Category Archives: Private Property

1-800-ObamaCare-Political con

Barack Obama, Free Markets, Government, Healthcare, Private Property

Wall Street Journal: “In an era where Google is making self-driving cars and Amazon offers next-day delivery for just about anything, the White House plunged ahead with a system it knew to be defective and is relying on the technology of the 19th century as the fall-back.”

As if government can ever be a source of innovation in delivering consumer products and services. Only in a profit-and-loss system, which in turn is predicated on the presence of private property, can consumers get what they want.

“Remember when Mr. Obama said you could keep your policy if you liked it?”

Insurance companies are also already sending out notices to millions of consumers cancelling individual policies because they are non-compliant with ObamaCare’s new mandates. Kaiser Health News, usually a cheerleader for the law, reports that “Florida Blue, for example, is terminating about 300,000 policies, about 80 percent of its individual policies in the state.” Kaiser Permanente in California has sent notices to 160,000 people, Highmark in Pittsburgh is dropping about 20% of its individual market customers, and Independence Blue Cross of Philadelphia is dropping about 45%.

MORE.

BACKWARD Zuckerberg : We Subsidize His DREAMERS

IMMIGRATION, Paleolibertarianism, Private Property, Taxation, Technology

There is a very good reason Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg can promise the world to “young undocumented immigrants,” or “Dreamers,” pretend that by lobbying to let them stay in the USA, he is tapping into endless possibilities; make like they’re God’s gift to the American high-tech industry (when they’re not), and generally carry on like a filthy rich d-ck: the objects of his affection—young, illegal immigrants—are subsidized by the American taxpayer.

Legalization of low-skilled or no-skilled migrants (such as Zuckerberg’s “Dreamers”) amounts to a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to big business via big government.

As Hans-Hermann Hoppe has written, “”[E]mployers under democratic Welfare State conditions are permitted by state law to externalize their employment costs on others” and will “tend to import increasingly low-skilled and low value-productive immigrants, regardless of their effect on all-around communal property values.”

Here, the rightful owners of public property (taxpayers) do not get to vet the newcomers—the state and big business do. Yet when faced with such economic fascism (government-business collusion), open-border libertarians exalt business’ every move.

“His tentative grasp of property leads the leftist libertarian to forget that public property is property funded by taxpayers through expropriated taxes. It belongs to taxpayers. Yet at least a million additional immigrants a year are allowed the free use of these taxpayer-supported amenities. Every new arrival avails himself of public works such as roads, hospitals, parks, libraries, schools and welfare.
In the absence of a state, or in the presence of a limited government where almost all land is privately owned, migration would be a very restricted affair. It would depend on the graces of private property owners. A newcomer may be invited over by a propertied person, who would shoulder the costs. If he wishes to venture beyond the invited sphere, the newcomer would seek consent from the private property owners with whom he wishes to interface. The more the status of property approaches the libertarian ideal, the less free migration would be.” (From “LOVE-IN AT THE BORDERS”)

Train The Cameras On Police And First Responders

Crime, Economy, Fascism, Free Markets, Government, Law, Private Property, The State

Police and state-employed firefighters must be tethered electronically by video cams. The cameras worn on the helmets of weaponized government workers—they have enormous license to use their weapons—serve to keep them accountable. Business (say, free-market firefighters hired by an insurer) already polices its workforce, as it is in the business of pleasing, not killing, those it serves. Preventing fraud and abuse on the job is integral* to the job. (Guess why.) When will people get that the incentives that are at work in private property are missing from state-run systems?

Twelve or so minutes into “The Five” on Fox News, a heated airhead debate ensued over the suggestion of removing cameras from the helmets of cops and first responders. Airhead Bob Beckel said cameras must go. Kimberly Guilfoyle (not an airhead, but a bona fide statist) agreed. Poor Dana Ditz. She got it right but by default. She wants to give the boys in blue all the power in the world “to protect us.” Because Dana Ditz can’t reverse a situation in her not-so-nimble mind, she failed to see that cops filming also means cops being filmed, and abuses more likely exposed. (* Today, our Dana discovered the word “integral.” But in pronouncing it, she placed the emphasis incorrectly on the second syllable. Here’s the right way to say “integral.”)

Remember the only victim of the Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crash, last month? She was killed not by the crash, but by our brave first responders.

FSGate:

The San Francisco Fire Department supervisors who took charge of the Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crash scene were not alerted by firefighters that a 16-year-old passenger had been found near the plane, leaving them powerless to prevent the girl from being run over by a rig after she was covered by fire-retardant foam, footage of the incident shows.

In the case of state employees, the incentive is absent to be really, really, really careful. After all, responsibility for damages and deaths is collectivized; taxpayers pick up the tab; lawmakers enact laws that shield the perp from responsibility, even protecting identities. (That’s why I say name and shame the pimps at TSA.)

Film them. The many good cops won’t mind

To Moron-In-Chief, Tax Cuts Mean Moving Money Around For Votes

Barack Obama, Private Property, Socialism, Taxation

What is it about private property that Obama does not get? EVERYTHING!

Via USA Today:

“During a jobs speech at an Amazon shipping facility in Chattanooga, Tenn. Obama proposed cuts in corporate tax rates – a Republican priority – in exchange for more money for jobs programs, a priority of the president.
“I’m willing to work with Republicans on reforming our corporate tax code — as long as we use the money from transitioning to a simpler tax system for a significant investment in creating middle-class jobs,” Obama told Amazon employees. “That’s the deal.”

A tax cut is a reduction in tax rates. It means letting a poor sod (or serf) keep more of his rightful earnings, be he an individual, a shareholder or a group of them. That’s not what the Ass With Ears (AWE) is talking about. So if he proposes a reduction in tax rates on the condition that “The Money” gets moved to his pet, make-work, government schemes, what sort of tax cut is this?

Moving money around for votes is what the moron-in-chief is proposing.

To borrow from a great American, Frank Chodorov, Obama’s glib talk about property not his amounts to the following declaration:

“Your earnings are not exclusively your own; we have a claim on them, and our claim precedes yours; we will allow you to keep some of it, because we recognize your need, not your right; but whatever we grant you for yourself is for us to decide.”