Democrats Pull the Plug on Iraq War

It has been written that the Democrats caused the loss of the Vietnam War by cutting funds for that war.

If the democrats caused the lost of Vietnam, then it was with the support of the American people. http://vietnamresearch.com/history/stats.html Wars do not last long in a democracy. People want victory quickly, then on to the next game. The lack of support for the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the question of, is it a just war, but the lack of a quick victory, which is embarrassing the American Tribe. The same feelings happened during the Vietnam War.

It will be hard to define victory or defeat in Iraq. As the "situation" continues for years, some will be calling victory a defeat, and some will be calling defeat a victory. Some will say it was not worth the cost, and some will say it was. If only the dead could talk, maybe they could tell us if it was worth the cost.

Democracy may happen in Iraq, but it will not be from the United States force. It will be because the Iraqis want it. When they decide they want democracy, America will claim credit for such. Time and technology will change the Iraqis, not military force.

The Imams are not afraid of our armies. They are afraid of the words in our Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights.

Bilbo Baggins

Belmont, CA Bans Smoking

I see little evidence in this world of the so-called goodness of God. On the contrary, it seems to me that, on the strength of His daily acts, He must be set down a most stupid, cruel and villainous fellow. H. L. Mencken


The city of Belmont, CA is considering a ban on smoking in; apartments, parks, and other public places. The proponents complain about the dangers of second hand smoke.

Why bother with something that is not a problem? How many people do you see smoking on their apartment deck, when another apartment neighbor is outside on their deck? Drive by all the apartments in Belmont and it will take you hours of driving before you see someone smoking on their apartment balcony, and many more hours of driving before you see someone on a nearby balcony exposed to second hand smoke.

The same with parks. Spend some time in a city park in Belmont, CA looking for someone who is smoking, and, someone nearby who is breathing their second hand smoke. You will spend days there before you see such, unless there is a drunken picnic going on.

It is a non issue. The desire to do good is the desire to rule others. These same people who want to improve health should ban cats. After all, many people are allergic to cats. Maybe they will want to ban pollen because it causes allergic reaction to millions of people. If these good Samaritans really want to improve health, many of them should be banned from food because they are obese!

Next these good Samaritans will want to ban dogs because some people are "terrified" of dogs. Barking dogs also disturb people's sleep, making people dangerous when driving and affecting their health from lack of sleep.

Update-September 16, 2010. MENLO PARK, Calif.—The city of Menlo Park is poised to tighten restrictions on smokers. The city council unanimously approved a new law on Tuesday that would ban smoking in common areas of apartment and condominium buildings, parks and picnic areas.

Common areas of apartment buildings are private properties.  If a tenant does not like someone smoking around the apartment swimming pool then complain to the owner.   Now the government can tell the owner she cannot to smoke on her private property? It would be appropriate for the homeowners association to prohibit smoking in the common areas because they are the owners, but it is inappropriate for the government to tell you that. The big differences is the homeowners associations cannot throw you in jail. A small city government can.

Charles Tolleson

Why Liberals Love the Downtrodden

Nothing written here requires scientific data to back up my opinion.

I thought about why liberals favor the downtrodden. I seem to recall somewhere, maybe Thomas Sowell's, The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy (1995) was where I read something about liberals can gain moral validity for their causes by showing sympathy for the downtrodden.

I believe it was Sowell who said many of the liberals were good in high school and were encouraged to go to college and change the world. Other poor students with ADD would end up starting their own business and making a lot of money. The good students who were working 30 hour weeks as college professors became envious, a deadly sin, of the success of the poor students. The anointed simply wanted some of the money earned by the poor students. After all, the bright students had been told they were the best.

One of those who did not go to college but became rich is Dick Portillo, who owns some restaurants in the Chicago area. http://www.portillos.com/history/ My son went to high school with one of Portillo's sons.

Another example of this I believe is in Robert Kiyosaki's "Rich Dad Poor Dad". I did not read that book.

We should also ask what attracts people to authoritarians? The post about moderates in different cultures allowing the authoritarians to take over is true. Many people develop the Stockholm syndrome and join the authoritarians as a way to survive. I believe this happened in Japan, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union. Unless the moderate Muslims speak out it will happen in some Muslim societies.

Joining an authoritarian group to survive could not happen in America. No way, right? We Americans are different from other humans. Besides, we have something the Shintos, Nazis, and Bolsheviks did not have. We have gallant warriors like me who are dedicated to protecting women's honor, preserving liberty, and destroying evil. TENNOUHEIKA BANZAI!

Now I must go pursue my beautiful Dulcinea.

Don Quixote

Ayn Rand

Here's your enemy for this week, the government says. And some gullible Americans click their heels and salute – often without knowing who or even where the enemy of the week is. – Charley Reese (1998)


It was 50 years ago this year that Ayn Rand wrote "Atlas Shrugged". It took her about 11 years, I think, to write Atlas Shrugged. The long speech by John Galt
http://compuball.com/Inquisition/AynRand/galtspeech_pmark_broken.htm took Rand 3 years to write, according to a biography by Barbara Branden.

Rand's first successful book, "The Fountainhead" took 7 years to write and was rejected by 12 publishers before one agreed to publish.

Rand was born in Russia in 1905. As a small girl she witnessed the communist takeover.

In the 70s she was living in NY and invited one of her sisters to come from Russia. Her sister lived in NY for awhile, but, voluntarily went back to Russia. According to Branden, the sister could not stand the disorder of capitalism in New York. She longed for the order provided by the Soviet Union.

Intellectuals and liberals panned Rand's books because her books showed the flaws and dangers of socialism.

Rand was an atheist so her books were not popular with the conservative leaders. William Buckley dismissed her books. Despite her philosophy of small government the conservatives refused to promote her books. Rand was opposed to servitude to the State and to the church. She believed in the individual and what is important to the individual, not to the State or a group.

Throughout history there are examples of group altruism that put the group ahead of the individual. This altruism slows the development of the group. Individual selfishness improves the quality of the individual, therefore improving the quality of the group. Rand did not believe selfishness meant brutish behavior with no respect for others. She thought the individual should be allowed to invent, produce, and trade without the restricitions of taxes, sharing, and regulations by the group.

Rand knew the dangers of groups. Groups form for mutual self protection against stronger predators. As soon as a group realizes that are stronger than their enemies, the group becomes violent and aggressive against other groups.

Rand led a personal life filled with faults. Her interaction with others was different than the characters in her novels. Her philosophical works will continue to cause debate for years to come.

John Galt II

Gun Control

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty. John Adams


Many city mayors are calling for gun control. In Washington D. C. They banned guns completely, only to be overturned by the 2nd Circuit Court.

Some people think banning guns will change the evil character of humans to virtuous character.
Many people support gun control. They fail to see what happened to slaves who could not own guns. They fail to see what happened to the Jews in Germany who could not own guns. The peasants in Cuba cannot own guns. All tyrannical regimes refuse to allow its citizens to own guns. Yet the State owns guns, and the State kills more people than individuals kill people.

If the citizens of any city are not allowed to own guns, you can bet the politicians and other city employees will own guns. The Mayor will be allowed to carry a gun. Judges, animal control personnel, family services personnel, all will be allowed to carry guns. Are their lives more important than the lives of ordinary citizens? Do their lives deserve more protection than non government citizens. Apparently the State employees think so.

If guns are banned, why will these public officials need guns? Don't they believe the law will be effective and there will be no need for the public officials to own guns? Of course not! Banning guns will be like banning drugs. The price for a gun will increase and the black-market for guns will flourish.

Those citizens who do not want to own a gun and want to ban guns are like domestic sheep who wants the State Shepherd to lead them to green pastures. They want the State Shepherd to provide them with a guard dog so they can all graze peacefully, and equally. The domestic sheep would rather produce for the State Shepherd instead of being free like wild sheep. http://www.wildsheep.org/sheep/index.htm

Little do the domestic sheep know the State Shepherd feeds itself and its guard dogs lamb chops.

Bilbo Baggins

What If We Win In Iraq?

What if we win the war in Iraq? One can look at the past history of victors to help predict the behavior of future victors.

In 480 B. C., 300 Greeks helped defeat thousands of Persians, uniting the Greek City States into a larger nation. A few generations later, from the victory of the 300, Alexander The Great created a Greek Empire that left a history of blood and destruction.

Will we downsize our military industrial complex with a victory in Iraq? Will we bring home our troops, all troops, and declare a peace dividend?

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy"? Mahatma Gandhi, "Non-Violence in Peace and War"

Will Israel and her enemies finally live in peace after 60 years of religious war? Will the religious right who believe the "end times" are near give up their predictions of Armageddon?

Will the United States stop invading other countries and killing and maiming thousands of innocent women and children?

President Bush said an American loss in Iraq would embolden the enemy. Will an American victory in Iraq embolden the United States?

The answers to the questions above are the same if the question was, "What if we lose in Vietnam"? We lost in Vietnam, but won the cold war. Win or lose in Iraq, the desire for pride and glory will remain strong. The lobbying efforts for more war material will go on. The religious wars will go on. The religious right will find new signs that Armageddon is near, and the war lovers will find a new bogeyperson. Young men will worship different Gods, fight with different weapons, and wear fashionable uniforms, and the next generation of young men will want to be a member of their own "300". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_(film)

Bilbo Baggins

Punishing Theft

Only enemies speak the truth; friends and lovers lie endlessly, caught in the web of duty. -Stephen King, novelist (1947- )

I was having some verbal discourse with Edmund Dantes when he brought up the cost of prosecuting theft. Dantes is of the opinion that the cost of investing, prosecuting, and imprisoning thieves cost more than the items stolen. Dantes thinks we would be better of without theft as a crime, even though he thinks theft is wrong.

If the enforcers of the state were out of the equation we would simply make sure our more valuable things are safer.

We should have the right to shoot thieves if they show intent to do us harm by stealing our goods.

The only justification for the State is to protect our lives and our property. The State does a poor job of this by the number of thefts that occur and the numbers that go unsolved. So, is the State protecting us? Would we be better off with private security? The State laws are made in legislative committees made of attorneys and staff. Attorneys, judges, and prosecutors are all members of the bar associations. They lobby for more laws because it helps their business. Law enforcement officers' union and prison guard unions also lobby for more laws, to create more work, which creates more members, which creates more power for the union leaders.

Wikipedia--"In Sharia law, in accordance with the Quran and several hadith, theft is punished by imprisonment or amputation of hands or feet, depending on the number of times it was committed and depending on the item of theft".

I suspect theft would be severely curtailed if a convicted thief's hand was amputated instead of sending her to prison. If that is too severe, we could start with one finger for each conviction of theft. Soon everyone would see the evidence that indicated that person was a thief and would not trust her. Theft laws would be eliminated, and we would need fewer lawyers, judges, and cops. Our insurance premiums from theft would also go down.

Amputation must be effective in reducing theft. How many one handed Muslims do you see?

Bilbo Baggins

War Toys

“But the Devil's bride, reason, the lovely whore comes in and wants to be wise, and what she says, she thinks, is the Holy Spirit. Who can be of any help then? Neither jurist, physician nor king, nor emperor; for she is the foremost whore the devil has. The other gross sins can be seen but nobody can control reason. And what I say about the sin of lust which everybody understands, applys also to reason; for the reason mocks and affronts God in spiritual things and has in it more hideous harlotry than any harlot.” Martin Luther. Last sermon at Wittenberg, 1546


When I was young I yearned for excitement. I loved war toys, big machines, guns, and adventure.

When I was 17 I joined the United States Army as an infantry private. I trained in the wet and cold outdoors. I slept on the wet cold ground. Life was very miserable as an infantryman.

I remember cold nights outdoors on training exercises. Sometimes I stood guard duty. During the boring hours on duty in the cold and rain I would fantasize about being in a warm bed with clean sheets and a beautiful woman in my arms.

Many years later, as a middle aged man, I lay in bed with a wonderful woman in my arms and I thought about those miserable nights, when I fantasized about what I was actually doing, holding her in my arms. I squeezed her gently, and smelled her soft hair. She asked what I was thinking and I told her I used to be miserable and would fantasize about being here with her. She seemed pleased that she made my fantasy come true.

I starting reading classic books and reflecting on some miserable and uncomfortable situations I had seen. As my financial situation improved I began to enjoy comfort instead of adventure. Reflecting on the misery in the world and the suffering caused by war and the vices of human actions, I decided war was exciting, but I preferred the quite serene life of contemplation of why we fight, instead of preferring to fight.

Europe used to be at each other's throats. Each tribe terrorized the other. Each had a deity, and that deity was force and violence. It was all so wasteful and unnecessary. Look at Europe now. The past warring tribes are one peaceful union, trading with each other and using a common currency! All those millions of Europeans slaughtered for nothing. Will we be trading partners with the Muslim world someday, like we are with the Vietnamese, who we used to kill with our war toys?

Bilbo Baggins

Revenge Against the Dead

I think the terror most people are concerned with is the IRS. Malcolm Forbes, when asked if he was afraid of terrorism

From Wikipedia Dante described Wrath as "love of justice perverted to revenge and spite".

After the attacks on September 11, 2001 there were many people who wanted revenge, even though the people who carried out the attacks were dead. How can one get revenge against the dead? In order to carry out the feelings for revenge Americans held, someone must be brought to justice, even if the love of justice meant killing some innocent Muslims.

I think this desire for revenge runs deep in our psychic. Suppose a woman is raped by a man. She had a slight view of her assailant in the dark. Her assailant was a black man. She cannot be positive about his identity, but, if she does not identify a black man in a lineup, her rapist may go free, and justice will not be served. In the meantime her real assailant dies. After her real assailant dies, evidence points to a black man, and she identifies a black man, an innocent black man, just to make sure some justice is served. As Dante said, her love of justice is perverted to revenge and spite.

The desire for revenge shows daily when people want to punish sons for the sins of their fathers.

Reparations for slavery is another love of justice perverted to revenge. Blacks living today, some whose parents lived in other countries during slavery in America, others who were born long after slavery, want revenge against whites, even those whites who did not own slaves, nor lived here during slavery.

No amount of reasoning will mitigate the wrath felt by many people for behavior of those who are long ago dead.

Bilbo Baggins

Government Roads

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty". – Thomas Jefferson

Most people cannot conceive of breaking the monopoly the government has on roads and revitalizing the roads. This blindness reminds me of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato
Plato's example shows how truth is hard to discern, especially if you have been conditioned all your life that what you have observed is reality.

The truth is government owned roads are inefficient and dangerous. Over 40,000 people are killed each year on government owned roads. Thousands more are injured and maimed. Millions of hours are spent in congestion, waiting for the government roads to move traffic.

People tend to think the government has always owned the roads. Not so. In the beginning the roads were made by private use and improved for by commercial interests; mining supplies and trade. Governments who needed to move armies found a need to improve roads. Soon governments begin to confiscate roads by force. Government provides nothing without first taking it from someone who is a producer.

President Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe in WW II. He saw the German Autobahn. When Eisenhower became President in 1952 he set out to build a highway system in the United States that would be similar to the Autobahn. Eisenhower knew a road system would help commerce, and help his supporters in the construction and cement industry.

Suppose the government had never built a road. The automobile manufactures would have needed roads to sell their cars. Soon the automobile manufactures would have built roads.

What about commercial trucking companies? They would have built roads so they could provided shipping services.

Auto insurers could not insure automobiles unless people owned automobiles. Auto insurers would see to it roads were built so cars could be sold so insurers could insure autos. Auto insurers would also see to it that the roads were safer because they would have a profit motive for safe roads. The State has no such interest in safety. The State makes money on accidents. A bus accident in Georgia that killed 4 college students and 2 adults happened at a place that had 6 previous accidents. The State of Georgia said they had no plans to change the road.

Builders who want to build a new subdivision would have to build a road to the development. The cost would simply be added to the cost of purchasing a new house.

It costs around ten million dollars today to build one lane/mile of a major highway. The federal highway system is over 46,000 miles. Selling the roads to a private consortium that would charge tolls would mean the roads are worth a trillion dollars, or more, based on the amount of revenue they would collect, at ten cents per mile toll, a small auto would pay $200 to travel 2000 miles. The trillion dollars could be used to generate income for retirees and help eliminate social security.

It's time to sell the roads to the auto manufactures, insurance companies, shipping companies and builders. The proceeds from the sell will help the state and federal treasurers, reduce personal taxes, and allow the state to collect corporate taxes on the road owners.

Another option would be to issue 100 shares to each citizen for ownership of the new road corporations, The I-80 Corporation would be one road corporation owned by the citizens. Dividends could be paid to citizens for retirement income.


John Galt

Political in Iraq

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. and Iraqi security forces cannot solve the problem of violence in Iraq without political action and reconciliation with some militant groups, the U.S. commander in Iraq said on Thursday.

Notice how the "Insurgents" now become "militant groups" when the U. S. wants to negotiate with them.

Since the Iraq war started I have advocated negotiating with the enemy because asymmetrical warfare is impossible to win without the support of the local people. Kicking the doors down and killing the women and children of the local population brings out the historical results of the use of force. John Galt, a fictional character in Ayn Rand's, "Atlas Shrugged", published 50 years ago, talked passionately about the immorality of using force on another.
http://compuball.com/Inquisition/AynRand/galtspeech_pmark_broken.htm

As the Iraq war drags on and becomes more unpopular, which is what always happens in a democracy when the deaths and costs escalate, and there is no victory in sight, President Bush is finally doing what others have recommended, negotiate. He has less than two years to try and mend his legacy and offer some window of hope for the Republican party in the 2008 elections.

Before going to war President Bush and the war lovers should have read Auberon Herbert's fictional speech by a terrorist, written in 1885.

Government, Herbert argued, should never initiate force but be "strictly limited to its legitimate duties in defense of self-ownership and individual rights"

AUBERON HERBERT, THE RIGHT, AND WRONG OF COMPULSION BY THE STATE, AND OTHER ESSAYS- ESSAY V: THE ETHICS OF DYNAMITE. 1885. The fictional conversation is between a terrorists and a big government.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0146.php

The new claimant for the government of men was not impeded by any diffidence or modesty of temperament. He saw no reason why he should not rule as well as any other Giant Power. With a hideous leer upon his face, he turned to the governments and said:

“You govern, you do what you choose, you take possession of body and mind, you wring from this subject human material all that you imagine that you want for your own purposes, you send men hither and thither to be shot for the quarrels that it amuses you to make, you burden them with all the restrictions and vexations that in your belief can add some little thing to your own security or convenience or dignity, and you do it just because you are strong enough to do it—because you have discovered and perfected the trick of the majority. You say that you have a majority on your side—that this majority is strong enough to inflict its will upon all others. Let it be so; I make no pretense to possess a majority; a minority is good enough for me—a small minority of desperate reckless men, believing in their ideas, and not caring much for their lives. But such as we are, we, too, have power. It is not like your power, disguised under innumerable forms and ceremonies; it is just what it professes to be—power, brutal, naked, and not ashamed. Come now, let us reason for a moment together. Where, after all, is the difference between us? We both of us are believers in power; we both of us desire to fashion the world to our own liking by means of power. The only difference between us is in the form of the power which we each make use of. Your power depends upon clever electioneering devices, upon tricks of oratory, upon organized wealth and numbers; mine is the power that can be carried in the pocket of any ragged coat, if the owner of the ragged coat is sufficiently endowed with courage and ideas. We are both seeking to govern. Why, then, do you turn your faces from me, flout me, and disown me? I am your brother, younger, it is true, than you, a little down in the world and disreputable perhaps, but for all that, child of the same family, equal in rank, and claiming by the same title deeds as yourselves. True, I am not magnificently equipped as you are; I have no court as you have, no army, no public institutions, no national treasury, no titles, no uniforms resplendent with decorations; I have only a few fanatical followers; and yet, perhaps, as regards the true test of power, I can command the fears of men and possess myself of their obedience quite as effectually as you can. Let us greet each other and shake hands, even if we are opposed. Believe me, though you shrink from recognizing me, I am in very deed your own brother, your coequal, flesh of your flesh, and spirit of your spirit. Henceforth from today we divide the government of the world between us. You are the force of the majority; and I am the force of the minority.”

Bilbo Baggins

Pay of Congress and CEOs

(March 6 2007: Washington (Reuters) In language seldom heard from his party on Capitol Hill, Alabama's Rep. Spencer Bachus said Americans are disturbed by chief executives "whose pay is not justified by their performance." The House Financial Services Committee, on which the Alabama lawmaker is the senior Republican, is set to hold a hearing Thursday on corporate executive pay.)

The shareholders of America are already changing how corporate CEOs are paid. Congress is grandstanding by holding hearings on CEO pay. Congress is authorized to pass laws that would make CEO pay more transparent. Some CEO pay borders on fraud. Congress has the authority to protect the public from harm. Fraud is harm.

Still I wish the shareholders of America would hold congress to the same standards they hold CEOs. Congress seems to run a loss, (deficit) more than a profit (surplus), yet the shareholders reelect 95% of those incumbents who run for reelection.

Besides loosing money each year, the congress borrows more and more money that unborn children will have to pay back.

Besides tolerating the financial irresponsibility of congress, the shareholders allow the congress to take away more of the shareholders freedoms with thousands of ridiculous laws, the most egregious being the U. S. Patriot Act. Congress can put you in jail. A CEO cannot.

Why do shareholders allow congress to continually operate at a loss without doing something about this incompetence? Why will the shareholders not fire the congress every two years?

Congress is community property. The citizens try to get more from the community than they put in. They care little about the debt as long as they think they are getting more than they are loosing. Corporations are not community property, thus their shareholders have different requirements. Both shareholders of congress and business have their own self interest at heart. Performance is in the eyes of the beholder.

I think the citizen shareholders act like ESOP shareholders of a business. Most ESOP shareholders can vote on a board of directors. As a result the ESOP owners usually look out for their pay and perks instead of the health of the corporation. I think the citizen shareholders vote like ESOP owners of a corporation. They vote for their self interest instead of the interest of the country.

Bilbo Baggins

Married Military Deaths

"Extremists in vice or virtue either go to Hell or Heaven. Moderates who practice a little vice or virtue have no place to go". Charles Tolleson, Bloviator

An AP story on March 3,2007 by David Crary described how 47% of the military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan were married. In the Vietnam war 30% of the military deaths were married." Addressing some of the concerns, the Defense Department updated its guide to survivors' benefits, which have increased substantially since the Iraq war began. The so-called "death gratuity" for next of kin has climbed from $6,000 to $100,000; military life insurance payments have risen from $250,000 to $400,000.

Brad Snyder, a benefits expert with the Armed Forces Services Corp., said "The package compares well to private-sector plans and can exceed $60,000 a year for a sergeant's widow with three children. Children of fallen service members now get military medical coverage until adulthood, rather than losing it three years after the death. A bereaved family can now stay in military housing for a year, not six months. These benefits are great, but, costly."

Where are the young unmarried men who usually fight wars? Could it be they do not believe in this war? Are these benefits to widows and children necessary to get people to fight?

In 1985 the United Airline Pilots went on a labor strike. The union had a Family Awareness program. This involved meetings with wives to keep them informed and solicit their support. This was vital.

The National Guard, which has older and more marred personnel than a regular army, is heavily involved in Iraq. To keep up morale the Pentagon must assure wives they and their children will be cared for. This bribe influences the decision to stay in the military more than the justice of the war. Imagine how high the bribes are for the private mercenaries working in Iraq!

I can see a 30 year old mother of 2 children seeing all the benefits her children will get if she joins the military. I can see a 35 year old sergeant sitting around the house with his wife and pointing out the benefits and saying, "What do you want me to do?" She sees the $400,000 insurance policy, $100,000 death gratuity, annual widows pension, medical care for her children until they are adults, then says its O.K. for him to stay in the military.

If 47% of the deaths are married personnel, then it stands to reason about 47% of the thousands of seriously maimed are married. This adds to the economic and social cost of this foolish war. The horrors of this foolish war lives daily, for years, in the lives of the wives and children of the maimed.

Bilbo Baggins

California Kids Savings Account Act

California is proposing Senate Bill 752, the Kids Savings Account Act. http://tinyurl.com/2zk8bd This bill would provide $500 for each baby born in CA as a savings for retirement, home, or educational training upon reaching age 18.

Sen. Darrell Steinberg and co-author Sen. Bob Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga (San Bernardino County), said "If a $50 deposit was made to the account every month until the children reached 18, the account would contain between $17,500 to $21,000 -- depending on the rate of return". http://tinyurl.com/yq6cz9

What if the voluntary additional $50 per month is not deposited? Five hundred dollars with an 8% return over 18 years, and a 3% inflation rate, will amount to only $1174, which the $500 original deposit must be repaid, to the State, leaving a balance of $674 for the account, in today's dollars! With zero inflation the balance would be $1998, minus the $500 original deposit for a balance of $1498 at age 18. The illusion presented by the bill authors is a child would have $17,000 to $21,000 at age 18! Who could resist such an offer?

This sounds like a great idea, but so did Social Security when it was created. Social Security today is nothing like what was in the original bill. Senate Bill 752 will be the same. It will morph into a huge government run program that has beneficiaries other than the intended. Soon the government will decide to use force and make parents and grandparents contribute monthly to their kid's account.

The State never sleeps. It stays awake 24 hours each day trying to find another way of managing our lives. State legislatures dream of ways to eliminate suffering and become the next Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi, Henry David Thoreau, or Martin Luther King. All of those men practiced non violence, against the State. Were they legislators today they would likely use the force and violence of the State to impose their wishes on others, much like Senators Steinberg and Dutton are trying to do.

The bill simply authorizes the State Treasurer to set up and run the accounts. Who gets to manage the money, what fees, when, where, and how will be determined by bureaucrats. What happens 20 years from now when the State has 2000 applicants per day of 18 year olds wanting their money?

On the other hand this will help the birthrate. Churches, business, realtors, builders, colleges, and government all need new customers. In some countries in Europe the birthrate is so low the State is offering incentives for women to have babies. Human beings are not an endangered species.

If the government mandates money be set aside for a product or service, that product or service will only go up in cost. Those who benefit most from the Kids Savings Account are the ones lobbying for the bill. These would be colleges and vocational schools.

I wrote http://f4u.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_f4u_archive.html advocating a similar national program for retirement to replace social security. The funding for my suggestion would come from privatizing federal assets; mineral rights (offshore and on land), roads, parks, forests, and grazing rights. Each citizen would own shares in these corporations. After all, the assets belong to the citizens, not the government. The dividends from these assets could be used for retirement accounts. California has mineral rights to 3 miles offshore. They could use the dividends from this and other state assets to fund these accounts. Of course that would take money from other state programs.

The authors of the Kids Savings Account refer to the value of asset building. They call this a new homestead act. I believe in asset building and I have written before about the need for a second homestead act that would allow all residents of government housing to take private ownership. The public housing would become a private asset, a tax base, and relieve the government of liability. As the Kids Act says, housing equity is the fastest way most people build assets. My proposal would take property from the government and give it to citizens. The Kids Act will take money from private citizens and give to the State to create assets for others. This is what the Homestead Act of 1862 did, take land from the Indians and gave it to others. The 1862 Homestead Act prohibited non citizens from homesteading. This prohibited all Indians from homesteading their own land! Most African Americans were still slaves and could not homestead. Since a large portion of public housing is occupied by African Americans, my proposal for a homestead act would benefit African Americans.

During my working career there could be serious consequences if I was wrong. Policy makers and leaders cannot afford to be wrong, though they often are. Neither party will admit their policies were wrong. They never hesitate though to say the other party's policies were wrong. Here there are no serious consequences to being wrong with my pontifications. The worst that may happen is you will say my brain is not capable of cognitive reasoning.

Bilbo Baggins

Democracy and its Weakness

The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern. Lord Acton

Walter Williams wrote, "Does democracy really deserve the praise it receives? According to Webster's Dictionary, democracy is defined as "government by the people; especially: rule of the majority." What's so great about majority rule? Let's look at majority rule, as a decision-making tool, and ask how many of our choices we would like settled by what a majority likes. Would you want the kind of car that you own to be decided through a democratic process, or would you prefer purchasing any car you please? Ask that same question about decisions such as where you live, what clothes you purchase, what food you eat, what entertainment you enjoy and what wines you drink. I'm sure that if anyone suggested that these choices be subject to a democratic process, you'd deem it tyranny."

I agree with Mr. Williams that democracy is what the majority in a group wants. Democracy is one group plundering another. I don't know what form of government is better. I only know big government means power and power corrupts. Governments should be restricted in what they can do.

Hamas was elected through democracy in Palestine, yet our government does not approve. The Shias in Iraq are a democracy and the Sunnis are being oppressed. Our government only approves of democracies they like.

This is why the founders set up a republic. From my childhood years I learned we were not a democracy, but we are a republic. Still the people can elect representatives who will do anything to get re-elected, including serving the wishes of the majority, of voters.

People form groups for their mutual protection. Soon the group becomes strong enough to do to others what they wanted protection from. Out of these groups different kinds of states are created.

A democracy would work for a while in a group of like minded people, such as black and white libertarians, male and female. As the group grows larger, eventually the group with the majority would start getting the most from the democracy.

People espouse democracy as some sort of procedure that will do away with vices and hatred on Election Day. Does one really believe that the right to vote in Israel for all residents would bring peace to that country? If the Arabs living in Israel could vote, would Israel be a beautiful democracy? After all, the United States keeps promoting democracy to justify their violence in Iraq.

What can the minority do in a democracy to gain justice? They can vote as a block, but the majority still is in control. The minority can stage sit in strikes, but the majority is still in control. The minority can resort to violence, but the majority is still in control.

The one thing the minority can do is declare their independence. This is happening around the world today, especially in Eastern Europe. We have seen countries fighting for their independence since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

There are many people in the United States who are against the imperialist policies of the United States. This group may be a minority who sees the United States foreign policies as a threat to the safety of the United States. This minority group may decide to declare their independence from the United States in order to feel safer.

Suppose California declared its independence and would no longer be involved in the foreign affairs of the United States, nor would they send aid to Israel. Do you think terrorist from the Middle East would attack California? Would Washington State declare its independence and join Canada?

The foreign policy of the U.S. is not the only reason for the future demise of the United States. The Patriot Act is another reason many people will want to be independent of the United States. People will want to regain rights guaranteed in the constitution, which are being ignored. By declaring their independence, different states will attempt to get back their freedoms, and the cycle will continue.

Charles Tolleson