What brought this episode to mind was the recent meeting in Trinidad of another group of powerful men — including, of course, President Photo-Op-bama, at what has been called the Summit of the Americas. These "summit" meetings seem to have become woven into the fabric of contemporary life, so that their occurrences are not regarded with the interest that, perhaps, they deserve. The president’s first foreign trip, perhaps not technically a "summit," was to Canada, in February, where he met with Canada’s Stephen Harper, and they both said nice things about each other, and reassuring things about the status of the world, with the inevitable promises of continuing "dialogue."

Then he went to London, at the end of March, for something called the "G20 Summit." He didn’t accomplish much there, but the European press thought he was just wonderful, and liked Michelle, too. Gosh, he looked good, and talked good, and had a nifty wife, to boot! She’s even planted a garden, and plans to raise their own food! Wow!

In April, he was off again, this time to the aforementioned Trinidad, for the latest summit. He shook Hugo Chavez’s hand, which was, I guess, the most newsworthy event at that meeting. Was that handshake a good thing — or a bad thing? It reminded me of the story of the psychiatrist who, on a walk, encountered someone who said "hello" to him. This left the psychiatrist puzzled. "Just what did he MEAN by that," he fretted.

So what’s the common denominator in these four "summit" meetings? Secrecy. In this day and age, the world’s rulers could easily meet via closed circuit TV, and save a bundle in travel expenses. But hackers could probably get access to the goings-on. Face to face, walking in the garden, or riding in a car, the rulers can achieve privacy — the sort of privacy that, when achieved by Mafia bosses, constitutes "conspiracy" and merits a jail sentence! When achieved by the government rulers, it means statesmanship, and merits the greatest reverence.

Did the Mafia chieftains meet to find ways to better the lives and fortunes of the people they controlled? Hardly. Do you think the "legitimate" rulers meet to explore ways to make us richer, or free-er? That would be the day! And they are rulers, not leaders. If they were, as they would have us believe, actually leaders, they could send their heads of state to these meetings. We have, after all, a Secretary of State, renowned far and wide for her expertise and knowledge of international affairs. She and her foreign counterparts could work out the details of whatever their respective governments needed to discuss. But when the head men themselves meet, person to person, there’s skullduggery afoot, and it certainly won’t be the banal pap and drivel that will be published or broadcast; rather, stuff too important to be written down, published, or entrusted to underlings.

Mafia summits are bad enough, but the Mafia bosses are only local. When the international bosses, self-important nabobs who can argue that, because they are the law, whatever they do is proper and legal, get together, watch out! Whatever they decide, it’s not likely to be for your good, or mine.

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

Paul Hein Archives

The judge had granted power of attorney for a man — suffering from dementia — to his two children, and ordered his wife to turn over his money and assets to the children as well. She was, to put it mildly, displeased. Over a year ago, store employees at the drug store where she works had seen her follow the judge — he was a frequent customer — from the store into the parking lot, demanding that he rule in her favor.

The woman recently told her co-workers at the drug store that she was planning to bring some guns to work and blow his "head off his shoulders" when he next came in to shop. Word of this reached the judge. Now it was his turn to be displeased. He sought, and received, from a colleague, an order of protection.

The judge has expressed some indignation that the drug store did not notify him of the woman’s threats. "I’m in there all the time with my children. It strikes me as off the charts that (the drugstore) didn’t notify me that she was threatening me to her co-workers." It’s an interesting point. Is one expected to report to the authorities every bit of threatening bluster that one hears? And if so, what are the authorities — presumably the police — to do about it? I believe it has been settled by the courts that the police cannot be held responsible for failure to protect. For instance, if you threaten my life, and I report your threat to the police, can they be held liable if you do, indeed, kill me thereafter? The answer is NO.

It’s even more interesting that the judge is "terrified" of a member of the public. I recall being told, on several occasions, that every surgeon should himself undergo surgery. Undoubtedly, surgeons would regard surgery in a different light if they were on the receiving end of the knife. Perhaps this unsettling episode might remind the judge that people are, quite often and regularly, "terrified" of him. He can, and in the case resulting in the threats on his life, did, rule that what the woman evidently regarded as her property was, in fact, not hers. Judges routinely issue orders making people do what they do not want to do, or abstain from doing what they want to do. Of course, they base their judgments upon the law, or precedents, but they are part of the corporation that makes the laws. Their decisions, therefore, may or may not be just, but they are certainly "legal," if only, in the final analysis, because their fellow state employees have made it so.

Consider the growing number of individuals sentenced to long prison terms, or even death, who have been exonerated on the basis of DNA evidence that was not available at the time of their convictions. Were they "terrified" of the judges who pronounced sentence upon them? To whom could they appeal for an order of protection from what they knew was an unjust sentence?

I freely admit that I know virtually nothing, except what the newspaper article contained, of the facts in the case which produced this threat. Whether or not the decision of the judge was entirely just and proper is beyond my ken. And the threats of the woman are, clearly, wrong. But — they are understandable. I do not seek to justify, but explain, them.

It would be wonderful if, as a result of his experience, the judge would give extra thought to his future decisions. What may be to him a ho-hum, routine, matter is, from the litigants’ point of view, of great importance and significance. While his judgment should not be clouded by emotion, neither should it be ossified by rigid application of the law, since few cases are without multiple shades of grey. Even God tempers justice with mercy. Perhaps, come to think of it, ONLY God tempers justice with mercy!

It is a wholesome thought that our rulers, from time to time, be frightened of us!

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

Paul Hein Archives

What is not so plain is what to do about it. I addressed this question once before on these pages, suggesting that there was no need to do anything. The colossus would fall of its own weight, tangled up in its own complexities and contradictions.

Now, looking about, I am encouraged to believe that my suggestion was correct.

I remember an episode of The Honeymooners in which Ralph was berating his long-suffering wife. "You," he bellowed, "are nothing. I (tapping his chest) am The Boss!" Alice — the patient wife — merely shrugged. "Big deal," she said. "Boss over nothing." Something like that is happening in America, today.

Our rulers — the State — want what we produce. Our only value to them is as workers in their vineyard. The State is Boss, we are nothing. To bring the State to its knees, we need only stop producing. It’s much like dealing with a counterfeiter: just don’t use his paper. When that happens, there’s simply no point in counterfeiting any more. Federal Reserve: take note — re your dishonest "notes."

There hasn’t been, and probably won’t be, a sit-down strike in the U.S. Most Americans consider themselves free (despite the abundant evidence against that assumption) and regard the government favorably, albeit bumbling and incompetent. But there’s no need for any conscious, deliberate, withholding of production. The collapsing economy is doing it for us. Thousands upon thousands of workers don’t need to lay down their tools in protest; they’ve been laid off. Their production is no more.

Of course, fiat economies always fail eventually. How often do such failures lead to a re-structuring of government? Rarely, if ever. So long as any government remains, the old adage of "power corrupts" applies, and the cycle of government growth and oppression will begin again, but with a different set of faces at the controls. So why should it be different this time?

In a word: the internet. Our rulers have had decades of a compliant media to present their point of view, pass along their lies, and disguise their true intentions. Watching TV, I am amazed that the thesis of man-made "global warming," and the dire effects attributed to it, are never challenged. Similarly, the "green" movement is simply the right, proper, moral, patriotic way to go. Different opinions simply don’t exist — at least on TV. Is Barack Obama a natural-born American citizen? You wouldn’t know there was any question about it from the Ten O’Clock News. You may hear arguments pro and con regarding the bailout of the automobile companies, but when will you hear about government regulations playing a substantial role in causing the problem? About as often as you hear someone point out that government bailouts are unconstitutional. Pundits may argue about the effectiveness of Obama’s health-care plans, but is it mentioned that the government is utterly without authority to act in the field of health care?

So let the economy collapse. It’s going to do so, anyway. Watch the politicians run about, proposing all of the same "solutions" which have failed in the past. As the rulers feel their power ebbing, look to them to become increasingly ruthless toward their critics. (So keep your mouth shut — for the time being.) You’ll never learn it from the media, but there is a remnant in the country, ready and able to bring peace and prosperity out of the rubble.

A specific suggestion? How about this: consider running for local office. The real power is where the people are, and that isn’t Washington D.C. If mayors and governors declined to participate in grandiose federal schemes, and if local sheriffs lived up to their role as protectors of the people, as opposed to protectors of the rulers, this would be a different country. As the economy continues its implosion, and people seek solutions to the problems brought about by Uncle Sam, they will be looking for a white knight. Apparently, in the last election, Obama was so regarded by many. When his feet are revealed as clay, the possibility of REAL change may be what the voters want. Make yourself available!

In the meantime, keep your powder dry, sit back, and wait!

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

Paul Hein Archives

I think that there is, and that there is a growing awareness that modern American life has, somehow, gone awry. The headlines give a clue. The front pages are full of news of murders, rapes, robberies, and other miscellaneous crimes. Military actions in various parts of the world (our troops are everywhere) vie for space with news of the latest domestic scandals. The Business section is downright frightening: AIG, it seems, may need a bigger "rescue" than originally thought. Circuit City is bankrupt. The delivery firm, DHL, is firing almost 15,000 workers. Fannie Mae’s losses for the quarter are 29 billion. GM stock drops to lower point in 60 years. Casino revenues are falling. By the time you read these words, it will be worse.

Visit an art museum. What do you see in the Modern Art section? Recently I scanned some slides I had taken a few years ago of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. The building is spectacular, unforgettable: designed, it would seem, for the particular purpose of catching the eye. But it is incoherent and confusing. There seem to be no plane surfaces, no verticals, no plumb lines or right angles. It is a fitting structure to house the drabs and daubs so readily confused (by those with a vested interest in doing so) with art. Anything goes; no standards. "NO STANDARDS," in fact, could be the motto of our era.

What about modern music? Not just modern popular music, about which I am incapable of rendering an opinion, being unable to name a single modern song, but even so-called "serious" music leaves the listener scratching his head and wondering whatever happened to melody, or harmony.

Public morality? What morality? Adultery has always been with us, but in the past it was recognized as wrong; there was even a law against it! Today it is simply a "relationship," and those indulging in it would regard the idea of its being wrong as puzzling, or outmoded. There aren’t any standards, after all.

Civility, good manners? Listen to the language used today, with vulgarities and obscenities used so commonly that the users probably don’t recognize them as anything but common parlance. See how people dress. Ladies, whatever happened to hats and gloves? Gentlemen, do you recall coats and ties? Do you even own such items? Yes, yes, I know: there aren’t any standards. Do your own thing. There are no absolutes; you can be absolutely sure of that!

I have long suspected that the decline of our culture is, indirectly, related to the decline of our money, or what passes for it. First, of course, is a decline in moral values, but after that, monetary standards are the first to go. In the dim past, it was accepted that for an honest day’s work one should obtain an honest day’s pay. That "pay" was as specific as the job which earned it. It could, if necessary, be weighed and analyzed to be sure it met the standard. It was silver or gold, or checks or currency redeemable in it. In some subtle, ineffable way, those who worked for a living felt a sort of dignity in knowing that their labors would be rewarded with such precious stuff. They would have been shocked at the concept of working for nothing, or no thing. Does one give something for nothing? Not if his work has value. How often have you heard the complaint that the workmanship of today just doesn’t compare with the workmanship of yesterday. Maybe that’s because the workman of yesterday was paid — not with an invalid promise, but with tangible wealth.

In those bygone days of money (instead of "credit"), life is said to have moved at a slower, less hectic, pace. Were the slower pace, and the fact of actual tangible payment, related? I believe so. Money held its value. There was a monetary standard.

By contrast, today’s wages lose value — measurable only in a frequently redefined "purchasing power" — with every passing month. A "fixed income" means a constantly decreasing standard of living. So Mom goes to work, although that means giving part of her earnings to Uncle Sam, buying a second car, and putting the children in day care: in the end, not as rewarding as hoped. Maybe Dad gets a second, part-time, job. With all of this work, there should be some reward: maybe a boat, a country club membership, a larger home. Easy to obtain with easy money! It’s not hard to see how money, and getting more of it, could become a virtual obsession. You’re working so hard; why shouldn’t you have something to show for it? Living at the brink of, or beyond, one’s means has become all too common. Well, we’re witnessing what happens when that bubble bursts. But the bubble would never have existed if money was a tangible good, not created with the stroke of the banker’s pen.

Money is indispensable to civilization. Individuals or families living in isolation don’t need money; what would they buy? But put people together in cities, to enjoy the benefits of the division of labor, and they need some sort of common bartering agent. That is the role of money. Without it, civilization is impossible. When money is withdrawn from society slowly, and replaced with fiat, or imaginary money, society sickens. The process is gradual, like the heating of the water in the pot containing the frog, but sooner or later, the situation becomes unbearable. If there are no standards for money, other standards will fade away as well. Money circulates through the body politic; if it goes bad, that body deteriorates.

So look about once again. What you see is the collapse of a society built upon a bubble of deceit and dishonesty, a society which has been trying to borrow itself into prosperity. It’s happened before, many times. A fiat "money" eventually reaches its intrinsic value. Do we learn from experience? In monetary matters, the answer would seem to be "NO!" And civilization crumbles, on a foundation of fiat.

A sound society needs sound money.

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

Paul Hein Archives

Teacher: Of course. The first thing to bear in mind is that the problem is very complex, and cannot be easily described in a few words. But in a nutshell, it boils down to this: American companies — and individuals — are heavily in debt. This makes expansion and modernization difficult, or impossible; and debts difficult to pay. Plants may have to lay off workers. These workers are thus unable to spend at their usual rate, causing further business depression, more layoffs, still less spending. There is a multiplier effect at work, a vicious circle.

S: So the problem is that there is not enough spending?

T: In essence, yes, and that makes it difficult for companies to earn enough to repay their debts. That is why the government must step in and do the spending. As Lincoln, I believe it was, once remarked, the job of government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves.

S: Why did American companies get so far into debt to begin with?

T: For one thing, they have the highest labor costs in the world. American auto workers, for example, are paid significantly more, both in pay and in benefits, than their foreign counterparts.

S: Then why don’t the workers agree to work for less? Wouldn’t that be better than being laid off?

T: Not when you are laid off at about 90% of what you’d get if you were working. Besides, American workers deserve to get as much as they can.

S: Don’t American consumers deserve to get as much as THEY can? Why should they be forced to subsidize auto manufacturers so they can pay good wages to workers who aren’t working?

T: As I said, the problem is complex. We cannot deal with all of the ramifications in a single class. Any further questions?

S: Yes. Where is the money for this bailout coming from?

T: Ultimately, of course, it is the taxpayer who’ll provide the funding. This is, I remind you, a democracy. The people share equally in the country’s financial opportunities and obligations.

S: But if the taxpayers are to provide trillions, then the taxpayers must have trillions. If the problem, as you indicate, is insufficient spending, then it would seem strange that the taxpayers have so much money, but they’re not spending. Why aren’t they spending it? It’s surely a buyers’ market. And aren’t we often told that Americans have the lowest rate of savings in the industrialized world? So how did they accumulate these trillions?

T: Again, I remind you, the problem is complex. Briefly, though, we can point out that the taxpayers aren’t necessarily sitting on trillions, but will be taxed on their earnings in the future. And in —

S: Wait a minute! With increasing unemployment, and the president promising tax cuts, does it make sense to count on future earnings to finance these bailouts?

T: Ah, you young people! How quick you are to see things in terms of black and white, when the problem is really much more complex than that. But to respond to your remark: it will probably be necessary for many people to borrow in order to accomplish the economic goals of the bailout.

S: But from whom? Aren’t the banks themselves looking for handouts? Why should people have to borrow from the banks in order to provide funds for the banks?

T: As you will see when we discuss the Federal Reserve, and the banking system in general, banks can only create deposits as loans. If nobody is borrowing, there can be no new deposits created. And in the present economic downtown, the big borrowers — GM, etc., have stopped borrowing. And the banks probably would be reluctant to lend to them even if they sought new loans. So the economy spirals downward, without new borrowing to pay for previous borrowings. That is why the bailout — an infusion of new capital — is required.

S: So are you saying that the bailout, in its essence, is the government compelling us to borrow for the benefits of the banks and certain large industries?

T: How many times must I remind you that the problem is far too com —

S: Why doesn’t the government simply stop all taxing for the next few years, and let the people do what they want with the money they’d save?

T: The allocation of financial resources cannot be left to chance. It is for financial experts to make these decisions, and —

S: What if the people just said NO.

T: (gasping) WHAT?

S: You know, like they did with King George. Just NO. We’ve had enough. We won’t take it any more.

T: (aside, to his aide. Put that kid’s name on the suspected terrorist list!) I see our time is about up for today. Class dismissed.

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

Paul Hein Archives

I was reminded of the lemonade stands we had as kids. One of our moms would donate a pitcher of lemonade (in those days, made with actual lemons!) and we’d haul a card table, the pitcher of lemonade, and some glasses down to the curb and shout "Lemonade!" at passing cars. On occasion, a motorist would actually stop and enjoy a glass of our delicious beverage, at a cost of a nickel or dime — I don’t remember the price we charged. In a short time, though, we’d lose interest in the beverage business, gulp down the lemonade ourselves, and go on to other enterprises.

But we were foolish! How could we expect our lemonade stand to prosper with such under-capitalization? We needed, at least, a sign at the end of the block, advising oncoming drivers of the lemonade oasis ahead. And the stand itself should have been more impressive, perhaps with lighting, and bold colors. We could improve our efficiency with an electric juicer, and the purchase of lemons and sugar in bulk.

What we needed, in a word (okay, two), was a stimulus package. Well, in theory, anyway. In actuality, we never even considered approaching our parents for such a package, knowing instinctively that the potential customers to make such a venture profitable just didn’t exist. Lemons by the bushel, sugar by the ton, and electric juicers whirring away, just weren’t going to make people who might be thirsty for lemonade drive down our street, looking for kids with a pitcher of lemonade on a card table.

The proposed bailout, of course, is infinitely more sophisticated, in that it is proposed by distinguished gentlemen in suits, instead of shorts and T-shirts. Big words are used. There are TV cameras everywhere. Really important! But the principle is the same: pouring billions into losing ventures won’t stimulate consumers to buy. Giving a few trillion to the auto makers, for example, doesn’t even slightly titillate my new-car-buying impulse.

So a question arises, at least in my mind: how can what was obvious to a bunch of kids be so unapparent to our nation’s financial geniuses? How can educated adults urge a program that is so clearly flawed? Some of these financiers and congressmen have advanced degrees and important jobs in the world of money and banking.

Moreover, the Keynesian idea of stimulating the economy via government spending is not new. It’s been tried before; it never works. Doesn’t the current generation of whiz kids know this? Do they never talk to anyone save themselves?

An answer presents itself to me, and I should probably keep mum about it, but I won’t. Here goes: the powers that be WANT the economy to fail. Why? That’s a good question, but I can only speculate about the answer. What is clear, however, is that economic collapse seems guaranteed if the stimulus package is implemented, and those advocating it must surely know it.

The Titanic struck the iceberg by accident. The captain didn’t aim for it. But the planes striking the Twin Towers were directed toward them. The crash was purposeful. You can ask "Why?" but the deliberate nature of the act cannot be denied.

It is remarkable that people who wouldn’t trust a used-car salesman, or TV huckster, any farther than they could throw them, will nod in serious agreement with bailout salesmen, and stimulus hucksters, even though these shills have demonstrated no great capacity for honesty, integrity, or righteousness.

I guess we get what we deserve. Or worse.

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

Paul Hein Archives

It’s hard to understand, however, how the people could elect someone they didn’t know. But it happens. A number of years ago, someone from the Libertarian Party (to which I did not, and still do not belong) called me and asked if I would allow my name to be placed on the ballot for the state senate, on the Libertarian ticket. I was assured it was simply to have a presence on the ballot; I would not need to campaign, nor would I receive any funding to do so, if I wanted to. I agreed, and did not give a single speech, distribute a single flyer, or post a single yard sign. After the election, the Secretary of State sent me the official results, and I had gotten 11% of the vote! I was amazed.

Of course, one isn’t likely to be elected with 11% of the vote. But how well do the voters know the winners? Do they know them at all? The question arose in my mind during the inaugural ceremonies of Barack Obama.

Obama was a state senator in Illinois from 1997 until 2004. That hardly made his a household name. Most people, I suspect, are barely able to name their state senators or representative, and could hardly name any others. Obama achieved a degree of national prominence when he was elected U.S. Senator in January 2005, an office which he held until winning the Democratic presidential nomination in November of 2008. A meteoric rise: from obscurity to President of the United States in four years, and even during those four years, his was hardly a well-known name.

The Obama example is not unique. Jimmy Carter was governor of Georgia from 1971 until 1975. Does that make him familiar to most Americans? How many Americans could name the present governor of Georgia? Yet, in 1977, Carter became the 39th President of the U.S. Another extremely rapid rise on the political ladder of success.

Bill Clinton’s story is similar. He was elected governor of Arkansas in 1978, and defeated for re-election in 1980. He won the governorship back in 1982, and remained in office until elected to the presidency in 1992.

The dates, of themselves, don’t tell the full story. What tends to explain how comparatively unknown and undistinguished politicians can be catapulted into the White House may lie in the political connections they made, and the organizations they joined. Having the "right" (usually left!) connections is important for any candidate, of course, even one as well-known as John McCain, or John Kennedy. And a compliant media can be counted upon to keep an approved candidate’s name in the evening news, and on the cover of popular magazines, until people forget that until yesterday they’d never heard of him.

We’ve seen TV "reality" shows wherein singers of modest to no talent audition for the chance to become the nation’s next singing sensation. A similar process may take place, though without the attendant publicity, where high public office is concerned. If a young man presents a good appearance, can talk well, and think on his feet, he may attract the attention of king — rather — president, makers. And if he can utter the usual hackneyed platitudes and tired generalities while seeming to actually believe them, he’s likely to be high on the list.

During the inauguration, the political commentators and news anchors repeated, as a mantra, the expression "peaceful transfer of power." They made it sound as though the U.S. is the world’s only country where civil war doesn’t follow every election. They were obviously — ludicrously, in my opinion — enamored of the idea that former political enemies could greet each other with such cheerful expressions, and hearty handshakes, even though representing a "transfer of power."

Phooey! The players may be on different teams, but they’re all in the same league. A real transfer of power is not simply a new name on the door. The plantation owner may sell the plantation, but the slaves are still enslaved.

If Ron Paul had been elected, THAT would have been a change of power, so, obviously, it could not be allowed. The last thing that the president makers desire is a change, although they encourage the people, election after election, to expect some sort of gratifying change that will solve all the problems of society.

And, judging by the crowd at Obama’s inauguration, they’ve been right.

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

Paul Hein Archives

The headline read: "Home tax won’t fall very much." The article explained that, although housing costs have fallen substantially (the word used was "plunged") the property tax will drop little, if at all. And why not? Here’s the mirth-inducer: " — news reports of double-digit drops in housing prices are mostly irrelevant, county officials say."

The last property assessments were made in 2007, when housing prices were considerably greater. Most homes in the county were reassessed at 22% higher values, on average. There were widespread complaints of the escalated property taxes that accompanied the reassessments, but I don’t recall encountering the term "irrelevant." Indeed, when the real owners of the property raise the fee they are charging you to live in "your" house, it’s as relevant as it can be. Try explaining to the collector that you regard his demand as irrelevant!

Are the rulers simply removing the mask, and revealing themselves as thieves, although acting "lawfully," because, after all, they make the laws? No, of course not! The problem, for you, but not for them, is with the computer. It does not recognize a house that’s been foreclosed. It similarly disregards one sold as part of an estate settlement. It may, or may not, take into account several price cuts on a house that finally sold after many months on the market. And that’s because such situations are, evidently, misleading, according to the chief thief, or county tax collector. Such things as foreclosures, sales between banks and S&Ls, and homes on the market for prolonged periods are simply not "free market enterprise," he said, apparently without shame or embarrassment. Of course, computers can be re-programmed, but that is probably irrelevant.

What about the reports of the Mid-America Regional Information Systems, which show double-digit declines in home prices? Well, the collector said, they do not represent the real market. In fact, some neighborhoods can even expect a slight rise (!) in assessments this year!

Apparently it works like this: if your home increases in value (as it deteriorates) you can expect a higher property tax. On the other hand, if its value drops, you can expect to pay just as much as you did before. A tax expert working with the Missouri legislature refers to this system as a "roll-up." He is quoted as saying, "Taxing districts are allowed always to collect the same amount of revenue as the year before." (Allowed? By whom? Why, the same people who benefit from the tax, of course!) This, we’re told, is designed to compensate for taxes not going up when home values increase. Except: has that ever happened?

Unmentioned is the fact that the tax is a percentage of the assessed value. And that percentage is determined by the rulers, who benefit from, and collect, the tax. So no matter how low the valuation might be, the tax rate could be increased. Do you get the impression this game is fixed?

So it’s all very simple: the powers that be are going to charge you a fee for living in your house, and they will try to make that plunder seem, somehow, reasonable, by linking it to your home’s value. But if that value decreases, they’ll demand as much as they did before. Should you have the temerity to question such a looting, your complaint will be dismissed as irrelevant. This coincides with the feds use of the term "frivolous" in dealing with any questions that they cannot, or dare not, answer. Also unanswered, of course, is the question of how the assessor can determine a home’s value in terms of units which he cannot define; namely, "dollars."

If you live to be very old, in the very home in which you were born, would you finally be able to live in that home without paying annual tribute? Could you eventually live there free and clear?

The question is irrelevant — and frivolous.

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

Paul Hein Archives

DIGG THIS

I glanced at the headline: What Does A Police Chief’s Badge Cost? and assumed it referred to a Chicago-type scandal, whereby important offices were sold to the highest bidder, although I wondered why anyone would bid more than $2.37 for the top cop’s job in St. Louis.

But I was mistaken. The headline referred, quite literally, to the chief’s badge — you know, the shiny thing he wears on his jacket, or carries on his person, indicating that he is not only a cop, but Numero Uno, cop-wise.

Have you ever given a moment’s thought to what such a thing costs? Neither had I, so I was surprised to learn that St. Louis was going to pay $1,987.00 for a badge for its chief of police. That seems a bit much.

Well, it is. Even so, the $1,987.00 badge is only a "backup" badge. The one the chief will be wearing is one of two ordered for the previous chief. They are of solid gold, and cost $5,900.00 each. That particular official resigned — actually, the police board forced his retirement — when some disturbing information came to light about a relationship between his family and the lucrative car-towing business in St. Louis. He kept one of his solid gold badges when he left office, a practice described as "traditional" by a police department spokesman.

The badges — at least the top-drawer ones — are manufactured locally by a firm which is, evidently, very well regarded in its field. For example, it was chosen, in the year 2000, to manufacture the "Order of Solomon," by the Crown Council of Ethiopia. It’s a gold, jewel-encrusted emblem that’s owned by only six people, one of whom is Queen Elizabeth. The St. Louis police chief is in some pretty impressive company! An anonymous employee for the manufacturer believed that the $1,987.00 figure was reasonable, considering the intricacy of the badge, and the workmanship required to make it. He suggested that in other large cities you would find similar-priced badges, and mentioned Los Angeles as an example. The newspaper contacted Los Angeles. Their chief’s badge costs about $60.00. Hmm.

In Kansas City, the police chief wears a badge that cost less than $50.00. In Marin County, California, the police chief of one of its toniest cities wears a badge that cost less than $200.00. The head of the Missouri Highway Patrol wears a $3.15 badge on his lapel. The St. Louis County police chief wears a $110.00 badge.

The Police Board is shocked, simply shocked, that such high prices are being paid for the badges worn by the chief, but has no choice but to pay for them, even though the police department’s supply division ignored proper procedures in ordering them. The incoming chief, who will be wearing the prior chief’s $5,900 badge (but with the el-cheapo $1987.00 backup badge) said that the badges had been ordered before a purchase order had been issued by the Police Board. He indicated he would be amenable, however, to finding a cheaper source of badges. He is reported to have "dealt with those responsible for the purchase."

Except: In 1993, fifteen years ago, the department came under criticism for paying 2100.00 for a chief’s badge, making it hard to believe that the current fiasco is a one-of-a-kind snafu. It makes you wonder if there isn’t a pattern, which is piously denounced whenever it’s uncovered.

Sure, $1,987.00 is small potatoes in a budget that runs into millions. But to those spending it, it’s other people’s money, which is never very valuable. It would be interesting to know about other police expenses. What is paid for squad cars, or guns, or ammunition, or office equipment, etc.? Is an organization that pays $1,987.00 for a bijou going to look for bargains in its other purchases?

"Power corrupts" remains, in my opinion, the best explanation for the operation of government, in all its manifestations. Gold may be incorruptible, but those wearing it may not share that quality.

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

Paul Hein Archives

DIGG THIS

I was making my annual property tax payment, when I had an epiphany. Here I am, an old man, and the truth of the much-discussed "housing bubble" only just now has become apparent to me. I cringe with embarrassment.

Well, in my defense, I don’t think too much when preparing my property tax payment. It’s too painful to contemplate; I just want to get it behind me. This year, for instance, I must send the local rulers over 3600 just to be allowed to remain in "my" house. Most of that goes to support schools which my family has not used. What’s more, I think the community would probably benefit from not having any public schools, but that’s just my opinion. I have a right to my opinion, guaranteed by the First Amendment, but that’s all theory. In fact, I must subsidize an "educational" establishment where students are taught things with which I am in profound disagreement. In other words, I must finance the spreading of ideas which are hostile to my own, which seems to me very much against the spirit of that First Amendment. And I must do this by paying to live in what I refer to, in my lighter moments, as my house.

In recent years, this question of ownership has insinuated itself into my mind, and I can’t dislodge it. If my home (automobile, income) is really mine, why must I pay strangers to continue to live in it, use it, retain it? Is it MINE, or not?

Not only must I pay to keep what is presumably mine, but the strangers who demand the tribute have a greater claim upon "my" property than I do. Over the years, I’ve needed to have several repairs made to a shifting foundation, have had to replace the roof shingles, re-pave the driveway, install a sump pump, etc. If, because of unexpected expenses, I had been unable to pay the property tax bill, would the collector have understood when I told him I’d have to give him a pass this time around? Of course not. His claim upon my money (say, should that be "my" money?) outweighs my own.

But I digress. Back to the "bubble." We have lived in this house for forty-two years. We started construction in the late summer, or early fall, of 1965, and moved in on January 20, 1966, just one week before my son was born. Now for the epiphany: while I was musing over the tax bill, it suddenly dawned on me that, over the years, we’ve paid the local rulers more than the house cost. Much more, in fact. It’s incredible, when you think about it. The local authorities did nothing to facilitate our purchase of the land, the building of the house, or its subsequent maintenance; that all came out of my pocket. Yet, over the years, they’ve collected more from me than I paid the developer for the land and the building. And, needless to say, it’s not ending here — I’ll be paying them until I die or sell the house.

And then there’s the inflation factor. As the dollar has withered over the years, the "value" of the house has increased to seven or eight times the amount paid for it. I’ve always marveled that a building that gradually deteriorates becomes more valuable as it does so. My income, over my working years, did not increase sufficiently to match the decline of the dollar, especially with Medicare forcing me to work for less with each passing year. But for the true, actual, owners of the house, it didn’t matter; their tax rate was based upon the inflated value of the house, so that as the dollars became more worthless, they collected more of them.

What a sweet scheme! No wonder those windbags in the state house, or city hall, never stop referring to home ownership (sic!) as the fulfillment of the American Dream! For them, it’s a sweet dream indeed; for us, it can be a bad dream, if not a nightmare. For every house built within their jurisdiction, they will, eventually, collect more than the contractor, the developer, the architect, etc., from that house, and without significant expense on their part, or liability for flaws or defects. And should some defiant home "owner" challenge them and refuse to pay, they’ll simply take his house away from him, and sell it to someone who will. To cap the climax, I suspect that when the municipality borrows money, it uses "my" home as collateral.

A housing bubble? Of course. Every building that’s constructed means a perpetual flow of income to the local authorities. It may look to you like a house, but to them it’s a cash cow. And you’re getting milked, no bull!

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

Paul Hein Archives

DIGG THIS

In a recent essay in LRC, Eric Englund proposes a brilliant solution to the financial problems of General Motors: let Warren Buffett, through his company, take care of it. Wonderful! Such a good idea, in fact, that it merits imitation. So let’s have Bill Gates, through his company, take care of the problems of Ford, and, maybe, Chrysler. Both of these ultra-wealthy individuals believe it their duty to support the government, and how better to demonstrate that support than by relieving the government of the need to spend billions to bail out the automakers.

It’s predictable that some will object to this simple, yet brilliant, scheme. Can’t you just hear them? "Why, you can’t make these two men bail out these companies!" Quite true. I can’t, and you can’t. But the "you" referred to by the objectors is not We, the People; it’s Uncle Sam, and he can do whatever he wants.

Think about it. The rulers plan to spend about 25 billion, give or take a few billion, to prop up the automobile industry. (There’s a certain bizarre justice in that, inasmuch as many of the woes of that industry can be traced to the requirements placed upon them by those selfsame rulers.) Now where is an organization trillions of dollars in debt going to get the 25 billion? It can borrow it, but who do you think will end up repaying the loan? It can simply print it, but whose income and savings will be reduced by the influx of new dollars into the economy? No, gentle reader, the answer is clear: directly or indirectly, the hapless American taxpayer will foot the bill.

What if he doesn’t want to? Can he simply say, "No thanks," to Uncle’s "request?" Well, I guess he could, if "he" were tens of thousands of determined individuals. Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen. In fact, I’ve heard barely a suggestion that the taxpayers of the country rise up in revolt. (Of course, many of them derive all or part of their income from the automobile business.) Many will complain, of course, but complaining is cheap. In the end, they will put a large chunk of their earnings into Uncle’s outstretched hand, perhaps noticing that in his other hand he has a gun.

Well, that’s my point, sort-of. If Americans consider it somehow proper that, despite their complaints, they be forced to finance Uncle’s schemes, why should they raise any objection to his forcing Messers. Buffett and Gates to pump their wealth into the coffers of the Big — or not so big — Three? What is the difference between the State forcing you and me to reimburse it for its spending, or forcing America’s richest men to do it?

Do you think it unfair to require just a few very very rich men to bail out the auto industry? Sure it is. So what? Isn’t the very principle of the graduated income tax that the rich get soaked, the rest get sprinkled, and a large percentage remain dry? This is the system of taxation, after all, which its proponents invariably characterize as "fair," although linking "fair" with "taxation" is an oxymoron. Oh, if there are a few others with wealth comparable to the pair of gentlemen we’re talking about, I’ve no objection to including them in the plan. Our rulers are not bound by "fairness," or even the law, but they surely realize that the taxpayers outvote Buffett and Gates many times over. You go after the goose that lays the golden eggs, after all.

There’s another scheme I will mention, just for the sake of thoroughness. Let the State (remember now, it can do whatever it pleases) require every family to buy a new car from GM, Ford, or Chrysler, within the next year. (Those buying an automobile from any other corporation will be heavily fined and/or imprisoned.) The advantages of this version of the bailout are obvious: the family would have a new car! This surely beats having the money simply taken by Washington and given to the Big Three, less a handsome handling charge, with the poor "contributor" having nothing to show for it. And giving the auto makers money isn’t going to solve their problem: nobody is buying their cars. With this scheme, EVERYBODY would be buying them!

So there you have it: a couple of solutions to Detroit’s economic crisis. If you think them fantastic, or utterly improper, remember that when YOU are asked to pay your "fair" share of bailing out the auto industry. If YOU can be forced to do it, even though you cannot afford it, why can’t THEY be forced to do it? Or, if you MUST do it, why not at least get a new car in the bargain?

Think about it. It hurts a little, but not for long.

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

Paul Hein Archives

DIGG THIS

Let’s assume you are an elderly gentleman, rather frail, whose wife is seriously ill with hard-to-control diabetes. You do not feel capable of providing her with proper care, and decide to hire a nurse to look after her, at least during the day.

The first candidate you interview has excellent credentials in most respects, but thinks it is a waste of time to check the patient’s blood sugar frequently. She believes that diabetics suffer enough, and should be allowed to indulge themselves with candy and cookies ad lib. She regards meticulous care of the feet as foolishness, and encourages her patients to remain in bed most of the time. Would you hire her, knowing her beliefs, with the expectation that if your wife’s condition worsened under her care, you could always hire another nurse? I don’t think so.

But this is the way we hire presidents. We give the job to someone who tells us in advance he isn’t going to do his job properly.

That job is simple enough. The president’s duties are few and not onerous. In performing them, he must "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution. But we know in advance that he will not, despite the oath he has taken to do exactly that. It has been that way throughout my lifetime, and probably before that.

In her speech urging her delegates to support Obama, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly referred to one of her pet themes: universal health care. She indicated that Obama shared her passion for such a program. But government-sponsored health care is provided by coercion, as are all government "benefits," and, in any event, is not supported by any hint of Constitutional authority. While Senator McCain was not as enthusiastic about universal health coverage as his Democratic opponents, he did not oppose government-regulated medicine.

He also supports the war in Iraq, and opposes any timetable for withdrawal. The fact that only Congress can declare war, and hasn’t declared war on Iraq, or anyone else, for that matter, doesn’t bother him, or his opponent. It’s just another one of those constitutional anachronisms that are ignored as irrelevant in the 21st century.

Both candidates appeared before the pro-Israel lobbying organization, AIPAC, and groveled suitably. All expressed their support for Israel, and their willingness to guarantee its freedom. (Of course, their guarantee of protection, should it be acted upon, would put the lives of young Americans at jeopardy in Israel’s defense. The president, rest assured, would not be in the front lines.) Is there some section of the Constitution that authorizes the United States to send Americans to fight for a foreign power? If so, I’ve missed it. For that matter, what is the Constitutional justification for the American troops stationed in about one hundred and thirty five countries around the world? Have any of the major candidates planned to bring them home?

Is there such a thing as a pre-emptive strike against perjury? I guess not. We need to wait until the oath is taken falsely before bringing suit. But since it is utterly clear that President-elect Obama has no intention of paying the slightest attention to the Constitution that he will swear to uphold, maybe we could prepare the necessary papers in advance. If the U.S. can bomb nations because of a perceived possible threat that they might present in the future, can’t we at least prepare to sue for perjury that is definitely going to be committed?

Ah, but that’s a pipedream. If we are willing to vote for and elect people who have made it clear in advance that they will violate their oath of office, then we evidently don’t take that oath any more seriously than they do, or we are as ignorant of the Constitution as they are. In the example we gave above, you wouldn’t hire a nurse who explained beforehand that she didn’t believe in proper care of the patient, although she would at least admit that the patient existed. But candidates who intend to pay no heed to the Constitution give the impression they are not even aware of the existence, except perhaps in some vague historical sense, of that document. True, they will swear to adhere to it, but like "till death do us part," in another archaic ritual, nobody — well, almost nobody — actually means it. The presidential swearing-in ceremony is just that: a ceremony. A great photo-op, suggesting a link with tradition that does not, in fact, exist.

If we must have government, it should at least be constitutional. We get what we deserve when we support candidates who hold it in contempt. In doing so, they hold US in contempt. But we already knew that, or should. When Senator Obama places his hand on the Bible and swears to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution of the United States, he will be lying. That’s nothing new, but it’s getting tiresome. How about a pre-emptive perjury indictment?

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

Paul Hein Archives

DIGG THIS

The government’s bailout (buyout?) of some of the country’s largest financial institutions has, of course, generated a great deal of public interest and criticism. People want to know whom to blame, but the real culprit — the Federal Reserve System — is never assigned that role. They want to know how it could happen, but the fact that the nature of our monetary system makes it inevitable is not offered as an answer.

Sadly, the most interesting questions are never asked. Isn’t anyone interested in the intriguing fact that the government, which is hundreds of billions of dollars in debt, is going to put up 700 billion in this bailout? It’s all very well to say that the government will get it from the taxpayers, but where are the taxpayers going to get it?

The Federal Reserve has been shoring up the banking system with many billions of dollars in recent months, and has just announced its intention to buy commercial paper as necessary. Where did the Fed get those billions? Isn’t it, supposedly, a non-profit organization? Does it keep billions in some vault just for emergencies?

The ultimate question, then, might be: where does money come from? Of course, no TV pundit will ask such a question, and it certainly won’t be presented to Mr. Bernanke at any Congressional hearing. It’s the sort of question a child might ask — a child like the one who marveled that the emperor wasn’t wearing any clothes.

Modern "money" is intangible. It’s represented by numbers on currency, or written in bank accounts. And the source of these funds? The banks themselves. If you borrow 10,000 from the bank, it simply adds that number to your account. Presto! Another ten thousand added to the money supply. (The banks are the ONLY source of money: a fact worth remembering.) Banks can create an infinite amount of this "money"; they only need some believable justification for doing it.

Of course, the bank is not going to do this for you unless you pledge something in return. You will have to sign some document promising re-payment. That document — your promissory note — is an asset to the bank. The new deposit of ten thousand is a liability of the bank. Oddly, what most of us would consider assets and debts are just the opposite to the bank. Your deposit at the bank is its liability; your note is its asset. And if you default on your note, it loses its value as an asset.

That is what is happening today: large numbers of people are unable to maintain their payments on over-priced homes, and thus the bank’s assets are diminished by these non-performing loans. It’s all a matter of bookkeeping; nothing is lost. It’s just arithmetic.

Well, as school children, we all did arithmetic problems on the blackboard. When we were finished, the board was erased, and we started over. The banks, I suppose, could forget about balancing assets and liabilities, wipe the slate clean, and just get on with it. They could swallow their "losses," or reduce the borrowers’ interest rates to something that the borrower could afford.

The banks don’t want to do that. They want their capital assets replaced, and the government is the only organization that will do that. Since bank "assets" are somebody else’s IOUs, I guess that the government’s contribution will be in the form of government bonds. Wonderful assets! When it comes time to redeem them, the banks will lend the government the money to do it! Whee! Didn’t somebody once remark about the web we weave when we practice to deceive? Henry Ford is said to have remarked that it’s just as well that people do not know how banking and the monetary system work, or there’d be a revolution before tomorrow morning. He might have been wrong about the revolution (the people, it seems, will tolerate anything) but it’s true that the people’s monetary ignorance is the banker’s bliss.

Maybe what we’re really looking at, without really seeing it, is a sort of coup. In return for its assistance, the government wants to take over banking. Many commentators have remarked on the illegality of private banks creating our "money." Nothing in the laws of this country permits such a thing. This latest crisis justifies the government seizure of banking, so that it can, ultimately, create its own money, without having to borrow it from the banks. Many will applaud such a move, although there is no more legal justification for money creation by Congress than there is by private banks. In fact, there is no justification for money creation, period. The Constitution authorizes Congress to COIN money, not print, or create, it. What do you think will happen to the money supply when Congress can create it with no concern about paying interest, much less returning principal?

But, of course, if the Constitution were taken seriously, we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place.

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

Paul Hein Archives

DIGG THIS

I rarely read the Letters to the Editor in the reams of advertising (with interspersed snippets of news) that passes for the local newspaper, but this morning, as I was flipping the pages, a phrase caught my eye. A reader, commenting on the bailout program, waxed indignant. The writer claimed that we "will have to pay for this mess." He referred to the bailout scheme as a debt that our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will be paying far into the future.

It’s a familiar refrain, which we’ve heard before and will hear again. Maybe that’s the problem: familiarity has bred contempt, or at least indifference. So ignore the familiarity of the concept, and look at it as though for the first time: "we (the citizens) will have to pay for this." Have to? Says who?

Going into debt is easy enough. Everyone understands that using a credit card, or borrowing in any form, indebts the borrower. It’s equally well understood that if someone steals your credit card and uses it, pretending to be you, he does wrong, and injures you unjustly. If I found your credit card on the street, and using it, bought a set of tires for my car, would you simply shrug and say, "I have to pay it?" If I made some really, really, expensive purchases, would you resign yourself to the fact that your children and their children would be saddled with the debt?

How is it, then, that Americans seem resigned, if unhappy, about the fact that those pompous popinjays in Congress have taken all our credit cards and charged about 700 billion to them? Has that resulted in a debt that we "have" to pay? Even more remarkable is the idea that these officious strangers can place into debt individuals as yet unborn. How in the world does that work?

Is there a law that allows one person, or group, to place other persons, or groups, in debt? Wouldn’t that be tantamount to slavery? We’re not talking about taxes here, even granting — for the sake of argument — the authority of Congress to tax us individually. The money to be taken from us is not going to support government (assuming we’d want to do that!) but rather, to rescue the bankers from the collapse of the housing bubble which they created, and from which they profited greatly. The government is acting as bag man, transferring the billions from us to them, but that function of government is clearly unlawful — as if anyone in government cared.

There’s nothing new about the government doing as it pleases with no regard for the Constitution, to which all Congressmen have sworn adherence. It has, in fact, become so commonplace that, again, familiarity has bred indifference. We shrug and say, "So what? Just more of the same." The question, then, is this: how much will we endure before we stand up and say, to our public servants, "Enough! We DO NOT have to pull your cronies’ chestnuts out of the fire! We DO NOT have to pay the bad debts of others. We are sovereign!"

Both of the individuals offered to us as presidential candidates support the bailout. A vote for either one of them can only be construed as support for, and agreement with, that policy. A form of protest that even the most timid among us can employ, without risk or danger, is to stay home on Election Day. As those cunning Chinese are said to have observed millennia ago, a trip of a thousand miles begins with the first step. In a journey to freedom, the first step for Americans might be a step away from the polling place.

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

Paul Hein Archives

DIGG THIS

Suppose that you and your neighbor were not on friendly terms. One day you saw a large cannon in his front yard, pointed in your direction. Hmm. Concerned, you sought to obtain a similar weapon for yourself, and were not surprised to learn that your neighbor objected to such a move on your part.

You were astonished, however, to learn that people hundreds — even thousands — of miles away also objected. Your acquisition of such a weapon, they claimed, was a provocation. Several of them stopped doing business with you, even though you had not as yet acquired any weaponry, and they urged others to take the same action. You have difficulty understanding how it can be a provocation for you to arm yourself, but not a provocation for others, via sanctions of some sort, to slowly starve you to death.

Today this situation prevails in the Middle East, with Iran being the nation suspected, but certainly not proved, of developing nuclear weapons. Horrors!

There are nine governments with nuclear weapons: U.S., Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. Russia has the most, with 5830, followed by the U.S. with 4075. Israel has 100—200, according to estimates. Israel isn’t particularly forthcoming about its nuclear arsenal, or whether or not it is actively developing nuclear weapons. It is Israel, of course, that expresses the greatest concern about Iran’s possible development of nuclear devices.

Well, that’s understandable. Iran and Israel are hardly on good terms. Mutual suspicion is to be expected. We could easily sympathize with Israel’s accumulation of a nuclear arsenal as a response to one possessed by the Iranians. But it’s the other way around. It’s the Israelis who have a nuclear arsenal, but few are sympathetic with the Iranians desire to have one, too.

Actually, no one can say with certainty that the Iranians are making weapons. In the fall of last year, Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, reported seeing "no evidence" of Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. "But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No," said ElBaradei. He said he would welcome seeing any actual evidence of nuclear weapons development in Iran.

Nonetheless, a prominent Israeli lawmaker, Tzahi Hanegbi, who chairs the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in the Israeli Parliament, decried the fact that the world (!!) wasn’t doing enough by way of sanctions against the possible weapons development by Iran. He suggested that all Iranian planes, ships, and sports teams be forbidden to enter Western countries.

Both Obama and Clinton have declared that, if Iran persists in developing nuclear weapons (despite the lack of clear evidence that they are doing so) they would not rule out the use of force against that government. McCain has not been so direct, but has stated that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. If that is his belief, what would he do, as president, if Iran actually developed such weapons?

So the question arises: why is it quite proper and fitting for one nation to have nuclear weapons, while at the same time it is provocative, aggressive, and "de-stabilizing" for a neighboring nation to have them — or even possibly have them?

Of course, no one wants to see Israelis killed in a nuclear attack. Nor, I would hope, does anyone want to see Iranians suffer that same fate. But if Israel can have nuclear weapons to defend itself, by what logic is that same defense denied to its neighbors? If Iran’s development of atomic weapons is "de-stabilizing," then why not urge Israel to do away with its own nuclear arsenal? Then both countries could be subject to inspections to maintain their nuclear innocence.

And finally, why should other nations intrude themselves into Middle Eastern affairs? The usual answer, I believe, is: oil. But it’s Iran (and Iraq) that have the oil. Well, then, Western governments want to protect Israel, presumably for humanitarian reasons. Fine and good. But why not protect Iran as well? Aren’t Iranians as human as Israelis? My gosh, we wouldn’t discriminate, would we? And Iran’s got the oil, remember?

It’s enough to make you wonder if the world is ruled by a relative handful of people with an agenda of their own — which transcends national boundaries. In that world, you and I have no influence at all, even if we like to go to the polls and pretend otherwise.

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

Paul Hein Archives

DIGG THIS

For those of us who question the necessity, or desirability, of government, the incessant media blather about the November election is depressing. How can the people who listen raptly to this campaign news possibly take it seriously? In the lifetime of anyone alive today, has any election made a significant difference? If the President were to take his oath of office seriously, would it matter who he was? Or, if, as is the case, he ignores his oath of office, does it make any difference who he is? In my long lifetime I have seen American government grow increasingly totalitarian, regardless of election results. Whether the elected are liberal, conservative, Democrats or Republicans, the trend is increasingly leftward.

The idea of government is so ingrained that most people have simply never given a fleeting thought to the possibility of life without it. Like disease, it’s been around forever. In school we might have learned something of ancient Greece or Roman history, but what we learned was not the life of a typical Greek or Roman, but the activities of Greek and Roman governments, and their battles for control. In short, the study of ancient — and not so ancient — civilizations is the study of war, without which history books would be little more than pamphlets.

Let’s look at government as we might look at any other enormous corporation, without any preconceived notions as to its necessity, if any. If Corporation X, for example, consistently produced products of high price and low quality, would its continued existence be regarded as inevitable? Wouldn’t the arguments by the shareholders, executives, and workers, for its continuation, be recognized as without merit, and self-serving?

What are the products of government? Considering the all-intrusive nature of the institution, they are legion, but let’s consider just a couple, which will include a number of lesser ones.

The first, as we’ve alluded to above, is war. Wars are waged by governments. Individuals do not decide to take up arms and march on their neighbors; they do so because their rulers convince them that it’s the thing to do, or, in many cases, because they are forced to do so — again by government. And the consequences?

Information easily obtained via the Internet, with impressive statistical support, indicates that in World War I, there were about fifteen million deaths. Of those, eight and a half million were soldiers, the rest civilians. The Russian Civil War of 1917 took about nine million lives. World War II saw something new: more civilian than military deaths. Of the fifty million casualties in that conflict, about thirty million were civilians. There were many other wars, of course. I’m just hitting the high points, or perhaps it should be low points, and only for the twentieth century.

But governments kill in other ways than war. Stalin, for example, with purges and engineered famines, killed about twenty million individuals. But when we say "Stalin," we really mean the Russian government. In China, Mao executed between forty-nine, and seventy-eight million, depending on whose figures you believe. Again, when you say "Mao" killed them, you mean the Chinese government.

Hitler (Germany) killed about twelve million, and Tojo (Japan) accounted for another five million murders. Pol Pot (Cambodia) accounted for over one and a half million, with Kim Il Sung (North Korea), and Menghistu (Ethiopia) matching that number. Enver (Turkey) and Gowon (Biafra) are, each, responsible for about a million civilian deaths.

Of course, we’ve not even considered the millions destroyed, either as soldiers or civilians, in Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, or Iraq. How many millions must be counted before the point is made: governments are lethal!

Can it be argued that these deaths were, in some way, necessary if tyrants were to be deposed, or human rights restored, or justice done? I’m sure it could be argued, but proof would be hard to produce. Events of history lack a "control series." We don’t know how life would have proceeded if, for instance, the U.S. had not entered WWI, or started bombing Iraq. The millions who are dead as a result of those actions, however, would very likely say, were they able, that they’d prefer to be alive, even if it meant living under Saddam, than dead under the chaos that followed him.

I read somewhere that Germans polled after the runaway inflation of 1923 said that the collapse of the monetary system caused greater suffering than the preceding World War. The German experience was not unique. Most developed countries, including America, have, at one time or another, experienced disastrous inflation. Is this just some economic fluke, the result of consumer ignorance, or greed, or corporate misadventure? Hardly. Inflation is a product of government, bringing it great benefits, at great cost to the general public. Not as spectacular as war, it is, nevertheless, catastrophic on a greater scale, since no one can escape the baleful effects of an increasingly worthless currency.

Could any organization not protected by government create money from nothing and loan it at interest? From the very instant such a system is inaugurated, the society afflicted with it finds itself trying to pay its debts by more borrowing. We see the results all around us.

When my father died in 1988, I discovered a life insurance policy that he had purchased as a young man. It paid a death benefit of 5,000. When Dad bought that policy, 5,000 could have purchased a modest home. Dad paid for it with dollars of silver or gold; what his heirs finally received was literally no thing: paper "bills" that were not payable in anything, and wouldn’t buy a garage, much less a house.

Charles Ponzi spent fourteen years in jail for doing what Social Security has been doing for over seventy years. It was obviously an unsound, fraudulent, scheme that Ponzi devised, but it’s baseball and apple pie when Uncle Sam does it. The victims are cheated just as thoroughly, but with one difference: Ponzi’s victims entered his scheme willingly, if ignorantly, whereas the victims of the Social Security scheme are strongly pressured into "joining." Which scheme is the more dishonest?

War, or economic injustice. Take your pick. They are two principal and, I would say, inevitable, consequences of government.

What an evil and idiotic organization we have chosen to cherish and maintain!

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

Paul Hein Archives

DIGG THIS

It’s not that I expect my life to improve in any way following an election, but that the election marks the end of the campaigns. That, in itself, is more satisfying than the replacement of non-entity A with non-entity B.

Are the various candidates so foolish that they take their campaign rhetoric seriously, or do they simply regard us with such contempt as to give us nothing better than their predictable platitudes? I don’t know, but since candidates for public office are always attuned to what "the people" want, I guess they have determined that their insipid slogans and fifteen-second sound bites are effective in influencing voters. Pathetic!

How often have we heard candidate X hailed as a great leader? Indeed, has there ever been a candidate who was not, or would not become, a great leader? Do they not all, each and every one, possess great leadership potential? This designation as "leader" is one which, I must confess, has been swallowed completely by the public. At church, during this campaign season, I’ve heard prayers offered that the voters will select a new crop of "leaders" who will possess appropriate ethical and moral values. At the various summit meetings, the reference is always to world "leaders." Leading where?

Doesn’t the concept of leadership imply a goal, or destination? Surely a leader is not someone who merely takes us around in circles, or takes us nowhere! All of the political aspirants claim leadership qualities, but they never tell us where they are leading us, except, perhaps, in such general terms as to tell us nothing. "My daddy brought me up to respect the values of hard work and integrity, and if you elect me, you can be sure I will honor my daddy’s memory, and work hard on your behalf." Ah, that pins it down!

No candidate has ever asked me where I want to go, so how can I accept his assurance of leadership? If he were to ask me, I’d assure him I want to go as far from him and his programs as possible, and I am sure he’d decline to lead me in that direction.

The proper term for politicians is not "leaders," but "rulers." People who tell us what we must do, and what we must not do, and how they will punish us if we disobey, are not leading us, they are ruling us. They are not pointing the way, and suggesting we follow it, but ordering us where to go, how fast, how far, and what it will cost us if we don’t.

Should we be so naïve as to think of them as "leaders" because they are upright and righteous people, we deserve them. It’s not hard to think of the countless scandals involving the moral turpitude of our politicians, both sexual and otherwise. The rulers are surely the very last people we would offer to our children as role models. They are, rather, people to look down to.

Candidates will often speak of taxation, to assure us they will keep it to a minimum. One local candidate has stated vehemently that she will NOT raise taxes. She apparently does not remember a similar promise from Bush 1st, and probably from a number of other office-seekers, and assumes we will take her seriously. But what is she actually promising? Clearly, she intends to put her hands in our pockets and take what she finds there, but she won’t keep any more of it than the thief she hopes to replace. Hooray! What a stirring promise! Are we to be grateful to someone who assures us that he will take what is "ours," but only as much as he needs, and, hopefully, no more than we’ve lost in the past? What a great guy! Gimmie that ballot!

Finally, the candidate promises to faithfully represent us, his constituents. How can he do this, when anything he votes on which might concern us will also be voted upon by hundreds of other "representatives of the people" who do not, in any sense of the word, represent me? Our forefathers inveighed against taxation without representation, but it’s hard to see how there can be any other kind. Does calling a bunch of strangers our "representatives" really make them so? If I want plan A and my neighbor prefers plan B, how can our common representative represent both of us?

Government is difficult enough to endure; the campaigns rub salt in to the wound. Thank God when the election is over, and the players in the Plunder the People game can shut up.

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

Paul Hein Archives

DIGG THIS

Conspiracy theorists are easily and, it seems, almost inevitably, ridiculed. Sometimes it’s quite understandable: not all conspiracies are credible. But to deny that conspirators exist, and that they can be men of power and influence, capable of changing the very world in which we live, is preposterous. The fact of conspiracies is obvious.

A problem, I suppose, is the negative connotation to the word "conspiracy." The word is constructed from the Latin "com," meaning "with," and "spirare," "to breathe." Conspirators, in other words, are people who are breathing together. Today we would describe them as "putting their heads together," whereas the Romans thought of them as breathing together. Take your pick.

The G8 group has been meeting in Tokyo. It’s a private organization, consisting of the chief executives of the U.S., Japan, Russia, Germany, France, Britain, and Canada. It was the G7 until Russia was invited in, in 1998, and the G6 prior to Canada’s admission, in 1976. It probably had its origins as the "Library Group," formed in 1973, consisting of the chief financial officers of the six initial countries. These were men with clout! (President Chester Arthur is said to have remarked that anyone who controls the volume of money is absolute master of all business and commerce.) The Library Group became the G6 when the heads of the respective states wanted to get in on the act, and why not? The bankers may own the earth (and governments), but the politicians are the front men, who carry out their policies and take the heat, if any.

At the latest G8 meeting, the members discussed such things as global warming, terrorism, food prices, oil, etc., but you’re not likely ever to read the minutes of their discussions. Meetings are closed to the public, and the only record of what transpires consists of notes taken by the group’s flunkies, called "sherpas," who do the actual work. If a member needs a bit of information about, say, oil production, he’ll ask his sherpa (one sherpa per nation) to get it for him. (If the sherpa doesn’t know, he’ll send his "sous sherpa" to find out. There are two "sous sherpas" per nation.) The sherpas meet several times a year to agree on agendas and other arrangements.

Rich and powerful men are not going to meet regularly, whether as the G8 group, the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, or the Club of Rome (to name a few) just to have a chat about current events. These men are able, and willing, to put their ideas for the world into action, which means legislation and treaties, although they may put it indirectly, as in this statement from the G8: "This global challenge (rising world temperatures) can only be met by a global response, in particular, by the contributions from all major economies." Guess who’s going to contribute, dear reader! Japanese Prime Minister Fukuda, the host of G8 this year, said, "The G8 will implement aggressive midterm total emission reduction targets on a country-by-country basis." Guess whose car may be running — inefficiently — on ethanol in the near future!

China and India can sit in on the meetings, but not otherwise participate, although China’s Gross Domestic Product is second only to the U.S.’s, and far greater than that of the other seven countries. China and India issued a statement calling on the G8 countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 45% by 2012. Is that possible? I doubt if anyone knows. Does it matter? Does human activity, in other words, cause global warming? There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of it. But never mind. Whether or not such measures will have any effect upon "global warming" may be irrelevant: they WILL have an effect upon your life.

Policies that will significantly influence how you live are being made for you, by strangers, mostly foreigners, in secret meetings. The men making these life-altering decisions are the most powerful men in the world. Their decisions will affect you, but your opinion will not be sought. That’s only fair: they are rich and powerful, and know what ought to be done (or so they think), whereas we are uninformed and venal, and know nothing (or so they think).

Looks like a conspiracy to me!

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

Paul Hein Archives

DIGG THIS

All of the candidates prattle on about "change." The "change" they propose, however, is to do more of the same.

This was well illustrated in a recent speech in California by Senator John McCain. He proposed (if elected) to give 300 million to the developer of a superior automobile battery, rendering unnecessary the current mish-mash of hybrids, semi-hybrids, plug-in electrics, etc. He said that the 300 million was "a small price to pay" for such a development.

Well, he would say that: HE wasn’t paying it. In typical political fashion, he was being generous with other people’s money, and without asking their permission or advice before offering it.

McCain would also give automakers a 5000 tax credit for every car they built and sold with "zero-carbon emissions." He would increase fines for auto manufacturers who evade existing fuel-efficiency standards, and hold out incentives for greater use of alcohol-based fuels. And, as if he hadn’t said enough, he would increase government regulation of energy traders, whose speculations he blamed, at least in part, for the skyrocketing price of oil.

Wow! Something for everybody! Where to begin in analyzing this series of proposals and threats?

Well, for one thing, there are some contradictions. For instance, the senator decried the present mixture of hybrids and natural-gas cars, with different incentives, as " — the handiwork of lobbyists, with all the inconsistency and irrationality that involves." Would we be unreasonable to assume that, if the senator were elected and implemented his plan, Washington would be awash with lobbyists for battery manufacturers, and their suppliers? And is it not "irrational" to offer incentives (dare we call them bribes?) to battery manufacturers, while ignoring the development of hydrogen-fueled cars? What about cars driven by compressed air, or solar energy, or fuels as yet unimagined? Why single out a single energy source? And, come to think of it, what business is it of government anyway?

And speaking of government, since when does the president reward some and punish others? Does he propose to do this lawfully? Then lawmakers — Congress — would be involved, and the president is not one of them. Unless we plan to abandon the term "president" and simply acknowledge an emperor, or king, ruling by fiat, there is no procedure by which a president can bring about such changes.

McCain’s remarks were triggered by the escalating price of gasoline. The price of gasoline is high in terms of today’s fiat, but is that the fault of oil companies? Using the Consumer Price Index, we find that gasoline at nearly 4.00/gallon today compares with gasoline at 40 cents/gallon in 1949. (I picked 1949 because that was the year I got my drivers’ license.) Today, a bag of "junk silver" coins (silver coins without numismatic value) with a face value of $250 costs 3350. At that rate, a gallon of gas, costing 4.00/gallon, would cost about 30 cents, if our silver coinage hadn’t been taken away from us. And let’s not forget that a significant portion of that 4.00/gallon is state and federal taxes, which have increased since we could buy gas with silver. If the good senator is concerned about the high price of gasoline, let him look to the root of the problem: the Federal Reserve and its policies. Is he likely to do that? No, it’s easier to inveigh against speculators, who are merely making rational investment decisions based on existing conditions that they did not create.

The senator’s inducements to develop a "clean car" could, undoubtedly, lead to an automobile with zero emissions. Wonderful! But, if that car were battery powered, what about emissions from the factories producing the batteries? What kind of mining might be needed to get the raw materials for such batteries? Would the batteries yield less electrical energy than that required to manufacture them? There is a "law" of unintended consequences. Rather than rush headlong in a particular direction, which might yield catastrophic side effects, wouldn’t it be wiser to let the development of alternative energy sources be gradual, unforced, and diverse?

It’s the same old story. If there’s a problem, magnify it. If there isn’t, create one. Then throw money at it, creating political allies. It worked with the military-industrial complex, and it’s working with the medical-industrial complex, and it will work with the environment-industrial complex.

So what’s new? Where’s the change?

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

Paul Hein Archives

DIGG THIS

Perhaps you saw the photo. It showed Barack Obama with a group of his supporters holding signs bearing the word "change." And news analysts informed us that one reason the Clinton campaign faltered (they apparently don’t consider the possibility that the people simply didn’t want her) was that she underestimated the public’s desire for "change."

I doubt it. In the first place, the last thing any establishment-approved politician would desire is change. In the second, if the people actually wanted change, they could have picked Ron Paul, who would bring about real, not simply rhetorical, change.

For instance, what "change" has Obama proposed, which would not be likely to occur under a Clinton presidency? Can his supporters actually cite specific significant changes that he would effect when elected? Would he, for example, abolish the Federal Reserve? Would he "privatize" social security? Would he, in contrast to Clinton’s proposal to broaden Medicare, recommend its abolition? Would he do away with myriad alphabet agencies? Of course not. Neither would she.

Moreover, the idea that the people can bring about some change in government by voting is mistaken, if not downright false. Is it reasonable to believe that the largest corporation in the country, if not the world, is going to put its leadership positions up for grabs every few years? I realize that the shareholders of corporations are occasionally asked to vote for members of the board of directors, but in my (admittedly very limited) experience, the candidates are simply shown to us, with a brief biographical note. I can’t recall any instance of a candidate indicating what, if anything, he was going to change if elected. And if a newly elected CEO were to take the company in a direction that shareholders disliked, they could sell their shares. If the President takes the country in a direction that I dislike, can I sell my shares? And, of course, I became a shareholder (in the "private sector") in the first place voluntarily, and can dispose of my shares at any time.

If I vote for a candidate who promises change, but fails to provide it, can I call for a vote to oust him? If, once in office, he lies to us, and makes us think the situation vis–vis the corporation is rosier than it actually is, can we indict him, la Enron?

The only change we can expect from any new president is a continuation, perhaps at an accelerated rate, toward totalitarianism. The people who make changes in government policy and basic philosophy are behind the scenes. We are treated (if that’s the word) to the spectacle of political campaigns as part of a psychological exercise whose purpose is to provide the illusion of choice. This culminates in an election in which people pick a president, senator, etc. But the outcome is unimportant, in almost all cases, because any of the candidates is acceptable to the government’s owners and operators.

If people want change, let them stay home on election day. The outcome will be no different, but the rulers might get the message that people no longer want to participate in the charade of voting. Perhaps — and wouldn’t this be wonderful!! — they might even get the idea that the people have become fed up with the very concept of government!

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

Paul Hein Archives

DIGG THIS

There was a television writers’ strike recently, but you wouldn’t have know it in our house. Nothing seemed different.

What would affect television broadcasting significantly, in my opinion, would be the eradication of Crime. The number of TV programs dealing with crime, either factually or fictionally, is tremendous. Were it not for crime, a great deal of TV time would be taken up with test patterns. The fictional detectives, lawyers, and even criminals, are much more interesting than the real ones, and certainly much more articulate. But whether it’s the steely-eyed McGarrett, or some real-life cop, one thing impresses me: the casual, automatic arrogance of law enforcement, including, to be sure, judges. (Does any judge ever consider the inconvenience to a defendant, or a respondent, in setting a date for a hearing or trial? He might take into consideration objections by the lawyers to a certain date, but no one else has anything better to do at a given time than to appear before him, a public servant, at his convenience.)

There’s hardly a re-run of Hawaii Five-0 that doesn’t include a scene of McGarrett barking an order to one of his underlings: "Bring him in. I want to talk to him." And in the real-life crime dramas, it’s similar, if less dramatic: the suspect is asked to come to the station for questioning. It’s called an "interview."

I can’t recall a single episode in which one of McGarrett’s flunkies came back and said, "Gee, boss — I told him you wanted to talk to him, and he said he didn’t want to talk to you. He wouldn’t come." Of course not! That would be the end of the program.

We often see video transcripts of real-life suspects being interviewed. I’ve yet to hear one of them say, "I don’t want to talk to you. Other than a declaration of innocence, I have nothing to say." For that matter, we never hear of any suspect, on being invited to an "interview," declining the invitation.

And from the suspect’s point of view, that’s very sad. Time after time, we see people suspected of serious crimes talking freely to detectives. Even if they do not admit guilt, they make statements which can, with some digging, be shown to be untrue, or which contradict something they might have said earlier, perhaps at the scene of the crime, years earlier. If they end up on the witness stand, they will appear, not as forgetful or mistaken, but as liars. And all because they couldn’t keep their mouths shut.

Of course, not everyone invited to an interview is a "suspect." The police may assure the interviewee of that fact. But how can the hapless individual know that he will remain in the non-suspect category? Indeed, during the interview itself, based upon some remark of the interviewee, the police may reconsider and place the subject, at least in their own minds, in the "suspect" category. Even his "body language" may place him in the "suspect" category.

It’s not only cops that expect us to talk to them. From time to time you get other requests for information, from various government agencies. How many people live in your house? What cars did you own on January 1st? Do you own an airplane or boat? What was your income? Do you rent property?

You are expected to answer these questions. And you do. It’s the willingness of the public to discuss these matters with strangers that amazes, and depresses, me. Has no one heard of the First Amendment, of the Fourth? Or don’t they apply when demands come from the very people who exist to guarantee their protection?

Although it shouldn’t be necessary to say so, I’ll say it anyway: I’m not defending criminals, or criminal acts. Justice should be done, although I’m not sure that our "justice system" can provide it. I am merely remarking at the casual — and evidently unfailing — assumption by officers of the state that their requests will be regarded as legitimate demands, and that those questioned will provide information to people who are, or might become, their enemies. Anyone has a right to keep silent, and he doesn’t just acquire that right when some official intones the Miranda warning.

How can it be a bad thing to keep mum? Can it be a crime?

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

Paul Hein Archives

DIGG THIS

In the parable, the master was not confused when his servants reported that weeds had sprung up with the wheat. He knew he had sown good seed. "This is the work of an enemy," he declared, and, of course, he was right.

Today, our society is riddled with weeds. Have you bought gasoline lately? Or food — especially rice? What’s the value of your home? Is it holding its own? Have you taken a trip by plane recently? Can you smoke in your favorite tavern?

Are you being photographed at the bank, the supermarket, the department store? Does the lady in Bombay who is helping you get your cable-modem up and running want to know your social security number? Are your children prohibited from saying a prayer at school? Can you be arrested for saying something that offends a person belonging to some minority group? If you’re a landlord, can you discriminate between prospective tenants?

Don’t be confused: an enemy has done this. It’s not simply that the petroleum companies are greedy, or the food producers inefficient, or that the tavern-owner is concerned about the health of his patrons. There’s a system at work here; an organized, interconnected series of steps orchestrated by an enemy.

The enemy is subtle. He doesn’t stride about barking orders. You will rarely hear his voice at all, and when you do, it is soft and well modulated. His expressed concern, his overriding concern, is always for your welfare, and that of your children. Of course, your welfare is in jeopardy unless the environment is well treated and protected! Don’t worry; he will take care of that for you. In fact, it’s a near miracle that the world has survived this long without his guidance. Put yourself in his hands, and relax.

He is the State, or an agency of the State. It is the State, you see, that has the power to accomplish these good things. Not all of the good things, however, may be apparent to you. Some may be hidden, for your own good. The ultimate goal, and it has been freely admitted, is the elimination of artificial boundaries, and the establishment of a single one-world union of nations, with a corresponding single, one-world government of enlightened (of course!) rulers, working for the good of ALL mankind! It is a breathtaking concept; the ultimate political good, but its benefits may be difficult for the man in the street to understand, so it is presented indirectly: environmental concerns, availability of oil, exchange rates, etc. And don’t forget treaties, which override the Constitution.

This concept will achieve reality more readily when all men are on a more or less even footing — the "level playing field," in other words. Merging rich nations with poor will not set well with the rich, who might, in their shortsightedness, regard themselves as ripe fruit, ready to be picked. Besides, competent people might awaken to the fact that they have little need for government. To bring about the level playing field, therefore, the standard of living of the "rich" must be reduced. We are witnesses to that process. To whom will we turn when gasoline is so expensive that travel becomes virtually unthinkable? What will we do when there are food shortages? When what remains in our savings accounts loses its buying power, how will we find relief?

The State stands ready to deal with all of these problems! Of course, history teaches us that the State deals with problems by making them worse, but that’s only because of inexperience and lack of funding — or so the State would have you believe. Additional money and personnel will bring about efficiency and prosperity, although not necessarily in our lifetime, or even the lifetimes of our grandchildren. These things take time, and we must be prepared to sacrifice to bring them to fruition.

The State, however, is not the ultimate force leading us to a brave new world. Behind the State, and concealed by it, is the ultimate social force, the minence grise: banking. The banks create money from nothing, and charge interest for it. Repayment is made possible by more lending. The State has been the biggest borrower, but as long as it pays interest, the principle need not be repaid: the state’s reward for legitimizing this abomination. There’s nothing new in this system, and we can learn from the past that it inevitably fails.

When banks first began creating money in a big way, some banks expanded their deposits (i.e., loans) faster than others. If the depositors in such a bank became concerned about its solvency, they could go to the bank with their bank notes, and demand redemption. This was the so-called "run on the bank," and it revealed the dishonesty of the banker who issued receipts, or bank notes, for money that he did not possess. With the advent of the Federal Reserve, the "run on the bank" became a thing of history, because there was no longer anything to run to. Banks no longer needed to fear insolvency, because they were ALL insolvent. They all dealt with the same bank notes, and not a single one of them was redeemable. Problem solved: for the time being.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost. A system that cannot exist without continuous borrowing will fail when the cost of borrowing simply becomes too high. When we hear officials of the Federal Reserve itself warning of the possibility of a recession, look out!

Ah, but relief might be just around the corner. If the dollar fails, let’s replace it with, say, the Amero. When/if the Amero fails, there’s the euro, which the North American Union of Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. can employ when it joins the European Union. A currency can only fail by comparison with another currency. A single currency, therefore, will be incapable of failure, just as insolvency is impossible if there is no solvency.

With a single governing body for the entire world, and a single currency, we will have achieved Nirvana, or Utopia. All the problems besetting us will fade into history, as we enter a bright New Age.

You think? Or has an enemy done this? The weeds are waist-high, and growing fast.

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

Paul Hein Archives

DIGG THIS

Are we fools for obeying rules? Absolutely, yes — and no. I am firmly committed to both sides of the question.

On the other hand, are we fools to make rules? Without a doubt, except sometimes. Again, I am securely and comfortably ensconced astride the fence.

This apparent ambiguity was triggered by the funeral I attended last week. As I creep toward my dotage, I find myself spending more and more time at mortuaries, and attending funerals. And the funeral featured a eulogy.

So what? Well, here’s what: I am a Catholic, and this was a Catholic funeral. And eulogies are not permitted at Catholic funerals. It’s a rule. Should you doubt that (perhaps having attended a Catholic funeral yourself recently) let me quote from the Order of Christian Funerals, published by the Vatican in 1989: "A brief homily based on the readings should always be given at the funeral liturgy, but never any kind of eulogy." Has that rule been changed? No. In 2000, Pope John Paul II promulgated the revised General Instruction of the Roman Missal, which included this rule: "At the Funeral Mass there should, as a rule, be a short homily, but never a eulogy of any kind."

So the rule, twice stated, is unequivocal: NEVER a eulogy. The practice, on the other hand, seems, to my experience, universal as well: ALWAYS a eulogy. Are priests ignorant of the rules of their own liturgy? I wouldn’t dismiss that possibility, although it seems odd that I, a layman, should know the liturgical rule that is unknown to the priest. Or do they simply shrug it off as unimportant? That is likely, given our modern disregard for authority.

Similarly, the General Instruction prescribes the way the liturgy is to be celebrated. No priest has the authority to add or subtract a single word from the liturgy, but it happens all the time. Some priests seem to regard themselves as performers, and give us their own idiosyncratic version of Mass.

I cite these examples from Catholic teaching and behavior because I am familiar with them, but the question I raise has nothing to do specifically with religion, namely: what if they made a rule and nobody paid any attention to it? In the case of the Church, the disobedient can thumb their noses at the rules because the Church does not seek, nor wish to have, the power to physically punish them.

But what about the state? It makes innumerable rules, which it calls "laws," and fully expects obedience to them. But disobedience, at least in some areas, is widespread. Traffic laws, for example, are widely ignored. Few people pay much attention to speed limits, unless they spot a police car in the area. Probably the only reason why tourists adhere to the laws regarding the bringing of contraband into the country is the fear of punishment if caught, but even that fear does not prevent them from packing a sausage from Italy among their clothes, or sneaking a few tulip bulbs from Holland in with their toiletries.

Numbers make the difference. If most priests scrupulously observed the rule prohibiting eulogies, the ones who regularly eulogized would be conspicuous by their disobedience. The nail that sticks up is the one that gets the hammer! But if ALL of them stick up?

Libertarians are often asked what to do about those encroachments of government that they so readily decry. If a single person asks that question, the answer would seem to be: you can do nothing; you are in danger of making yourself the nail that sticks up. But consider prohibition. That "rule" was simply ignored, not by a few, but by millions. And what could the government do? Ultimately, despite much huffing and puffing, nothing. The Eighteenth, or Prohibition, Amendment, became and first and only Constitutional Amendment to be repealed — by the Twenty-first Amendment.

There’s a lesson to be learned there. Tyrants are not likely to be overthrown by a knight on a white charger. More likely, their downfall will come when a small boy observes that the king has no clothes, and everybody laughs. Or when millions raise their eyebrows in disbelief and exclaim, "You want me to do WHAT?" No organization is needed; no by-laws, constitutions, or meetings. There are thousands of rules, with more all the time. The rulers expect us to take their laws seriously, while they themselves ignore the Constitution that they’ve sworn to uphold. Obviously, some laws are to be taken seriously, others are not. Which rules are we fools to obey? Can’t we simply ask which are which, and why?

It’s about time.

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

Paul Hein Archives

DIGG THIS

With the decline of religion, the state has become an object of worship, and democracy is its principal dogma. It is perhaps the only aspect of political life that is never, ever, criticized, at least publicly.

It is not enough, moreover, that Americans enjoy democracy. Foreigners must also wallow in its benefits, even, perhaps, if they have no interest in, or appreciation of, it. The United States is spending billions of dollars, and the lives of thousands of its soldiers, to bring democracy to Iraq, and, if President Bush is to be believed, the Iraqis are willing to die for it. In a speech delivered in December of 2005, Mr. Bush, speaking of upcoming elections in that country, declared that, "Millions of Iraqis will put their lives on the line this Thursday in the name of liberty and democracy."

And in a radio interview in February, 2003, our president declared that, "The nation of Iraq — is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom." Clearly, in the presidential mind, democracy is linked with freedom and liberty.

And what’s good for the Americans and Iraqis is good for the Palestinians, too. In November of 2003, the president, in a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, informed us that, "For the Palestinian people, the only path to independence and dignity and progress is the path of democracy."

What is this wonderful thing that brings not only liberty and freedom, but independence, dignity, and progress? The generally accepted definition is that democracy is "government by the people," or the "rule of the majority." This rule is exercised either directly, or indirectly via freely elected representatives.

Baloney! Let’s not mince words. Democracy is a preposterous notion. "Rule by the people?" But if the people ruled, where does government enter the picture? Isn’t it government that rules? And government — i.e. the rulers — rules the people, although while doing so it piously insists that this is a democracy, where the people rule!

"Rule of the majority?" Are they referring to those much-vaunted elections in which we are all urged to participate? When was the last time that a majority of the people elected anyone? And, if you voted, can you be properly "represented" by someone you voted against?

And how representative are our representatives? Do they solicit our opinions about the matters on which they are going to vote? In fact, it is virtually certain that the overwhelming majority of the people, who, in theory, rule, are unaware of what their congressmen are voting on at any given time.

In this democracy of ours (all genuflect) it is the servants of the public who rule those who, we are always reminded, rule! Arriving at their plush offices in their limousines, these selfless servants exhaust themselves producing rule after rule to regulate, limit and control (i.e., govern!) the rulers. Those of us who, in this great democracy, rule the country are told what we can do and what we must not do, and what punishment will be meted out to us for disobedience. We, the rulers, are given these orders by our servants!

It’s too ridiculous to take seriously. An election is looming, and you can be certain that you will hear the democracy invoked with a reverence once reserved for the Deity. In the next breath, the invokers will tell us of the programs they envision for America. In other words, what new rules and regulations they plan to impose upon the public, which, of course, does the actual ruling in a democracy. And they expect us to take them seriously! Sadly, many of us do.

Democracy and government are mutually contradictory concepts. The people cannot rule themselves and at the same time live under a government that claims that authority. If democracy were possible, our elected "representatives" — elected by, perhaps, 30% of eligible voters — would not arrive in Washington with schemes for the control of our lives and our property. Rather, they would arrive with a blank slate, waiting to be told what to do. Personally, my orders would be for them to go home, get honest work, and let me alone!

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

DIGG THIS

I’ve only been to Philadelphia once, and that was a fleeting visit that took us to Independence Hall, the Liberty Bell, Supreme Court building, etc. We then were taken on a tour of the downtown area, taking in various points of interest, as well as some residential neighborhoods. I enjoyed it.

I don’t know if I’ll ever get back to Philadelphia, but if I do, I will try to visit another, more recent, American landmark, namely Geno’s Steak House. From what I’ve read, it’s a favorite with Philadelphians hankering for one of the city’s famous sandwiches, but that isn’t what gives it prominence, at least in my eyes.

Rather, it is a legal battle in which Geno recently found himself embroiled because of a sign he posted in his establishment. The sign read, "When ordering, speak English." He ended up in court because of it.

I assume, reasonably, that the restaurant is called Geno’s because Geno owns it. And I am old enough — a couple of times over — to recall when ownership equated with control. Geno may labor under the same delusion. Common sense suffices to tell you that even if a restaurant is under your control, you are not thereby justified in punching someone in the nose if they order their sandwich in Greek. But do you have to apologize for asking them to speak English?

Apparently, yes. Some busybodies accused Geno of discriminating, saying his sign discouraged customers of particular ethnic backgrounds from patronizing his shop. Don’t you just cringe at "customers of particular ethnic backgrounds?" What they mean, in less convoluted English (if we may use that language exclusively here) is "foreigners." Geno is asking foreigners in his establishment to speak English. He’s not threatening them if they don’t, or even claiming the right to deny them service, etc. He’s just asking them to speak English.

I guess it’s possible that some potential customers were "discouraged" by the sign. Maybe so discouraged that they left, and went to another restaurant. Who was hurt? If anyone, it was Geno, and if he’s not complaining, why should anyone else complain? Is there some legally guaranteed right to eat at a specific restaurant? Or does one have a right not to be discouraged?

The answer, in some quarters, is "yes." Geno’s lawyers were surprised that he triumphed in his day in court. But maybe they should have expected it. If a sign requesting that English be spoken can so "discourage" a customer that he feels nothing short of litigation can assuage his bruised feelings, what about a sign that says "No Smoking?"

I’ll bet Geno has a "No Smoking" sign in his establishment (and I call it "his," despite the obvious fact that he is not free to manage it as he sees fit) even though he may have no objection to his customers smoking. But whether he does or doesn’t, the "No Smoking" sign is probably mandated by law. Does it cause some customers to feel discouraged? If they felt so discouraged that they sued Geno, could the judge order the discouraging sign removed? Don’t be silly!

The truth of the matter is that the owner of the establishment — any establishment — may post any sign he wants, and if it discourages some customers: too bad. In this case, the owner of Geno’s is not Geno. Oh, he may have built the place, and he may maintain it, and pay the dozens of taxes demanded of him, but his ownership is only a veneer — and a very thin one at that. It was easily pierced by a simple sign saying, "Please order in English." The real owners are the rulers, and among their many rules must be some that mandate various signs, such as "No Smoking," or even "Men" or "Women," which may confound and discourage those befuddled by their sexuality. I’m guessing that the rulers realize that if they forbid a sign which merely requests the use of English, they might also have to forbid a sign which demands no smoking, but that sign is one of theirs, and utterly and absolutely proper. It couldn’t possibly discourage any right-thinking individual. It stays.

Of course, if Geno put up a sign that proclaimed, "The Rulers Are a Bunch of Self-Righteous Asses," he’d go too far. Our masters are ever so tolerant and understanding, but even their patience can be tried. Especially by the truth!

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

DIGG THIS

Would a single straw, added to tens of thousands of others loaded upon a hapless camel, suffice to break the animal’s back? I doubt it, but that’s not the point of the aphorism, which is that, at some point, a breaking point is reached. Those referring to the straw that broke the camel’s back are generally signifying a point at which the overloaded victim might resist.

This is in direct conflict with another old saw, namely the frog in the pot of water which is gradually heated so that the frog is boiled before it has the sense to jump out of the pot. (I recall learning, however, that this situation does not prevail: a frog will, indeed, jump out of water that is heated beyond his tolerance.)

But let’s not quibble. Both of the maxims are true. People will tolerate a very great deal before resisting. Many, indeed, will tolerate whatever is imposed upon them without resistance, even if, in so doing, they "break their backs." But some — thank God!! — will eventually say "Enough! No more!"

These profundities flickered across my mind the other day when I took my daughter to pick up her new car. It seemed peculiar that there was no sales tax added to the bill, until I realized how clever that "omission" was. Paying for a new car is painful enough; having to add, in my daughter’s case, almost 1600 bux more might be the proverbial straw. What, after all, did the state and local governments do to earn 1600 from this transaction? Judging by the nearly dozen or more forms that the dealer produced for my daughter’s signature, their only role was to impede and complicate the sale. And they expected a 1600 reward? So, with great cunning, the rulers delay the imposition of the tax until the car is titled, at which time the buyer, delighted with his/her new car, may somehow be willing — even pleased — to pay the tax for the privilege (??!) of driving the new car. Psychology is everything!

The sales tax is an interesting phenomenon. In Missouri, it is found in Chapter 144 of the state’s revised statutes, with 144.020 getting, more or less, and finally, to the point:

144.020. 1. A tax is hereby levied and imposed upon all sellers for the privilege of engaging in the business of selling tangible personal property or rendering taxable service at retail in this state. The rate of tax shall be as follows:

Remarkable! It is a "privilege" to sell your goods in Missouri. Moreover, it is a privilege granted by the state, even though the state may be unaware of the transaction, which buyer and seller could accomplish with no help at all from the state. And, of course, by virtue of this granted "privilege," the state is entitled to payment. But from whom? It would appear from the above that the tax is due from the seller. In that case, however, why is the buyer involved? And it appears that he is, because the law, at 144.080, makes it a crime for a seller to absorb or assume the tax, or fail to show it as a separate item. Here is that section:

5. It shall be unlawful for any person to advertise or hold out or state to the public or to any customer directly or indirectly that the tax or any part thereof imposed by sections 144.010 to 144.525, and required to be collected by the person, will be assumed or absorbed by the person, or that it will not be separately stated and added to the selling price of the property sold or service rendered, or if added, that it or any part thereof will be refunded. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Am I reading this correctly? These "laws" seem to say that a merchant may not absorb, or himself, pay the sales tax. Yet they also say that the seller, not the buyer, is responsible for the tax. And the tax must be itemized on the bill, although the customer paying the bill is not liable for the tax.

Anything you buy in a store has been taxed many times. The raw materials were no doubt taxed, as was the sale to the retailer. None of these taxes are itemized on the bill. But the sales tax must be. How odd, if the purchaser is not liable for the tax.

What would happen if purchasers, like the scalded frog, jumped out of the cauldron? Since the buyer is not liable for the sales tax, why should he pay it? What a situation would prevail if, all across the state, buyers refused to pay the sales tax, claiming, "It’s not my duty to pay this tax. I’m not the seller!" At first blush, it would seem simple: retailers wishing to remain in business would say, in effect: "OK, don’t pay it. I’ll pay it for you." But that, as we have seen, is against the law! Sellers may not assume or absorb the tax, whether or not they increase the cost to the buyer to compensate for it. It would appear from the law that sales in Missouri would be impossible if customers declined to pay a tax for which they are not liable, for the seller may not pay it on their behalf.

And then there’s the matter of involuntary servitude. The tax-collecting service provided, without compensation, and involuntarily, to the government by private citizens and companies is immense. I haven’t researched the matter: maybe it has been litigated. If so, would it be surprising that the government ruled, in its courts, in its own favor by declaring that compelling individuals to calculate, save, and forward to the government a tax, is not what it clearly is: involuntary servitude? Our rulers’ contempt for the Constitution is as deep and pervasive as their desire to loot and plunder.

For that matter, their contempt for the Constitution matches their contempt for their subjects, upon whose backs they heap straw upon straw with — as yet — little sign of resistance.

Could it be that maybe, just maybe, the frog is thinking of jumping out of the increasingly inhospitable pot? Might the camel, at long last, shrug off his burden? The sales tax, it seems to me, provides an excellent opportunity for such jumping and shrugging. Why should millions of buyers, every day, pay a tax for which they are not liable? Could it be because they are unaware of their lack of liability? How beautifully ignorance plays into the hands of the oppressors!

And how easily we suffer injustice when the injury is familiar, traditional, and not, usually, too onerous!

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

DIGG THIS

What would lead a group of Amish farmers in Wisconsin to consider moving to Venezuela? Why are dairy farmers and ranchers in Michigan considering selling their herds? Why, NAIS, of course!

NAIS stands for National Animal Identification System. It was originally designed to protect exporters of beef from cattle disease by tagging the cattle, and thus, presumably, make outbreaks of animal disease easier to detect earlier. But the idea has been expanded to include all farm animals, including those not part of the food chain, such as horses, for example, kept on farms as pets, or llamas. Critics suggest that even cats and dogs will be included, eventually.

NAIS is voluntary, at this point — at least as far as the feds are concerned. However, individual states can make participation compulsory, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture encourages them to do so. Wisconsin, for example, requires dairy farmers to register their farms, thus acquiring an ID number linked to a Global Positional Satellite monitoring system. Failure to register results in denial of a license to produce milk, thus effectively putting the farmer out of business. No wonder the Amish are considering a move to Venezuela! (However, they may be naïve to think that government in Venezuela is any less obnoxious than it is here.)

The tagging of animals is not a small job. There are about 1.4 million farms in the United States. If — or when — the tagging of animals becomes mandatory, it will mean inserting tags into 95 million cattle, 93 million turkeys, 60 million pigs, 6.3 million sheep, 1.8 billion chickens, and 2.5 million goats. But the really big producers will get a break. (Isn’t that always the case?) Large farms, where the cattle spend their entire lives cooped up, will be able to register their animals as a single lot. Smaller operators, however, must tag each individual animal, at costs ranging as high as $20 per tag. Veterinarians will be required to report non-compliance that comes to their attention.

The claimed justification for all this is to enhance America’s position as a food exporter, by making it easier to track down and eradicate disease in animals destined for overseas sale. This obviously has nothing to do, however, with the millions of farms that are not involved in food exportation. As is often the case, we suspect that the real purpose of the program is not the stated one. If the really big food exporters want to minimize competition, subjecting the smaller producers to the demands of NAIS — which involves not only the tagging, but considerable paperwork, plus registration of the farm itself, with additional paperwork and fees, is ideal for the job. Perhaps that explains the enthusiastic support of NAIS by Cargill Meat Solutions, Monsanto, and Schering-Plough, which, with a few other companies, formed the National Institute for Animal Agriculture, and created NAIS for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Imagine: a government program which benefits the big boys, at the expense of everyone else! Does the term "cronyism" ring a bell?

Farmers in Wisconsin are not the only ones thinking of leaving the U.S. Lakota Indians are considering leaving also, but not physically. Claiming that the U.S. government has broken its treaties with them, the Lakota Indians are determined to establish an independent Lakota nation, and have sent delegations to the State Department, as well as the embassies of several foreign nations, seeking recognition for their plan to establish their own nation in areas now parts of the Dakotas, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Montana. Activist Indian leader Russell Means says that present Indian leaders are "Vichy Indians," collaborating with the U.S. government to "ensure our poverty, to ensure the theft of our land and resources." The Bolivian Ambassador, Gustavo Guzman, says he is taking the Lakota’s declaration of independence seriously. No word, as yet, of the reaction of U.S. authorities, although I think we can safely assume they take a dim view of Lakota independence. The idea, after all, could spread.

What’s good for the Lakotas is good for the rest of us, too!

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

DIGG THIS

The two men were apologetic, and with good reason. Last December, on the way to a Ram’s game, the two men stopped at Tim & Joe’s tavern, in Belleville, Illinois, not far from St. Louis. Both had a few drinks. According to the subsequent complaint, quite a few: each consumed eight beers, and two Bloody Mary’s. Then, on their way to the game, their car crashed headlong into a pickup truck, doing such damage that emergency equipment had to be summoned to extricate its driver, who suffered a broken leg, and required hospitalization. The driver of the car, in a plea agreement, was placed on probation and fined $1500. His companion pled guilty to a charge of illegal transportation of alcohol (cops reported seeing him trying to conceal a can of beer when they arrived at the scene of the accident) and was fined $500.

Did I mention that the two men were judges? One, the one trying to conceal a can of beer, was chief judge of the 20th judicial circuit. He has since stepped down from that position. The drunk doing the driving was a St. Clair County (Illinois) judge. The two men made their apologies, mentioned above, before a judicial discipline board. From the newspaper report, it seems that the board met to ascertain the harm done to the reputation of the judiciary, and carry out damage control.

"I certainly owe the judiciary an apology," said the drunken judge driver. His lawyer agreed: "It’s a sad day he had to do this to the judiciary," he said.

Gosh! The judiciary is certainly something special! If, when I was practicing medicine, I had gotten drunk and smashed into someone’s vehicle, destroying it, and putting its driver into the hospital, would I apologize to — the local medical society? If you worked at Wal-Mart, and on your way home from work, got soused, and damaged someone else’s property, would you owe the Walton family an apology? But if a couple of judges get drunk and seriously damage another’s property and person, they are expected to apologize to the judiciary! And it evidently worked. The discipline board’s punishment was light.

No, correct that: it was non-existent, unless you call an official reprimand "punishment."

The two men will remain on the bench; will get paid as always, and, upon retirement, collect their retirement benefits. But the drunk driver’s lawyer thought it was fair. "It will always be a mark against their name. This will always get brought up." Maybe, but so what? They’ll continue to adjudicate as though nothing had happened. And as far as their good names are concerned, I’ll bet that, in six months, if not sooner, not one St. Clair County resident in a hundred will recognize their names.

And no doubt the "harm" to the judiciary was minimized by the combined fines of $2000 paid by the drunken duo.

And what about the poor unfortunate fellow who was just driving along, minding his own business, when a couple of inebriated judges hit him head-on, destroying his pickup, and putting him in the hospital? Well, he wasn’t and isn’t a member of the judiciary! Why should any concern be wasted on him? Insurance will take care of him, I suppose. But apologies, with appropriate groveling, must be made to the "judiciary," and money thrown at it as well.

The drunks are called, and probably refer to themselves as, "public servants." That makes the fellow whose truck they destroyed, and whose leg they broke, their sovereign. So when the servant seriously harms his master, he apologizes too — his union? It’s enough to make you laugh — or cry.

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

DIGG THIS

The headline created a definite impression: "Businessman with political connections may have found a way to get around county law." Sounds like a sneaky fellow, doesn’t he? Well, he’s a "businessman," and, at least in the local rag, businessmen are tricky scoundrels, not to be trusted. And he’s found a way to "get around county law," which can only mean that he’s planning something unlawful, right? And "political connections?" That suggests that he’s bribed one or more of the rulers, or promised them some benefit if they turn a blind eye to his nefarious scheme.

But, in fact, none of the above! The businessman of the headline plans to "get around the law" by utilizing the law. His plan is to develop some property he owns in a resort area by Lake of the Ozarks. County officials there have, for undisclosed reasons, refused his previous requests to develop "his" property. But now comes a new law, by which any landowner can petition the county to incorporate — regardless of the size of the land, or the number of inhabitants. The petition must be signed by 15% of the voters in the area seeking incorporation. In the case of the land owned by the businessman, that means as few as a dozen people, renting from him, would vote on the issue of incorporation. Apparently, once incorporated, county zoning laws are circumvented, and county permission to develop is not required.

Well, so what? This is a case of a landowner seeking to develop "his" own land. What he plans to do with it is not known, but there have been suggestions that he might build a botanical garden, a hotel, condos, or perhaps a theater.

And the reaction of the rulers? Horror, revulsion! A commissioner of the county that includes the land is aghast. "The negative impact this law could have on every county is limitless." Imagine: people doing as they please with their own land! The rulers tremble with indignation. "It scares us to death," says a commissioner of an adjacent county. Other commissioners worry that industrial development might result in pollution. "You could just think of a hundred different activities that discharge material into our municipal watershed," said one of them. (You could think of a Martian invasion, too, but no doubt the rulers would protect us in that event.) But surely incorporation doesn’t provide exemption from pollution laws. And, in any event, people damaged by pollution are free to sue the polluter, regardless of the site of the plant.

Another official waxes indignant: "This is a flagrant effort to evade the county’s planning zoning laws." But wait: this "flagrant effort" is simply the utilization of a law passed by the legislators. If they hold their offices to protect the public from such dangers as possible pollution, and violation of zoning laws, why did they pass this law? Well, it seems they didn’t know what they were doing. "This little change was put in there without debate. I am sure others, even the people in the Senate, didn’t catch it," lamented a Representative from the area involved. It’s hinted that a friend of the businessman, the House Speaker in the Missouri legislature, slipped the bill into another bill dealing with various local government issues. "It smacks of cronyism," says the mayor of a local town. Imagine: cronyism in government! Shades of Bechtel and Halliburton! Could such things happen in Missouri?

It’s amusing to see people who piously insist upon the sanctity of the law bemoaning a law that, to some slight and as yet non-existent degree, diminishes their authority to regulate how people handle their own property. Especially when they themselves passed the law! Add bungling incompetence to their other qualities.

It’s a perfect example of government at work.

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.

DIGG THIS

It is remarkable, I think, that some of the facts about government which might be considered obvious, are not considered at all by the general public.

For instance: the rulers make the rulers, which they call The Law, and insist that we take very seriously indeed. But rulers can make rules all day long (and they do!) and it will do them little good if there’s nobody to administer and enforce them. And so we have the bureaucracy and the police. Those sullen inefficient clerks at the auto license office are not there to serve you, obviously, but to serve the organization that hired them, and pays them. If you ignore them, and attempt to drive your automobile without the various devices which they insist you buy and apply, the police will enter the picture. Do the police protect and serve you? There are under no legal obligation to do so, but they might, if a situation arises wherein you need their help. But, for sure, they will serve the rulers, making sure the rules are being kept, and arresting those who spurn them.

And should you have the temerity to question the legitimacy of the laws, or the actions of the police in enforcing them, the judiciary will enter the scene. Dressed in a black robe, and seated above everyone else (so that you must look up to him, if only for that reason) one of the ruling class, called a judge, will most solemnly and formally decide that whatever action of the rulers you might be protesting is, in fact, utterly proper and lawful, and your protest is without merit, and frivolous. ("Frivolous" is a legal term used by the rulers to describe any challenge to their demands, especially one that proves the lawlessness of their claim.)

That the rulers, and their associates, are a privileged class becomes undeniably obvious when you see how they treat their dead. You’ve probably seen those impressive military funerals, with the twenty-one-gun salute, and the folding of the flag, to be given the bereaved family. Recently, here in Missouri, there was a spectacular example of the high regard with which the ruling class regards itself.

A young man broke into a store in a small town southwest of St. Louis. He took the car keys of a woman there, and some cash. Local police arrived, but he escaped, after firing a shot at them. He didn’t hit anybody. He was later spotted in a wooded area nearby. Deputies summoned a state trooper who had been trained as a sniper. As this young man rushed to the scene, his car struck a tractor-trailer parked on the highway while the driver was assisting another motorist. The Trooper was killed in this accident.

A terrible tragedy, without doubt. The young man left behind a wife and children, who have our sympathy. But now the story becomes bizarre. The fugitive was charged, and convicted, of second-degree murder. Whom did he murder? Why, the state trooper who was on his way to assist in the manhunt. Of course, the felon had never seen, or even heard of, the trooper that he murdered. The two men had never met. But Missouri law permits a felony murder charge to be brought when an officer is killed while coming to aid in a felony arrest.

In this state you can be convicted of the murder of someone you have never met! But only if your "victim" is a policeman coming to participate in your arrest. Could there be better proof of the privileged nature of the ruling caste — a privilege that, of course, they bestowed upon themselves? If a handler of bloodhounds were to be killed in an auto accident en route to assist in a manhunt, would the criminal being hunted be charged with his murder? What if the villain’s Mom were summoned to the scene, to try to talk her son into surrendering. If she were in a fatal accident while on her way, would her son be charged with her murder? You know the answers.

The motto "To Protect and Serve" is often applied to the police. It is altogether appropriate. The question that isn’t asked — at least often enough — is: protect and serve whom? Is it you or I? Maybe, coincidentally. But beyond doubt, it is the ruling class. Make yourself sufficiently obnoxious to them, and if the officer sent to arrest you is killed in an auto accident along the way, you will be accused of his murder! That’s how important they are, and how insignificant you are!! Don’t complain about it; you don’t want to upset them. Do you?

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is author of All Work & No Pay, which is out of print, but may occasionally be obtained on eBay.