The Global Unanimocracy Network » Politics

They’ve taken away my freedom to say no

A.B. Dada — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 01:08:16 +0000

I like the word “no.” It instills a sense of understanding from almost everyone I say it to — whether it’s someone I love and care for, or a customer who has high hopes for me to do something at a price I am unwilling to do it at. Sometimes I say no to friends; I even say no to my cat (she usually does what she wants, anyway).

Having the ability to say no to a request or a demand makes the weight of me accepting and saying yes that much more valuable to those who ask me to do something, whether freely or at a price. Regardless of compensation, when I say yes, I say it voluntarily, and that has weight and value behind it.

For all of my life, though, my option to say no has been taken away from me, always by the State, by governments at all levels. I can understand someone telling me no if I was going to make an active move to hurt someone else’s body or property, but when my ability to say no to things I have no connection with is mandated away from me, freedom is lost.

There’s a man who is in his 50s, who lives a block or two away from me. He’s sick, and he needs medical help. Because of his lack of income, he qualifies for Medicaid, and gets the health care that he demands. I pay for that Medicaid, even though I don’t qualify for it. I don’t know this man, but I do know that someday I will be in my 50s, and I might have the same health issues as he does today. When I had my hernia and my kidney stone, when I threw out my back, when I broke my hand in an accident, I paid for those problems using my own savings that I had acquired through hard work and a responsible desire to focus on future problems before they happened. That man didn’t offer me a dime of his income, he didn’t visit me at the hospital, he didn’t help me through any physical therapy to overcome my condition. I didn’t ask him, so he didn’t have to say yes or no. If I had asked him, I’m sure he would’ve said no.

But I can not say no to him. I have pity for those who find themselves with health conditions and no ability to pay, but I don’t want to be that person. I have no idea if this man partied away his income or gave it to the poor. I don’t know if he was happy to spend $1200 a year on Cable TV (I don’t, it’s not in my budget) or $5000 a year leasing a nice BMW (I drive a 2001 truck and a 2000 car, both purchased used). I don’t know if he took cruises to Hawaii, or bought himself a nice Rolex, neither of which are in my budget because I have to think about my needs tomorrow and made the decision not to. I can afford all of these things, but it would leave me in a position where I would be looting from others because I was irresponsible.

Is it evil and wrong for me to just pity him and not offer him a penny? No, I don’t know him. I don’t really care about him because I have no proof that he really is needy — maybe he was just irresponsible for 32 years of adulthood, frittering away every dime he could have put towards the future needs we all will have. But still, I can’t say no. That money is just taken from me, pennies a day, but they add up. 2.9% of all my income under $100,000 a year since I started working at 16 — 20 years of income. I probably have paid around $30,000, I’d estimate.

In my own apartment building are some children who leave for school every morning, returning every afternoon. I don’t know these children, I don’t know their parents. I’ve tried to talk to the parents in the hallway when I’m checking my mail, but they don’t have much to say to me, sometimes not even a hello. Every year, I pay thousands of dollars in property and sales taxes that go to education, along with thousands more in income taxes to the State and Federal governments that is “returned” to Illinois towards education. I have friends who are public school teachers who ask for more and more money, even though the children graduating high school today are dumber and less capable than the ones who graduated 20 years ago. I know, I have to weed through those mental degenerates when I look to hire someone new.

I don’t have children yet, they’re expensive, require a lot of responsibility and focus, and I don’t feel like I am ready for it. Still, thousands of dollars a year are taken from me, against my will, to pay for teachers and administrators and new buildings to educate these kids who I do not know, who I will never know. I can’t save for my own children I will have some day because I have to pay for the responsibilities of other parents. I can’t say no. If those parents who don’t say hello asked me for a few thousand dollars a year for their kid’s education, I would certainly say no. I have a few friends with young children, and I have helped them with education costs over the years. I was happy to say yes. When I belonged to a church, part of my offering each week went to help a few single mothers put their children through local community college. I happily gave more as a special offering for those mothers, I knew them, they worked hard and their children were active in the parts of the community I was active in. I said yes, but to others, I would say no. I can’t do that. I can’t save for my own future children because I am taking care of other parents’ needs in raising theirs. It’s not my responsibility, it’s not my desire, but I can’t say no. No one asks me.

This weeks, dozens or hundreds or thousands of people will be killed in foreign countries with bombs and helicopters and machine guns and grenades and planes that were paid for with money taken from me. I have no issue with any foreigners that I know of, no one has threatened me personally or my way of life. No one has ever sent me a letter telling me they hated me; they’ve never come on my property and tried to take my life or harm anyone I love. I don’t even know their names or faces, I would’t recognize them in a restaurant.

Still, thousands of dollars a year are taken from me, from each paycheck, in order to lob violent weapons and ammunition at “my enemies.” I can’t say no. I have no choice. I would never say yes, not even if they threatened my way of life in an anonymous video disparaging capitalism and freedom. Unless they make a violent stance to attack me, my property, or those I love, I mean no one harm. If they want to bring the battle to my soil, they’ll be sent back in body bags, but that hasn’t happened. I can’t see it happening, especially as more wise and responsible citizens arm themselves defensively.

There are farmers who are given money not to farm: I can’t say no to them. There are corporations who have asked for and received monopoly power over things that I use and would prefer competition in; I can’t say no to them. If I want to hire someone to sweep up my warehouse, I am mandated to pay them $9 an hour even if the work isn’t worth more than $4 an hour to me. A lot of high school kids in my building would love to make an extra $8 a day just sweeping up, but I can’t do that. I am forced to tell them no. I can’t even think about teaching a 12 year old that sweeping up for $8 over 2 hours is good work: it’s illegal. I am forced to tell them no, too.

I can’t carry a weapon in order to defend myself from armed robbery. I can’t tell them “no” in a non-verbal way. Instead, I have to ask my robbers to kindly wait for the police.

Soon, I won’t be able to request no salt in my food, or extra salt: that option will be taken from me by those who think they know what is right for me. I can’t say “no” to pasteurized milk, the kind of stuff that clogs your arteries and later leads to the kind of health condition Mr. 50-year-old neighbor has because of homogenization of “fat” in the milk. I can’t say yes, I can’t say no. Choices are gone, freedom isn’t an option. I just say “no” to milk overall.

When my employees work for me, I can’t say no to stealing from their paychecks and sending it to some anonymous looter who has plans for that money, part of those plans are to pay off a little bit of debt incurred in my name for the rest of my life. I can’t even say no to stealing a piece of every retail purchase made through me, also sent to another anonymous looter who promises better roads and schools and public safety. Those promises are unfulfilled, but I can’t say no and choose my own provider for roads, schools and safety.

I can’t say no to the forced decision to “save” for my retirement, money that is taken from me every week and given to others who might need it or not need it. I don’t know them. I can’t say no to the forced theft that will happen when I am retired, from the youth who could better use that money to invest in businesses, pay their way through school, or party it up if they so please. They can’t say no, either.

I can’t say no to higher efficiency vehicles because the ones I love supposedly contaminate the planet. The military jets and boats and supercruisers that I am forced to pay for do a lot more damage, but my choice of a heavy duty and safe vehicle is taken from me. I’m left with less safe, ugly, uncomfortable bubble cars and light “trucks” as the only option because my nannies tell me that’s what I should drive.

For a period of time, I couldn’t say no to foie gras in Chicago: the looters decided it was bad for consumers to have that choice. I don’t even LIKE foie gras, but I’d like the option to say no to it. Amazingly, the looters gave back that choice, but not the real ones that matter.

I can’t say no to the welfare recipients that I pay for. I have no idea what the reason is for why they’re where they are, but I’m told they need help. I’d prefer to help those I am morally compatible with, but instead I get to help 20-somethings who are too proud to work at the grocery store. Some of them are eating better than me, yet I still have to pay their way through unemployment. I’d rather say “get a job” to some, and give a few dollars a week to others, but the decision is made for me, against my will, against my judgment.

I can’t say no to marijuana, or even cocaine, because someone decided it’s sinful to put substances into my body. I might make a bad decision while I am under the influence. For millions who use drugs occasionally, they’re doing just fine, but those who are addicts are told no. They still do the drugs, and I can’t say no to incarcerating them at my expense.

I can’t say no to the police who drive around undercover, on the public dole, not available when a citizen actually needs them because they’re hidden from us. I can’t say no to the men who come knocking on my door every decade, asking me who lives in the apartment I live in, what their ages are, what race they are, what they do for a living. I can’t say no the tax assessor who makes me pay rent on the property I own, money that doesn’t go to making my life or my future better. Someone else’s life is better for my hard work, not me.

I can’t say no to the men who print the money I use in daily transactions. Even though they print more and more of it every year, devaluing my own savings and investments, I have no ability to tell them to stop. They do it without thinking about me, without thinking about my businesses, my employees, my suppliers, my customers. They make me poorer every second of every day, but I have no option to say no and get them to stop.

Yes, I am selfish. Yes, I am greedy. My actions every day in how I choose to spend my money employ thousands of people. I spend that money voluntarily. When a friend is in need, if I have a little left over and I can see that the friend isn’t blowing their money on bars or sex or musical instrument toys or video games, I give them what I can without asking for it back. Every year, even though I earn more and more money from harder and harder work, I have less to share.

I want to say no. To the looters, the students, the elderly, the sick, the military, the police, the teachers, the street cleaners, the tow truck drivers and the meter maids, the families and the bachelors, even to some doctors. But I can’t. It’s not my place to, it’s illegal, and it supposedly prevents society from getting better. From my perspective, society is getting worse, and it’s my money that is used in doing so. I just want to say no, once in awhile. I would even say yes much more often to those in need, but I can’t.

Some day, some how, the freedom to say no might return — in little chunks, or in big ones. It won’t come from the voters, or the looters, or the students, or the elderly, or the sick, or the healthy. It will come when people finally realize that they, too, want the power to say no.

Feel free to download the PDF version of this article here.

State of Illinois is in hock, productive people on the hook

A.B. Dada — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:05:25 +0000

There’s an aphorism that us free marketeers say often: “If you subsidize something, you get more of it.” That’s always the case when government starts a “war” on some impoverished industry or group of people: they subsidize things to make them “affordable” without looking at the losses that are placed on the backs of the productive people in society. Bastiat wrote of it in his parable of the broken window.

The biggest problem with subsidies is that the State can never really pick the industry to subsidize as fast as consumer demand changes to account for what people want and need. Just because some people want more money spent on education doesn’t mean that the State’s education spending will go to the people who want it the most or need it the most. Only with private, competitive businesses do we see the kind of price and service adjustments happen in nearly real time that account for consumer demand for a given product or service. Almost everything the State does is a near monopoly on the provision of a service.

The State of Illinois budget website has 5 items that lead their campaign for “reform,” which generally means more taxes:

Promote JOB GROWTH

The State of Illinois passed a ridiculous law in 2009 called Illinois Jobs Now! The program, which the State estimates to create nearly 500,000 jobs at a cost of $70,000 per worker, is supposed to fund community projects to get things done that the local communities weren’t doing for themselves. This is just a make-work program, one that takes money from productive people and gives it to unproductive people at a salary far above what would likely be spent hiring them in the private market for services people actually want and need. When the State spends $31 billion to create State jobs, it’s no wonder that they’re broke.

That $31 billion is money that could stay in taxpayer’s pockets and be spent on things they want and need. It isn’t the wealthy who are paying it, either: consider all the tax money that even the poor pay to the State through sales tax, cigarette tax, alcohol tax and all the variety of user fees and taxes that are hidden in the cost of production and servicing. The jobs that are created are not needed and are frivolous — if local communities really need to do things, they should focus on finding the funds to do them without stealing from the rest of the State.

Request continued FEDERAL ASSISTANCE through the recession

The State of Illinois has received billions in “bailout” money and then spent it on candy for their voter blocs. This money is running out, so the State of Illinois hopes to steal from other more productive states to buy even more candy for the welfare recipients. Federal money comes from somewhere, and over time the amount you receive will almost always be lost to the amount you pay to other states who will have “needs” for Federal assistance in the future. On top of that, favoritism and cronyism takes its own share of those funds, money that never gets spent properly by consumers on their needs and wants, an activity that tells the market how to adjust what products and services it provides and at what cost.

Worse, this bailout money actually makes it difficult for businesses who are not cronies of State legislators because they have to compete on uneven grounds. Bailout funds likely cause net job LOSSES as the unsubsidized private companies go under, leaving only the subsidized companies who then cry for more money. The old adage stands true: if you give someone something, they will not be a good steward of it.

Continue to CUT SPENDING

This is always humorous, because governments rarely actually cut overall spending, they just make minor adjustments to certain areas and point the finger at their “great” work while patting themselves on the back. Even if some future spending is cut in some areas, past debt and pension agreements will still inflate the budget beyond what can be debated as fundamental spending for a huge government body.

Many areas that the state spends money in make little sense for a large government body to attack. The war on drugs costs Illinois taxpayers billions and has done nothing to halt the use of drugs. Even worse, the long term costs of this war make it detrimental to taxpayers: jailing drug users is expensive, and creates more debt for the overburdened taxpayers.

To truly cut costs, the state has to do it significantly. There are many programs the state can shut down entirely that will be instantly covered by private industry, and at a better cost with more variety of service levels, too. Even though we supposedly had an economic boom for years, the State of Illinois has spent 38% more money per citizen in 2008 than in 1998, adjusted for inflation. Why a state thinks it should need to spend money when people are making more money has never been answered.

The state still spends money putting lights up for little league stadiums, disburses billions to crony businesses through the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, and sends billions in pork barrel projects downstate so the southern legislators look the other way on City of Chicago outlays by the state. The measly few billion the state is underwater could be solved with no “fundamental” services being trimmed, and no income tax increase.

Adopt REVENUE ENHANCEMENTS

Revenue enhancements means tax and fee increases. They’re already talking about raising the income tax 50%, creating new fees for vehicle registration, and adding another $1 tax increase for cigarettes. All of these “enhancements” push the opportunities for business growth into other states with less of a burden on citizens living and working in the state. There’s no doubt that raising taxes and fees would help repair the debt issue, but as we all know, government can’t keep its hands out of the cookie jar. The minute that taxes are raised, spending will move upwards, too, until the new funds are long gone.

To push for more jobs, more growth and a more secure future for Illinois citizens, the State needs to re-read its Constitution and follow it. It has overextended its domain and authority into areas where a large, bureaucratic and parasite-laden organization can not handle efficiently. Cut the state budget significantly, send the money back to taxpayers, and see the economy within Illinois boom as it attracts competitive businesses to fill in the holes temporarily left by government leaving those markets.

That effect would happen almost overnight. The current ideas put forth by the State will just push the punishment for years of overspending and overreaching down the road further, but that bill will be paid in full, on the backs of those of us who aren’t wise enough to jump across the border to a fairer, less intrusive state.

Amazon versus Macmillan, Hachette, Publishers, Authors, etc.

A.B. Dada — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 17:21:40 +0000

When Amazon decided to try to fight publishers by telling them they were going to sell e-books at a fixed price ($9.99), Apple came in with their iPad and another e-book store to give publishers the option to sell books at a range of prices ($5.99 to $14.99). The publishers balked, and Amazon cut their ability to sell on Amazon, causing some in-fighting until Amazon finally capitulated and gave in to publishers for some sort of variable pricing arrangement.

Lots of industry experts in publishing and tech have chimed in. I think the best article I’ve read, but still far from reality, is author and ex-publisher Paul Carr’s article on TechCrunch “Hey, 1997 – Macmillan called, they want the Net Book Agreement back.” Good job for Mr. Carr to point the fingers at the publishers, but he’s still off track on the reality of online publishing of any material. The only people who are capable of understanding what will happen with the e-book market (and the e-music market, and the e-video market) are those who understand the Austrian School of Economic theory. I don’t know, right now, of any Austrians who are addressing this particular event, but it’s easy to consider what exactly will happen in the future: prices of easily copied content will be forced to zero.

Austrians live and die by supply and demand. Even with government laws and regulations that try to create artificial scarcity (copyright laws, for example), the market of content consumers will too easily be able to get around whatever scarcity the publishers create. Usually that scarcity is circumvented through piracy. As long as there is a near infinite supply of an item, the price will fall to zero for those who are unwilling to go through official methods to get the product.

It doesn’t matter how many steps publishers take to try to hamper the efforts of casual pirates (such as those who grab a movie or MP3 off of a torrent site), increasing fines, increasing threats, changing international laws to try to stifle the flow of information. There is no way to stop this progress now that it has begun.

As any Austrian will tell you, the only way to make money in a market is to offer services or products that people want at prices that are aligned with supply and demand. I didn’t say “at prices that people are willing to pay.” Since the supply of electronic content is near infinite, content creators have to find new ways to generate income.

In terms of music, bands will eventually stop working on selling MP3s and likely just give them away for free. The internet, and torrent sites, is the equivalent of a gigantic radio station. MP3s will be downloadable for free so that musicians can show fans what their music is like. In order to make a profit, musicians will have to charge realistic prices for their live performances, or off value added options to fans that are limited in supply. How about giving away MP3s regularly for free, but offering fans access to a fan club website where they can interact with the band? If they don’t pay for access, they can still appreciate the music they like. If they love the band enough, they’ll gladly pay for fan site access or for tickets to the live shows.

The next step for bands to acquire a realistic income for the live performance work they provide is to get rid of the ticket brokers and move to an eBay-like auction site for concert tickets with proceeds from all sales going directly to the band, rather than the ticket brokers. This will remove the “flat cost” that bands get when they sell tickets at a fixed price, which is a ridiculous idea (akin to Amazon trying to sell infinitely available e-content for a fixed price instead of zero).

But how would an author sell their own time if they just gave away their books? That’s a difficult question. Many authors today, amateurs most of us, are just blogging in hopes of getting pennies a day in advertising on our blogs. It’s not very unique and there is a seemingly endless supply of blogs covering the same topics over and over. If a blogger/author writes well and in a way that readers appreciate, there are numerous ways for these authors and bloggers to generate an income without charging for content. One such way might be to allow readers to read their blogs for free, but interaction with the site comes at a monthly subscription. You can read the blogs freely, but if you want to leave a comment and interact with other readers or the author, you have to pay.

The same case can be said for book authors — the difference between a blog and an e-book is slim, if not none. Authors can release their e-book online for free (in parts, or wholly) and then offer readers the opportunity to pay the author for online interaction with the book (in a private forum or through private comments). Maybe the author’s website could show a limited amount of each comment left, hiding the rest so that readers are enticed into subscribing to read the whole list, and leave their own comments.

It’s crazy that musicians, authors and video directors want to cry about being artists, but then demand payment for something they’ve created. Those who paint oil on canvas usually paint ahead of time with no payment until someone finds a reason to pay them for their limited-supply oil painting. Only then do they get paid, but the oil painting is limited to one unique piece. Supply and demand works. Authors who create online content or content that is easily copied can also do the same thing: maybe offer readers access to limited supply content that is difficult to copy or where time is of the essence in offering value. An author could offer subscribers access to previews of the next book in a series, or insight into the character development stage, things that others could login and copy but might be in such high quantity that it is easier to just pay the $2 or $3 a month for access to the site’s private content.

Regardless of what the end result will be for delivering income to artists for their unique services and products, rather than electronic products that are easily distributable, the reality is that no matter how much the distributors (Amazon, the publishers, even the authors directly on blogs) want to stifle the price falling to zero, it will happen. It’s already happening at a record pace if you look at any torrent search site for current books and music and videos. They can not stop the market, even if the market is considered illegal.

Authors and content creators should be thinking of new ways to offer unique services and products immediately to their readers and fans. There are unlimited options and ideas out there, and the day will come faster than expected when Amazon, iTunes and the publishers are just useless for distributing content that can already be distributed freely by others through legal and illegal means.