Showing posts with label Soviet Union. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Soviet Union. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

A Pig Farm in Beverly Hills and Downtown Tokyo Where Pigs Crap Diamonds - Government Laws Preventing it too!

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." -- Tacitus


There are far too many people living in a fantasy world. There are far too many people who have been brought up under our socialist and nanny state environment for too long, or their entire lives, that they know no different. It reminds me of stories I heard about communist Poland or the Soviet Union in the 1960s: I was told that many people were happy and satisfied with a quarter cube of butter for an entire family once a month because they didn't know any better.


People in our society today think it is normal for people to expect handouts "from the government" or a "free education" or "free medical and health care" or "retirement income."


It's shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone, but, unfortunately it might; folks, few things in life are free anymore. And I don't mean that rhetorically. Not even the air we breathe is free. We get taxed even for that. But they don't call it that. They call it the Clean Air Act


Whatever the government can tax, it will. It's no joke to think that governments have considered how to tax even the act of sex


Of course, they wouldn't call it that. They'd call it something like "Protect the Babies Act" or something like that. When it comes to taxes and government boondoogles everything the government does is named the opposite of what it is actually designed to do. Rick Santelli had a funny rant the other day. He was talking about this very same subject. How about SOPA, the Anti-Piracy Bill? Who could possibly be against fighting piracy? Is there anybody out there who is for piracy? But the law was actually a law designed to curtail our rights of free speech. Or how about the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)? Who couldn't be for protecting the environment? Or the Consumer Protection Agency? Can anybody be against protecting American consumers?


Or how about when Reagan was president and the USA launched a new series of super high speed nuclear tipped missiles that could hit the Soviet Union within 5 minutes and called them, "Peace Keeper Missiles?" 


It's always a diversionary tactic and things are named for the opposite of what they are actually designed for because people are too stupid to put down the TV remote control and read a book to find out what's really going on.


Hey! Am I talking about books again? Yep. Do people read books anymore? No. So that brings me to my next question: What's the difference between a college graduate in the west who doesn't read books and, say, some native villager up in the mountains who is totally illiterate has never even seen a book their entire life? Nothing. Neither of them read books.


Back to that part a while back talking about the government care and "free" medical and education, etc. etc. Listen, like I said, nothing is free. Another big surprise that people in this day and age might find out is that, psst, don't tell anyone but the government doesn't have any of their own money! Yep. That's right. Every single penny the government has is from taxes taken from people like you and me. The government does not own any industry and has no way to create income so they get monies from taxing the working class (that's you and me). So whenever you say that people should, say, get free healthcare, what you are actually saying is that you think you should be taxed to pay for someone else's medical care.




Well, far be it from me to tell you how to spend your money. But, I, for one, have my hands full paying for myself and my family as it is without to paying for someone else's AND have a government office middleman taking a cut off the top for running and "organizing" (I use that term quite loosely) such services. 


It's very simple: the government functions by taking taxes from the working class. In most cases (like, for example, our trash collection services) the government doesn't even run that. It is an job assigned out to a private company, usually on a no-bid contract. Each municipality does it different, but you can bet your bottom dollar that, as no-bid contracts are wont to do, there are favors being handed out.


To think that the government hires and organizes our trash collection services and those guys picking up our trash cans are government employees is another fantasy world which many people seem to believe in... It is much "cheaper" for the government to hire a outside company with outside workers to do it (insurance, employee compensation problems, etc.) and then take a margin off the top for arranging the services. 


I mean, really, sitting at a desk and organizing is what government employees do best. Of course, everyone has seen that and knows it, right? Or has anyone seen that Clark Kent super government employee office worker jetting around town recently?


Yes. In the 1930s, even American students saluted the flag this way


In our modern society people have been so brainwashed by big government and so-called big society that, as I said, they gotten used to this nonsense and think it is normal.


Well, it wasn't normal not that long ago. In the USA, it started in the 1930's with FDR and got greatly expanded and completely out of hand with Lyndon Johnson in the 1960's in America's so-called "Great Society." Nowadays, through years of government run public education, people have come to believe that the state is our benevolent leader and is here to protect us from cradle to grave. 


I won't go into too many examples of how the government protects it's own populace excepting to mention that, in the 20th century alone government's of the world instituted wars that killed over 160 million people


As an aside please don't counter the above paragraph with "diseases killed more people than government!" Yes. That's true. Diseases did kill more. But consider the fact that the doctor who discovered the prevention for a disease like Smallpox, Dr. Edward Jenner, did so in the very late 1700's and he did not work for a government agency. Or French chemist Louis Pasteur who found the Germ Theory of disease and prevention for infectious diseases did not work for the government. In fact, I think you'll find that government employed scientists are usually involved in exploring science for military purposes; not disease and sickness prevention or cure.


But I digress.


Today. Over 1/2 of all American households receive some kind of government assistance. Over 45.8 million Americans are on food stamps. Over 25% of all American children are under the poverty level (Japan has a total poverty level of 15.7%). Both the USA and Japanese government to GDP debt levels are unsustainable and the governments of both countries just keep spending and spending...


Your tax dollars at work

Oh, and did I forget to mention that the government has no money of their own and that the money that they are spending is your money? That money  comes from your pocket? I did mention that? Okay. Thanks. Just wanted to make sure you understood that.


A while back, I had a discussion with a guy who was the typical brainwashed American. He thought that we needed more laws, more taxes and he thought that the government was benevolent and good.  


I told him to consider the notion that "Laws are the anti-thesis to freedom." He scrunched up his face and looked confused.


We were at his house in Den en Chofu overlooking the garden area. Den en Chofu is the ritzy part of Tokyo. Imagine Beverly Hills in Japan and you get the idea. As we looked out from the balcony, he insisted that we needed the government and more laws on the books. This really surprised me as I didn't expect that people who were living upper middle class would want more government control over their lives but I would find out that, to my surprise, he wasn't an independent businessman, he was a government employee and in a sort of public union!


He insisted that we needed the government to make laws like no smoking in restaurants and seat belt laws. I said we didn't. 


In the case of smoking laws, people need to understand the difference between a public building and a private building. A government owned building is a public building, the government can make laws about smoking and rights concerning what goes on inside that building. A privately owned building, like your house, is none of their business. If you want to smoke in your house, or allow others to do so - or not do so - that's your business. If people don't like it that you do or do not allow smoking in your building they can go somewhere else.


Nowhere in the US constitution does it say that the federal government has the power to enact laws pertaining to smoking in privately owned buildings or even that you have to buckle your seat belt (It doesn't say that in the Japanese Constitution either). In America, the individual states might. But the federal government does not. And those go for drug laws and smoking laws and laws concerning prohibition too!


Say your mom and dad work hard all their life and save enough money to quit their jobs and they use their saving to buy a building and open a restaurant. It is their building. They own it. The government has no right to tell them who they can and cannot serve to. If your dad wants to allow his customers to smoke in his restaurant, that is your father's right. The government should make no laws pertaining to that.   


But my friend would have no part of it. He insisted that we needed laws like smoking laws or helmet laws. Like I said, people are indoctrinated by public schooling and taught to not be able to think.


Folks we don't need laws like ones that prohibit smoking in privately owned buildings, or must wear a helmet or ones that say you can't build a pig farm in the middle of Beverly Hills. You know why? Well, I explained about public versus private buildings. Helmets? I think only stupid (or really cool and a tad bit crazy) people would ride a motorcycle without one. (I think I also mentioned something about trying to outlaw stupid.") And pig farms? Well, making a business like a pig farm is a huge investment. I don't think people do it to lose money. Pig farmers are not so stupid. People don't usually start businesses - any businesses - to lose money. 


The government cannot outlaw stupid (though sometimes I wish they'd try!)


Pig farms aren't such high income generating businesses, I suspect. The cost of land in Beverly Hills (or in Den en Chofu, Tokyo) run astronomical amounts. Last I heard Den en Chofu was $120 a square foot! Now, most pig farms are out in the country where land runs about a dollar a foot or so for a reason. It doesn't take much of a mathematician or rocket scientist to figure out that a pig farmer could never afford to make a pig farm in Beverly Hills profitable at those land prices unless those pigs were crapping diamonds.


In which case, the government would find a way to make even that unprofitable with a new tax by calling it something like the "Protect Romance and Precious Diamonds Act of 2012."


So, does anyone think we need laws to stop someone from attempting to make a pig farm in rich neighborhoods? I don't think so.


Things are quickly spinning out of control The biggest problem is most people are walking around like nothing is happening and are hoping for the best. Folks, "Hope" is not a very good business plan nor is it a good plan on how you are going to take care of your family. 


We need to cut down on government and government spending in order to get out of the mess we're in. In Japan's and the US government's case, increasing our debt is not the answer to our debt problems. If the average Joe Blow doesn't start to figure this out really soon, we are in for a world of hurt.


If that happens, then I might like to be a pig farmer and get away from the rat race. I read about pig farming in Charlotte's Web. Now, that fantasy world sounded wonderful.

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Legislating Morality - a Yakuza Case?

"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it 
not for themselves." Abraham Lincoln


Just a short post today about how I think people are confused with their ideas on how the government should legislate what we do and do not do in our daily lives. The idea that the government is here to help and protect the population flies against the historial record and defies common sense and the public's common experience. Examples? Need I remind dear reader of WWII? Minamata, TEPCO, Fukushima, tainted HIV, etc. etc. Oh! I could go on and on!


It's been decades of constant government growth and legislation (in Japan and elsewhere) on how we act, what we eat, who we associate with, what we put in our bodies, how our money is to be handled and who we go to war with... 


Decades of this and look at what we have today!


In Japan alone, a short list of recent debacles would include a graying and dying Japanese economy with no good prospects for the future; crippling debt that the Japanese people will never be able to repay; over 15.7 percent of the Japanese population under the poverty line; an increase in crime and a decline in morals... Do I even need to mention inept government handling and a constantly rising tax burden?


And yet, even with this record of repeated and consistent failures over the last two-plus decades, people still wish to legislate the behavior of others!!! 


Astounding.

Being a true anarcho-capitalist and a true conservative at the same time, let me state my opinions in a few points:

1) No wars
2) Limited and decreased taxes
3) Small government (#2 fixes that)
4) People are free to do as they please as long as they do not interfere with others

#4 means that people can do whatever they want - anything they want - as long as they do not bother or burden other people. That includes drugs, gay marriage, abortion, worshipping Zoroastrianism, dressing like Sailor Moon, driving drunk, drinking in public, smoking in public, refusing to serve anyone you wish in a private establishment, buying AKB48 CDs... etc. etc.

As an aside: I know many will say, "But drunk drivers kill people!" Yes. They do. It's illegal to drive drunk now, but people still do it. 

I suggest, instead of criminal court, these things are settled in civil court... Instead of going to jail for killing someone while drunk driving (and becoming a cost burden to others) I think, should you lose in civil court, you could be fined millions of dollars. Perhaps you'd pay 25% of your income for the rest of your life if so deemed in court, perhaps your wife and kids would lose your house and a place to live. I think that might motivate people to have insurance and think twice about drinking before driving.

The current laws prove that legislating this sort of behavior has had limited success at best.

But, this post is not about legislating drinking and driving, it is a complaint about how I still, to this very day, read curious stuff from people asking "Why doesn't the government outlaw this or that?" These questions are often asked by the very same like-minded people who, last March after the nuclear accident at Fukushima, asked "Why doesn't the government take over Fukushima Dai-ichi?" Sure. They ask this question a few sentences after they had just, moments before, complained how the government was in bed with TEPCO and allowed TEPCO to do shabby work and cut corners on safety.

Am I the only one who doesn't see this huge contradiction?


One group arbitrarily will stop you for no reason whatsoever.
The other won't talk to you unless they have a reason.

Today, I read an interesting blog about Yakuza in Japan. The writer posted;

"The yakuza, Japan’s organized crime groups, have close to 79,000 members. It’s very hard to understand why they are tolerated in Japanese society and not simply banned."

I wrote: 

“It’s very hard to understand why they are tolerated in Japanese society and not simply banned.”
Am I the only one in the room who finds this sentence completely ridiculous and absurd? What the writer is asking is “why doesn’t the government outlaw an underworld organization?” Duh? If they weren’t outside the law already, they wouldn’t be underworld, would they? Or do you think they need to file a business permit with the government to run a Yakuza organization?
This writer confuses issues here. Seems like another socialist who thinks the government can legislate morals, habits and associations… You know, like how drunk driving is banned or driving without a seatbelt or even eating Fugu not prepared by a pro or even gambling?… Wow! You mean even though those are against the law, people still do it?
Who’d a thunk it?

And, to be fair, the writer of the article, Jack Adelstein graciously replied: 

The yakuza are recognized organizations by the Japanese government. They are regulated and monitored but their existence is not illegal per se. You note: “why doesn’t the government outlaw an underworld organization?” That’s not what I wrote.
If you’d like to understand more about how the yakuza are semi-legitimate entities please go to the National Police Agency Website and download the following file. It should answer most of your questions.
It may be that regulating organized crime groups rather than banning them works better at maintaining public order than banning them and driving them completely underground.
http://www.npa.go.jp/hakusyo/h22/english/White_Paper_2010_5.pdf


Thanks Jack. You are a good guy! I guess my writing must be poor because that wasn't really the point of my comment at all. My point was - what I consider to be - an absurd notion that anyone would even want to government to pass anymore legislation on anything? Especially if that something has any isues to do with our daily lives? Haven't the government passed enough laws already? Haven(t they done enough damage already?

(I am of the thinking that whenever these laws are passed, they create far too many bad effects. It's the law of unforeseen consequences as written in Henry Hazlitt's classic, "Economics in One Lesson." This is, after all, not really a legall question but an economic one....

But I digress.

Jake Adelstien is a well known (and excellent writer). He is an expert. Of anyone, he knows that the Japanese government and police have traditionally had many ties to the Yakuza too. I am thinking that, whenever I hear about this sort of thing, I am reminded of the great quote by Thomas Pynchon from Gravity's Rainbow:

"If they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers."

In short, what I mean is that Japan has so many huge problems that affect people's daily existence and lives, worrying about the Yakuza is a side-show and just another excuse for the the police to insist that their budgets are kept up for next fiscal year... Just like prostitution, drugs, seat belt laws, blah, blah, blah. 

This is a very broad topic. Please refer to: "Sex Services in Japan First to Get Back to Business After Earthquake." 

Prostitution and the free exchange of time and services between two consenting adults is a free market ideal and a business that's been around since the beginning of society. No amount of government legislation will ever change that. Making laws that makes these activities illegal is pure nonsense.

You cannot legislate morality.
I applaud these businesses for getting back on track early and creating jobs for people. The economy needs it.
Anyhow, my point is back to the government interfering with our daily lives too much as it is already. Enough is enough!

If more government control and legislation over our lives were the answer to our problems then the Soviet Union would have been a very successful country.

The mere fact that the Japanese government has taken much more control over the Japanese economy over these last 20 + years - and the results of that control - shows that we need much less legislation and not more.

Writers who call for more legislation on anything just haven't been paying attention.

More: 



http://www.japansubculture.com/tokyovice/

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...