways to "make the government accountable" or "bring responsibility to Washington" or "restore fiscal stability to the ship of state": a balanced-budget amendment and a national sales tax.


A legitimate budget?

Although the idea was not new at the time, a balanced-budget amendment gained national prominence when it was included as part of the Republican Contract with America in 1994. Although passed by the House, it was rejected by the Senate. The problem with balanced-budget proposals is threefold. One, they almost always contain a super-majority exception in the case of national emergency or war. That means that Congress can unbalance any balanced budget it passes. Second, the answer to an unbalanced budget will be tax increases of some kind. Sure, there might be some spending cuts, but the tax increases will always end up being more than the spending cuts. Third, and most important, compliance with a balanced-budget amendment legitimizes the budget.

Would Obama's $3.518 trillion budget be acceptable if it were balanced? Of course it wouldn't. And neither would Bush's trillion-dollar budgets. The Republican Revolution that culminated in a Republican majority in the House, Senate, and White House under George W. Bush was, of course, an absolute failure. The national debt increased by about $5 trillion on Bush's watch. Pardon my cynicism, but I just can't get excited about the Republicans in the House and Senate who just recently and unanimously rejected the Democrats' increase in the federal debt limit to $14.3 trillion. The debt limit was raised seven times during the Bush years. And there was even a Republican majority in Congress for more than half of the time that Bush was president.

Any talk of balancing a federal budget that so grossly exceeds what could even broadly be considered constitutional is ludicrous. There is nothing congressmen would love better than to be able to talk about how fiscally responsible they are because they have a balanced budget, while at the same time spending more than $3 trillion confiscated from the pockets of taxpayers. The budget doesn't need to be legitimized by being balanced; it needs to be slashed, and slashed drastically. That is true of Obama's budget just as it was true of Bush's budgets, Reagan's budgets, Carter's budgets, Nixon's budgets, and even the "balanced" budgets of Johnson and Clinton.


The national sales tax

The other idea that Obama's bloated budget should lay to rest is any notion of a national sales tax. Legislation to replace the income tax with a national sales tax, called the FairTax, has been introduced in Congress since 1999 by Representative John Linder (R-Ga.). The FairTax is a consumption tax in the form of a national retail sales tax of 23 percent on all services and the final sale of all new goods. All services, except tuition, would be subject to the FairTax. And although the FairTax would be levied only on new goods, nothing would be exempt, including food and Internet purchases. In return, there would no longer be federal income taxes, capital-gains taxes, social-insurance taxes, unemployment taxes, or estate taxes. However, all tax deductions would be eliminated, and all other federal taxes would be retained, as would state sales and income taxes.

The appeal of the FairTax is its simplicity: no more complex tax code, no more arcane tax forms and schedules, no more tedious record keeping. But that simplicity comes with a price. The FairTax plan creates new taxes, new taxpayers, and new tax collectors. And in addition to a multitude of other problems with the FairTax, its main deficiency is that, like all other current tax-reform plans, it is revenue neutral. It allows the federal government to raise more efficiently the same amount of revenue that it does currently. The FairTax merely changes the way that taxes to fund a $3.518 trillion budget are collected. It shifts the debate from how much wealth the federal government confiscates to how the wealth is confiscated. Yet, as Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.) has remarked on several occasions, "The real issue is total spending by government, not tax reform."

Under the FairTax, all federal departments, all federal programs, all federal agencies, all federal projects, all earmarks, all pork-barrel spending -- they would all continue just as now. Thus, Congress could continue its spending orgy while taking credit for simplifying the tax code and making it fairer. The root of the problem is clearly taxation itself, not the tax code. The problem with the code is not that it is too complex, too intrusive, too long, too full of loopholes, too unfair, or too progressive. The problem is that it is used to fund trillion-dollar budgets.

Twenty years ago federal spending was only about one-third as much as it will be in FY2011. Congressional spending is clearly out of control. What we don't need, though, is a freeze on discretionary spending (as proposed by Obama), baseline budgeting, spending increases limited to the rate of inflation, a cap on federal spending at a certain percentage of GDP, or a rollback in discretionary spending to some previous fiscal year (as proposed by Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe).

What Republicans want is a slight reduction in the welfare state with an increase in the warfare state. Democrats regularly call for just the opposite: a slight reduction in the warfare state with an increase in the welfare state.

As I have maintained, government spending should be slashed, and slashed drastically. But it shouldn't just be slashed because of skyrocketing congressional appropriations. It should be slashed because it is funding a government that habitually exceeds its limited constitutional authority.


The proper role of government

The issue is the proper role of government. Limiting government to its proper role will automatically cause the spending problem to disappear. The government needs to be gotten completely out of the places it doesn't belong. In his powerful pamphlet Common Sense, Thomas Paine remarked, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." The federal government today embodies the role of government described by Volaire: "The art of government is to make two-thirds of a nation pay all it possibly can pay for the benefit of the other third."

Consider just two issues that are always in the news: health care and education. Because the proper role of government is not the issue that it should be, the debate over health care and education among liberals and conservatives and Democrats and Republicans is always how government should fix or reform health care and education instead of why the government should do it. It is precisely because of government intervention into health care and education that they are in the condition they are in.

In Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution there are delegated specific powers to the federal government. The Tenth Amendment says that whatever is not delegated to the central government is reserved to the states or to the people. The national government has been delegated no authority concerning health care and education. Because state constitutions have provisions regarding health care and education, we can and should debate -- at the state level -- the necessity of the states to provide, control, or regulate those things. At the national level, however, everything is perfectly clear: There should be no federal laws whatsoever concerning health care or education.

That means that there should be no federal laws regarding medical licensing, medical devices, organ sales, medical insurance, medical records, or hospital admissions. There should be no agencies such as the FDA, the Department of Health and Human Services, or the National Institutes of Health. There should be no programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, or SCHIP. There should be no federal funding of laboratories, databases, community health centers, medical research, clinical trials, family planning, vaccinations, or HIV/AIDS prevention initiatives. There should be no federal regulation of physicians, nurses, hospitals, nursing homes, drug companies, pharmacies, or the practice of alternative medicine.

Likewise, when it comes to education, there should be no Pell Grants; no federal student loans; no research grants to colleges; no educational vouchers; no Department of Education; no National Math and Science Initiative; no bilingual education mandates; no legislation such as the No Child Left Behind Act, the Race to the Top Fund, the National School Lunch Act, or the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; and no funding of any public or private school.

The surest way to return the size, scope, and cost of the federal government to its proper constitutional authority is to drastically reduce its funding. Obama's budget shouldn't be legitimized by making it comply with a balanced-budget amendment, and neither should it be funded by replacing one tax with another. Like the budgets of his predecessors, Obama's budget should be scrapped for so grossly exceeding what could even broadly be considered the constitutional functions of the limited government established by the Founders. Restoring the republic depends on it.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd1011e.asp

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Mark: What you have done is to be a party crasher, like MJ. You've
overstepped you bounds by bossing me, the author of the post, around.
Anyone who would do that has to be a leftist, socialist-communist who
is frightened in their loaded jockeys that I will succeed in my
efforts to save America's free enterprise, capitalist system. Those
of your ilk are NOT wanted on this post! — John A. Armistead —
Patriot
>
On Feb 28, 5:44 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> NoEinstein.... what you have done in these last posts is SPAM the board...
> one more time and you go to moderation.
>
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:07 PM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > MJ, the party crasher, is undeserving of a reply.  — J. A. A. —
>
> > On Feb 28, 10:26 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > >Sage 2:  Our Constitution is inside of a bomb-proof vault.  About a
> > > >century ago, politicians learned how to pay the Constitution lip-
> > > >service while working around the spirit of that WEAK document to do
> > > >whatever they want.
>
> > > And how will YOUR unseen panacea Constitution CHANGE this problem?
> > > Did you include "Pretty Please" throughout?
> > > Oh yeah ... you cannot tell us ... you cannot show us ... you are to
> > > afraid that
> > > this so-called masterpiece falls short and that a bunch of rank amateur
> > > imbeciles (your premise) might demonstrate such to you. Oh the
> > embarrassment!
>
> > > >you don't qualify to judge my creative efforts for the benefit of the
> > USA!
>
> > > Yeah, apparently this thing does not exist.
> > > Why else do we get endless pomposity, fallacy spews and no delivery?
>
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJ
>
> > > Our moment permits interest in one question only: Will we, of
> > > Deadwood, be more than just targets for ass-fucking? -- Al Swearengen
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> --
> *Mark M. Kahle H.*
> *
> *
> *Fila Coffee*
> *www.filacoffee.com*

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

MJ, the party crasher, is undeserving of a reply. — J. A. A. —
>
On Feb 28, 4:14 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> And yet ... three replies were provided.
> Too bad this *magical* Constitution has not.
> And too bad this pertinent question was ignored:Sage 2:  Our Constitution is inside of a bomb-proof vault.  About acentury ago, politicians learned how to pay the Constitution lip-service while working around the spirit of that WEAK document to dowhatever they want.And how will YOUR unseen panacea Constitution CHANGE this problem?Did you include "Pretty Please" throughout? For someone claiming themselves to be so smart ....
> Regard$,
> --MJ "Bureaucrats write memoranda both because they appear to be busy when they are writing and because the memos, once written, immediately become proof that they were busy" -- Charles Peters.At 04:01 PM 2/28/2011, you wrote:MJ, the party crasher, is undeserving of a reply.  — J. A. A. —
> >
> On Feb 27, 11:03 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > If I had to point out the characteristic trait that differentiates socialism from [a proper view of the political economy], I should find it here. Socialism includes a countless number of sects. Each one has its own utopia, and we may well say that they are so far from agreement that they wage bitter war upon one another. Between M. Blanc's organized social workshops and M. Proudhon's anarchy, between Fourier's association and M. Cabet's communism, there is certainly all the difference between night and day. What then, is the comon denominator to which all forms of socialism are reducible, and what is the bond that unites them against natural society, or society as planned by Providence? There is none except this: They do not want natural society. What they want is an artificial society, which has come forth full-grown from the brain of its inventor... They quarrel over who will mould the human clay, but they agree that there is human clay to mould. Mankind is not in their eyes a living and harmonious being endowed by God Himself with the power to progress and to survive, but an inert mass that has been waiting for them to give it feeling and life; human nature is not a subject to be studied, but matter on which to perform experiments. -- Frédéric BastiatAt 10:59 PM 2/27/2011, you wrote:<Grin>!!  "Date: 1837. From Latin socialis for "friend" or "companion" or "associate". Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; usually there is no private property; in Marxist theory this is also considered just a transitional stage between capitalism and communism and it is distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done." The above definition is by Mr. John Spargo, from his work titled: "Socialism, A Summary And Interpretation Of Socialist Principles" (McMillan & Co. 1913).
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashleyii@lavabit.com> wrote:John,I know I'm not Sage 2, but you wrote:> Making socialist-communist promises to the lazy wasn't nixed by any language of the Constitution.Since Robert Owen (in 1817) appears to be the first person to publicly entertain the idea of alleviating poverty through the creation of social communities; and since the term "socialism" itself was first used in early 1830s Britain by the followers of Owen and in France by those of Claude- Henri de Rouvroy comte de Saint-Simon; and since the terms "communism" and "communist" appeared first among the Parisian revolutionists of the 1830s, just how exactly were the authors of the Constitution (adopted in 1787) supposed to nix "by any language" such concepts?I'm sure you on the other hand, as brilliant as you have claimed to be, can look into your crystal ball and see (prior to their first existence) concepts and terminology that may appear 20-30 years from now.On 2/27/2011 4:14 PM, NoEinstein wrote:Dear Sage 2:  Consider this:  If our original Constitution was soperfect, how has it been possible that government evolved away fromthe ideals of the Founding Fathers?  It did so because that documentis WEAK!  There was an assumption that elected officials would bemotivated to do what is best for the country (ha!).  But everyoneknows politicians do what they know gives them the best chance ofgetting re elected.  Making socialist-communist promises to the lazywasn't nixed by any language of the Constitution.  But my NewConstitution will hang for treason anyone advocating socialism—theanti-thesis of the democratic ideals of the Founding Fathers.  Isuspect that you are far more left than the country can tolerate.Please give the readers a capsule description of your feelings aboutthe free-market capitalist system that made the USA great.  And aboutyour ideas on the role of government in such an economy.  Thanks.  —John A. Armistead, — Patriot —On Feb 26, 11:11 pm, Sage2<wisdom...@gmail.com>wrote:       Hey Keith, Mark et al,     Suffice it to say that OUR Constitution need never be rewrittennor changed, but from time to time revisited to it's original intentand meaning, less personal interpretation. " It is what it is " andwas not intended to be anything more nor anything less than that. Theonly true recourse the founding fathers wisely gave us was the "amendment " and even they should be rare and few. We should not try tofix what ain't broke by breaking that which don't need fixing !*************************************************************************** *********************************************************On Feb 26, 6:31 am, KeithInSeoul<keithinta...@gmail.com>wrote:Greetings from Seoul Korea John!Uhm.....This seems to me, to be, "Much Ado, About Nothing".....We'd all like to read your "New Constitution";  but if ya don't want toshare it with the group, that is your perogative.The purpose of Political Forum is to share political thought, ideas,commentary and opinion, as well as to comment on government, politics, worldaffairs and current events.  (And occasionally,  pro football andbaseball!)  Your posts I find sometimes interesting and usually thoughtprovoking, so therein lied my initial interest in you posting your, "NewConstitution".   It was never my intent to get a shit storm started!If you take the time to read both Jonathan's and Michael's posts, you willfind that both men are thoughtful, and probably share many of the sameconcerns as you do.  I consider myself a conservative libertarian, (not somuch a capitalist as I am one who beleives in protection of free marketenterprise, and I believe that there is a distinction between a, "freemarket"  versus an economic system such as capitalism, of which I alsosupport and subscribe to.   Jonathan and Michael are damn near anarchists,(and I say that with a smile on my face, I don't think either would agreewith me!!)  but the point being, is that instead of taking the route of manyof the nasty, hateful rhetorical smear merchants from the far left,  (e.g.;the Wacko left socialist-elitist Moonbats)  who from time to time and onoccasion chime in here;  I would like to think that the thoughtful, wellreasoned conservative voices of Politicall Forum can have discussion, aswell as disagreement with a little more civility!At any rate,  have a good Saturday....Mine is almost over!KeithInSeoulOn Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 12:16 PM, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:MJ:  You are NOT wanted on this post!  In the last few weeks you'vemanaged to give your cook-booked quotations of others, and your ownbreakfast-table-written "constitution" of sorts.  But you have noteven gone back into my thread to read about my New Constitution, whichis detailed in essays that highlight the apt portions of my document.And you obviously have no "Regard$" for...
> >
> > read more »
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Public Sector Unions in Wisconsin


Public Sector Unions in Wisconsin
by Walter Block

Public sector unions in Wisconsin have been in the news of late. They are reacting against Republican Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, who is trying to curtail their power and pelf. Virtually all Democrats support the labor organization, and there can be few Republicans who do not favor the Wisconsin governor.

What is the proper free enterprise or libertarian position? I attempted to answer that question in this blog. My answer in a nutshell was, Both. Let them have at each other, each of them weakening the other. A pox on both houses, was how I put it.

Yes, unions are disgusting and repulsive institutions, as the right side of the political spectrum properly emphasizes. They restrict entry into the labor market, and either beat up potential competitors who they characterize as "scabs" (where are the politically correct opponents of hate speech when we need them?), and/or get the government to do this evil deed for them, via legislation such as the Wagner Act which forbids employers from hiring replacement workers on a permanent basis.

However, we advocates of the freedom philosophy must never forget that the government is also an illicit, illegitimate and entirely vile organization. Its middle name is also initiatory violence. We must never blindly follow the Republicans in their support of the state.

According to that brilliant sociologist Franz Oppenheimer:

"There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one's own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others. . . . I … call one's own labor and the … exchange of one's own labor for the labor of others, the 'economic means' for the satisfaction of need while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the 'political means.' . . . The State is an organization of the political means."

This seemed like a simple call to me. I thought most readers of the LewRockwell.com would react to this blog of mine with a ho hum, what else is new, of course, attitude. However, I reckoned falsely. I did not realize that there are quite a few brilliant people who read this blog, many of whom disagreed with me, some of them strongly. Inadvertently, I had created a firestorm of interest in this issue. Let me share some of these responses with you. The present essay is an attempt to deal with them, anonymously for the most part but not entirely, along with my replies to them.

There were a few reactions that were very positive. I know that I am on the correct analytic path when the great Bob Wenzel supports my position. One comment went so far as to say "Brilliant! This made me reconsider my own position in a way that only Rothbard and Hoppe have. That's about the highest compliment I can give..." My only response to that compliment was: "Thanks. That's a pretty fast crowd you put me in. I can't think of a higher compliment. I'm honored."

Here are some other positive responses: "Your blog post on the Wisconsin showdown was interesting and informative! Having read the (very good) book Alongside Night, I can understand and even sympathize with it." Once again, Ayn Rand hits the nail on the head. Here is another supportive reaction: "… the longer the squabble goes on, the fewer days in school for the children. That has to be a plus." A plus indeed. Given that public education is on net balance a negative, the less of it the better. I can't resist sharing one last one: "Sir Walter, Your logic is impeccable, as always. A devoted fan." My reaction to this is that it is letters like this that make it all worthwhile.

Now for the critical responses to my blog. There were several that were so impolite I just ignored them, and continue to do so now. But here are some thoughtful critiques.

Criticism 1. "… why must one choose sides in an issue when both sides are wrong? Is there some 'law' that says this must be done? Although Jane Fonda was correct in protesting our involvement in the Vietnam War, she was wrong about supporting the North Vietnamese. She should have condemned the entire war. I condemn anyone who uses force, be it a government bureaucRAT or a union thug."

Response 1. If we take this objection literally, we libertarians must all become pacifists. Surely, adherence to the non-aggression principle implies no such requirement. We must only oppose initiatory force, not any force at all. Of more relevance to the present situation, I think this critic misunderstands what I meant by saying "I favor the union thugs, not the government thugs." Of course both sides were wrong. Did I not say "… a pox on both of them"? When there are two bad guys duking it out, it is not anti-libertarian to hope that the fight lasts as long as possible, so that each side can inflict maximum philosophical damage on the other. And, if one is weaker than the other, the more strength that can be imparted to that side, the longer the conflagration will continue.

Criticism 2. "Government employee unions are the lesser of two evils? They need to be broken. They are parasites upon the back of the rest of us. As far as government being the real evil you are correct. We cannot get rid of it yet but we can bust their unions. Please rethink your position."

Response 2. Well, yes, certainly government unions are evil. And, so are private ones. They all engage in restrictive entry, whether by blue collar (explicit violence against "scabs") or white collar (labor legislation) methods. Of course, it is entirely possible for organized labor to act compatibly with libertarianism. All they have to do is limit themselves to mass quits, and eschew all attempts to prevent other workers from taking the jobs they spurn. However, purely as an empirical matter, I know of no union that limits itself in any such manner. So, yes, I agree with this critic that unions are parasites (well, I prefer "tapeworms," but I'm not going to argue this point). Indeed, my credentials as a hater of unions consist of a long paper trail. Almost 100 pages of this book of mine are devoted to an excoriation of this institution. However, to make this point, and only this point, is to fall into the Republican trap. Our justified venom for unions should not blind us to the fact that the state, too, is an enemy of freedom, and, indeed, when push comes to shove, a more powerful and daunting one.

Criticism 3. "I am a big fan of you and your work. I bought your book on the privatization of roads. I agree with you probably 95% of the time. But in this instance you are being illogical. These are not two separate entities. They are different factions of the same entity. They are all part of the government. Breaking government unions severely weakens the government. Much of their voting power is derived from getting as many tax collectors on the payroll as possible."

Response 3. Thanks for your kind remarks. You make a good point to the effect that the unions are like junior partners in the ruling class. Murray Rothbard would agree, as do I. However, right now, there is a falling out between thieves. It is as if a senior and a junior gang member are fighting. They can, logically, do this, even though in some (very important) sense they are part of the same entity. I don't see why my analysis must be jettisoned because of your very valid point. Why cannot we both be correct?

Criticism 4. "Do you root for the coercive unions in Greece as well, since they are opposing the Greece State? I am confused why someone I consider one of the greatest living Voluntarist Libertarians is condoning coercive activity. Tactically, why would you ever root for one of two wholly coercive organizations, even if one is weaker? Not only are you now rooting for a wholly coercive organization, but in the end there will probably be some coercive 'compromise' that just increases coercion and negates Voluntarism.

"Unlike with the German invasion of Russia – where you can support defending against the unsolicited, coercive invasion, even if it is being defended against by coercive Bolsheviks; you are clearly supporting the defense and not the Bolsheviks – supporting the coercive unions has no clear underlying Voluntarist principle. The 'underdogs' are screaming for mass unsolicited coercion, and nothing else. Why not just say you are opposed to any violation of the Non-Coercion Principle, so you clearly support no one? Just like, for instance, the Civil War in Spain?"

Response 4. Thanks for your generous compliment. I "support" both sides in the Spanish Civil War: It would be great if they had killed each other off. Neither the Fascists nor the Communists are friends of freedom. Yes, the relationship between the Greek government and the Greek unions is roughly parallel to that between the Wisconsin state and its unions. The same analysis would therefore apply. I am only "rooting for a wholly coercive organization" so that it has the strength to weaken a stronger "wholly coercive organization." Why is that incompatible with the non-aggression principle? I do indeed come close to your suggestion that I "support no one" with my "pox on both houses" statement. But, literally, if I supported no one, and, somehow, magically, my wishes came into being, then there would be labor peace, and no weakening of either of these vicious institutions, the government or the unions. Can't a libertarian welcome the weakening of both? I'm just (dramatically) making the point that both the union and the government violate the NAP. Surely, you agree with me on that?

Criticism 5. "You support people who are trying to loot the public? I don't understand. If you think that both groups are thugs, why don't you refuse to support either group? If the state government is a criminal enterprise because it taxes the people, then surely the union is just as bad, if not worse, because they not only support the taxation, they encourage even more taxation because they want more of the stolen loot for themselves. I guess you didn't exactly say you supported the unions, only that you were 'rooting' for them over the governor. But I would rather root for the governor, because the less loot that is being handed over to thugs, whether the thugs are unions or corporations, the less stealing from taxpayers the government will be able to justify."

Response 5. I actually oppose both the government and the unions. I only "support" them in the sense that I'm rooting for them to fight each other, so that both may be undermined. The government, I fear, violates rights on a far more massive scale than do the unions. It is not for nothing that the latter are merely the junior partners in this illicit conspiracy.

Criticism 6. "I think I would have to disagree with you in this case. Normally, union thugs get together (i.e. 'negotiate') with government thugs to give away Other People's Money to the union thugs to the betterment of both the union thugs and the government thugs. In this case, if the government wins, at least we're subjected to only a quotient of 1/2 thuggery. It's sort of like the set theory of a 'lesser infinity' of thuggery."

Response 6. You make an important point. But, in my view, given that the government is far more powerful than a bunch of unions, if they win, they will do far worse things than steal a few more bucks from the long-suffering taxpayers. Anyone ever hear of the drug war? Of massive government regulations? Of taxes for expenses other that public sector unions?

Criticism 7. "Your advocacy of the union position will mean ever increasing taxes for us in Wisconsin. That's fine for you. Not so great for us here in Wisconsin. Thanks for your support for the free market. Not. Do you run away from your job? Do you ignore a legal election and the consequences? Do you use fraud and lies to get out of work? Fake Dr notes. DO you even believe in representative government? You have a nice gig going in academia , wouldn't want to rock the boat with your fellow "educators", would you. I have either misunderstood your political humor on this matter, or no longer have the respect for you I once did. Nothing to keep you awake at night I'm sure. Plug this union hissy fit into the typical media template at your peril."

Response 7. You say this as if it were a foregone conclusion. But, I think it is most unlikely that this spat between the governor and the public sector unions will result in higher taxes. To begin with, right now a lot of "services" are shut down. Less work means reduced salaries. In the long run, whether taxes go up or down, given balanced budgets, depends upon the path of expenditures. If each of these contending parties weakens the other, the prospects look good for less spending. On the other hand, I readily admit, this is an empirical issue. I might be wrong. But as a matter of deontology (rights) it seems clear that taking down the government a peg or two is compatible with libertarianism, even if taxes increase as a result. Ragnar Danneskjold breaks into Fort Knox and liberates some gold (assuming there's some of this precious metal in there; work with me on this). As a result, the government raises taxes. Does that definitively demonstrate that this hero of Atlas Shrugged was violating libertarian law? Not a bit of it. See on this here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

As to your other complaints I am not at all a fan of legal elections nor representative government, nor democracy. Hitler, after all, came to power under precisely these conditions; surely, what he subsequently did is not compatible with libertarianism, what we all learned in 6th grade civics course to the contrary notwithstanding. I am more a fan of monarchy than I am of democracy. See Hoppe's brilliant book on this matter. However, you've got me dead to rights on your "educators" charge. I wouldn't dare write anything not approved by the politically correct academic establishment. As for those fake doctor's notes, if they were struck off the medical lists that would be just fine with me. Oops, that's not politically correct, is it?

Criticism 8A. This two-part back-and-forth series was initiated by Four Arrows, my friend, sparring partner and co-author of this book: "Of course Indigeous Peoples in traditional cultures never had nor needed unions and rejected external authority except for a willingness to listen to gifted shamans who had talked to spirits, but even this would be rejected if life experience and honest reflection on it challenged the shaman perspective. But greed was also not a cultural phenomenon. So here is a question I don't know how you will answer. In the real world, not some idealized heaven, if you live in a town where greed has caused great inequities in the capitalistic system and you are a trained miner as has been all the generations of your family who live in a particular place that you do not wish to leave, and you go to work for the only business in town that bought up everything, so now you are a miner working in the mines but because of greed the mines are unsafe and someone dies every month needlessly while the guy drives a Rolls, etc. Several co-workers come to you and say, Walter, this is not right. We have to do something. We've asked the owner to set up a simple safety system that we know he can afford and he refuses. Shall we strike and see if we get his attention? What do you say?"

Response 8A. A strike equals refusal to work plus preventing others from taking the jobs you spurn. A strike is never justified. Ever. But, a mass refusal to work is compatible with libertarianism. Mass quits, or mass withdrawals of labor (allowing "scabs" to take our places if the owner chooses to ignore us; e.g., not beating up the scabs) will usually get the owner's attention. As for greed, we miners are greedy, too. We want higher wages: total wages = money wages plus working conditions. We want better working conditions (more safety) and are not willing to lower our money wages. So, we are greedily asking for an increase in total wages. Greed makes the world go round. The owner is greedily driving around in a Rolls, but we miners have got Hondas. Not too shabby.

Criticism 8B (also from Four Arrows): "I find your reply naïve and with extraneous added and misleading information. Why naïve? Because you compare as equally 'greedy' the miners trying to earn a living that can sustain them with the CEO's quest for unlimited wealth and power, a common trait of an 'owner' housing a football field of stored antique cars while his workers risk their lives for an average of $33,000 to 40,000 dollars a year (coal miner's wage's in Tennessee) and the owner refuses to spend a reasonable amount of money to prevent obvious and documented unsafe working conditions. Maybe you can buy a Honda on this income and raise a family and pay for health insurance, maybe not. But it is beside the point. And I could offer many examples besides the 'high earning' miner that definitely could not afford the Honda. Wait, as I think of these examples I have to say your remarks are not naïve, they are illogical. As for adding misleading information, a strike is a work stoppage undertaken in support of a bargaining position or in protest of some aspect of a proposed agreement between labor and management. In effect, it is just what you say, 'a mass refusal to work.' Modern strikers don't beat up scabs and it is common for the company to hire scabs. So then, you must agree that unions that support 'a mass refusal to work' are compatible with your position. Wow, that was easy! So why all the anti-union talk? How can the strike, which is defined as a mass refusal to work, be 'never justified?' Here is yet another logical contradiction and vague distinction in your libertarianism, it seems."

Response 8B: Yes, indeed, the owners and the workers are equally greedy. The former are merely more successful than the latter. When is the last time a worker turned down a higher wage in favor of a lower one? When is the last time a worker paid more for house or car or a pizza than he had to? Yes, equally greedy. As a first approximation, we are all equally greedy (with the exception of Mother Theresa, Gandhi, and maybe a very few others). Some are more successful at pursuing greed, but that is another matter.

But, greed is a bit beside the point. I think your more relevant sally concerns my supposed illogic concerning strikes. Modern unionists don't beat up scabs? I disagree; here is some evidence to the contrary. But, in a sense you are right: modern unionists initiate explicit violence against scabs much less than previously. But, that is because they now have the government do this for them, in effect, via labor legislation such as the Wagner Act, which forces the firm to bargain "fairly" with the union, when it would prefer to fire all the unionists, and replace them with "scabs." Initiatory violence is initiatory violence is initiatory violence, and it doesn't much matter if the "blue collar" unionists do this themselves, or, go "white collar" and have the state do their dirty work for them.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block173.html