Proof.

Proof.

By

Mitchell Gray

Wow! A free market solution to the economic crisis that doesn’t cost taxpayers a dime! Citigroup announced on Tuesday, November 11, 2008 that they will reach out to 500,000 homeowners who face foreclosure offering up a program designed to keep them in their homes and the payments coming in. According to Forbes.com Citigroup made the decision to be proactive by reaching out to half a million homeowners who would most likely be the ones to fall behind on their mortgages. The program is an attempt to protect $20 billion in mortgages that Citi fully owns. Citi will proactively modify the loans by reducing the interest rates, extend the terms or forgive the principle. At first the program will be applied only to those with first mortgages held by Citigroup. The company plans to later expand it to second and third mortgages. The reason for the wait is that when it is a second or third mortgage they have to work with the holders of the first mortgage before and modifications can be made to the loans.

So here we have a company that seems to understand free market principles! Instead of begging the Treasury to buy up these loans when they go bad Citigroup is taking the morally and economically sound attitude that they will attack the problem before it gets out of hand. We are watching the free market do what the free market should be allowed to do. This company is being responsible and taking charge of a situation that could wipe out its capital and assets and plunge the company into bankruptcy like so many others.

While the socialist try to tell us that only the government can fix the current financial crisis we have here irrefutable proof that, when left to its own devises, the market will find ways to deal with any and all problems. The solutions to the problem does not come from inflating the money supply or bailing out big corporations. The solution comes from letting businesses do what businesses do. They can either adapt and change or they can go bankrupt. The course of action the Fed and the Treasury are taking will lead us to economic ruin in the near future. You cannot add trillions of new dollars to the economy if there is no capital acquisition to back them. All of that paper will come back to bite us in the ass very soon. This little recession we have now will pale in comparison to the major depression we will face very soon.

AIG should have collapsed, gone into bankruptcy and died the death it should have. Ford and GM should do the same. All of the banks that have received money from the taxpayers ought to have faced the harsh medicine the market offers those who deal in bad debts. Citigroup seems to get it. If everyone had acted like them we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in now and we wouldn’t have to stare down the face of the worst depression in mans history which will soon befall us.

Bat Shit Crazy

Bat Shit Crazy

By

Mitchell Gray

The Federal Reserve and the Treasury have gone bat shit crazy. The New York Times recently reported that the Federal Reserve is going to pump another $40 billion into failed insurer AIG brining the total money wasted in this failed venture to over $150 billion! AIG is bleeding money and should have been allowed to fail like any other bad business. But according to the Treasury Department AIG is “too big to fail” so they have injected billions of dollars into this company to keep it afloat. Not only is this injection of cash immoral and unethical it is down right irresponsible and just as important, unconstitutional. The Federal Reserve as taken at 79.9% stake in AIG – 79.9% of that company is owned by the government! Where in the HELL does the Constitution give the federal government, or any agency of the federal government, the authority to nationalize any private company? So far we have spent over $850 billion bailing out these business and Obama and Co. want to spend another $50 billion bailing out the automotive industry. Why? Why? Why? WHY!!!?!!!

I’m really at a loss for words here. Never in history, at least American history, has anything like this ever been done before on such a massive scale. The complete nationalization of our financial industry is underway with the Federal Reserve pumping trillions of dollars into the system to shore these institutions up. The result will not be fiscally sound companies but massive runaway inflation that will further devastate our economy. It is irresponsible and illegal for the Treasury and the Federal Reserve to do this.

The only sane action to take is to let these companies fail, let them go under, and let fiscally responsible firms buy up what little is good and let the bad get written off. Why are we allowing these idiots to rob us of our money and give it to the rich fat cats on Wall Street? Where are the protest? Where are the riots? Where are the citizen trials for these criminals who continue to abuse us and rape us financially?

PEOPLE! YOU NEED TO WAKE UP! What is happening now will come back and destroy us later. The actions taken NOW will bring absolute ruin upon us all in the very near future. You cannot just create trillions of new dollars that have never existed before and expect things to go on as normal. We are doomed.

Obama Christ

Obama Christ

By

Mitchell Gray

The Anointed One has been chosen to lead our country. Praise has been coming in from all over the world for the New Messiah that will save the world from global warming, economic ruin and social injustice. The dreams of millions are now firmly wrapped up in Barack Obama. I’m leery of Mr. Obama and his agenda but some pundits are suggesting that he will be more of a moderate Democrat than the rabidly Marxist Pelosi or Reed would want. Mr. Obama will likely do many things that are socially responsible such as rolling back Bush’s ban on stem cell research, which has the potential of saving millions of lives, he has promised to pull troops out of Iraq, which if he does will be a great thing and will save us billions of dollars every month. I don’t think he will do it but you never know. Do I think Obama will be a good president? No. I think he is too socialistic, loves government intervention and believes more government in our lives is a good thing. While he might not use government power to spy on us (but don’t count on it) he does think the government should regulate our lives more, take more of money and believes bailing out companies who are failing is a good thing. Mr. Obama will likely be a nice respite from the fascist tyranny of the Bush administration but I fear we might have something even more oppressive come down the pike.

Obama didn’t win because he offered the best ideas or the most sane solutions to our problems. He won because he wasn’t Bush. A smooth talker no doubt but smooth talking isn’t going to mean he is a good leader. And his agenda is that great either. His socialization of health care will be disastrous causing rationing and long wait times, raising minimum wage to $9.50 an hour will move more people onto government welfare rolls as unemployment goes up and while he says he supports civil rights he wants to force people to serve the government for college aid. He also wants to steal more money from the taxpayers so that the rich can get richer. His environmental plan is to steal $150 billion from the taxpayers to subsidize the energy market to promote “green” energy. While I cannot argue against green energy I don’t think stealing my money is the right way to do it. But I guess it’s a double edged sword. Mr. Obama is big into the idea of “windfall profit” taxes. Of course no one has ever defined what a “windfall profit” is but that is the least of his concerns. Just know that if you earn too much money, or more than the socialist think you should earn, they will still that money from you.

The problem with Obama and his policies, is that while they look good on paper (at least to those with less than half a brain) they are massive invasions of property rights. What right does Obama or anyone else have to say an employer must pay $9.50 an hour to someone or any rate? Employment is a contract between an employer and an employee. If someone is willing to work for $1.50 an hour what business is it of Obama or anyone else? Hell, if we are going to raise minimum wage why not just raise it to $1,000 an hour? As for “windfall” profits how does one determine if they have earned too much? What is the acceptable level of profit? If I have a business that makes a profit of $20 billion a year is that too much? Even if 90% of that money is returned to my investors and I employ 50,000 people all over the world? Really, please, tell me how much profit is too much profit.

Instead of nickel and diming your way to full socialization why not just go ahead and do it. Do away with “dollars” and introduce credits. Give us all a debit card with X amount of credits on it. Why not take everything we earn, a 100% income tax, and then just doll it all out in equal amounts? Expand public housing to everyone. Take ownership of all property in the country and then tell each of us where we can live. Why not? This is the ultimate goal of all socialist. Total control over every aspect of your life. Obama’s plans are the beginning in this new century of total control.

His administration will be marked by more regulations, more wealth confiscation, more wealth redistribution and more invasions of property rights than any other president in history, I believe. Hopefully in 2010 Libertarians can rack up some nice wins against the GOP and the Democrats and infuse some sane logic into the arguments presented on Capital Hill.

Life Without Government: Abandonment

Life Without Government

By

Mitchell Gray


Abandonment

In a previous discussion we talked about private property which is obviously anything that you have acquired through a legitimate claim, such as homesteading previously unused resources, production or transfer of title. Property, once it becomes owned, can never be unowned unless the owner should actively give up ownership of it, or abandons it. When one acquires property, either through homesteading or through transfer of title, that property is and always will be his or his heirs if he so chooses to pass it on to them. It should not matter if that property is in continual use or sits idle for decades. All that is required is that at some point in time the original owner made a legitimate claim to the property at least once. An example would be Frank happening upon a piece of property that has never been worked by man. Frank then sets out transforming 100 acres into ranch land for his cattle. He erects fences and pens and moves his cattle on to the property to graze. Frank has just homesteaded that property and is now the legitimate owner. Ten years later Frank has a heart attack and dies. In his will he stipulates that his title to that land and all improvements should transfer to his son John. John does not desire to be a rancher so he allows his fathers property to go idle. Over time the grass grows, and fences fall but Johns claim to that property has never ceased. John can do one of four things at this point in time. He can either begin using the land again, sell or give away the land, continue to let it sit idle or he can abandon it.

To abandon property some type of action must take place to relinquish ownership. It doesn’t really matter what action is taken so long as the legitimate owner of that proper relinquishes all claims to it and recognizes that whoever takes it over is the new owner. For instance, John could simply post a sign stating that the land is being abandoned and anyone is free to take it up or he could just do nothing at all, which is itself a type of action. If someone should move on to the property and begin mixing their labor with the land and John learns of this he has two options. He can do nothing, thus demonstrating his disinterest in the land and relinquishing title to whomever is currently working it, or he can confront the squatter and order them removed. If he did that he would be asserting his ownership of that property. Doing nothing demonstrates that the land is indeed abandoned.

What if John doesn’t know that someone has squatted on his property, should die and leave his land to his daughter, Sara, who decides to use her fathers property to build a shopping mall? Upon arriving she finds that someone has erected a house and began farming the property. In fact, she finds out that they have been there for twenty years without her fathers (John) knowledge. Do those people have any just claim to the property? No, they do not. John may not have done anything with the land but he certainly considered it his property which is evidenced by the fact that he passed it on to his daughter. Though these people have been living and working this land for twenty years they have been living and working land that was never theirs to begin with since the legitimate owner, though allowing the property to go into disuse, never relinquished ownership of the property. Sara has a few options at this point. She can either give up ownership of that portion of the land currently being used by the squatters or she can sell the land to the squatters (or even rent it to them) or order them to vacate the property. The squatters have two options: They can either buy (or rent) the property or leave. Though they have been on that land for twenty years they have been on that land for twenty years illegitimately.

It might seem like a harsh thing to eject someone from something that was their home for twenty years but it is actually the only fair outcome. Their failure to properly research the ownership of that property does not give them to the right to steal it from the legitimate owner. Squatting is the act of making an illegitimate claim over property in an attempt to steal it from the legitimate owner. While in some cases it is permissible today that does not make it right. Theft is immoral no matter what the property is and no one can make an immoral and illegitimate claim to property declare legitimate ownership of it. Sara would then be justified, as the legitimate owner of the property, to evict the squatters. Time does not matter. It doesn’t matter if the squatters were on the land two days or two hundred years. They never had a legitimate claim to the property therefore their continued presence on it is actually a violent invasion of the legitimate owners property rights.

Death is also another way to abandon property. If Frank had died without passing the land on to anyone then that property would return to its unowned state. Death marks the end of ownership of property since to own something action must take place. With Franks passing we cannot say that Frank is still the legitimate owner of that property since Frank is no longer with us. If he wills it to John then it is now Johns. If he does not then it is unowned and free to be homesteaded.

Shit.

Obama has won the presidency. The Democrats have filibuster proof control of Congress. While many rejoice over Obama's historic win many more are wondering just what we are in for. With a Democrat control Congress Mr. Obama will likely have a blank check, like Bush did, in which he can push his socialist agenda. Hopefully the only thing that checks their eventual abuses will be the sorry state of the nations finances. With two wars and a massive spending deficit it is unlikely that the universal health care Obama promised in his campaign will materialize. But his anti-gun agenda could and that could mean more trouble here at home. We also have to worry about his "citizen army" that he wants to be funded and equipped like the military. What does he mean by that? What purpose does that serve? What would be their role and why do we need them? Obama's monetary plan is also unnerving and is likely to further the financial crisis. These next few years are going to be tough for everyone.

Hopefully two years from now people will realize that Obama isn't going to deliver on any of his promises and we can take some seats from the Democrats in 2010. I hope that the Libertarian Party can implement a plan that will actually put some Libertarians in national office in 2010. If they followed the plan I outlined in an earlier post I believe they can get four or five or more people in the House in 2010 but it will take a nation-wide, party-wide initiative.

All I can tell you is buy silver, stack up ammo and hi-cap magazines and buy some storable food. You never know.