State of the country

[DanielVogelbach]

Well said Daniel.

The Commerce clause empowered Congress to regulate commerce "among" the states...not "of" the states. It essentially gave congress the duty to protect the free market between the states. Not control it.

Ironically it was the railroads and the regulation there of that opened the door for the Interstate Commerce Commision (1887). The High Court ruled that Congress could regulate all interstate commerce and override state laws that protected state interests. Thus began the long march to the sea of economic tyranny....and its brain child...centralization.

In our lifetime we have watch the regulatory agencies write their own laws, establish their own courts, make their own rulings. First Congress took the power, then gave it to unelected commissions, and it the process turn states into welfare disbursement centers.

"Protecting" the free market sounds like semantics for regulating it. It's my view that any attempt to "govern" the free market should be seen as criminal behavior. Even if the intentions are good, it doesn't matter. This gets into the socialist meme "ideas so good, they must be mandatory". In the free market, you have to convince people. Government is really just a way to force people into contracts without their consent, which is naturally abused by the super wealthy that control all the politicians. Any sort of government document granting or protecting freedom is essentially horseshit, because they can revoke these freedoms at any point. (Covid lockdowns anyone?)

One thing that should make people skeptical is just exactly how often the word "freedom" is used by politicians and patriotic songs. It's really quite the inversion, since the entire role of the government is to limit your freedom. In every so-called "country" where the uniforms and flags are mostly slight variations of each other, kids are taught to love their country and that it's completely legitimate for a passport to be required for a person to travel across imaginary lines claimed by these mythological authorities.

Many people think that the market must be regulated to prevent human nature from causing problems. However, they never stop to think about how exactly this human nature magically disappears when you give people government authority. "Oh well we need to regulate the corporations" they say. Well, who is going to regulate them? What is magically different about the human nature of the ones doing the regulating versus those being regulated? The truth is that "government" can't possibly provide any sort of value add over the free market. It can only introduce bureaucracy, corruption, etc. It's an unnecessary layer, especially on large scales e.g. 100 member U.S. Senate making "laws" for 300 million people.

You hit the nail on the head with "centralization". I've read that prior to WW1 you could freely travel anywhere in the world. Then, they came up with the passport, and basically every country is all in agreement and working with this passport system. It's a one world system. There is some variation between the countries of course, because they need to make it look good. USA might not be the worst, but it's pretty tyrannical. I think there's a decent amount of opportunity in the USA at least for now. But, it could be a lot better with true freedom.

[Mel Bradford]

Controlling commerce 'among' the states amounted to preventing taxes and tariffs and duties between states. In short the buggerboo began with the High Court ruling on disputes between states. The magic bullet was the language of the 14th amendment. By the late 1800's The Federal courts using the 14th amendment began to siphon jurisdiction from the states. The three clauses of the 14th: Equal protection, privileges and immunity, and due process was the open door to the biggest power grab in national history. Yes, semantics. Yes language. But oh the new power to be had by said language. The intent of the 14th was to give former slave access to courts of law, period. A cursory review of all the 14th amend rulings will reveal a time bomb that went off and destroyed the ability of states to govern themselves. And of course Congress followed suit and began to federalize every state law under the sun. And today its obvious. They have taken more power than they can handle. The central government is in a state of permanent stupor from a 100 year bender. With the exception of a few, Congress has no idea why they are there.

One of the most egregious examples of unbridled force by the Fed was US V. Microsoft. Gates and Company were so wildly successful...something had to be done. The new technology of the PC and the software driving it was making millions every days. And yet here was an industry that had escaped Federal regulators. Well not for long. In the course of a few years the DOJ dragged out the Sherman anti-trust act and began the shakedown.
Remember those movie scenes in the old black and whites where the local mob boss would bring all the local businesses under his thumb by selling them 'insurance' ? What happened to Microsoft was that times a million. Before it was all over state AG's got in on the act for their cash, Microsoft had more lawyers than software discs, and the corporation fanned out lobbyists by the drove to stay in the game they had invented. It was one of the biggest crocks of shit dished out to the American public under the guise of 'consumer protection' that would have made Al Capone blush.

[gil]

Here is something I don't understand: A lot of us believe that the free market works better - a LOT better - than socialism, right? But then when something goes wrong in the free market, the government gets blamed.

Take Silicon Valley Bank. Paul Krugman wrote in The NY Times: "Just a few years ago, S.V.B. was one of the midsize banks that lobbied successfully for the removal of regulations that might have prevented this disaster, and the tech sector is famously full of libertarians who like to denounce big government right up to the minute they themselves needed government aid."

As I understand it, deposits up to $250,000 are insured by the FDIC. When an individual or business deposits more than 250K in one bank, he or she is taking a risk. Just like the banks are taking risks with their investments. But when there was a bank run, who does the fault lie with?
(a) investors who didn't insure their positions
(b) the bank that left itself exposed
(c) the Biden Administration.

As it turns out, the Biden administration is guaranteeing SVB deposits above 250K. So yes, it's a bailout by the government, saving the asses of rich investors. And yes, the bank's managers got big bonuses just days before the run and failure. And yes, the bailout will be paid for by increased bank fees - i.e., money paid to the FDIC by other banks. Which of course, affects other people and other business who use banks.

Kind of like that train derailment in Ohio.
Act I: Industry lobbies for deregulation and is successful.
Act II: Horrible accident.
Act III: People who believe in free markets blame the accident on the Biden Administration for its insufficient oversight.

The free market is not perfect, because humans are not perfect. But, the free market is by far and away the best system of social and economic interaction. The key is to realize that we currently all live under statiism. There currently is no free market. The United States is very socialist. Very regulated. Very controlled. We aren't very free as we're brainwashed to believe. We have nothing even close to a free market. Every citizen has half their wealth stolen from them through taxation and inflation.

A bank run is based on the central bank fiat currency ponzi scheme. For a free market to prosper, you need sound money, which has historically always been gold and silver. The US Dollar came off the gold standard in 1971, and the middle class has been disappearing every since. Now we have cryptocurrencies, which can also be considered real money. They are limited in supply, portable, divisible, etc. The only issue is they're not physical and rely on the internet. Gold and silver are a little less divisible and portable, but they're time tested and you can hold the coins or bars in your hand.

It's impossible to "regulate" the free market to get better results. That is the great lie of "government". Every problem we face has been legislated into existence. Nothing beats the free market. The trains will be a lot safer in a truly free market than they will be under any tyrannical government / central banking scheme. If the people want safe trains, then the free market will deliver safe trains. The only thing government will every do is get in the way, extort massive amounts of wealth, and cause tons of problems.

If you want the trains to be inspected, then the free market can deliver a highly reputable, third-party inspector to certify the trains for safety. With the free market, it all comes down to trust. Companies earn your trust through free market activity. If they lose your trust, then you go to a competitor. Nobody trusts the government. We know it's all just lies, lobbyists, money, media, and bullshit. That is the very nature of government as an immoral monopoly over the use of force. Government is designed to serve the ruling class. The free market is designed to help every single participant in the market.

I think you are drawing a sharp distinction between the free market and statism. Do you see nothing in between?

You wrote:

If you want the trains to be inspected, then the free market can deliver a highly reputable, third-party inspector to certify the trains for safety.

I think this is great in principle, as I always look to the free market as Plan A. But why hasn't the free market provided this? No one is stopping it, right?

Just like 100 years ago, no one was stopping the free market from inspecting meat and packing plants. The free market didn't clean up the feces, maggots, and vermin in packing plants - government regulation did (or at least has tried).

[DanielVogelbach]

I think you are drawing a sharp distinction between the free market and statism. Do you see nothing in between?

My view is that you're either pro freedom, or you're pro slavery.

I think this is great in principle, as I always look to the free market as Plan A. But why hasn't the free market provided this? No one is stopping it, right?

Just like 100 years ago, no one was stopping the free market from inspecting meat and packing plants. The free market didn't clean up the feces, maggots, and vermin in packing plants - government regulation did (or at least has tried).

We don't have a free market. We have "government" and a fiat currency system. The United States is very regulated, very controlled, and very socialist. They use the word "freedom" a lot in our propaganda, but we are not very free.

All services provided by government can be provided better by the free market. Food safety is just another one of those market elements that's based around trust and reputation. The idea that you need a massive "government" to get safe meat is so fucking ridiculous.

Indoctrinated statists will always reach for ways to justify the massive criminal enterprise taxing them at every turn and working with the central banksters to inflate the cost of everything they buy. They will justify the K-12 indoctrination camps. They'll line up to vote like obedient slaves. They'll never question the legitimacy of any of it. They'll blame all the problems on the other political party not recognizing that politics is just a fake distraction. I quit worrying about it. I'm not here to change the world.

[gil]

I think you are drawing a sharp distinction between the free market and statism. Do you see nothing in between?

My view is that you're either pro freedom, or you're pro slavery.

I think this is great in principle, as I always look to the free market as Plan A. But why hasn't the free market provided this? No one is stopping it, right?

Just like 100 years ago, no one was stopping the free market from inspecting meat and packing plants. The free market didn't clean up the feces, maggots, and vermin in packing plants - government regulation did (or at least has tried).

We don't have a free market. We have "government" and a fiat currency system. The United States is very regulated, very controlled, and very socialist. They use the word "freedom" a lot in our propaganda, but we are not very free.

All services provided by government can be provided better by the free market. Food safety is just another one of those market elements that's based around trust and reputation. The idea that you need a massive "government" to get safe meat is so fucking ridiculous.

No. I disagree. Where was food safety before the government intervened? There was only safe food to the degree that it maximized profits. The market sometimes has imperfections, so we either go with a free market and suffer the consequences, or agree there should be limitations in order to achieve goals such as public health. (I don't know whether it was "massive government" as you say, but it definitely was the government talking over from private sector/free market processes.) The trust and reputation that you argue for is great, again, in principle, but sometimes it doesn't work. It didn't work to get safe meat. Do you want to go back to the 1890s on this front? Don't let your philosophy blind you to the facts.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Meat-Inspection-Act

[DanielVogelbach]

No. I disagree. Where was food safety before the government intervened? There was only safe food to the degree that it maximized profits. The market sometimes has imperfections, so we either go with a free market and suffer the consequences, or agree there should be limitations in order to achieve goals such as public health. (I don't know whether it was "massive government" as you say, but it definitely was the government talking over from private sector/free market processes.) The trust and reputation that you argue for is great, again, in principle, but sometimes it doesn't work. It didn't work to get safe meat. Do you want to go back to the 1890s on this front? Don't let your philosophy blind you to the facts.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Meat-Inspection-Act

You're reaching for ways to justify the concept of people ruling over other people.

There's no such thing as legitimate "government" authority. The only valid law is contract law, which requires both parties to consent. You can't delegate rights that you don't have. You don't have the right to tax your neighbor, so you can't delegate that right to a so-called "representative". It's all a giant scam.

The free market works for everything. It won't work perfectly, because humans aren't perfect. But, there's no magical "government" sauce you can throw on human nature to make it work for the common good. That's unicorn pixie dust Santa Claus level mythology. All you're ever doing with government is creating a system of control that will serve the ruling class behind it.

You don't need government for safe food. It's comical. Food safety is up there with roads in terms of first grade defenses of statism. You're bowing down to your tyrannical overloads and looking for ways to justify their existence. 31 trillion in debt, taxing 50% of your wealth, banks creating fiat currency out of thin air, homelessness, drug abuse, massive military spending, war, everything is made in China, fake news, propaganda, can't come or go without a passport and six injections, and you're all excited about some propaganda story about government saving the day on "food safety".

Are you really fucking serious? Do you really go to the grocery store and buy your meat and praise the government for it's safety? Nobody fucking does that. You either trust the brand or you don't. But, if you really want food safety, you trace it back to the source. You could even do this with blockchain. Or, you buy meat direct from local ranchers. Go to farmers markets. Or, here's a wild idea, grow your own food and make sure it's safe. What a sad idea that you need the guns of government to provide you with a safe meal. What a fucking sick and twisted communist ideal.

[gil]

No. I disagree. Where was food safety before the government intervened? There was only safe food to the degree that it maximized profits. The market sometimes has imperfections, so we either go with a free market and suffer the consequences, or agree there should be limitations in order to achieve goals such as public health. (I don't know whether it was "massive government" as you say, but it definitely was the government talking over from private sector/free market processes.) The trust and reputation that you argue for is great, again, in principle, but sometimes it doesn't work. It didn't work to get safe meat. Do you want to go back to the 1890s on this front? Don't let your philosophy blind you to the facts.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Meat-Inspection-Act

You're reaching for ways to justify the concept of people ruling over other people.

There's no such thing as legitimate "government" authority. The only valid law is contract law, which requires both parties to consent. You can't delegate rights that you don't have. You don't have the right to tax your neighbor, so you can't delegate that right to a so-called "representative". It's all a giant scam.

The free market works for everything. It won't work perfectly, because humans aren't perfect. But, there's no magical "government" sauce you can throw on human nature to make it work for the common good. That's unicorn pixie dust Santa Claus level mythology. All you're ever doing with government is creating a system of control that will serve the ruling class behind it.

You don't need government for safe food. It's comical. Food safety is up there with roads in terms of first grade defenses of statism. You're bowing down to your tyrannical overloads and looking for ways to justify their existence. 31 trillion in debt, taxing 50% of your wealth, banks creating fiat currency out of thin air, homelessness, drug abuse, massive military spending, war, everything is made in China, fake news, propaganda, can't come or go without a passport and six injections, and you're all excited about some propaganda story about government saving the day on "food safety".

Are you really fucking serious? Do you really go to the grocery store and buy your meat and praise the government for it's safety? Nobody fucking does that. You either trust the brand or you don't. But, if you really want food safety, you trace it back to the source. You could even do this with blockchain. Or, you buy meat direct from local ranchers. Go to farmers markets. Or, here's a wild idea, grow your own food and make sure it's safe. What a sad idea that you need the guns of government to provide you with a safe meal. What a fucking sick and twisted communist ideal.

I am fucking serious. Do you really think that meat was safer before there were federal laws?

[DanielVogelbach]

I am fucking serious. Do you really think that meat was safer before there were federal laws?

If human nature exists, then how does putting humans into seats of "government" change their human nature? It's a trick used by the elites to control and extort the masses. It's always sold as safety and convenience.

I personally think the results of "government" are catastrophic. When I think of a truly free market, I think of a vastly improved food supply in terms of quality, abundance, variety, freshness, and safety.

There's no way to create a layer of authority over a truly free market and achieve improved results. This is the lie of "government". You always have to ask yourself where did the authority come from and who gave consent. Every time, you'll find that the so-called "government" was forced onto the people therefore making it illegitimate. Even if you're brainwashed enough to think that the regime in power is providing value, it still doesn't justify the means. But, the regime is never providing value. It's always some degree of tyranny, extortion, enslavement, kidnapping, and murder. It's organized crime with the perception of legitimacy.

[gil]

I am fucking serious. Do you really think that meat was safer before there were federal laws?

If human nature exists, then how does putting humans into seats of "government" change their human nature? It's a trick used by the elites to control and extort the masses. It's always sold as safety and convenience.

I personally think the results of "government" are catastrophic. When I think of a truly free market, I think of a vastly improved food supply in terms of quality, abundance, variety, freshness, and safety.

There's no way to create a layer of authority over a truly free market and achieve improved results. This is the lie of "government". You always have to ask yourself where did the authority come from and who gave consent. Every time, you'll find that the so-called "government" was forced onto the people therefore making it illegitimate. Even if you're brainwashed enough to think that the regime in power is providing value, it still doesn't justify the means. But, the regime is never providing value. It's always some degree of tyranny, extortion, enslavement, kidnapping, and murder. It's organized crime with the perception of legitimacy.

You didn't answer my straightforward question.

And when you say "When I think of a truly free market, I think of a vastly improved food supply in terms of quality, abundance, variety, freshness, and safety" ... I love to think of those things too, but I don't see evidence that government regulation is preventing any of this ... do you? The quality and abundance we have is the result of entrepreneurship plus government regulating areas where there can be market failures.

I'm certainly not in favor of everything government does. I'm a free market person. I'm not happy with many of the things as they are now. But I don't accept your grand solution - i.e., government is the cause of all problems, and the free market is the answer to everything. It reminds me of talking with Bernie Sanders: "You see, you are asking the wrong question. What you should be asking is why working people have been suffering because of corporate greed." (Or something like that.)

[DanielVogelbach]

You didn't answer my straightforward question.

Giving the "government" credit for the quality, safety, or abundance of your food is about as crazy as giving them credit for the quality of your pot-hole filled roads or the wonderful curriculums taught at the mandatory 12 year government indoctrination camps aka prisons for kids. Only brainwashed statist cult members would be giving their slave masters credit for the food safety of their meager rations. Only brainwashed statist cult members would be giving their "government" overlords credit for anything at all.

If human nature exists, then how does putting humans into seats of "government" change their human nature? This is where statism breaks down entirely. Everyone agrees that bad actors in society should be brought to justice. But, somehow statists think you can create this magical entity called "government" that will somehow serve the will of the people better than they can serve themselves. That's not how reality works, though. In reality bad actors are brought to justice in the free market whether that's a serial killer or a company producing unsafe meat. In reality bad actors use "government" to commit massive crimes against humanity including murder, kidnapping, extortion, and enslavement. It's not about putting the good guy on the throne. It's about getting rid of the throne altogether. "Government" is organized crime with the perception of legtimacy. Basically all of the world's problems have been legislated into existence.

I was a total communist, liberal myself for years. I was all about tax the rich. Then, I realized you can't tax the rich, because the whole government is controlled by the rich and it always will be. Democracy is a total scam. Statism is a scam. So, our best weapon for peace, love, and prosperity is by way of freedom! There is no better system than vountaryism. It's pretty much impossible to ever expect pure freedom, but the more the better. The pathway to more freedom is through non-compliance and self-reliance. I haven't gotten too far on either one of them. I still use Amazon and buy my food from the grocery store. But, I don't have Stockholm Syndrome.

I don't see evidence that government regulation is preventing any of this ... do you? The quality and abundance we have is the result of entrepreneurship plus government regulating areas where there can be market failures.

There's no magical "government" force that can guide the market better than the market itself.

Regarding things like inspections, the free market can absolutely provide that. Certain certifications can become desired by merchants, so they will pay for the trusted third party inspection. "Bob's Meat" certified by XYZ Inspectors. Or, charity groups could be formed to perform inspections. You always have to consider the scale of the wealth stolen by government through taxation and also inflation. It is so massive. So, if that wealth is returned to the people, we can decide how much we want to spend on different charities and meat inspections. The point is that it's immoral to create a government agency that is funded off stolen money, and all taxation is theft, because it's taken without consent. These concepts are really basic, but they either take a few years to sink in or they just always sound crazy.

I'm certainly not in favor of everything government does. I'm a free market person. I'm not happy with many of the things as they are now. But I don't accept your grand solution - i.e., government is the cause of all problems, and the free market is the answer to everything. It reminds me of talking with Bernie Sanders: "You see, you are asking the wrong question. What you should be asking is why working people have been suffering because of corporate greed." (Or something like that.)

The free market is not the "answer for everything". It's just always far superior than a market with "government".

Any "service" provided by "government" is a crappy and most importantly, VERY EXPENSIVE version of what the free market can provide better, faster, cheaper, stronger, and more efficiently. There is no magical "government" that is looking out for your best interests. The government is just a scam working within a free market. The baseline of existence is a free market. It's not until some group starts claiming the right to lay down the rules for everyone within some geographic region that you have "government".