Apropos Austrian Aphorisms

Will the agreed $700bn bailout package shock the blind to see when the delayed judgment day arrives? Will people look back when trouble strikes ever more and realize that bailing companies out, inflating the money supply, and trusting the US government and its central bank does not work, that it does not bring prosperity?

What excuses will arise when trouble hits again? The government will have tried, and failed. Will it, again, be the refrain "we didn't do enough"? Will people have the audacity to reply, "No, this time you will do nothing"?

The timing is odd. John McCain has suspended his campaign indefinitely to hammer (and sickle) out the current "economic crisis." Though I believe McCain should suspend his campaign definitely, a-la Mitt Romney, I offer little other disagreement about this "political move"—a vacuous pejorative people are using to describe their contempt for McCain's choice when, as a politician, every move is "political." After all, McCain is an elected senator—by the people no less! thank you 17th Amendment. He has a duty to represent his constituents in Washington D.C. and make sure their voices are hard. For all of the pandering people are putting behind that old hitching post to "call your representatives in Congress and tell them you oppose the bailout!" there sure seems to be quite the criticism of McCain for somewhat assuming this role. He wasn't elected to run for president by his constituents after all. Even Ron Paul, after all, temporarily suspended his presidential bid to shore up his congressional re-election.

Yet, the timing is odd, and people are associating McCain with ducking the presidential debate this Friday—a curious notion because the debate concerns foreign policy, arguably McCain's stronger point over Barack Obama. With few weeks left before the election, both candidates have some alleged duty to better inform citizens of their views to help them choose whom to vote for. Here's all the help you need: They both support warfare across the world. You can say tomato and I can say potato, and that's about how much these two candidates differ when you replace tomato with Iraq and potato with Afghanistan.

Regarding the debate, others lament that, unfortunately, the debate is not about the economy when the US economy is in such "dire straits." But here is the misdirection, again. The debate, whether it's Friday or another time, about foreign policy is inextricably linked to and cannot be removed from the economy. That "other" debate concerns domestic policy. You know, education and the like. Both debates—here's the kicker—concern the economy. For how can the US government pledge billions, nay, trillions of dollars into war venturing across the planet without affecting the US economy as a whole?

This was the beauty of Paul's cohesive arguments in the Republican presidential debates. He tied everything back to monetary policy, the economy, because nothing can be separated from the economy—that is, economics: human action. How the government acts oversea, how it spends its war venturing, directly impacts the economy. Where does the government get so much money to fight overseas? They sure don't tax US citizens, at least in the commonly perceived sense. The government either borrows or prints money, and both means increase the government's total debt, which, in the end, must be financed by US taxpayers. When the government is so financially invested overseas, in 160 countries, it directly impacts the home front, leaving less to spend at home. At least it should, but it doesn't, because if any domestic financing is needed the government, again, borrows and prints.

All of this leads to a reckless financial policy. When people demand more for bailouts, or health care, or whatever they want more money for, education, drug wars, etc., and the government is strapped, all they need to do is look at the overall financial policy: foreign and domestic. The debate Friday will concern foreign policy, and it should also concern financial policy. It won't, though, because both candidates are incapable of linking foreign policy with financial policy.

There's much to be said about the current financial crisis. At the heart of this, as every Austrian knows, is the fault the US government holds for creating the current situation through its central bank and its inflationary policy. This fundamental economic truth cannot be stated enough. Ignorance of it shows in so-called debates about the crisis in popular media, sans Ron Paul's occassional publicity as the sheepherders perhaps finally realize they were really part of the herd that bleated the black sheep. Yet current ignorance exists because, obviously, many were never educated. They were lied to; or, to use the popular apology: they were the best they could be with what information was present at the time. That lie, or missing education, is that the Great Depression was caused by laissez-faire capitalism, which we, the soundedly educated, know to be a lie as bald as John McCain's face when asked an economic question by Ron Paul (the same face Gen. Petraeus wears).

The cause behind the Great Depression, so well-put by Murray Rothbard in his book, America's Great Depression, was the government. This cannot be stated enough considering current situations. The fact that this truth is so unknown can be seen in how popular media address the current financial crisis and its so-called bailout (read: extension). This crisis and its intervention are labeled as "the greatest since the Great Depression." Although a great starting point for addressing the horrible New Deal, this phrase is complete misdirection. The "greatest" economic intervention in the US economy is what preceded and precipitated the Great Depression; planted the seed, bore a tree, and flowered with Government Apples for a "fruitful economic future." It was the US central bank and its inflationary policy during the 1920s that was the "greatest economic intervention" in US history. It was what brought about the Great Depression, and ignorance of the fact led many to bleat along blindly with the sheepherders who introduced the New Deal and those who look to unleash the wolf that is Henry Paulson's $700 billion bailout—the bailout that professes it will shore up bad US loans when it will only loan the crisis more time until it reaches a level never before seen, even "since the Great Depression."

My month-plus-long search for job stability turned onto the final 100m today. For over the past month I have been seeking a full-time position. Finding nothing, I turned to temporary work at a local staffing agency and easily found temp. work. The work wasn't hard and I made enough to pay for the necessary bills. I learned just how capable the market is in employing people and putting food on peoples' tables—so long as they are willing to "swallow their pride" and do work that isn't ideal. Humorously enough, I've been part of the poorest demographic, students, and accumulated thousands of dollars of debt chasing after that noble ideal of higher education, yet I never considered myself poor until I graduated and had to "manage by." As a result, and at the same time I read a financially awakening book by Dave Ramsey called "The Total Money Makeover," I learned the value of a budget and not spending beyond my means. It is just like if you want to get fit: You don't eat more calories (spend more money) than you expend (make).

But as I said, I'm running down the final 100m now after interviewing with Almon, Inc., the technical documentation contractor of John Deere, and receiving a full-time job offer. My interview today was the most interesting and pleasing interviews I've ever had. The reason was due to simply talking with the people I'd be working under and with and listening to their job anecdotes and how they showed economic truths. 

Anecdote 1: John Deere is having to shut down an operation in Canada and relocate to Mexico. The reason? The oft-maligned "cheaper wages." But the full story I was told, that Canadian labor laws forced Deere to pay its employees the same as the automotive industry, upheld the basic fact that labor unions exclude possible employment, raise wages, and that minimum wage laws, in general, increase unemployment. Deere would've like to have kept its plant and employed many Canadians, and many Canadians would've surely enjoyed employment at Deere. However, because Deere could not afford to pay its employees such a high price at that location they had to relocate, increasing the number of unemployed Canadians who must now begin the arduous task of job searching again as I did.

Anecdote 2: Almon, Inc. has not grown considerably in size over the past decade but is achieving much higher productivity than simply 10 years ago. This story illustrates the true economic path to progress: capital reinvestment. Almon, Inc. did not become more productive because it highered more people and raised wages. It did so by reinvesting its capital, which later allowed the company to higher more people and raise wages because it could afford to do so. This is an economic point few understand, especially those who would say that companies becoming so rich should first raise wages, higher more people, or be taxed more. This is fundamentally unsound. A business cannot redirect its capital investment to wage raises or increased employment without first reinvesting capital to cover its costs. The same goes for taxes: the more a business is taxed, the less it has to reinvest for capital, which means, in turn, it'll have even less for raising wages and hiring new employees.

After reading authors of the "Austrian" school of economics such as Henry Hazlitt and Ludwig von Mises, it has been refreshing to see their economic theories proven by real-life examples. It was refreshing to know, no, the government doesn't need to "create jobs" for people to be employed, nor does the government need minimum wage laws to provide people with a "just wage," nor does it need to tax and implore businesses to "share the wealth."

So I know, even more, that I cannot believe a word Barack Obama or John McCain say about leading the American economy back on course because they both believe in job creation, which only removes more business from the private sector and increases taxes (because more people on the government payroll means more people will have to pay their wages). They both believe in minimum wage laws and labor unions. And they both believe in taxes, for sure, but also taxing businesses and the rich. These men, and their parties, are not different.

The real world demonstrates that the three aforementioned areas do not need government intervention. The real world demonstrates the two aforementioned presidential candidates are not needed.

It's always interesting to watch how a society's vernacular changes, to see new words added and old words subtracted. Additions bring the most fuss (see: text messaging). Subtractions often slip by the way side. The most striking example, today, is the word 'SOCIALISM'. As in, while the government bails out and consumes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who oversee over 70% of the housing market, few in the mainstream refer to this act as socialism, which it nearly well is.

The questions posed by commentators concern how much taxpayers will pay and what the future looks like for the housing market. Never is the question 'Is the United States moving toward socialism?' which is a serious question.

The economic hilarity of the situation is striking and shows a clear economic ignorance. If the government is bailing out the housing market (i.e., paying for their debts), how will the average tax paying American not pay for part of the bill? The government's coffer is staffed only by what it takes in from taxes. That is, you pay what the government pays.

Disappearing words are like those neighbors who move out in the night. They slip away unnoticed until one day an event happens that prompts someone to ask, 'Whatever happened to such-and-such?' When the U.S. government assumes over 70% of a market and achieves the biggest government intervention in too many years to recount is such an event.

Chicago, IL—Democratic Senator Barack Obama today introduced legislation that would make “community organizers” a legally protected minority in the United States for affirmative action and equal employment. “This bill (S. 31337) effectively kills two birds with one stone,” Obama announced to a rousing ovation from his political state of Illinois. “It shows Governor Palin the might of community organizers that we will not be mocked lightly, but also that I can author a major piece of legislation.”

Senate Bill 31337, if approved by the House of Representatives and signed by the President, will legally protect anyone officially registered as a community organizer from being discriminated against in the employment process, from being fired, and will deliver reparations for the many years of being unappreciated for serving the public good. It has met with unanimous praise and glee on the part of Democrats across the nation.

“Governor Palin is a sweet woman,” said fellow woman Nancy Pelosi (D CA). “But she overstepped her bounds outside of the kitchen of politics when she disgraced community organizers in her speech [Wednesday, September 3rd].”

When reached for comment, Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden (D DE), said he found Palin’s comments as a gross and representative statement of the Republican party. “Just think about what she said,” Biden said, “and substitute any other unappreciated minority for ‘community organizer’. She wouldn’t say, ‘Being a white person is sort of like being a black person, except that you don’t steal,’ or, ‘Being a heterosexual is sort of like being a homosexual, except that you aren’t a ***.’ So why should Governor Palin be allowed to trample on community organizers, people who serve a vital social service? She shouldn’t, and we won’t let her.”

Biden also continued on to say this is just the first, landmark step on the path to Obama’s heralded presidency. “This is just the beginning of the end of the Republican party’s elephant-like stomping of civilization. The American public only has more world-changing legislation like they’ve seen today to look forward to.”

Local community organizers have responded enthusiastically to Obama’s new legislation. “When a community organizer is mocked, we are all mocked. That’s the human condition,” managed a local Chicago mom who made time to speak in between organizing events for her community this weekend and baking a cake in the mold of Barack Obama’s head. “This weekend we’re going to have a fundraiser. We’re going to have community organizers speak about their roles as community organizers and all proceeds are going to go toward helping future community organizers organize their communities. We’re going to have this cake and eat it, too,” she smiled.

When asked for comments, both John McCain (R AZ) and Sarah Palin (R AK) were unavailable for comment. A lone congressman in Texas was reached and had the following comment: “The only thing that surprises me about this legislation is that it was constitutionally introduced as a bill instead of Obama waiting until elected to make this an executive order."

She’s Even as Qualified as Barack Obama and John McCain to be President

Allow me to indulge in a child’s old adage: My mom is as qualified as your mom to be vice president. Upon such a claim many will naturally ask what my mother’s qualifications are. Certainly they should be extensive given the media scrutiny to Sarah Palin’s underwhelming qualifications. But my mom’s are not much. She’s simply over the age of 35, a naturally-born citizen, and has resided in the United States for the past 14 years. Like many of her peers, she’s as qualified as the next person, according to the U.S. Constitution.

It’s true, if you look, that the only “qualifications” to being vice president, even president, are the ones I listed for my mother. That’s not the impression one would get from those who criticize Sarah Palin and even Barack Obama as lacking in “experience.” Those people never define what the qualifications and experience are. Allow me to bolster my mother’s defense.

My mom is a mother of three (lovely, if I say so myself) children. She’s a college graduate, one who even went to school while tending to her children. She graduated with a degree to teach. Simply put, my mother can read, write, and listen.

These three traits encompass the delineated powers of the vice presidency and presidency in the U.S. Constitution. Namely, to be the head of the Senate, for the former, and to make treaties, appoint judges, and tell the Army and Navy what to do. When you consider that a vice president and president get most of their policy information from their cabinet and peers, my mother could surely do all of these functions with ease.

The cynic of course will say this is all too simple. The office of the vice president, and the president for that matter, is much more complex than the simple trifles of domestic life. This is where Palin receives her criticism. Not even her “town of 9,000” was big enough to provide her with experience to stand behind the president. This criticism is apt and correct.

Yet only in a time when the U.S. Constitution no longer applies is the vice presidency and presidency complex. A look at what is asked of both offices clearly explains this present-day complexity over the past-day simplicity. The president and vice president today are held to explain how they will create jobs. They’re asked about their energy, fiscal, foreign, environment, and tax policies, and so on and so forth through an extensive list nowhere mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

My mom, of course, has never dealt with these ugly political manners. She’s never “created” any jobs. She’s always gone out and achieved her own. Her energy policy consists of the “simple” idea of not consuming more than she can pay for. She doesn’t counterfeit money as the Federal Reserve does, always paying her bills. She doesn’t go around to her neighbors destroying their land to show them how to live freely. She properly disposes of her trash, doesn’t steal other people’s money, and so on and so forth.

My mom, of course, is a woman of pride and would never act as such a brute. We wouldn’t expect any decent human being to act as such. Yet many people see these actions as O.K. and all too well to do because the U.S. Constitution no longer applies. It’s now expected that the vice president and president make these actions a part of their so-called policy.

Frederic Bastiat long ago clarified the proper role of the Law and, by extension, the government. The law is “the collective organization of the individual right to self defense”—to defend person, liberty, and property. That is, anything we’d expect an individual not to do, a government should also not do, such as oppress and plunder.

Only when the law is confined to its proper place will the cries over “experience” and “readiness” for any form of presidency cease. As Bastiat said, “if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual's right to self defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder — is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?”

Truly, if the U.S. Constitution were cared for, in all of its check on executive power, my mom, among many others, would certainly be qualified as the next vice president or president as any of the existing candidates.

The thought of "job creation"—you know, such as how Barack Obama or John McCain are going to create "such-and-such number of new jobs" to stimulate the economy—has been on my mind a lot recently. It's probably because I'm without an assured job, wandering from job to job right now. One man in Washington is going to create jobs for people when I, a credentialed college graduate, cannot even find a full-time job? But I'm not bitter about this latter fact. A college degree does not ensure job placement.

As I scrounge for a wage in the meantime, my eyes have been opened to the truly wonderful market available for those wanting jobs—and my eyes have closed to those who profess they cannot get a job. The only thing holding a person back from working is his/her will. (I'm ignoring the minimum wage argument and such currently.) More and more I think of the Brass Eye (a wonderful British satire) episode on crime. One of Chris Morris's news characters is interviewing a man with his family, a man who allegedly cannot find a job and provide a wage for his house. Morris's character humorously asks him why he can't just clean someone's house and ask for money in return. The man supposes he can do that and Morris's character ends with satisfaction telling him to do that tomorrow. The point is simple: Many people have work to be done, and they will pay you.

I've found this to be more and more true as I've investigated job placement and career opportunity placement agencies and, now, job recruiters. There already exists an entirely successful market dedicated toward getting people jobs. A whole mess of jobs already exist. That the government needs to "create jobs" is absurd (and more absurd when you get into the market argument against public works projects). As long as you're willing to work, there is work for you. Within 90 minutes of my first visit to a job placement agency I had a job. My college degree wasn't important. What was important was my willingness to show up and work. One week later and I've already made enough to pay off my next installment of rent and student loans.

So when the advertisements claim "job creation" you must ask, "For whom?" Jobs already exist, so to "create jobs" further emphasizes the point that "job creation" is really job deletion because of the market extraction of available market labor. The goal, then, I shamelessly assume, is simply to fatten the government payroll, to increase the number of government dependents, to bolden the notion of reliance on and salvation provided by the government.

Closing asside: I've been growing increasingly bitter toward the FDA, particularly as a graduated technical writer. A technical writer's job entails informing the public to the dangers and safety risks of products and procedures through instructions and guidelines. I had a revelation the other night that the FDA arrogantly assumes this task and negates more of the importance of a technical writer by its forced labeling and required safety labels. A government that believes in creating jobs? No, sorry. It only believes in deleting jobs and creating dependents.

I had a thought today about writing a story about the true new American dream. The lede of the story begins:

My father was a self-made man—everything he made, everything he earned, he made and earned of his own accord. And from as early as I could remember I always found him to be a very selfish man, that whatever man I would be made into, well I hoped it would not be that type of man. Perhaps it's a genuine change of the times that this thought was so ingrained into me, that it could not be dissipated no matter what my father did or said. Now, as I make these reflections, I know I stand well and tall and not on my own but with others. I am fortunately not a self-made man—a selfish man. But I am an other-made man with a life and an earning built by the fruits of others' labor. This truly is a glorious time, full of adoration of the work of all men. This is the selfless age devoid of the myopic visions of those like my father. This is an age where others make my own. And I love it.

A closing question: When did the phrase "American dream" originate? A search in the Online Etymology Dictionary reveals that it originated in 1931, certainly well after the fact that the notion of not one America reigned popular.

Many people perhaps dream of an executive position in a wealthy, well-to-do business. To manage and direct people! to be the boss. But few people are. The reason should be obvious: it takes a certain kind of skill and talent to successfully direct the fortunes of a business that captures a certain sector of the market and appeals to a mass of people.

Yet far many more people have the skill and talent to sit back and criticize others, especially if they are wealthy. But few people are in a more prestigious position to criticize others, such as Kathie Lee Gifford. Only a few minutes ago was she hosting The Today Show, holding a newspaper up and pointing to the questioning of oil executives, stamping her frustration about their excessive personal earnings. This followed her coverage of the recent decision by airlines to charge a new fee of $15 for the first bag checked on an airline, which this forthcoming charge is tied to rising gas prices. And the news reports Kathie displayed on her show referred to "skyway robbery." Indeed, a voluntary exchange between business and consumer for a nominal fee for the rising cost of business is robbery!

I wonder how "excessive" Kathie's earnings are to sit in a chair for hours on a day and offer her unfounded accusations. Of course, airlines aren't engaging in robbery, and oil executives are not making more than they should at the expense of the public. Their prices, which the public accepts and drives, are part and parcel and largely symptomatic of government intervention. Inflation, the blocking of new refineries, gasoline taxes, and an interventionist foreign policy are the catalysts of oil executives and airline managers asking for higher prices, which the public accepts.

Ron Paul was every so often questioned during his more public run for the White House about his environmental stance. Is the United States government supposed to drive alternative energy? No! he always said, the market should drive energy. If the price of gas becomes too much a burden on people then the market will seek alternatives on its own. The government, has no role in energy, as it does not with anything else. Education of this point is the starting point for tomorrow's show.

Greed is a deadly sin, and it is an oft-propagated malapropos market malapropism. This will be a short post with one question.

How can sellers be greedy when buyers determine prices?

I am now an official graduate of Iowa State University. Yes, a government public university. I feel accomplished, rightfully so, for graduating with a degree from an institution of "higher learning." My mother is proud of me. Am I proud? Yes/no. I'm proud of my hard work and intellectual progress. I'm not proud of doing it at the expense of others who were extorted to fund my education. I certainly did not feel  as proud as I should have during my graduation ceremony, which was an exercise in state idolatry.

The worshipping began fairly quickly with the "presentation of the colors," which was a 15-second staring contest with the American flag in silence. Following that was the chant of the country, the National Anthem. You know, that thing that says "the land of the free."

Following this, the student speaker was introduced. His credentials were staggering. He was a double major in political science and psychology, interned with an Iowa senator and worked with a lobbying group. What a great student, so eager to assist the State and lobby on its behalf to use other people's money! What a free land. And then the student speaker offered a wonderful speech that "said something different" with the usual platitudes about college life.

Then came the faculty speaker, head of the university's political science department. A man who appeared on CNN in NY Times Square, once! This was the highlight of the night. It was a 15 minute message of doom and gloom to the graduating class about all the ills of the world and how so many things are wrong. "We're facing a food shortage," or "oil prices are continuously rising," and a bunch of other things in between global warming and global cooling that our generation has to fix because we can't "take it easy"—and apparently make the world worse like his generation, "the generation of the 60s," did.

The highlight of this highlight speech was the plug for his own profession. "Politics is important because that's where decisions are made," he said. At this point I nearly rose from dozing off to shout, "You mean the market is where decisions are made!" I have always held a great disdain for the bromide that politics are "important because that's where decisions are made." My former news editor held to this profession, despite being a libertarian. No, politics is not, nor should it be, important because that's where decisions are made. Decisions shouldn't be made there in the first place; they should be made in the market, where real choices exist and where real voluntary exchange occurs.

There are some graduates who witness a moving ceremonial speech at their commencement. Those are the ones who will likely remember it for years and tell people about their riveting experience. Mine was not riveting, but I'll remember it because it was so filled with despair and the call for more politics. And I will tell people, as I am now, to say, "No! No more politics; things are bad enough."

But I lied. The doom and gloom speech wasn't the highlight. The highlight was crossing the stage, shaking hands, only to step off stage and receive a nice picture ... not in front of the university's logo or anything to do with the university. No, everyone had the great national pleasure to have their picture taken in front of the American flag and the Iowa state flag. All thank the state for our education! It could not have happened otherwise!

Other than the state worshipping, the ceremony was nice. I just wish I could've worn something other than a gown ... like those military men who were allowed to wear their fancy military clothes and received special recognition for their departments of military, navy, and other useless armed forces science departments. All hail the state!

It seems Hollywood may take a few years to catch up to the message of Ron Paul. Below is my gist of the newest Hollywood blockbuster, the superhero movie Iron Man, in bullets. Here's a quick synopsis: The main character, Tony Stark, heads a successful arms company, Stark Industries. He is captured by guerillas in Afghanistan and he subsequently escapes via his first creation of the Iron Man. During his capture, Stark realizes an ugly part of war: the enemy can end up with the same weapons as the good guys. In this case, the weapons Stark produces for the U.S. military end up in the hands of the Afghan guerillas. Upon his return to America, Stark has a revelation: Arms dealing is bad. As figurehead for his company, Stark holds a press conference to announce his change of heart. However, everything's not so simple and rosy. Stark's partner-in-business, Obadiah Stane, is too greedy for the profits of war to let Stark do as he wants. Thus is the protagonism/antagonism of the film, setting the stage for the epic showdown.

So here are the messages the film conveys.

• War itself is not bad—only war profiteering and arms manufacturing is bad.
• Greedy war profiteers are responsible for arming bad men around the world.
• Problems of war will stop if you simply remove the bad men. There is no other source of the problem.
• U.S. involvement in the Middle East is good because many bad men exist there.
  

And here are the messages the film doesn't convey.

• The problems in Afghanistan are part and parcel because of U.S. involvement in the area.
• War profiteering on the part of greedy businessmen is boosted by the war profiteering of a country's military policy.

Iron Man would be the first big-hit movie of the summer for the ilk of John McCain or Hilary Clinton; i.e., those who don't believe in the message of Ron Paul that turmoil in the Middle East is facilitated by the United States government. So for now, until the message sinks in, moviegoers can plan on seeing more movies that rely on the stereotypes that the Middle East needs the United States, that big business is greedy and corrupt (especially the arms industry), and that war itself is not bad but only the existence of powerful weapons. I'm sure the counter message would sink in faster had Ron Paul advanced further into the minds of American philosophy and politics, but this is why people, part and parcel, enjoy movies: for fantasy. Sometimes believing in superheroes is easier than electing one.

By no means is finding someone to espouse the greatness of universal literacy a chore, especially among politicians. Yet for all of their pandering, these very politicians would never desire for people to be literate on one subject matter: government itself. If the public were ever clued into the innerworkings of the government, government would cease to be. What other explanation can there be for why the law is not required reading in government schools? The government wants an ignorant population.

I received a parking ticket the other day for parking against the flow of traffic in the adjacent lane. What a silly law, I thought! Let the roads be privatized and we'll see if such an absurd parking restriction would stand. It certainly doesn't in the parking lots of any business for many people often "pull through" a parking spot or back into a parking spot to park against the flow of traffic. I then asked myself, "How was I supposed to know such parking was illegal?" The only parking signs around stated only the times I could park on that side of the street. No, I, the average citizen, was expected to have taken it upon myself to read and digest every aspect of the law to know what I was and wasn't allowed to do. Such is the result in a society that does not respect property and voluntary exchange—everything is subject to the whims of the State.

Why wouldn't the government require reading of the law in its schools, just as it does of its propaganda (i.e., American history textbooks)? Surely an understanding of what you can and cannot do is just as important as an understanding of how just and right our government has been throughout history is to developing a sense of patriotism.

But to think this is to misunderstand the purpose of the State. Government can exist only so long as it has a means to provide for itself. Its only means of provision are what it receives from its populace through taxes (i.e., theft). And, as Butler Shaffer points out, government relies upon you breaking its laws for continued revenue—revenue at a level optimal for further intrusion into the lives of its citizens. If the citizens knew what the laws were they wouldn't break them so easily and ignorantly! Why, if that happened, the government would have far fewer people to incarcerate and extort for its own subsistence. The government lives by the death of others, which is why it promotes and tolerates ignorance.

The proper understanding of the State is a fundamental educational bulwark to its encroachment and growth. Instead of the government's legal texts being required reading, the only required legal reading should be Frederic Bastiat's The Law.

My rhetoric class is now reading articles about the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. The topic is very intriguing, and many in class have professed a wonder about how they had never heard much about the subject growing up through their education, largely public. Hmm! Little coverage of the enslavement of a certain classification of people by the government in government schools? Shocking!

Today we are to listen to a professor from my university who, as a three-month-old child, was interned with his family. I plan to ask him the following question:

Sir, the internment of Japanese-Americans is very disturbing and an unfortunate history. I have been fascinated reading the thoughts of certain Japanese-Americans, such as Mike Masaoka, who have written on and described their experience during the time. In a piece we read for class from They Call Me Moses Masaoka, Mr. Masaoka explains the willingness of many Japanese-Americans to comply with the American government's harsh and unjust curtailment of their constitutional, natural, and inalienable rights. This willingness occurred, in part, because of the want to be seen as loyal and faithful to the American government. Many faithfully believed they would receive their property after the end of their internment, and would, in the end, be treated properly. Such was not the case. Now, in the War on Terror, we have seen many strikingly similar moves on the part of the American government to pass legislation severely curtailing the liberties of people and many unjust incarcerations of so-called enemy combatants. Yet many continue to put stock and faith in the actions of the American government that it is only doing what is safe, right, just, and proper. But history shows the exact opposite, for when a government grabs excessive power it does not relinquish it easily and satisfactorily. Many people do not believe the recurring problem resides with government itself but merely the inadequate elected to government. My question, for you, then, is: Why do people continue to blindfully believe in the just and proper exercise of government when it continually displays an egregious attitude for injustice?