A great deal of posturing is going on at the White House these days whether or not to raise the debt ceiling.  This is the usual false opposites of debate limited within the mainstream vernacular.

The false dichotomy of “raising taxes” vs. “cutting spending” is trotted out by the media as the (limited) spectrum of debate, similar to the opposite of a Republican is a Democrat and vice versa.  In reality, they are the two sides of the same coin of kleptocracy or bribeocracy.  As usual, any other points of view are suppressed.

The reason the farmers running the United States Tax Farm present these two false opposites is to keep the herd bickering with each other instead of seeing the farmers or the farm itself.  Running a tax farm according to the “Human Livestock Farming Techniques: Democratic Methods” manual is very efficient compared with other tax farms operating with more totalitarian methods.   You see, in a democracy, the farmers know the herd is more enthusiastic about production when they believe they are free.  Free-range maybe, but never free.  Consequently, there is more wealth generated the farmers can siphon off the herd into their pockets.

In addition to the increase in wealth generated, a *MASSIVE* benefit of the democratic farm is the herd will keep each other in line by having them bicker with each other over false opposites presented to them by the farmers.  If one member of the herd has the audacity to point out the farm, and the fact the herd is being farmed, and/or suggests the herd jump the fence or not have farmers at all, all other members of the herd will immediately gore/excoriate said member of the herd.

Contrast this with more totalitarian farms, the farmers have to hire more farm hands to keep the herd from stampeding against the farmers themselves.  More farm hands = less loot for the farmers.  In addition, totalitarian tax farms tend to produce less wealth because the herd is depressed and/or listless about production because they are too tightly controlled and they *KNOW* they are being farmed.

In otherwords, democracy doesn’t ensure your voice is heard; it ensures your voice is drowned out by the herd.

Productive farmers raise livestock and crops.  Parasitic farmers own other humans because of a humans ability to self-organize.

So what does this have to do with the debt-ceiling?

As mentioned before, the false opposite presented to the public ignores one of the most vampiric predatory draining of wealth out of the economy: Regulatory Agencies.

The annual cost of federal regulations in the United States increased to more than $1.75 trillion in 2008. Had every U.S. household paid an equal share of the federal regulatory burden, each would have owed $15,586 in 2008. By comparison, the federal regulatory burden exceeds by 50 percent private spending on health care, which equaled $10,500 per household in 2008. While all citizens and businesses pay some portion of these costs, the distribution of the burden of regulations is quite uneven. The portion of regulatory costs that falls initially on businesses was $8,086 per employee in 2008. Small businesses, defined as firms employing fewer than 20 employees, bear the largest burden of federal regulations. As of 2008, small businesses face an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent higher than the regulatory cost facing large firms (defined as firms with 500 or more employees). – http://www.sba.gov/content/impact-regulatory-costs-small-firms-0

far more than income tax, GDP of Italy, (Source: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/22/red-tape-rises-again-cost-of-regulation-reaches-1-75-trillion)

Moreover, 4,000 more Americans die every year from costs associated with health services regulation (22,000) than from lack of health insurance (18,000).”. – http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa527.pdf

Among the report’s findings:

- Given 2010’s government spending (outlays) of $3.456 trillion, the regulatory “hidden tax” of $1.75 trillion stands at an unprecedented 50.7 percent of the level of federal spending itself.
- Regulatory costs exceed all 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.463 trillion.
- Regulatory costs dwarf corporate income taxes of $157 billion.
- Regulatory costs tower over the estimated 2010 individual income taxes of $936 billion by 87 percent—nearly double the level.
- Regulatory costs of $1.75 trillion absorb 11.9 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), estimated at $14.649 trillion in 2010.
- Combining regulatory costs with federal FY 2010 outlays of $3.456 trillion reveals a federal government whose share of the entire economy now reaches 35.5 percent.

If I can pass a law where every taxpayer in the US sends me $1, what is my incentive to keep the graving flowing? About $150M at least. What is the taxpayers incentive to stop me? About $1. This is called the “imbalance of incentive” problem.   Multiply this by all pandering for a share of the loot, and we have a staggering problem.

Since March 1962, the debt ceiling has been raised 74 times, according to the Congressional Research Service. Ten of those times have occurred since 2001.

Expect more of the same over the next decade. Barring major changes to spending and tax policies, “Congress would repeatedly face demands to raise the debt limit,” CRS wrote.

In theory, the limit is supposed to help Congress control spending. In reality, it doesn’t.

Every time the debt limit needs to be raised, lawmakers and the president are forced to take stock of the country’s fiscal direction, which isn’t a bad thing necessarily.

But the decision about how high to set the ceiling is divorced from lawmakers’ decisions to pass spending hikes and tax cuts. It’s also made after the fact, so it doesn’t do much to pull in the purse strings.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/03/news/economy/debt_ceiling_faqs/index.htm

The “debt ceiling” was introduced so government could posture to the public it was being fiscally responsible.

However, when you have the power to tax and collect those taxes unopposed, the descent is inevitable.

When you have the power to print, and print unopposed, the descent is inevitable.

If you have the power to sell off the unborn – sometimes called “national debts” or “deficit financing”, the descent is inevitable.

The moral argument needs to be looked at.

If we say, “Violation of the non-aggression principle is a universally immoral, then we cannot have governments, because governments are just people, and the principle applies to them.”

If we say, “Violation of the non-aggression principle is universally moral, then we cannot have governments because governments are people and we can all run around initiating force against each other. Taxing each other for example.”

We were robbed of the arguments when we were most receptive to them. Government schools and mainstream media – a wholly owned subsidiary of the government – made it so.

Those who support the war would be free to write the defense department a big check. No one would initiate force against those who supported the war and would attempt to prevent them from paying.

Those who *DO NOT* support the war would be free to withhold payment to the defense department. No one would initiate force against those who did not support the war and would attempt to force them to pay.

Imagine if we respected our children and could not deficit finance a war using their future productivity as collateral for debts incurred today.

Imagine if the State could not spend money allocated for other projects or programs elsewhere to fund the war.

What would happen?

As the costs of war mounted, the costs would fall away from those who disagreed and accrue to those who supported war. How long would their support last? Even if the war ended, one cannot forget they’d be obligated to financially remunerate soldier’s families in some way. How long would their support last as the drove their families into financial destitution? What discord would be created in such a family? Would it be worth it?

Their support would hang in the sky like bricks don’t.

Imagine if this viewpoint was not suppressed by my priestly class now known as the mainstream media. Imagine if it were allowed to ricochet in my indoctrination camps called “public education” that deflect you from learning in your arguably most receptive state of absorption in your lifetime.

Imagine if it ricocheted around the entire world. In all tax farms.

If you were free to disagree, war would…end.

It is said soldiers died for our freedoms. If this were true, soldiers would have fought me when I turned the war tax into the income tax. Over the years, I have gotten larger, more intrusive, and more costly than ever before. The initiation of violence does not beget virtue, but more violence.

1. In fascism, the government censors you. In a democracy, we censor each other.
2. In facism you know you don’t control the government. In a democracy, you have the hallucination you do.
3. In either facism or a democracy, both governments will initiate violence against you in the event you act on your disagreement by withholding tribute/payment to them.
4. When you argue for freedom in a fascist society, you can depend on government condemning you.  When you argue for freedom in a democratic society, you can depend on fellow citizens condemning you.
5. A fascist government directly controls the press by the clearly visible gun.  A democratic government directly controls the press by licensing and regulation, cloaking the gun.
6. A fascist government depends on your voice not being permitted to be heard. A democratic government depends on your voice being drowned out by the herd.
7. Both a fascist and democratic government are merely human livestock farming manuals. Some work better than others. A fascist government siphons off the wealth of their livestock by removing freedom. A democratic government siphons off the wealth of their livestock by perpetuating the illusion of freedom (i.e. more free than others) that keeps the cattle enthusiastic about producing.
8. Both governments are violence monopolies over a geographic region. The next time you open the map of the world, don’t see nations. See tax farms. It makes much more sense.

Any more?

In relatively freer countries, no one tells you who your friends are, who to marry, where to live and work, what to buy, what to wear, where to shop, what to eat and so forth.

You don’t beat the sh-t out of the clerk at Starbucks to give you a coffee, nor do you beat the sh-t out of an employer who didn’t give you a job when you wanted one.

We organize our own affairs. That’s everyday anarchy at work, no?

Real anarchists respect property rights.

That’s why they loathe the existence of an institution that claims to protect person and property yet cannot exist without initiating force/violence against said persons and decide how much of their property they get to keep.  In case you’re not following, that institution is the one you bless/sanction if you vote – government.

Unfortunately, the word “anarchy” has been hijacked by the status quo and memed around to mean smelly violent 20-somethings that get off on destroying property. The status quo had to do that, otherwise most of us would ask, “What’s wrong with anarchy?” or “We’ve had 6000 years of government and smarter people than us tried to get it right. Is it going to be right after 6001 years? 6002? When? It’s time to admit it. It’s a failed notion. We have to do better than this.”

Look. Sometimes, the truth isn’t about learning something new, it’s about unlearning something old. We need to get out of our mental wheelchairs we involuntarily got into via the biases/bigotry of our parents, being deflected from learning in public schools, and blinded by mainstream media. It’s the story that’s broken. Not you. Get out of the wheelchair. Culture is the scar tissue of child abuse.

This is a very interesting area of study.

It is often said that patents are necessary in order to incent invention/innovation. It is said that patents protect individual property. But does that empirically hold true and at what cost?

However, think on this. Patents can only exist via State violence. What is the State? The State is an institution where a minority claims the moral/legal right to INITATE FORCE/VIOLENCE against the majority. In order for it to even exist, it must initiate force against said persons and decide how much property they get to keep (taxation).

Patents aren’t free. The benefits of a patent (intellectual property) accrue to the holders of it, but a patent can only exist via State violence: the removal of property of others. A patent holder seeks economic rent from the State to charge a higher price than it otherwise would be for the article protected under patent.

Put another way, we directly pay higher prices for said article and indirectly *PAY AGAIN* via taxation! Privatized profits and socialized losses. Concentrated benefits and distributed costs.

Some may say, “Without patents or intellectual property, how would, say, a musician be paid?”

What is obfuscated by the above question and should be reiterated is this, “Without State violence, how would a musician make a living? Would the creation of music disappear in the absence of State violence?” This causes immediate cognitive dissonance in the advocate of intellectual monopoly.

There is an excellent book devoted to this topic. I highly recommend it:

Amazon: http://amzn.to/95Ioy4 (Amazon)
Free PDF: http://bit.ly/7SFpCy
Online: http://bit.ly/fcQ1

The first prong is the bigotry/biases of your parents who were your first influences from 0 to about when…16? 17? years old.

The second prong is 12-14 years of government indoctrinating veal pens euphemistically called “public education” that prevented you from learning in your arguably most receptive state of mind in your lifetime.

The third prong is a pro-State shilling/trolling media cartel delivering “booster shots” inoculating you from critical thinking skills, true analysis, and deflecting you back into the matrix.

I pulled mine out. It hurts like hell and I still have shrapnel in my brain I’m dealing with.  You know what was harder?  Becoming aware of the existence of the trident.

The truth is not about learning something new, it is about unlearning something old. Get out of your wheelchair. You’re not broken. The story and the story alone is broken. – Stefan Molyneux

Focus or die: The G8 fights for survival

OK. Look.

Economies are simply the aggregate of millions of atomic transactions per day. Some of those transactions benefit each who are involved (free trade). Some do not (paying taxes).

All the G8/G20 are are a group of Tax Farms. A Tax Farm – sometimes called a “nation” or a “country” – is nothing more than a geographical region with a fence around it where Farmers agree not to steal each other’s human livestock.

Once and a while, Farmers get together and compare notes. What they are doing is trying to improve the Human Livestock Farming Manuals. The purpose is to maximize resources for the ruling class to siphon off the herd’s productivity.

These Farming Manuals have names. For example, “State Capitalism”, “Fascism”, “Marxism”, “Communism”, “Monarchies”, “Aristocracies”, “Republics”, and yes, “Democracy”. Some of these manuals work better than others.

For example, most Farmers have come to the realization that a mixture of “State Capitalism” and “Democracy” can be blended together to keep the herd producing enthusiastically. Slaves have notoriously poor output and are more susceptible to diseases through poor mental health. The Tax Farmers have figured out if they let the livestock choose their Head Farmer, they’ll be more enthusiastic about producing. The Farmers called this “voting”.

The Farmers also figured out that if they crammed too much livestock into a pen, they’d feel less free and output would drop. So they widened the pens and gave the livestock more freedom…but never free.

One amazing thing the Farmers discovered to their sheer delight, was if one member of the herd wanted to be free, all *OTHER* members of the herd would turn on him/her and gore him. The slave-on-slave violence was truly a remarkable feat of social engineering.

A massive looting and pillaging technique the G8/20 farmers use is debt-based fiat currency.

Tax Farms permission to live and work points – sometimes confused with “money” – is entirely manufactured by the Farmers State/Banking operation.

All money is created out of debt. Every last unit of it. All money in circulation represents another’s liability. Debt carries interest and must be repaid. Interest generated on existing loans can only be paid back via the principal from future loans.

If the Tax Farm does not grow it’s productivity infinitely, the money in circulation will begin to contract as the old loans are being serviced but not enough new loans created. This tends to cause massive unrest in the herd. Left unchecked, or the herd no longer responds to the carrot in front of their noses – sometimes called “cheap credit” – the monetary unit in circulation collapses in hyper-deflation. The herd would be stampeding wildly at this point and not providing the farmers sustenance.

This will never do.

A few privileged Farm Hands – sometimes called a “central “bank” or a “private bank” ) get to print money out of “thin air” in return for another’s obligation. However, only the Farmers may pledge the unborn’s future potential productivity as collateral for the debt taken on today. If the Farm Hands tried it, the jig would be up as the livestock only see the Farmer as legitimate, but not the Farm Hands.

Canada: Best Managed Tax Farm 2010.

Bank tax push gains momentum

A commenter said:

The only solution here is to tighten regulations on the banks so the risk they take on is within tolerance.

Fail.  Warning: Public Education at work here!

S/he needs to understand how money comes into existence, who is privileged to manufacture our money, who that process benefits, who it hurts, and how it works….and why regulation will not fix anything until we know the answers to the above on a wide scale and understand how reform of the monetary apparatus is necessary.

Such is the murky world of banking, people have absolutely no understanding of it. It’s not taught at home, in the schools, or presented in media. It’s a shared obfuscation as if it were not, people would be completely alarmed.

All money is created out of debt. The 5% circulating in our economy in the form of paper notes is generated by the BoC buying government debt instruments (usually) in return for money it prints out of thin air. This is no conspiracy. Have a look at the BoC’s annual report’s consolidated balance sheet. It’s right in there:

http://bankofcanada.ca/en/annual/2009/finstate09.pdf, page 4.

The other 95% (approx) of money in circulation really isn’t money at all, but a substitute for money called “bank credit”. This money is created at the point where a bank grants the loan, less a very small percentage held in reserve:

http://www.cba.ca/contents/files/statistics/stat_banksann_db251_en.pdf

According to that spreadsheet, the big 6 banks have 1.3+T out on loan, in the aggregate. Via a simple accounting rule, a loan is a revenue generating vehicle and is tagged as an asset. Every loan created ends up as a deposit somewhere else…maybe in the same bank or another one. This is a liability. Thus the columns balance.

In order for me to lend you money, I actually have to have the money to lend. I cannot do what the banks do via their regulated fractional reserve banking fraud. The State in all G8/20 nations permit it.

This “tax” is nothing more than lipstick on a pig.

The nature of our monetary system is inherently unstable.

Think on this. If I can effectively print money out of thin air, I don’t have to charge you a whole heck of a lot of interest on it to show a profit. Likewise, as long as I am permitted to practice fractional reserve banking, have a State/Banking cartel – sometimes called a “central bank” – that will drive dump trucks of money up to my door if need be offering a 24x7x365 bailout, what does that do?

It allows me to unilaterally shift focus to return and neglect risk, as long as I am granted a mulligan if I adhere to the regulatory framework. As a bank, I have more out on loan than I have on reserve. If you or I did that, we’d be called insolvent.

Since every unit of currency is created out of debt, debt must be repaid. Debt carries interest. At any point in time, there is always more debt in the system than there is money in circulation.

Interest on old loans can only come from the principal on new ones issued. As such, even though economics says nothing about growth, we must have infinite economic growth or our money supply contracts and, left unchecked, vanishes. Rome burns.

When banks pyramid loans off deposits, which then becomes deposits themselves, you can imagine our money supply stretching tight like an elastic. However, when we have growth less than 3-5% / year on average, the elastic “snaps back” with ever increasing defaults as more and more people compete for fewer and fewer dollars in circulation. Prices fall, jobs are lost, abuse rises, stress abounds.

It’s like a game of musical chairs where those who do not get a seat go bankrupt.

A bank tax solves nothing with respect to the greatest Ponzi scheme in existence today.

Government permission to live/work points – sometimes called money – would have no value in a free market but for State violence called taxation or legal tender laws. Gresham’s law does not hold in a free market.

We have forgotten what money was.

G20 security prepared for any threat, at any cost

Ottawa’s estimated $930-million security cost announced this spring outraged taxpayers, who never contemplated a bill of that magnitude when Mr. Harper’s government first won the right for Canada to host the 2010 G8 meeting.

Nice to see they are so free with my money. Can we vote our way out of the obligation to pay it?

It is said that one of the primary functions of government is to protect person and property.

Ask yourself a few questions:

- Would you, under any circumstances, voluntarily purchase the services of a group of men whose jobs it would be to kill or kidnap you when you refuse to continue providing for their armaments and training?

- Would you, under any circumstances, voluntarily purchase the services of an organization which states in no uncertain terms that in the event you decide to stop buying from them, you will forfeit your house?

- What if an organization like one of the above tried to assert a claim against you? Would you submit your dispute for arbitration to an organization owned or operated by the very same individuals?

In case you’re not following, the organizations alluded to above are the police, the government-in-general (i.e., planners, lawmakers, figureheads, etc.) and the courts.

We are witnessing the slogan “to serve and protect” in action. Do I really have to point out who they are serving and protecting? Hint: It isn’t you.

Well, I suggested they use Skype. No go.  After all, they have to move around like Caesar’s entourage to show us why they are fit to rule us, no?

But “I think it’s a bargain, quite frankly, and you can quote me on that,” said John Kirton, a University of Toronto professor and booster of such summits.

Really? So this professor is saying it is perfectly acceptable to use violence to solve social problems? Bet you he never encountered that in his stroll through the academic jungle.

Professor? Am I free to disagree with you?

If you think it is such a bargain and wish to pay, I would not initiate violence/force against you directly nor indirectly call for it via a third party – the State. Go right ahead. I support your right to have your beliefs and *ACT* on them accordingly.

Write them a big check if you agree with it.

Am I free to disagree with you? Will you accord me the same reciprocity I grant you?

If I disagree with you, am I free to withhold payment as a implementation of my beliefs?

If this is the case, and others feel the same as me, can others who share my belief withhold payment and let the lions share of the security costs accrue to you and those who agree with you?

And as the costs mount and you keep financially bleeding to support it, driving you and your family into destitution, how long would you continue to think it is a “bargain”? When you and your family are driven to eat dog food as a result of having the consequences of your beliefs on your shoulders, how long will you continue your support?

And yes, quite frankly, you can quote me on that.

What if Ford was to provide schools for the residents of Oakville?

The teachers salaries and pensions would be on the payroll of Ford. As we all have a tendency not to bite the hand that feeds us, any curricula critical of Ford would disappear in a short time. There’d be a Ford flag in the front corner of the classroom and perhaps a picture of Henry Ford beside the classroom clock. Kids might stand and sing the Ford anthem at the beginning of the day.

What if GM was to provide schools for the residents of Oshawa?

The teachers salaries and pensions would be on the payroll of GM. As we all have a tendency not to bite the hand that feeds us, any curricula critical of GM would disappear in a short time. There’d be a GM flag in the front corner of the classroom and perhaps a picture of Sam McLaughlin beside the classroom clock. Kids might stand and sing the GM anthem at the beginning of the day.

Kids from GM schools might ridicule the kids from Ford and vice-versa. This is permitted (think criticism of political parties A and B). What *WOULD* disappear from both schools is criticism of the automotive industry as a whole. This is a natural vetting out process.

If someone advocated Ford/GM getting out of the business of provisioning of schools, that person would be excoriated by others saying, “Who would provide the schools if Ford/GM did not?”.

Good thing we’re not that stupid.  Can you imagine walking into a school and singing an anthem to a flag and praising Ford/GM? I mean…come on..that’s so stupid!

Oh. Wait.

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

David Vincent Gilbert

Why?

Because all of them are economic ideologies. They are “Human Livestock Farming Manuals” or “How to run a Tax Farm” or “How can we maximize production of the people so we may siphon off as much wealth as possible”.

Some of these manuals work better than others…that’s all.

For example, if I am a farmer and try to cram too many chickens into a coop, my chickens will get sick, depressed, and/or diseased. Net result? My costs go up and egg production down.

Now, if I give my chickens more freedom (not to be confused with free) by reducing the number of them, letting them run around – free-range, they will produce more eggs…and that is what I want to harvest, right? Keep the chickens enthusiastic.

If I have 1000 cows but pen them in too tightly, again, same problem. They will bang their heads against their pens, aliments rise, and so forth. Net result? Milk production down. Meat quality poor. How do are the cows kept enthusiastic about production?

Solution: Expand their pens. Let them walk in the yard. Give them more freedom – but never free. If one of the cows jumps the fence, what does the farmer do? Well, if it makes the remaining 999 cows more enthusiastic about production because they believe they can jump the fence too, the farmer says, “F–k it, let it go.”. In the meantime, the farmer constructs better fences to make it more difficult for the other cows to leave.

Different techniques…same objectives.

Countries are merely tax farms.

This article was interesting:

Greek prime minister George Papandreou Friday requested the activation of a €40-billion-plus bailout package as the country’s financial health spirals downward.

Most legal systems in relatively freer (not to be confused with free) countries recognize a contract is null and void if one or more of the parties signed it was:

• under duress (i.e. coercion)
• incapacitated (i.e. drunks, lunatics etc)
• a minor

Given these criterion, I find it a difficult and fallacious argument to posit sovereign debt to be repaid via the “social contract”. Why?

• Taxation is force or coercion.
• The debt is passed on to children and the unborn. I definitely classify the unborn as minors, don’t you?

And just in case the above two points aren’t enough for you, the unborn didn’t even *SIGN* the contract! Clearly it cannot morally and legally obligate them at all!

Some people signed their names to a Constitution generations ago. Is your name on it? Did you agree? Are you free to disagree?  It is a non-binding contract then.

The managers of the Tax Farm known as Greece will accept the loan today obligating the existing and future production of the human livestock penned within its fences/borders as collateral.

To keep the livestock from jumping the fence, the farmers will promote mythologies such as nationalism, patriotism, the value of family, and build higher fences to make it more difficult for the livestock to leave. Of course these fences are constructed under the livestocks very noses that they don’t see…until they try and jump the fence.

Nothing complicated here at all.

Be it Blue, Red, Orange, or Green farmers, all they are proposing is tweaks to the manuals. The how the livestock is to produce for the farmers is an academic exercise, but the requirement the livestock produce is basic.

It get’s even better. Let’s say the 1 cow that jumps the fence comes back. Not into the fields of the farm, but presses up against the fence and tells the other 999 remaining cows, “Hey! It’s sweet out here! No more hooking your udders up the vacuum! No more of us being marched into “The Place” (abattoir) where we check in, but never check out! Come on over!”.

Suppose 1 or 2 of the cows says, “That sounds like a really good idea! I’m a coming!”. What happens?

a) The farmer declares that cow a terrorist.
b) The farmer shoots the cow.
c) The farmer from Farm A extradites the cow in case it landed in Farm B as a wanted bovine. Farm B of course will comply as they have agreed to not steal each others cows.  An extradition order is essentially a “non-compete” clause  between Farm A and Farm B.  That way farmers do not have to compete against each other to keep the cows happy and enthusiastic about producing for their respective Farmer.
d) The farmer declares the cow treasonous and marks it with sedition.

However, none of that has to happen anymore. Why?

The 1 or 2 cows who want to leave to join the first cow will immediately be gored by the remaining cows as they say, “If you leave, we’ll be forced to work more! F–k you!”. Then those remaining cows wave their Farm’s flag and moo the Tax Farm anthem….that another cow wrote.

The farmer doesn’t even have to lift a finger.

It’s pretty telling, isn’t it?

Have a look at what the human livestock of the Tax Farm known as Iceland are doing:

The herd’s mindset: “Anna Margret Bjoernsdottir never thought she would be forced to leave her once wealthy homeland, but after 18 months of economic upheaval she has decided to join the biggest emigration wave from Iceland in more than a century.”

The cows sentiment?: “”I’m so angry about this government,” Bjoernsdottir said.”

The cows remaining?: “”I don’t want my daughter to have to pay for this,” she said. “I just have such a bad feeling about what’s happening here.”

Oh my. This will never do. The herd is leaving. The farmer cannot pledge the today’s and tomorrow’s productivity of the herd as collateral.

The farmer cannot predict as to how much productivity he can siphon off without killing the herd.  All it takes for the cows to stop consenting.

The farmer is running out of victims.

Show this to statists who argue “I don’t care how many people die, I want my [insert government "service" here]!”.  Nice to see this video has had 3.6 million views since it was posted 4 days ago on April 3rd, 2010. Now.  If only it could beat Susan Boyle’s videos…

In a related story, Yahoo News publishes this with the headline:

Leaked video shows civilian killings in Iraq, signifies growing power of independent Web journalism

Translation:

Unsuppressed video depicts wholesale government slaughter of civilians, signifies growing failure of the mainstream media cartel’s grip on [mis|dis]information agents for the State.

In order for governments to initiate force, it must first initiate force against its’ own human livestock first by siphoning off their productivity to create and perpetuate the war machine.  Sometimes we call this taxation.

It’s only terrorism when the other side does it, right?

By Drew Griffin and Andy Segal, CNN Special Investigations Unit

(CNN) – Imagine being charged with a crime, but an imaginary friend takes the rap for you.

That is essentially what happened when Pfizer, the world’s largest pharmaceutical company, was caught illegally marketing Bextra, a painkiller that was taken off the market in 2005 because of safety concerns.

When the criminal case was announced last fall, federal officials touted their prosecution as a model for tough, effective enforcement. “It sends a clear message” to the pharmaceutical industry, said Kevin Perkins, assistant director of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division.

But beyond the fanfare, a CNN Special Investigation found another story, one that officials downplayed when they declared victory. It’s a story about the power major pharmaceutical companies have even when they break the laws intended to protect patients.

Big plans for Bextra

The story begins in 2001, when Bextra was about to hit the market. The drug was part of a revolutionary class of painkillers known as Cox-2 inhibitors that were supposed to be safer than generic drugs, but at 20 times the price of ibuprofen.

Pfizer and its marketing partner, Pharmacia, planned to sell Bextra as a treatment for acute pain, the kind you have after surgery.

But in November 2001, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said Bextra was not safe for patients at high risk of heart attacks and strokes.

The FDA approved Bextra only for arthritis and menstrual cramps. It rejected the drug in higher doses for acute, surgical pain.

Promoting drugs for unapproved uses can put patients at risk by circumventing the FDA’s judgment over which products are safe and effective. For that reason, “off-label” promotion is against the law.

But with billions of dollars of profits at stake, marketing and sales managers across the country nonetheless targeted anesthesiologists, foot surgeons, orthopedic surgeons and oral surgeons. “Anyone that use[d] a scalpel for a living,” one district manager advised in a document prosecutors would later cite.

A manager in Florida e-mailed his sales reps a scripted sales pitch that claimed — falsely — that the FDA had given Bextra “a clean bill of health” all the way up to a 40 mg dose, which is twice what the FDA actually said was safe.

Doctors as pitchmen

Internal company documents show that Pfizer and Pharmacia (which Pfizer later bought) used a multimillion-dollar medical education budget to pay hundreds of doctors as speakers and consultants to tout Bextra.

Pfizer said in court that “the company’s intent was pure”: to foster a legal exchange of scientific information among doctors.

But an internal marketing plan called for training physicians “to serve as public relations spokespeople.”

According to Lewis Morris, chief counsel to the inspector general at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “They pushed the envelope so far past any reasonable interpretation of the law that it’s simply outrageous.”

Pfizer’s chief compliance officer, Doug Lanker, said that “in a large sales force, successful sales techniques spread quickly,” but that top Pfizer executives were not aware of the “significant mis-promotion issue with Bextra” until federal prosecutors began to show them the evidence.

By April 2005, when Bextra was taken off the market, more than half of its $1.7 billion in profits had come from prescriptions written for uses the FDA had rejected.

Too big to nail

But when it came to prosecuting Pfizer for its fraudulent marketing, the pharmaceutical giant had a trump card: Just as the giant banks on Wall Street were deemed too big to fail, Pfizer was considered too big to nail.

Why? Because any company convicted of a major health care fraud is automatically excluded from Medicare and Medicaid. Convicting Pfizer on Bextra would prevent the company from billing federal health programs for any of its products. It would be a corporate death sentence.

Prosecutors said that excluding Pfizer would most likely lead to Pfizer’s collapse, with collateral consequences: disrupting the flow of Pfizer products to Medicare and Medicaid recipients, causing the loss of jobs including those of Pfizer employees who were not involved in the fraud, and causing significant losses for Pfizer shareholders.

“We have to ask whether by excluding the company [from Medicare and Medicaid], are we harming our patients,” said Lewis Morris of theDepartment of Health and Human Services.

So Pfizer and the feds cut a deal. Instead of charging Pfizer with a crime, prosecutors would charge a Pfizer subsidiary, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. Inc.

The CNN Special Investigation found that the subsidiary is nothing more than a shell company whose only function is to plead guilty.

According to court documents, Pfizer Inc. owns (a) Pharmacia Corp., which owns (b) Pharmacia & Upjohn LLC, which owns (c) Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC, which in turn owns (d) Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. Inc. It is the great-great-grandson of the parent company.

Public records show that the subsidiary was incorporated in Delaware on March 27, 2007, the same day Pfizer lawyers and federal prosecutors agreed that the company would plead guilty in a kickback case against a company Pfizer had acquired a few years earlier.

As a result, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. Inc., the subsidiary, was excluded from Medicare without ever having sold so much as a single pill. And Pfizer was free to sell its products to federally funded health programs.

An imaginary friend

Two years later, with Bextra, the shell company once again pleaded guilty. It was, in effect, Pfizer’s imaginary friend stepping up to take the rap.

“It is true that if a company is created to take a criminal plea, but it’s just a shell, the impact of an exclusion is minimal or nonexistent,” Morris said.

Prosecutors say there was no viable alternative.

“If we prosecute Pfizer, they get excluded,” said Mike Loucks, the federal prosecutor who oversaw the investigation. “A lot of the people who work for the company who haven’t engaged in criminal activity would get hurt.”

Did the punishment fit the crime? Pfizer says yes.

It paid nearly $1.2 billion in a criminal fine for Bextra, the largest fine the federal government has ever collected.

It paid a billion dollars more to settle a batch of civil suits — although it denied wrongdoing — on allegations that it illegally promoted 12 other drugs.

In all, Pfizer lost the equivalent of three months’ profit.

It maintained its ability to do business with the federal government.

Pfizer says it takes responsibility for the illegal promotion of Bextra. “I can tell you, unequivocally, that Pfizer perceived the Bextra matter as an incredibly serious one,” said Doug Lankler, Pfizer’s chief compliance officer.

To prevent it from happening again, Pfizer has set up what it calls “leading-edge” systems to spot signs of illegal promotion by closely monitoring sales reps and tracking prescription sales.

It’s not entirely voluntary. Pfizer had to sign a corporate integrity agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services. For the next five years, it requires Pfizer to disclose future payments to doctors and top executives to sign off personally that the company is obeying the law.

Pfizer says the company has learned its lesson.

But after years of overseeing similar cases against other major drug companies, even Loucks, isn’t sure $2 billion in penalties is a deterrent when the profits from illegal promotion can be so large.

“I worry that the money is so great,” he said, that dealing with the Department of Justice may be “just of a cost of doing business.”

No matter how many times you win the argument, those who advocate the government must save us from the predations of the free market *NEVER* change what’s left of their minds.

Court OKs Repeated Tasering of Pregnant Woman

A federal appeals court says three Seattle police officers did not employ excessive force when they repeatedly tasered a visibly pregnant woman for refusing to sign a speeding ticket.

The lawyer representing Malaika Brooks said Monday that the court’s 2-1 decision sanctioned “pain compliance” tactics through a modern-day version of the cattle prod.

“To inflict pain on a person if that person is not doing what the police want that person to do is simply outrageous,” said Eric Zubel, the woman’s attorney. “I cannot say that loud enough.”

Zubel said he would ask the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear Friday’s 2-1 decision that drew a sharp dissent from Judge Marsha Berzon:

“Refusing to sign a speeding ticket was at the time a nonarrestable misdemeanor; now, in Washington, it is not even that. Brooks had no weapons and had not harmed or threatened to harm a soul,” (.pdf) Berzon wrote. “Although she had told the officers she was seven months pregnant, they proceeded to use a Taser on her, not once but three times, causing her to scream with pain and leaving burn marks and permanent scars.”

The majority noted that the M26 Taser was set in “stun mode” and did not cause as much pain as when set on “dart mode.” The majority noted that the circuit’s recent and leading decision on the issue concerned excessive force in the context of a Taser being set on Dart mode, which causes “neuro-muscular incapacitation.”

Stun mode, the court noted, didn’t rise to the level of excessive force because it imposes “temporary, localized pain only.”

The majority reversed a lower court judge who said the woman’s rights were violated. The lower court’s failure to distinguish between the two levels of pain modes “led the court to err in finding excessive force.”

The woman was driving her 12-year-old to the African American Academy in Seattle when she was pulled over on suspicion of speeding in 2004. The child left the car for school and a verbal spat with the police resulted in the woman receiving three, 50,000-volt shocks, first to her thigh, then shoulder and neck while she was in her vehicle. An officer was holding Brooks’ arm behind Brooks’ back while she was being shocked.

Brooks gave the officer her driver’s license, but Brooks refused to sign the ticket — believing it was akin to signing a confession. She was ultimately arrested for refusing to sign and to comply with officers asking her to exit the vehicle.

“A suspect who repeatedly refuses to comply with instructions or leave her car escalates the risk involved for officers unable to predict what type of noncompliance might come next,” Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall wrote for the majority. She was joined by Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain.

“Therefore, while using the Taser three times makes this a closer case, we find that it does not show excessive force in light of the corresponding escalation of Brooks’ resistance and the fact that it was the third tasing that appeared to dislodge her such that the officers could finally extract her from her car and gain control over her,” Hall wrote.

So.

Let’s see if I get this straight.  Bush lies about WMDs and ties to al-Qaida.   Propels the US into war and kills thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s, and what happens?

He has libraries named after him, makes tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars on the speaking circuits, and what does Obama do?  Charge Bush with war crimes?  Nope.  Has lunch with him.

Stepping over the bodies of thousands and thousands to issue a parking ticket.  And people argue the government is there to protect you.

Why do I feel this need to ditch work and go home to hug my family?

http://fskrealityguide.blogspot.com/

This is what I saw:

WTF?  FSK would have told his regular readers if his URL was going to change (i.e. self-hosting).  Did Google  – who owns blogspot.com/blogger.com – remove it?

Interestingly enough, FSK’s most recent post is this:

And in other news, it was discovered in the underground economy there are trading networks who use sound money like silver and copper rounds/bars and occasionally gold as money.

What these market actors found as they increased productivity and efficiency, their money had a annual deflation rate of 7% – their purchasing power actually increased!

“It’s phenomenal.”, said Peaceful Trader. “The value of our money is actually going up year over year. We aren’t frightened that inflation will erode its value, so we don’t stampede into risking it on the market. As we have more value retained in our money, we can buy more goods and services in the future and this raises the standard of living of all who participate in the market producing economic value.

“Our charity networks are extensive, we have doctors, defense services, insurance companies, and arbitration agencies all in our market protecting us and resolving disputes in a peaceful manner. Those who do not abide by the ruling of a pre-determined arbitration process and appeal would be ostracized by other honest people. They wouldn’t *DARE* risk being branded as untrustworthy.”.

“We sympathize with others who are imprisoned to the mainstream economy via taxation and inflation, but its their own damn fault. We spent years telling them these things, and although we win the argument *EVERY SINGLE TIME*, they refuse to change their minds.”

“Seriously, what gives government money any value at all? Just because someone comes along and says, ‘Use my paper permission to live points or else!’? So they can steal the value out of money in circulation by printing up a bunch of it and giving it to themselves or their connected insiders?”

The Bank of Canada refused to comment.

Or this:

In other news, we interviewed a stock market in the agorist economy:

“What dynamics in your stock market differ from the mainstream stock market regulated by a violence monopoly we sometimes call government?”, we asked Agorist Stock Broker.

“Much different.”, she said. “For one, the monetary system here is asset based. People are free to choose what form of money in an agorist society, so inflationary money is either (a) discarded, or (b) has very high exchange rates. Competition over time bred out inferior forms of money, so via a spiraling feedback loop in the market amongst actors, the widest used money in circulation settled in on gold, silver, or copper coins, produced by multiple competing mints who have standardized on weight and purity as a result of market demand.”.

“This money actually appreciates in value as productivity, efficiency, and scarcity is better allocated, so it is *VERY* difficult to entice Joe Six-pack into the market. There is no central agency imposing tax codes, deferral vehicles like RRSPs, pension plan funds, and huge swaths of money trying to eke out a profit in every nook and cranny in the market, trying to at least beat inflation or generate a return.”

“In order for a company to entice investment, they have to spend a great deal of time convincing the market they are worthy of investment. To do that, they make every effort to be accountable and transparent to the market. No regulatory agencies need apply in this market. In addition, business trustworthiness agencies have sprung up similar to credit agencies in the red market. It’s VERY tough to get people to part with capital without presenting a viable business plan with a healthy return. Capital is rationed out very carefully meeting market demand.”.

“No limited liability laws exist for businesses; the market wouldn’t tolerate the idea of a violence monopoly shielding officers in a company directing it in a way that harms others.”.

The Gov’t of Canada had no comment.

It seems to be an effective way of relaying thought into others heads as they are used to sound bytes like this.  Speak it like it already happened.

Thoughts?

Government use of ‘stealth’ taxes on rise

From levies on crustaceans and mollusks in France, to ‘accident response fees’ in U.S., officials find ways to help plug budget gaps

I put the following comment(s):

Government use of ‘stealth’ taxes on rise

I thought this article was about inflation….one of the most insidious secret taxes around.

All these taxes may be presented as serving virtuous ends, but they also have something else in common: they help plug budget holes deepened by the recession, bailouts and billions in stimulus spending.

VIRTUOUS?!?!?! How do you present the initiation of violent force of robbing property from others – taxation – as a way to achieve virtue?!?!! Violence leads to virtue? Are you kidding me?

Ugh. Stop participating in this “red market”.

It’s SO easy to get out. Locate 4-5 trustworthy trading partners and start off the books businesses. Buy and sell from/to each other using sound money. You can even use cash at first, provided you convert any savings into a form of money not monopolized by a State/banking cartel, such as gold/silver/copper rounds/bars/coins.

Initially, you can only work part-time in your counter-economy as you still need to earn Permission To Live Points (sometimes called “dollars”) to pay your protection money to the State – taxation.

As your network grows as your trading partners invite more people to participate (no-one is going to ask someone who works for the CRA into the network) see the incentive and start their own respective businesses, more and more of the fruits of your labour cannot be siphoned off by the State into the pockets of the parasites. You are not free-loading off the State, you are preventing a parasitic class from free-loading off of you!

Look, the State is going to collapse anyway. A parasite like the State *ALWAYS* grows to the point where it consumes its host. Always. Wouldn’t you rather be prepared with your agorist network of trading partners to help you withstand the collapse?

I can’t strees the benefits of agorism. Trade. Voluntarism. Charity. Community. Compassion. Sustainable. Morality.

Not the sh-t sandwich we keep being served here.

The interesting part for me was I got 23 “thumbs up” and only 1 “thumbs down”.  You cannot vote a post up or down more than once although you can do both once.  Interesting.  Never saw that much unanimous agreement before.

Next, I did commented again, in response to another poster with the handle “ichabod plain view”:

ichabod plain view

3/18/2010 7:12:58 AM
While the working stiff is struggling, big bro is sticking his hand further into the wallet.

This old fella is prepared to work around big bro, because taxation without representation is stealing, and why should I support a thief?

—-

Representation is a fallacy.

It’s not like the market. In the market I can go vote with my wallet by product A. The guy behind me votes with his wallet by buying product B. I did not prevent him from attaining what he wants, nor did he prevent me from attaining what I wanted. There is no presence of coercion here. Both of us are satisfied.

In the context of voting, the dynamic changes. When we attempt to coerce each other within a given political riding to (a) ram a candidate down your neighbours throat or (b) prevent your neighbour from ramming a candidate down your throat, we are participating in an act of initiating aggression/violence against each other. We are trying to impose our wills on the other.

When someone is elected, they cannot represent conflicting interests of A and B at the same time. A majority of votes does not mean “moral credibility” as the minority who lost or did not participate in at all do not have representation. A majority is nothing more than “mob rules” or “might makes right”. The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Fail to protect the rights of the individual, you fail to protect the rights of a minority.

Taxation is the a minority of men initiating of force/violence against the majority by removing the fruits of ones labour. We cannot create virtue by violence.

I cannot steal from you. You cannot steal from me. I think we both agree we want to live in a society where we cannot steal from the other; it would rapidly degenerate into a cannibalistic society. If we agree on this, we also *MUST* agree that we cannot delegate this “non-right” to a third party – a violence monopoly a.k.a the government.

Taxation is theft.

Guess what?    31 thumbs up and only 2 down!  This board is loaded with trolls!  Are people finally getting smarter?  Is the Remnant growing?

Who knows.  Nice to see though.

In another article, I commented there as well:

U.S. bank regulators got big bonuses too

Government handed out millions for ‘superior’ work in the runup to the meltdown

Now, I am not any advocate of regulation, but I kicked the comments section off with this:

Banks weren’t the only ones giving big bonuses in the boom years before the worst financial crisis in generations. The government also was handing out millions of dollars to bank regulators, rewarding “superior” work even as an avalanche of risky mortgages helped create the meltdown.

—–

Nice. When you’re a government worker and have your salary funded by violence against your fellow citizens via taxation, it matters not if you do a good job or bad job. The Gun says we’re rewarding them for doing the work they *DID* do, but they are also rewarded for the job they *DIDN’T* do.

Ugh. Start your agorist network today!

27 thumbs up.  0 down!

and again here, in response to a poster “Crusty Curmugeon”.

Crusty Curmudgeon

3/18/2010 7:21:18 AM
If God did not want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep.

If the peasants don’t have enough bread, let them eat cake.

We, the oppressed working class, need a good revolution to remove the vermin that are in control of our lives.

——

A revolution in terms of resisting the State is pointless. The first thing they did with the tribute money extracted from you via theft – taxation – was to ensure they owned all the superior firepower, the prisons, the courts, and all other nefarious tricks to protect themselves against you.

Any centralized resistance movement will meet with State firepower.

Agorism is your best bet to freedom. You can hide in plain sight!

20 thumbs up. 1 down.

Trev from Orleans

3/18/2010 7:51:52 AM
Obviously they were paid well for doing what they were told to do.

Don’t forget the regulator that ended up working for Maddoff was originally assigned to audit him.

I’m sure he found out what Maddoff was doing and demanded a job with a significant raise. I believe he ended up as his son-in-law.

—

Think Madoff was a Ponzi scheme. You should see Social Security or our Debt Based Fiat Monetary System.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_social_security_ious

“Sounds like a good time to start tapping the nest egg. Too bad the federal government already spent that money over the years on other programs, preferring to borrow from Social Security rather than foreign creditors. In return, the Treasury Department issued a stack of IOUs — in the form of Treasury bonds — which are kept in a nondescript office building just down the street from Parkersburg’s municipal offices.”

“Now the government will have to borrow even more money, much of it abroad (Tax Me’s note: Where? From China?) , to start paying back the IOUs, and the timing couldn’t be worse. The government is projected to post a record $1.5 trillion budget deficit this year, followed by trillion dollar deficits for years to come.”

27 thumbs up.  0 down.

Interesting….

Shaun White?  Brittany Spears?…Sigh.

Imagine one day if it looked like this:

There now.  Much better!  OK….Number 10 is a false ego trip, but hey it’s my blog!