Government Grants?

When I glanced at my blog today I noticed that the advertisement said "Free Government Grants". I considered, in that moment, emailing Google to complain about the obvious disassociation from the nature of my content. Instead, I think I'll educate my readers (if there are any) on the reason I disagree with government grants. That's right, I don't want those people who want to start businesses getting grants from the U. S. Government.

First, however, I think it is appropriate to analyze loans as a whole. Loans, by nature, permit someone to borrow money they don't have but need or want. In exchange, the person recieving the money has to pay it back within a specified time period with interest (extra money for the person they borrowed it from based on how long before they paid it back). Loans are extremely easy to obtain for any individuals because that is how banks make money and banks need lots of money to cover the interest they pay their patrons. Isn't that a cool little system? All that started without any government intervention.

Now, grants are also given out by the free market. Don't believe me? Do a scholarship search on google. There are millions of scholarships in existence for college students, and many more grants and charitable organizations that pay cash. Grants, by definition, are money that is given out freely with no need to pay it back, and no interest.

Now what about those Federal Government Grants. Millions of these exist also. In fact, so many of these exist that the .gov websites don't even contain information on every one. But the free market does. As it should be obvious from that little web ad, somebody has collected a list and detailed information about every Federal Government Grant in existence. He then charges you a fee to use his search service and find a government grant that fits you, so that you can get this "money that is given out freely with no need to pay it back, and no interest". Sounds like a nice system right? WRONG!

In order to understand where I'm coming from, we have to return to our old lessons. First, where does the government get its money? From taxation. Who gets taxed? Everyone not in the U. S. Government (ironically enough). So the government gets its money from you. These grants come from you, WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION. Heck, the government cares so little about getting your permission that you have to pay guys like the above ad just to see a few of the ones that are out there! We went over the separation of charities before. Here's an example of government charity. There are literally millions of charities in the U. S. Do we really need to add the federal government to that list? (don't let me forget to discuss dispersement of charitable funds, the major argument for Federal charity)

So, quite frankly, these grants are Theft. Moreover, if you remember from our much earlier lessons, they are not listed in the U. S. Constitution and are, therefore, breaking our social contract. Anyhow, I was just a little flustered by that. I bet this post will incite more government grant ads, and people searching for information on government grants might read it and learn a little. But that might be wishful thinking.

Sincerely,
Ted

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. – P.J. O'Rourke

I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other men's rights. – Abraham Lincoln

Discrimination Laws Discriminate?

For a while I thought I was moving at a reasonable pace, but it is occuring to me that what we have gone over so far is so extremely basic that we still haven't really gotten anywhere yet. So, we understand government theft. We understand how welfare recipients are associated with that, but we have not established an essential immorality of the people, simply of the system. Why? Because people are not inherrently immoral.

Today, I think it would be good to analyze discrimination, that terrible word. I suppose a definition is relevant, since so many people misuse the term. Until modern verbiage changed the term (much more recently than you think) it meant:

discriminate - to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately

So discrimination is something you do every day. You pick out your car in a parking lot. You are discriminating right now at the difference between this word and the next. Quite simply, to discriminate is only the act of observation, not of action. Now, the word has recently been noted to mean:

discriminate - to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality

Thus, discrimination has come to mean an action, specifically, treating someone different based on the observation made. This is because of politics, but I'm not going to get into that right now. Instead, we understand that there can't be anything wrong with noticing that there is a difference in skin color between two people, let's analyze whether or not there is something wrong with treating them differently based on that observation.

In the formally ethical sense, ABSOLUTELY NOT. In my personal opinion, ABSOLUTELY NOT. Even the law currently says ABSOLUTELY NOT. I'd bet that most of you feel exactly the same way. But how would a government legislate such actions? It seems very difficult to monitor the observations people make without a camera in their heads. So what does the government do to stop people from making decisions based on observations?

There are thousands of ways that politicians have found. Among the most popular of which are "wrongful termination" and "affirmative action". The direct result of these has not, however, been the elimination of discrimination, but the expansion of it. Let me reiterate:

Discrimination laws increase, not decrease, discrimination.

That doesn't make sense? Of course it does. In order to identify what people are thinking, the government must first discriminate (observation) which people are in which categories. Then, it must discriminate (treat differently) and tell their employers either to hire them or not, based on solely the color of their skin. However, it goes much deeper than that. Discriminating practices on the part of the government have increased the discrimination involved in employment. Employers, afraid of government interaction, discriminate on their own and avoid not hiring, or firing employees who are of specific characteristics lain out by the government. At the moment, I'll leave the specifics on those characteristics for another post because that discussion will be lengthy.

In any case, the major thing to take away from this post is that discrimination laws do not minimize discrimination,but necessarily maximize it.

Sincerely,
Ted

It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve. – Henry George

How do you view God?

What is it that people around me think about our creator. I've noticed that it's not what's on the surface. Most religions claim a loving, caring God. This is the God I believe in. What, I ask do you believe in? Now, hold on, don't answer yet. I've got more to study first.

When you see someone on the street, apparently homeless, and looking all-and-all down on his luck, what do you think? Me, personally, I think that he needs to get a job. But hey, I'm not always a nice guy. Does that mean I wouldn't give him money? Not necessarily, but it does mean that I will be handing him a business card and inviting him to apply for a job where I work. What do you think? How tragic? Hardly.
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbegprofit.html
Beggars make more money than I do! And it'ts all tax free! These people make more than enough on the street to find reasonable clothing, get a job and a basic apartment.

So what do you think when you see that someone's house was destroyed by a hurricane on the news? This is obviously more close to home here in the states with Florida and Louisiana lately. A lot of people think "that's so sad! Somebody should do something" and they choose to do nothing themselves. They are "too busy" or "can't afford" or something to help. Is that how things go with you? Do you get depressed when you see that? I think that they should move and shouldn't be living on a coastline in the first place.

What do you think when you see thieves entering your house? It seems the rationale changes here. Often people get upset, or even angry at this. Most of the time there is a risk that someone (homeowner or thief) will be shot as a result of such an incident. I know that I get angry, but I also understand that he is just another form of that beggar we saw above.

If you responded to the above much like everyone else does, then you might want to pause to think about what that means about your God. If those people that are disheveled are there by a stroke of bad luck, then your God is not just. If those people who's houses are destroyed because they live on a fault line need federal aid, then your God is not merciful. If your God is not just or merciful, he is not loving and caring, but cruel. The God that punishes those who are undeserving is not a God at all, but Satan himself. God is just and loving, so God gives people lemons from time to time to return to them the sense of humble acknowledgement that we all need to remember. If that thief deserves a bullet in his leg and not the money in his pocket, why do these others who recieve money that is stolen by force (welfare and FEMA in this case) deserve anything less? Think about how you really view your deity.

Sincerely,
Ted

One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation. – Thomas B. Reed (1886)

The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates. – Tacitus

How do you make people do stuff?

The desire to help others is a major part of everyone's concept of morality. I support anyone who would like to see wonderful things done in society. People often say things to me like "I want to protect the environment" and I smile in agreement. I want to help the environment like everyone else. I want to see other people help the environment, just like you do. The environment is one of my favorite reasons that people argue a need for government intervention. "Look at those poor kittens being killed in China!" Yes, it is disgusting.

In fact, I agree with every one of you in almost every way you want to help others. I don't have a desire to cause others anguish. Quite the opposite. The reason I espouse Libertarian philosophy is because I don't want to see others in anguish. The simple fact of the matter is that there are two ways to convince people to stop doing things they shouldn't be or start doing things they should. The question I present to you all today is "which one do you support?".

What are these two ways? Let's see, hypotheticals are fun for this. Let's say you want a friend to be your designated driver this evening. Often, you appeal to them on their emotional level "PLEASE!!!" but this isn't always effective, especially if you don't know them very well. The easiest way to convince them is to offer them money. "I'll fill up your tank!" This is the first way to convince someone to do something they don't want to do.

The second scenario involves someone attempting to rob you. When a man comes up to you in a mask asking for your money, what does he use to persuade you? He uses fear, through the initiation of force. He will hit you, point a gun at you, or hold a knife to your throat. This is the second way to convince someone to do something they have no desire to do.

There are no other ways to convince someone to do something they do not want to do. There is offering them value (money) and threatening force.

So, the question I leave with you all today is, "Which do you support?"

Sincerely,
Ted

One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation. – Thomas B. Reed (1886)

Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. – George Washington