Disastrous Debt - America plays chicken with the world

My letter-to-editor in the National Post July 28, 2011

Imagine using your credit card to purchase an item in a store, and having it refused because you have exceeded your credit limit. Essentially that is what is about to happen to the U. S. government. I doubt it will happen, but having it come so close, less than one week, has already had a negative impact on the American credit rating.
The lesson from this is that no person and no country, should rack up a debt so large that payback is jeopardized. How could this happen to a sovereign nation?
Well, probably not that differently from the debt accumulated by an individual, I would imagine. When spending is greater than income, when wishes are confused with needs, and when the future seems so far off, anyone can get into debt problems.
But countries are managed by intelligent people (we hope), elected to represent the best interests of the population. That of course is an assumption that is debatable.
Americans have long considered themselves the world's policemen. America claims it is defending liberty and its own interests in the many, many military adventures it has launched since the Second World War. In how many countries has the American military deployed troops? Would you believe 150 countries! More than 10% of America's Armed Forces personnel are in other countries, far more than at any time since the WWII. Imagine the expense. Most often war or military occupation is a choice and it invariably causes debt, American legislators and Presidents have chosen war and occupation, many times. Spending is a choice as well, so is borrowing. Just as households can live within their means, so to nations. The problem is not debt, it's spending. Instead of living within one's means, an individual chooses to buy now and pay later, putting off payment to the future.
But nations are different from individuals. An individual can only blame him/herself, presumably no individual was physically forced to accept debt or repay it. Nations of course use force as in almost all aspects of their operations. Legislators are often elected with a plurality of votes, not a majority. Even a majority seems inadequate morally, when so many are forced to pay for government actions that they would not support. Yet that is the morality of gang action, of democracy! Worse, the burden of debt is shared by everyone in the nation at some level whether they supported the government action or not, young, old, the newborn and the aged. The original need for the debt is often dubious. The economic pain to the nation is frequently unequally distributed. But the coercion required to repay the debt is always huge and widely spread.
This debt problem won't be "fixed" by raising the debt ceiling (which will happen). What is required is not going to happen, that is, a full assessment of what the U. S. government should and should not be doing. The Democrats and Republicans are on the same side, and that is not on the side of the American people. People will realize that at some point, but when?

The most hated group in America, Atheists!

Atheists watch this. In America you are the most vilified minority around, even though as a group you are probably the least violent, most tolerant, most thoughtful and intelligent.
From Stefan Molyneux:

Kooks left and right

This morning I described myself to a new acquaintance as a politician. I could have said blogger, since the pay is about the same, but I used politician, an uncomfortable word choice for me. The guy looked at me, and realized he did not recognize me (unsurprisingly). Without much pause, he asked, left or right?
It seems thats how people perceive the world of politics (maybe thats our problem?). So I gave the standard libertarian reply: "we don't fit that description." I then proceeded to run down a list of leftish things that I support: choice in abortion, gay marriage, anti-war in Afghanistan, Libya, etc., then I switched to rightish things: gun rights, diminished role of government, low taxes etc. Of course he had never heard of us. "New," he asked? I smiled.
The reason I bring this up is the incident in Norway, 76 dead at the hands of an "extreme right-wing" terrorist. Personally I think he is nuts, but maybe thats too generous. There  have also been left-wing terrorists that have committed murder on a large scale, although they have had a political agenda and they seem to have disappeared of late. The Norwegian nut-case had an agenda, yes, but to say it was confused is somehow disrespectful of the 76 victims. My point is, right or left, like the cartoon above, are just different words that have the same meaning in libertarian parlance: no choice.

How government destroys volunteerism

Why does the State continue to grow ever larger?
It's a good question, and I can't say that I have all the answers but I can point to an example of how this process is nurtured.

In this mornings Globe and Mail appears a headline that I actually hope to see happen someday, but not in the way the author means in the article: "It's time to close Canada's food banks." Indeed it is time. It's long past time to eradicate poverty too. It's long past time to eradicate unemployment as well. These issues are all related and they all result when the State meddles in the economic affairs of businesses and individuals.
It's no coincidence that the first food banks came into existence in Canada in 1981 in the midst of the "Volker Recession" ('81-'82 - caused by the state). A stagnant economy plus inflation = stagflation, a new term invented to describe that economic mess. This is something we, in the present day, may look forward to as the current economic malaise continues. Food banks soon spread across Canada, so that they now exist in every major population centre coming under the umbrella of Food Banks Canada. They are staffed largely by volunteers who are genuinely interested in helping those in need. This is a noble gesture, people at their best who understand that helping others is a selfish act, that helps the helper, and everyone in the community. Just as importantly it is a voluntary act, no one is forced to help, no one is forced to accept the help, and everyone hopes that the help is temporary. So, while I applaud food banks and their workers, I'm dismayed that the food banks continue to grow and spread.
I am not going to launch into an economic discussion about the causes of poverty, unemployment and so on. You may choose to read about the myth of minimum wage here, that will give you a beginning. Mises.org does a far better job explaining all of it than I ever could. But the opinion article in the Globe calls for the end of volunteerism in food banks, and the author states it best in these paragraphs:

Food banks also serve many unintended functions. To start, those of us who donate, volunteer or participate in food drives “feel good” about making a difference in the lives of others. But we need to look beyond this aspect of our volunteer experiences.

Food banks also let governments off the hook from their obligation to ensure income security for all Canadians. They undermine social solidarity and social cohesion by dividing us into “us” (those who give) and “them” (those who receive)..........

Food banks can never solve the problem of poverty. It’s time to hold our governments accountable to their obligation to ensure that all Canadians have a standard of living adequate for health and well-being. (underlining and bolding is my emphasis)


The author manages to impugn the motives of the corporate donors, and the volunteers, while at the same time destroying the idea of volunteerism in favour of government coercion. Her credentials give heft to this line of reasoning, and anyone that disagrees, well, they are open to vilification. That is how it happens folks, tell me I'm wrong.