Looking back at history, countries from Spain in the 17th century to Germany in the 1930s, countries that spend a lot of their GDP on military and financed it with debt, dug their own graves. They lost both guns and butter. Countries that peacefully focus on their own problems like Switzerland or Sweden enjoy peace and prosperity.

• The GOP will replay the 2008  election, when John McCain said: “we will stay in Iraq 100 years if we have to” – this GOP Neocon arrogance does not inspire any warm feelings in me, I do not know about you?
• Interview on War or the economy by Ron Paul is well worth listening to on anti-war.com

It is actually quite simple, if you choose guns over butter you will have neither.

Military tends to be a wasteful special interest and the US government is not looking out for you personally

This post is about why I believe in homeland defense, not empire building.  It will  clarify the guns vs. butter argument. Why I believe patriotism is not about beating militarily drums of war, as much as defending the constitution, economic prosperity at home and encouraging free market innovation to keep our technological security edge. I am not against defense, I just think national defense is different from military expenditures, which is something inefficient, wasteful.

• Let me illustrate, my friend who is a computer contractor with the US Navy in Jacksonville, earns three times what the average American makes, does not even know how to open a zip file (sorry if you do not) and still uses Internet Explorer 7 (sorry if you do).
•  When I was attacked overseas, as an American citizen, I did not feel I got super support from the State Department.  Therefore, I am unconvinced that defense of US citizens is synonymous with large conventional armies in the Middle East or the government is watching out for you . They watch out for themselves.

I also think the 15,000 people who die in crimes in the USA are more than those who die in domestic terror attacks. Maybe it would save more US lives to amp up the local police more than hunting people on the other side of the world? If they really cared about US citizens they would care about crime in the USA.  Further, one of the GOP nominees said something to the effect, we should stamp a green card to the passport of foreigners with Masters degrees if they wanted to come to the USA, so we could continue to attract the best and the brightest.  What about just focusing on the education of US citizens than attracting foreigners, if you cut the military in half you could fill the universities of young Americans with free tution.  I think if you analysis the guns or butter argument you have to ask yourself what evidence do you have that Washington has your best interests in mind?

The term ‘military intelligence’ or innovation at least, is a contradiction in terms. Currently we do use some cutting edge technology. However, to achieve that cutting edge it is coupled with ridiculous waste. My father was the Treasurer for a defense contractor ( United Technologies) when I was growing up and I in retrospect saw how much of a special interest that was. The problem is, the economy is different now then the 1960s, and I do not think the current economy can support that type of business as usual defense contractor special interest.

 Basis of US foreign policy

Our foreign policy is based on control the whole world by looking under ever stone for a terrorist. This can not be done, as there are too many people, and we will go bankrupt trying. Better focus on our own shores. Defend the USA, not try to make the whole would the USA.

Something that everyone knows but is afraid to say is, a lot of our foreign policy is based on Israel. I am for the defense of Israel if attacked and have good feelings toward the Jewish people. Very much so in fact. I just believe that Israel has proven time and time again they can take care of themselves. And us meddling and dictating in the micromanagment of the Middle East is not in your personal interst as a US citizen. Look at Egypt. We supported the last regime for 30 years and pumped them with arms and money, and now it is civil war.

We stir up bees nests in the Middle East and choose sides when we should be minding our own bees wax. When I was in Palestine most of the people were poor and friendly and welcoming. They did not impress me as ‘the enemy’. When I was in Israel I felt they were a little more heavy-handed.

People say we must support Israel at any cost, because they are a democracy. My reply is this:

• Why? Sure we can help them if attacked but like Ronald Regan realized when he pulled out of Lebanon, Middle East Politics is an endless quagmire we do not want to be sucked into.
• The Obama-Bush doctrine of preventative Middle eastern Wars – is nonsense, it stirs up trouble and anger more than helps Americans, does it help you personally?
• Israel has a questionable human rights record. – read up on it.
• Is the USA a democracy and is our mission to spread this to the world? I think the USA is a Republic. The word Democracy is not even mentioned in our Declaration of Independence, Bill of rights or US constitution, check this. The US was based on protecting the citizens from government, foreign wars and entangling alliances, if you read the original documents you will see this. Most Americans do not understand what this constitution is about, and they would gladly surrender their rights to usurpers of the law in the name of security. I would not say our manifest destiny is to spread ‘democracy to the world’. As an American citizen I am pledged to defend the US constitution, the highest law in the land, not a Middle Eastern country who has spied on us and even involved in a questionable accident like the USS Liberty. America should stand up for Americans.
• Ukraine is a democracy and ally but do we care they just put Yulia Tymoshenko in prison for ten years in a kangaroo court and human rights are violated? We the USA have a double standard.
• Is our view of the Arab nations like our view of Native Americans 150 years ago? How would you feel if foreign soldiers were in your backyard imposing their ideas of how you should live?

I the best way to be a patriot in the USA is to focus on homeland defense and economy, not Pax America, trying to be the British Empire of the 19^th century.

If we want security, defend the constitution and promote the free market and stay out of Middle Eastern politics and let science and technology lead us into battle rather than ground forces.

When I hear the Generals complain that we are at our weakest since WWII, that pure nonsense. They are barking not at cuts in military but a deceleration of the rate of growth.

Guns vs. Butter is an economic phrases that represents is a simplification of the economic tradeoff between prosperity at home, focus on the family vs. military expansionism. It is a choice that every empire has to make. The Soviet Union choose guns and the economy collapsed.

The great free market leader Margret Thatcher said:

 The Soviets put guns over butter, but we put almost everything over guns.

Look who won the arms race and why. Economics and innovation determine long run security.

There is also a trade-off between personal liberty, freedom,economic growth, prosperity and innovation at home or guns around the world. The result and my thesis is:

 Any civilization that falls behind economically and with innovation (which comes from the free market) will fall behind in terms of security and the ability to defend its citizens, then collapses or their national security is really at risk.

• The Mises foundation of economic ideas I think would back me up on this. Why expansion of military spending is counter productive to security.

What is happening to the USA now economically? Has there been any great innovation in the last ten years?

The spokes people representing the ‘Guns’ side (Many people in the GOP) use perpetual fear to keep people believing that we need a security that is a blank check for the military, your money.

Newt Gingrich promised the American people:

 All of Us Will Be In Danger for the Rest of Our Lives

He is a Orwellian Machiavellian. The GOP will lose as the Universe will not let that happen, to have such a war monger in office.

I think it is a bit more complicated than simply dismantle Obama’s social programs and replace it with military as the GOP has suggested. I think we need a strong economy and free market innovation that will keep us one step ahead of the enemy. The militarily as it exist today is a WWII mentality of ground troops and submarines with innovation because we still have some economic juice left. But the innovation comes because we have money. What if the money runs out?

• If the economy collapses I can tell you what will happen with innovation, it will slow down, if it has not already.

The GOP Noe-cons always says ‘ they will drop a nuke’ in one of our cities if we do not spend more. And if it happened deep down some of them would be saying ‘see I told you so’. They would feel hurt and pain of course, but another side would say ‘see I told you so’.

I say they will nuke a city if our economy collapses and we can not afford to stay cutting edge technology. They will drop a nuke if we are in 150 countries in the world and choose to play the dangerous game of Middle Eastern politics. We can not have a Camera in every person in the world’s house. Further, let’s be real, to construct a nuclear weapon and detonate it in an US city is next to impossible, a dirty bomb maybe or a biological weapon maybe, but a real nuke is hard to build and get the material for.

 Why the US should focus on butter over guns

Here is the reality. We need to maintain a strong economy so we can have a technological edge and prevent this from happening. Building more attack subs or trying to control the whole world is not the way we do it. It is a war based on technology and international intelligence and this is fueled by free market innovation.

Coupled with the fact that we should not be involved in Middle East politics like we are, that is the reason they want to attack us, because they see the US as invading their homeland. Shocking but true.

Why do the terrorists not attack Japan or Iceland or the Swiss or the Swedes? These are rich free countries? Maybe it has to do with the fact that we behave like and empire.

The 9/11 attack was not caused by lack of military spending, we had lots of submarines in the ocean, it was lack of awareness of who the enemy was and their motives.

 Know thy enemy Sun Tzu – The Art of War

Many people jumped on Ron Paul for saying this about 9/11, but he was not saying that the victims caused the attack, not at all! He said something to the effect the attack was partly motivated because we act like and empire, fight undeclared wars, support political assassinations etc. This is what the Terrorist themselves said.

 Know thy enemy Sun Tzu – The Art of War

Bin Laden stated that the objective was to wear down the USA in a war of attrition. Are we playing into their hands?

George Bush said ‘they attacked us because of our freedom’. What an idiotic statement.

 The term Guns Vs. Butter

The term Guns or Butter was first used by William Jennings Bryan in his resignation from secretary of state under Woodrow Wilson, however, it had another history.

Living in Poland many years and at my University studied a lot of history. What many people do not know is why War II started when it did. What was happening in Germany in the 1930s?

The truth is the Germany economy in 1939 was on the brink of collapse. While everyone was singing praises of the party that was keeping Germany safe from the ‘ Jewish threat’, the economy was on the brink of failure. The economy could not maintain its military expenditure. Yes it was a classic boom and bust cycle brought about by government and a crazy evil leader.

Germany’s militarization was causing a grand fiscal expansion in their industrial military complex. He was keeping people on the military payroll and paying benefits and the arms makers were profiting. But that leader knew this the economy could not go on like that forever and felt war was the only solution to keep his political machine going before the economy collapsed. It did not cause the war of course but, they needed the war to keep their economy from collapsing.

So the political spokes people for that nation started to make statements about security from the ‘Jewish threat’ and the Bolsheviks and anarchists.

We can do without butter, but, despite all our love of peace, not without arms. One cannot shoot with butter, but with guns. Guns will make us powerful; butter will only make us fat – Hermann Göring

For me, that is another politically manipulate simpleton speaking.

I prefer the philosophy of security through innovation and an economic strength. I do not believe in politically playing like Otto Von Bismark did with realpolitik , that is politics based on practical rather than moral considerations. In contrast, I believe in the US constitution.

Two last thoughts on the guns vs. butter argument

1. In your household do you spend 25 to 50% of your budget on security? What if a business did this, it would have little disposable income for R&D or anything else. This is not life it would be a basic existence and this is what many in the USA have, just go to Walmart and look at the people shopping there.
2. Although I think religion should be kept out of politics, and it is distasteful when people in politics use religious language,  I can not help thinking that the Bible says ‘he who lives by the sword will dies by the sword.’.
3. ‘What good is one gains the world but loses their soul in the process’.

Lets first take a look where the US is spending your money with the deployment of US military troops that subsidies foreign economies. The US is in more than 150 countries around the world.

The following deployments of US military do not include defense contractors and private firms which cost the US tax payer a fortune, but are hidden costs. Nor do they include the Spy agencies like the CIA which have secret deployments and high, almost unlimited budgets.

These are rich countries that have been getting free rides for years and strong lobbies keep your dollars floating these rich countries, that frankly only love our money not us. US ground soldiers stationed to protect rich countries.

• Germany 54,198
• Italy 10,771
• UK 9,346
• Japan 40,178
• South Korea, 28,500
• Bahrain – 1,894
• Spain – 1,483
• Belgium – 1,234

Middle Eastern Countries on the other side of the world with US legions.

• Kuwait 10,548
• Turkey – 1,511
• Iraq – 49,000
• Afghanistan – 103,700
• Bahrain – 1,894

Of course there are more. We are in 150+ counties in the world.

I have heard we going to build up our military presence in countries like Australia, Poland. There is GOP talk of war with Iran.

There are many more countries that make up the 150 + countries the US is in. Each person stationed cost you money, a lot of money. Is this the foreign policy George Washington envisioned?

The US no longer fight wars of defense, but wars of aggression. Is this not the same behavior the American colonies rebelled against?

George Washington warned against entangling alliances, foreign wars and his economic policy was more libertarian than Republican or Democrat.

During Soviet times, my wife who is from Eastern Europe said:

The last thing they cut was the military, national police and spy agencies. They would cut all social programs and medical benefits, help for the disabled, education, before they would cut the military.

This is exactly what the United States is like. Despite promises to the contrary, the military and CIA and other defense agencies have only grown and largely unaudited. There is even talk now of war with Iran if needed.

In the Union (Soviet), the generals would be riding in nice cars with a staff, everything was under the shroud of secrecy and for the protection of the citizens, because of threats internal and external, but we all knew the real story. Government was the problem. The idea that they were protecting us was simply not correct. Newspapers in our mainstream media like Pravda (the truth) did not highlight the fact that the military was bringing the economy down. While we were firing million dollar missiles in Afghanistan, the Average citizen was worried about day-to-day economic survival.  It was the military that precipitated the collapse of the Union.

Alas, in the end we were grateful, as the weight of that industrial military complex brought the fall of the tyranny and the Union as the economy could not longer sustain a military empire around the world. The Union is now a footnote in history.

• Will America collapse? Many people think the USA will last forever. It will not. The only question is will it be a 250 year, footnote in history or looked back on as a shinning example of morality, an experiment that will last for a millennium.
• Many people think the Roman Empire fell because of barbarian invasions, but the reality was when the Republic centralized to an Empire, management became too complex, internal conflicts, bickering, civil unrest, then economic problems, weakened the Empire so it could not defend itself. Economics always determines strength.

I know people do not see it this way, as the military is held in such high regard in the USA. However, it is what is weighing down economic growth. It is the ultimate crowding out effect. That is it displaces resources and bright young minds to be diverted to non productive activities and siphoned off economic capital that would have been used for the next start-up or medical breakthrough.

Without a strong economy we will lose our edge and that is the real security threat. Aggressive US foreign policy, causes hostility in the world and  inspires new legions of terrorists who use more radical weapons to replace the terrorists we shoot.  I mean the Swiss or Icelandic nations or even Costa Rica or Sweden or Japan in the modern world or the New Zealander or Canadians do not cause strong emotion and resentment like the USA. What is the difference?

Congressman Ron Paul  from Texas explains in his book Liberty Defined:

The United States is an empire by any definition, and quite possible the most aggressive , extended and expansionist in the history of the world. Do we really find it shocking that some people in the world don’t like us?

When 9/11 struck, the Commander and Chief of the US and President George Bush explained to the American people and the world that

these crazy people must have hated us because of our freedoms.

I personally find that explanation a little hard to swallow as the world is more complex than that.

Why I do not believe the US is looking after its citizens best interest

The party line in the USA is we spend trillions and drive up the debt to protect American citizens. Yet if this is true, explain to me why when I was abroad and attacked as an American, the State Department, in my impression, was more concerned about smoothing things over than finding the truth, until I really pressed the issue. Maybe the idea of protecting American citizens has nothing to do with the Federal government, but rather more about perpetuating their own bureaucracy?

Eighty billion dollars are spent on spy agencies to ‘protect the American people’. Possible secret financing by the Federal Reserve, with loads and guarantees to our friend to assist empire building, is unconfirmed but would not be surprising.

Money spent by the CIA and other security agencies receives virtually no oversight by the U.S. Congress. When problems results as a consequence, the military is frequently called upon to bring about order and congresses is coerced into supporting the efforts for supposed national security.  – Ron Paul – Liberty Defined

Why do we maintain an empire at horrible expense to the American people? Here are some ideas which are floating around Washington.

1. Fear keeps the perpetual the need for government protection – People believe danger is lurking around the corner unless we fight every coroner of the world. It was true in Vietnam in the 60s and it is true in Iran today. When I am in Moscow, I can spot Americans a mile away, they often are looking over their shoulder, thinking they are in a strange wild country and anything could happen. Who are they some oil magnate? Generally the streets are safer in many parts of the world than any US city. Fear not reality is what motivates extreme behavior. Fear is what keeps the people in line and voting for more global wars.
2. Spread our goodness to the world – Some Americans believe we are spreading democracy and goodness around the world. I personally find that strange since a more efficient way would be giving money to help sick and hungry children. What about the idea of spreading democracy? Hmm, are we are a democracy or a republic? I went to the State Department website and saw a statement that said something like, ‘these are the documents original documents, for the world to see, that support the idea of our great democracy’. I looked at the documents and the were the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and the US Constitution etc. None of these documents contain the word democracy. These documents are all about protecting the rights of citizens, from oppressive governments. So before we try to beat the drums of war with spreading democracy to foreign nations, our leaders need to understand US history. Also maybe not all nations in the world share our history and culture and we should not try to force it on others with military occupation. What if foreign solders with a different ideology from you, were stationed in your town, who would you feel?
3. Secure supplies of oil – I recall that when Rush Limbaugh the conservative political commentator announced the Kuwait/Iraq war was about the free flow of oil for American citizens to protect the American lifestyle. I was shocked he was trying to be honest. This modern-day mercantilism requires the protection of our trade routes and natural resource is a policy that makes no senses. In the long run the price of mercantilism and empire building is just too high. Every empire that tried it from Spain to Japan declined. We could just pay for the resources we need like Iceland does. The natural resource model for expansion makes no sense. The WWII Japanese were trying to build the East Asian co-prosperity sphere. When they felt the reproduces for their expansion was being limited they tried to expand their control with the military to secure control over the resources.

• Whatever the reason the result is we have a worldwide presence of American troops. This cost you, your economic life as well as bread resentment towards Americans around the world. I have traveled in the Middle East. People do not resent you personally, they are usually welcoming, they do not like US foreign policy.

The German philosopher George Hegel wrote:

The world is a war of ideas.

The war in US foreign policy is this. The Republicans want more of the same 20th century foreign policy, more guns less butter. The Democrats say they are different, but continue business as usual.

Whoever wins the election 2012, social programs will be cut before the unaudited secret spy agencies like the CIA or the Military are looked at. This is a recipes for disaster. Short sighted general do not understand economics wins wars. Obama I will not vote for because, he is a continuation of Bush foreign Policy. If the US wants to keep spending money in this way and funding it with debt, the USA is heading for bigger trouble.

Many on the right who endorse the preventative war mentally of overseas aggression are sincere in their belief that this effort is required to defeat the enemies of liberty. They refuse to see any connection between a policy of perpetual war and the loss of civil liberties at home. They believe their own rhetoric. This deception only facilitates big government, deficits, and the dimishment of individual liberty they say they are fighting to preserve. -Ron Paul

• US military spending
• US foreign Policy
• GOP Neo-cons will destroy America

Is a vote for Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich a vote for yet another unfunded war of choice, this time with a nation, Iran, three times as large and populous as Iraq? Mitt says that if elected he will move carriers into the Persian Gulf and “prepare for war.” Newt is even more hawkish. America should continue “taking out” Iran’s nuclear scientists — i.e., assassinating them — but military action will probably be needed.  – Pat Buchanan

One more quote to consider in this next election.

He (King George) has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in persons of a distant people who never offended him. – Thomas Jefferson

On one hand, the USA is a superpower, and rich, not like the Soviet Union. Yet on the other hand when I am in Wal-Mart in anytown USA it does not look like we are a rich superpower, except for those connected to the bureaucracy of Washington, the military contractors or the people the government is helping bail out. Of course that is not universally true and I am be dramatic but it is to make a point.

Under the 10^th Amendment States have the right to keep all power not specifically given to the US Federal government written in the US constitution. This idea was crafted into the US constitution by the founding fathers, particularly Thomas Jefferson, to prevent the Federal government from growing too big, over stepping its powers which often results in a large central government run by bureaucrats.

Preventing this was the whole point of the American Revolution, to create a government that protects life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not stifling it. The founding fathers felt a loose confederation of states was the way do this.

The constitution granted states the right for nullification and succession. This is no interpretation of the constitution.

The Federalist papers no. 84 contain the intent of the Tenth amendment and the issue of states rights. At the heart of this issues is the future of your liberties, if you care.

The 10^th Amendment literally says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This Amendment was a direct continuation of the Articles of Confederation statement:

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Judges have chipped away at the interpretation of this constitutional  law:

• United States v. Sprague (1931)
• United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941)
• South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987)
• New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)
• Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Federal funding is lost if the states do not follow the central bureaucracy

The Federal power is gradually centralized and reaffirmed. The Federal government power is asserted via the tax, debt and reallocation of money to the States system enforces this law. If a particular state would not adhere, they would be taxed, but no money would flow back into the state. They would have all the burden of being in the Union and none of the benefits.

This is how the nationwide 55 mile an hour speed limit was enforced. States would lose highway money. It was a silly little ridiculous law.

Why State’s rights matter

However, states rights are not about silly laws like that. It is about when a Federal government becomes centralizes and powerful through incremental ism. States can not challenge or nullify Federal mandates, even if seems not to apply or be of benefit to a particular state or represent the beliefs of the people of that state.

The end result is always the same, government mandates, centralizes and becomes too strong. Top down management is also inefficient and often steps on ‘little people’ who are kept in their place.

Federalism is the ultimate top down approach

Having a strong central government that mandates universal laws and applies it to every household, is the opposite of democracy and efficiency. Americans say they have a democracy, I think it more like a like a large iron ship that is trying to navigate and turn though a narrow channel of water.

In our country a manifestation of centralization and a top down approach is seen by: large debt is placed on top of debt, and taxes on taxes, and wields its unlimited power and use up the trust of the American people in less than noble ways. Washington in its arrogance acts like an empire, to its own citizens and the world.

An empire where rich old men send poor young men and women to come back in body bags. State national guard units, young people who wanted to help their state in emergence or pay for the college are sent, not to help their state in times of flood or emergency, but to clear roadside bombs in Iraq.

Federal bureaucrats dictate their conception of that should be taught in schools children. Some see this as indoctrination.

The public’s liberties, rights and privacy are eroded with fear being used as a tool to get people to surrender their liberties. If a State protests like Texas did with body scans, the Federal government acts swiftly to squash the independent thinking.

Think about it while the Federal government operations maintain secrecy, you are watched more and more. What if we as private citizens were able to audit and watch the government workers, including the Federal Reserve? But this will never happen.

In summary the road to an authoritarian state is when the Federal government consolidates power, taking it from a bottoms up approach to a top down approach.

The Federalist papers no. 84

The Federalist papers are important as they describe the intent of the framers of the constitution, the ultimate law in our land. In the supreme court as cites the Federalist papers hundreds of times in their decisions. It is an original authoritative document.

James Madison, Thomas Jefferson never envisioned this and designed the constitution to safe guard against it. In fact Madison thought the 10^th amendment did not need extra language because it was a truism that the states have the power except in exceptional cases.

If you read the Federalist papers, no 84 is about the rights of the people vs the role of the government as it related to the bill of rights.

Alexander Hamilton was against the Bill of Rights because his interpretation of this would be, it was a list of rights of the citizens, while these rights are self-evident. By listing them future generations might interpret this list as the only rights citizens have. If you read the Federalist paper, you will see the Federal government was clearly meant to be limited and the power was to reside in the States and more important the rights of citizens were to be expansive.

What if the US constitution was respected?

If the US constitution was respected and defended US citizens would have more choices in their lives, more freedom. They could live in the states were law and order was more in agreement with their life ideals.

In an alternative reality in which government workers, including the military honored their pledge to the constitution, you would not have the US military hunting US citizens with drones without a trial like was done in Syria. We could have school choice for children, no monopoly on money, we could live in a state that is governed more in accordance with their political economic ideas.

Choose your State based on the way to the laws and lifestyle

Even under the current system we live, people do this to a limited extent. It is no coincidence that, one of the reasons I choose to live in Florida was there is no state income tax. In contrast, Many states like Oregon California, and New Jersey will siphon off about 10% of your earnings or over a month of your work life a years.

More important, if there was limited Federal government, some states would be financially responsible and have a balanced budget and others would not. Each State could issue their owe money as well as private citizens. People would live in states that were not train wrecks fiscally or enjoyed more personal freedoms. It would create competition between states for hard-working honest citizen. On the other hand if you want to live in a free lunch state like California, you would accept higher taxes.

What is really done at the state level Vs. the Federal government?

Think how much is done at the state and local level. Schools, roads, prisons, courts, state armies, air force, fire, police, parks, assistance to the poor, including food stamps and even medical insurance. At the state level there are driver’s license, Real Estate and lawyer and other professional licenses and regulations.

It makes you wonder why the US government exists at all if day-to-day life is done at the local and state level. Of course there is Federal government funding to the states, but come on this is a small part of the black hole called the Federal Budget.

Why does 1/3 of your life, really more if you aggregate all taxes go to the Federal government? They are not here to help you. For example, when I had problems abroad I felt they were more worried about cover their own complacency, then helping me the tax payer and citizen.

If the Federal government were to shut down, disappear or turn into a small into a small set of buildings which holds the US Constitution and the President acting mostly as the ambassador to other countries,; after an adjustment phase the world would go one. Of course this scenarios is to just make a point. The USA does not need to be the greatest empire the world has ever seen as well as being, the lender of last resort to failed businessmen nor control the money as well as every aspect of our lives.

Basically life would go on and the United States of America would prosper after an adjustment phase.

In another scenarios what happens when states rights are ignored and government continues to expand ad consolidate power:

• The problem of massive Federal debt will not go away, which neither party in this great democracy of ours will address until it causes long-run damage to US competitiveness. Then everyone will be stretching their heads saying what happened. The Federal government happened. I can assure you Federal assistance to the poor and small business will go before the massive military industrial complex, the state department and the CIA and other government agencies. A military state will always cut social programs before military and spy agencies which seem to be expanding.
• We have a Federal government that watches your every move, instead of the converse being true. The Federal government in my mind operates under the shroud of cloak and dagger guarded secrecy, like in George Or-well’s 1984. Big brother is watching you. You could be deemed as an enemy combatant. What if Americans watched the move of every bureaucrat and the lavish lifestyles I have personally witnessed with government workers and outsourced consulting firms? I bet corruption and waste would decrease if people really understood how their money was being spent. However, in free America that will not happen. The Federal government watches you, not the converse.

The Civil war and States rights issues

Did we not fight the civil war because of States rights which were connected to Slavery and other inhuman laws? Yes. There is a simple solution regarding the issue of slavery and civil rights. Of course there could be some limited Federal laws that deal with human rights and respect for the individual. That was an exceptional case and specific to the time, once we have crossed the huddles of abolishing slavery and civil rights for all people, the pendulum now swings in the other direction.

But the Civil war was caused by the Federal government making things worst with draconian laws. For example, In 1828 for example South Carolina was strapped with a horribly unfair Tariff Act. When the State nullified the law in 1832 . This unfair law escalated the conflict and polarized both sides. The north was industrial and the south was agrarian based. This was regardless of the slave issue. If there was no slavery the issue would be the same. The North passed laws that held the North but hurt the South. GDP in the South plummeted. If you like original documents you can read John C. Calhoun’ defense of nullification.

Jefferson in the Kentucky resolution of 1799 supported nullification as did Madison in the Virginia resolution in 1798.

Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government. – Thomas Jefferson

It was almost universal that states would have the right to nullify Federal laws to the founding fathers to prevent abuse and growth of a central government.

• A good resource is Nullification: How to resist the Federal Tyranny in he 21^st century by Thomas woods.
• The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution by constitutional scholar Kevin Gutzman.
• States right – the tenth amendment – quietly growing movement. I expect to see more challenges to the current interpretation of the 10th Amendment.

The Federal government needs to exists almost with the sole purpose of protecting individual rights of its citizens.

Morpheus: I won’t lie to you, Neo. Every single man or woman who has stood their ground, everyone who has fought an agent (has lost) – The Matrix

0% tax rate is the best via a legal repeal of the 16th Amendment

Now, do not get me wrong, I am against the income tax in the United States, however, if you want to practice that type of civil disobedience or you are just avoiding taxes for monetary reasons, you need to be willing to pay the price. I believe the only thing a US citizen can do is keep their head down and  pay your taxes like we all do. However, with every election vote for the candidates that are for fiscal sanity and maybe even a repel of the tax laws including the 16th Amendment. Further, there are a number of legal and honest ways to keep your take bill down, but that is the subject of another post.

We could simply cut the budget 50% (many working Americans have had to do this with their own budget, why should the g-men and fat cats in Washington not have to?). Have more non punitive tariffs and excises taxes, like the first 150 years of America, which lead us to be ‘the land of opportunity and liberty’. It would be a questionable assessment to make that bold statement today. I believe it is possible to repeal the 16th Amendment through the political process.

John Bull being approached with new taxes

• Here is a resource that is worth reading -  Are taxes moral? -  Taxes the root of all Evil -  By Frank Chodorov

Is the income tax legal? The income tax is written in the US constitution and there are many laws written and passed by congress. The income tax is legal. However, the question about, is it right and does it agree with idea of individual property rights, the founding fathers what is good and moral in the world?  Does it help the poor and middle class live better lives? Does it help productivity and work incentives? Do taxes make American great? Does it make a civilization advance? No.

The fringe arguments against the legality of the 16th Amendment and  US income tax:

• non ratification argument – A book called  “the Law that never was” by William Benson and Martin Beckman put forth this argument, but I do not agree with their arguments and frankly I do not think the book was well researched. Maybe I am wrong. He argues passionately that many of the 38 states that ratified the 16th Amendment did not. For example, Secretary of State Philander Knox who proclaimed the 16th Amendment ratified ignored such things as California never voted on it, or Kentucky rejected the Amendment nine in favor, twenty-two opposed. These are a few examples, William Benson cites based on his personal research. However, I do not believe it and would have to research it myself and believe his book and argument was proven in court to be not correct.
• The fact that Ohio was not a State until 1953 argument does not hold water either since President Eisenhower retro actively sign a law allowing Ohio to be a State since 1803, even though the constitution forbids such things ex post facto. Porth v. Brodrick did not really address that issue so technically the argument is correct. However, the income tax is legal because the under common sense and practicality.
• 16th Amendment argument against taxes – You can also read about the case of Trohimovich v. Commissioner – I think they through this guy in the clink.
•  16th Amendment was ratified legally. You can read about other more fringe tax protestor cases like, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co

Constitutional arguments against the income tax are stronger, but to date none have been successful challenges:

•  religious objection to the income tax – This is about the first amendment (there is also a free speech argument). Basically if people pay homage to a state not God this is wrong and against their religion, but in 1878 Reynolds Vs. the USA cased struck down this argument. Give to Caesar what is Caesars.
• fifth amendment argument against taxes – filing a tax return with could lead to self-incrimination (United States v. Sullivan), or it is taking without compensation (Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad).  As a follow-up up to this, the IRS really does not care too much, how you make your money as long as you pay taxes. If you are a ‘working girl’ just pay taxes on income generated. It is interested to note that in Europe this profession is non taxed and tax evaders said they were ‘professional girls’ when questioned about income sources reported but not taxed.
• income tax is discriminatory  – it is progressive and therefore in conflict with the 14th amendment which guarantees equal treatment under the law. I think this is a weak argument, we are not talking about race or anything just earnings.
• Taxes are servitude – Paying taxes enslaves one and is therefore unconstitutional. Porth v. Brodrick argued this based on the 13th Amendment and lost. Considering tax payer liberation day is sometime in August, which means you work a good part of the year to the feudal state, it has merit as a moral argument. I mean a serf in the Middle Ages only worked three days for his master and three days for himself, while you work for.
• You can be a citizen of the state you live – It goes something like if you are a sovereign citizen in the state where you live you do not have to pay Federal taxes, for example, you could be a citizen of Texas and only answer to Texas. But you can not use US dollars or anything to do with the US government.  This is based on an argument around the 14th amendment. – The court ruled ‘while the Fourteenth Amendment does not create a national citizenship, it has the effect of making that citizenship ‘paramount and dominant’ instead of ‘derivative and dependent’ upon state citizenship.’ Therefore you still have to pay your taxes.
• FYI- trying to argue (assert an argument on your tax return) that the income tax is illegal with the IRS based on various reasons why not to file can result in a $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty IRS section 6702(a).

Other arguments against the legality of taxes on specific individuals rather than universal is it a law that agrees with the constitution of the United States

• “natural individuals’ or sovereigns individuals argument (similar to the 14th amendment argument), people renouncing US citizenship so as not to pay taxes, titles of nobility (not allowed in the USA by the way), Federal zones outside the USA such as military bases.
• Definitions of income arguments are many.

Think about it the difference between legal and moral. Slavery was perfectly codified and legitimate at one time, but does that mean it was right? Of course not. You need to separate the idea of legal and moral in your mind. The law is a reflection of the collective unconsciousness of the people at a point in time, and if you study history sometimes this can be out of line with that is universally good. People need to work peacefully within the system though the political process via voting change the systems so legal and moral are more congruent. The purpose of this post if to raise one’s awareness about the fact that the USA did not have direct taxation most of its history.therefore, it not a necessary evil, but rather just a break on the economy, that in a global competitive world the USA can no longer afford.

People tolerate taxes for a while because they have previously accumulated wealth. As the tax burden grows and productivity falls, tax revenue falls and the only answer seems to be higher taxes. If the people can no longer tolerate higher taxes, government merely borrows and creates new money, and then the inflation tax is paid with higher prices. The whole system destabilizes and eventually becomes a threat to civilized progress. – Liberty Defined – Ron Paul

 History of Taxes in the USA

• The USA prospered – The United States had no direct tax from 1776 to 1861.  Zero,  nothing, and people thought it absurd that an income tax might exist.
• The USA really did not have an income tax from 1776 to 1913 and not in large measure until the 1950s.
• Crisis and war brings emergency powers to government so to help pay for the civil war the USA saw its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861 – the rate was 3% on income over 800 dollars ( This is about 20,000 dollars in todays income). After the war the tax was repealed.
• Tax the rich – the Revenue Act or Wilson-Gorman Tariff of 1894. The Democrats imposed a 2% on income over 4,000 dollars or 90,000 dollars in todays terms. It was to be a tax on the rich, the top 10% to compensate for lost revenues of tariff reduction.
• Surprise -  the US supreme court rules  direct tax to be unconstitutional on April 8, 1895, with Chief Justice Melville Fuller residing basically argued that it was a violation of the idea of individual property rights and the State had no right to limit this through taxation, an income tax.
• Start of the road to serfdom – 1913 the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States constitution was passed “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
• The USA rested on its laurals until 2007.
• 2021 the USA started to have problems no one could foresee -  as it was too top-heavy fiscally – We will see.

Expat taxes and giving up US citizenship

As a former expat many people have told me because they live abroad they do not have to pay income taxes. This is wrong too. Taxes need to be paid and they are legal, even if you renounce your US citizenship believe it or not. There is no way around it. Just because you live in another country or have a dual citizen means nothing to the Internal revenue service. Do not fool yourself or play think about trying to play naive, they do not care.

Can people challenged the 16th Amendment?  You can read about any number of cases like, Marrita Murphy and Daniel J. Leveille, Appellants v. Internal Revenue Service and United States of America, Penn Mutual Indemnity case, Brushaber case etc. Not a chance to win on legal grounds in my opinion, the amendment has to be repealed by an act of congress.

Do some people just not pay taxes? I highly recommend you do not try. Even if you earn a pittance, I recommend you file a tax return as you do not want to be on the wrong side of the law. Rich and famous from Wesly Snipes to Richard Hatch, the first survivor winner to entrepreneurs like Barrie Konicov have been pursued for tax evasion and their money and fame could not protect them. If you off shore your money you have to be very clever as the IRS is getting sophisticated. I would rather just pay what I owe than try to evade taxes, too much risk.

Is the IRS filled with bad people? Nope. I call the IRS often to ask for clarification as my tax situation is complex living in two countries, having my own business and trading stock. In every case they are normal nice people with a human face. They have checked me several times with a mini audit, and as long as your documentation and prove you’re doing things right you are OK. If you are not, you get a penalty. But the people themselves are not bad per say.

Why is the income tax bad? The income tax in the US might be legal but it places people on the road to serfdom. This law turns extracts your hard work and creativity  to the United feudal States of America.

Does the income tax help or hurt the United States? It is a penalty on productivity and innovation.  It hurts America and US citizens. It allows the US to be an imperial power to engage in countless ‘preventative wars’ secret and public. The income tax along with the Federal Reserve is a blank check that leads the road to serfdom. Can you imagine if someone gave you a blank check and said write any amount you want on this check. It is trouble. You might have to work for him for the rest of your life. This is what the 16th amendment to the US constitution did.

Do not be fooled, taxes hurt our society, destroy the work ethic, have people using their intellectual creativity to try to avoid taxes instead of creating a better mouse trap (think of all the large accounting firms out there doing taxes, I used to do this for PWC).

Taxes are the price we pay for civilization – Oliver Wendel Homes

This is the opposite of what taxes do. They de-civilize people and Oliver Wendel Homes was brainless supreme court judge with a long mustache.

My assessment of taxation?

The more taxes, the more need for government management mismanagement. If you think it is legit or not, it does hurts Americans. I think it is wrong and unpatriotic to advocate more taxes over less. It is anti-american to want tax increases. Duty (which is duty), custom, tribute, levying revenue so the king President can levy an army with continued overseas wars. It makes the country of liberty, the country of socialism.

If we as a society continue to believe that paying for civilization through taxation is a wise purchase and the only way to achieve civilization, we are doomed. It’s a bad idea for the cause of liberty. -Ron Paul – Liberty Defined.

Is the idea of liberty cracked today? For me no.

You can download it here -> On Liberty

On a side note, John Stuart Mill had an IQ estimated to be 180 and the clarity of this though illustrates this. That is why reading On Liberty in pdf is so engaging it is written by a clear mind.

The idea of liberty is simple, the individual rather than the state, Mill writes:

over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

John Stuart Mill was also the first to articulate the Harm Principle. That is:

the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

These two ideas is largely the basis of libertarian political ideas and one of the reason why I am a Libertarian. It would be so easy for civilization to de-evolutionalize and resign oneself to state paternalism, but I for one will not because it is not good for me or good for society.

I also feel that Mill was insightful regarding the idea that the tyranny of the majority.

It is not that there is anything radically new in Mill’s ideas it was an explanation of the continued struggle for mankind to resist the state, the struggle between authority and liberty. The ideas were in the air and he was influenced by the German philosopher Wilhelm von Humboldt, in his essay On the Limits of State Action.

In this book you can see the connection to Utilitarianism.

I have kept this post fairly short as its main purpose was to deliver a download of On Liberty by John Stuart Mill in pdf format for ebook readers, and not to analysis it to the end. It is a short book and better you skim it than read my analysis.

Do not read some egg head NY times economist or some economist in Washington with fancy degrees and on a policy board or maybe even a Nobel prize. I will explain the situation, clear and concise. If you want to fix the bust, do not create the boom, economics is based on real value not fake stimulous.

The government in Washington is a puppet to special interests and neither party really means business in taming this threat to liberty and prosperity

• The Federal Reserve is the engine of the business cycle. It creates unemployment because disequilibrium in the  money markets have dramatic effects in the real sector. In the long-term Government spending crowds out investment and stifles creativity and initiative and makes the US less competitive in a world-wide economy.  As new economies rise, only building a better mouse trap will help the US compete, not stick your head in the sand protectionism or government expansion.

So if you have not figured it out yet, some greedy bankers with big homes on the Connecticut gold coast of New Canaan or Greenwich pales in comparison to the cosmic proportions black hole of government that is absorbing the US entrepreneurial strength.

• World wide demographic changes and rising new economies to compete with dulled senses intoxicated by political mantras like ‘yes we can’ is the bigger problem.  Deploy some uncommon common sense, and look at the world as a whole, what is happening in the world. 1.3 billion Chinese and 1.3 billion Indians are competing with .3 billion Americans. We better be ready, I do not think we are.  We will be economically overwhelmed if we do not sharpens our competitiveness and stop blaming some greedy scapegoats on Wall Street, which make us feel good for the moment but not the answer.

Remember for 30 years after WWII the world either had communism, or laid in ruin, so the US did not need to address the global economy as seriously, now for the USA it is sink or swim and the answer that Wall Street not the root of the issue, that is government will bring ruin to the US relative strength.

The answer can be found in Adam Smith, the enlightenment, John Locke. These thinkers fought against thousands of years of history of government tyranny at the expense of the people. Why do we want to turn back the clock to a feudal government power?

Ron Paul write in his book Liberty Defended:

Restraints placed on our government in the Constitution by the Founders did not work. Powerful special interests rule, and there seems to be no way to fight against them. While the middle class is being destroyed, the poor suffer, the justly rich are being looted, and the unjustly rich are getting richer. The wealth of the country has fallen into the hands of a few at the expense of the many. Some say this is because of a lack of regulations on Wall Street, but this is not right. The root of this issue reaches far deeper than that.

The issue is crystal clear for anyone who looks. Expansion of government is crushing the USA in this time because we now must compete globally, to an extent not seen in the past.  Washington does not support a policy of free markets which allow the reckless to fall, money to be free and interest rates determined by the market rather than through changing dials and nobs at the Federal reserve bank. It is corporate socialism, a strong armed central government that is in bed with Wall Street players, picking and choosing which feudal lord should have the power and be saved economically. This is not a real free market. Will we pursue policies of Spain in the 17th century or  America in the 19th century?

• The most jobs in the USA are created by small businesses and individuals. However, for some reason politics in Washington supports big business at the expense of you.

Ron Paul continues to write:

Understanding how governments always compete with liberty and destroy progress, creativity, and prosperity…

The existence of the wealth-extracting leviathan state in Washington, D.C., a cartoonish massive machinery that no one can control… neither party is truly dedicated to the classical , fundamental ideals that gave rise to the American Revolution.

Who is to blame Wall Street or Washington? I think the answer is clear.

It is better to have a clear ideological vision, than a charismatic leader as a guideposts. The issue is the platforms of the political party you are registered to, represent 65% of your ideals, but run contrary to the other 35%. What to do, what can you do?

You become painfully aware of this as the 2012 US presidential election grows closer and you see the Republican and Democratic nominees. You take your hat off, scratch your head and say ‘is this the best this great country of American has to offer’? It would seem that fate is not without a sense of irony. The greatest nation on earth has mediocre leaders.  Therefore,  politics is the true breeding ground for discontent.

My registration to the Libertarian party of Florida

Why I change to the Libertarian party

I joined the Republicans during the second term of Ronald Reagan, as he was a leader and represented the spirit of self initiative better put, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, with the Bush wars and expanding debt and corporate bailouts, I do not think the Republicans have exactly been the champion of the founding fathers, nor respected the US constitution. I wrote an article on reasons to vote Republican here.

The Democrats have done no better mind you. In fact, as an American that has lived in Europe, from afar I can see only small differences in the action of the Democratic and Republican parties. I see only elephants and donkeys. Their words are strong, but their actions fall short.

Elephant, Donkey and Statue of liberty, political party symbols

Therefore, I decided to slide down the trunk of the elephant, buck the trend of the donkey and land on the Statue of Liberty, that is register Libertarian. I would be a hard argument to say that Libertarians are no different. I registered to the Libertarian party of Florida. To my surprise there are about 150,000 members.

I wrote an article on reasons to vote Libertarian.

Although when it comes to the Presidential election, partially in a key swing state like Florida, I will most likely vote Republican, however, I joined the Libertarian party. As a side note, one trivial

Why I did not want to join the Libertarians without hesitation

Admittedly there was some hesitation to switch political parties.

1. I was thinking I will not be able to vote in the Republican primaries for example, which are arguably the most important part of the election.
2. Also there are some ideas associated with the Libertarians, that might not sit right with some people. For example, the Libertarians on the right want guns, and the Libertarians on the left want legalization of some mind altering organics. I guess these are OK as long as the person with the gun is not the same person with the mind altering substance simultaneously. But the truth is these types of arguments fronted against libertarianism pale in comparison to Wall Street bailouts, crushing Federal debt and endless foreign wars.

I keep coming back to the idea that the government that governs least governs best, and this is why I change my party affiliation to Libertarian.

It is about personal liberties and a belief in the US constitution.

In the end, I felt is was more important to stay true to my political ideals. To have the courage of my convictions. My political economic ideals are closely aligned with my philosophical ideals, which are similar to the enlightenment ideas. That is,  each individual has the right to choose and make their own destiny in this world, and government’s role is to defend the liberties of the individual. That is your enlighten self-interest will result in a society which maximizes happiness, even for the poor.  Therefore, I said, why not change my political party? Why not be a Libertarian, it is only politics, and is not like changing your religion or loyalty to the USA.

P.s. one trivial advantage of being a “Libertarian” is it keeps one clear of the political mud-slinging. For example, when my acquaintances ask me what political party am I? I reply Libertarian, and the most I get is an ‘oh’, rather than scorn from a hipster riding Democrat or a pat on the back from a ‘Connecticut casual dressed’ Republican.

I am not against the people themselves nor the US, but the waste of the US government investment in the US foreign service. Although they are on a much higher level than the US military, which is financial a sink hole. The military destroys, the foreign service can work to promote trade and economics, but in my opinion needs to be scaled back to a minimum. Too much fat and VIPs walking around in suits.

The US embassy should outsource most of their functions like visa applications. They need to put everything online, their websites are filled with broken links and a navigational maze. They really are not hiring the best and the brightest. Objectively speaking the US consultat general could be run with a skeleton crew. Instead I see them spending large amounts of your dollars on wine and cheese parties.

Why I have a disdain for the politics of the foreigner service

I had a very serious incident happen to me about a year ago, and they were more concerned about covering their own butts than helping me as an US citizen. I am sorry to say that but it was true. I only got traction on the incident when I wrote the President of the country I resided and the top Ambassador. But it was a violent attack and a cover up, yes a real web of lies. So much for public service. Enough said on that.

In my experience they certainly do not do diplomacy, please.

Consulate workers are not friendly boy scouts who want to lend a helping hand to US citizen in the name of public service, but rude, inefficient, living a life of entitlement and privilege, and a waste of your money

What I observe at the US embassy

I see them skate off work at 3:30 pm in the afternoon and hitting the expat pubs hitting on local girls. It is a very cushy job to say the least. They get a lot of vacation, top medical coverage and their families attend the best local schools and they are surrounded by a high level of security. I am sure you do not live the way these guys do? And yes they have a nice fat pension plan complements of your family.

They have high priced tutors teaching everyone the local language, something I had to learn myself. I could go on, but the main point is I do not think they add any value to you.

If you are wondering how to get a job working for the US embassy read up on this US foreigner service jobs.

I am not sure what they really do besides cut ribbons and shake hands with local VIPs who the average working guy could care nothing about. There exists countless matrix like workers there just watching the clock. Maybe there are CIA operatives and people like that working there but the average worker the the consultant has a sweet government job. I would never be a government worker, I think I would rather beg on the street.

Most of the functions could be done online or outsources. I wish I had the opportunity to be a business flow process consultant.

Economics of the US embassy

I know they have ridiculous economic programs which try to establish ties between companies in the US and abroad, but this is so lame compared to the private sector. If a company wants to do business abroad they have their own consultants on the ground. I work for such a company and they have real experts and are a model of efficiency and cost you nothing.

Why this is ridiculous? It is all on your money. Every worker there takes about five US workers to support via taxes. Give the money to me directly and I could start a private company and create jobs. Rather than that scenario, US foreign service workers congratulate themselves on being masters of the universe and smoke cigars rolled in hundred dollar bills, your money.

I have mostly met very rude people there. The ones who get the job get a pump for their egos and a title to boot. If you want to really service the US go back home and start a company and create jobs.

Getting a visa at the embassy

Keep your head down and do not make direct eye contact as it could be a sign of aggression. Basically you give some 20 something guy who has not too much experience in the real work real power over people’s lives and you get a very rude postal worker working at the embassy. I did not have any great experiences here. I think before someone works at the embassy they should have to prove themself in the real business world. To get a visa you have to jump through a lot of stressful hoops, they do not make it any easier.

I have seem them deny families of US citizens with my own eyes, which I could not believe. The US government has no problem separating families based on income. If you want to know more about read up on US visa requirements. Even if you are married to an US citizen with children for many years you can not come to the US unless you have a reasonable level of US-based income. You could be a lawyer in the UK but it does not matter.

One area that needs to really be cut fiscally is the US foreign service as it seems important but it is not.

Why is the US government is out of control? Look at when the budget grew and there is your answer.

The US budget deficit

I am sure everyone understand, the US budget agreement that raised the debt limit, did not cut anything. Zero. Have no illusions it was all fake. Here is why.

It slowed the rate of increase for the next ten years, but spending will still go up and up every year, and government is still expanding. Nothing was cut. It was all smoke and mirrors.

I do not recommend causing  inflation to devalue the US dollar and minimize the impact of the debt as some have suggest like Kenneth Rogoff an economist from Harvard in his article the Second Great Contraction.

So people have asked how can anyone, President, economist or congress balance the budget? What is going on. Here is a nice little video, that explains how it can be done.

Translate this into concrete terms – how to balance the budget

Ron Paul has suggested:

• Stop government growth – A five-year freeze on spending increases. That means whatever a department got last year, it gets this year. I was an accountant and ran various departments. A spending freeze is easy and painless.
• Balance the budget – Further, if each department of the US government took a 1% cut across the board, than in five years you could have a balanced budget. Just 1% is all it would take. It could be in one year with bigger cuts. The US could pass a balanced budget amendment.

However, departments, entitlements and agencies of the US government will not consider this because of both parties have entrenched special interests. The Democrats with the expansion of the social state and Republicans with the industrial military complex. I personally do not care which party gets credit for getting the budget under control. I really don’t. I personally think the tea party side of the Republican party take the issue the most serious or Libertarians.

But it can be done with the right leader.  The GOP failed the US when they ran someone like Citizen McCain in the last election. Lets hope they choose someone wiser.

But both parties have vested interests and only someone like a Ronald Reagan can convey the message to the American people. So the above plan is possible but needs a real leader.

If we are not even free anymore to decide something as basic as what we wish to eat or drink, how much freedom do we really have left? – Ron Paul

The big cheese government officials who engineered the raids on raw milk farmers, including tax payer salaries workers at the FDA and CDC, the law enforcement agents leading SWAT style raids, get paid a nice cushy salary with benefits and pension most private companies do not. But most important it is another step towards big brother control and goes against my understanding of why the USA was founded.

Legal language like  ‘conspiracy’ to sell raw milk were used. Gee Wiz, next thing you know it the police state will be shutting down little girls lemonade stands.

Does the Fed raid even simple Amish raw milk farmers? Yes. This video illustrates what I am talking about and it is worth viewing.

From my understanding it took about a year of preparation and under cover surveillance to orchestrate these sweeps on Milk smugglers. What were you doing last year? I imagine working hard to earn a living not collecting on the tax payers tab.

Do they raid organic health food stores? Yes.

Guns drawn and all.

Is America still the land of the free?

What can I say, I live in Eastern Europe and my wife’s family has a farm, I have been drinking raw milk for years. It taste great, is healthy and most of all in the countryside no one cares if you do or you do not. She grew up on it as everyone in the countryside did. If you leave it out in the heat it makes great Kefir, you do not even have to add yogurt cultures.

In fact, I am going to the countryside this weekend and drink some raw milk, thank goodness this is not the land of the free America or I could be arrested. In the EU,  Europe, raw milk and dairy products are perfectly legal and this freedom is protected by law.

Therefore, explain to me why, in the USA, it is OK to use tobacco products, consume alcohol, fly on energy drinks (all of which can and do result in fatalities) and do any number of self destructive behaviors, but drinking raw milk gets cracked down on?

Personal liberty issue of raw dairy

I guess the issue is who’s life is it anyway? What is the role of government in people’s lives?  The ‘got raw milk’ issue is only an example.

As adults you should be free to choose how you want to live your life. If you want to do a behavior and understand the cost and benefits of this and does not hurt other people’s lives, why should there be a middleman called the US government policing your action.

The problem is government laws rarely increase freedom, but rather incrementally take freedom away. Step by step, day by day new laws and regulations are passed that curtail people’s personal liberty. The USA is becoming an increasing litigious Byzantine society. What will it look like in one hundred years if the USA still exists?

The rational for government protection is gone. One hundred years ago pasteurization protected people from bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis. Today the concern is more about E. coli O157:H7, Listeria, and Salmonella. So in all fairness there is a reason the FDA involved.

These two cows are not so innocent, they are conspiring to produce raw milk and your government will track it.

You can read the pros and cons of raw milk but that is not the point it is more a personal freedom issue:

• Why Raw milk is should be controlled by the government – but come on, pesticides and antibiotics and growth hormones are OK? Everything in life has risks, inlcuding getting up in the morning.
• Why Raw milk is healthy – This site looks a little cheesy, but makes some points.

Farm sanitation and effective testing has made most of this a moot point. Besides the heavy worded warnings by the CDC,and  the reality some people have become ill, I have not personally heard people dying from raw milk. I do know many people do die from OTC medications. People become ill from walking around in NYC in January, should this be banned.

28 States do not restrict raw milk sales in the USA.

One legal solution for raw milk sellers is they could label the milk for sale as:

• Pet food, not for human consumption or
• Milk detergent, not for human consumption
• Low-temperature vat pasteurization seems to be a compromise

Once ’100% pure milk detergent’ is sold, in the privacy of people’s homes it could be hard for the Feds to check what you do with it, that is if you use it for natural soap or drink it. Although I would not put anything past the Feds and it would not surprised me if a story like that wound up on Drudge report.