Libertarians! Give No Quarter!

As a libertarian, I've taken note of something interesting lately in debates with the left. Specifically, I noticed it in the controversy surrounding the indefinite suspension of Phil Robertson from A&E's hit reality show, "Duck Dynasty," for comments made regarding homosexuals. If I have to explain this story to you, kindly crawl back under that rock and go back into hiding.

Reading comments online, and watching the debate on television, I was amused at how leftists suddenly become very libertarian in their thinking when someone they disagree with is fired from a private company. I read and heard comments from leftists-turned-libertarian like:

• This is not a first amendment issue. Phil has a right to say whatever he wants.
• A&E is a private company, and they can hire and fire whoever and however they choose.
• A&E made a business decision.
• This is a private contract, and is solely between Phil and A&E.
• Phil is guaranteed the right to say whatever he wants. He's just not guaranteed a job.
• GLAAD has a right to boycott. It's the free market at work.

It also amused me at how leftists suddenly became authorities on the Christian religion, proclaiming that the comments were "Ant-American and Anti-Christian." I don't know if they've ever read the Bible, but it's pretty clear what it says about homosexuality. I am not a Christian, and that is not what this post is about, but I thought it was worth mentioning that alongside a sudden streak of libertarian-ism, these leftists also suddenly started claiming biblical and christian authority.

The frustration for me in watching all this was that libertarians allowed them to make these libertarian arguments without retort, and all but joined with them and agreed with them!

Fellow liberty lovers and Black Brigadiers - we need to get more practical and tactical here.

GIVE NO QUARTER!

Do you honestly believe that if the roles and personalities were reversed - if it was a leftist making anti-american comments, or anti-white, or anti-christian - and they were fired from a private company, that the same arguments would be made? Of course not! Do you remember the Dixie Chicks controversy? Or how about recent news where a wedding photographer could not refuse a gay client, and was forced by the state to photograph the wedding? Or Obamacare requiring religious organizers to provide and pay for contraception services? In the case where one of their own is on the chopping block, it suddenly would be a first amendment issue, the private company could not fire someone based on their political or religious beliefs, it's a civil rights issue, it's hatred, a boycott is un-american, etc.

Leftists are not honest brokers. With them, the ends justify the means. They don't believe in the libertarian principles and arguments they make from time to time, they are just using them to further their insidious goals. Once they are no longer useful, just like the people they use, they will be discarded and tossed aside without a second's thought.

The whole notion of private property rights was settled long ago with the Civil Rights Act. If a private business cannot choose who they wish to associate with, and they are forced to make "public accommodations" for everyone regardless of race, creed, disability, or gender, then there are no private property rights. We must play by the rules they have made and values they champion - rules and values they have codified into law.

The fact is, under their sacrosanct Civil Rights Act, A&E could not fire Phil based on his religious views. This is religious discrimination. A&E under the Civil Rights Act does not have a right to hire and fire whoever they want, for whatever reasons they want.

GIVE NO QUARTER! Show them no mercy! Hold them to their own laws and principles.

It is so frustrating to see libertarians, in their quest for purity and consistency, giving aid and comfort to the enemies of liberty. They are not your friends. They will not suddenly see the light. They will never become libertarians and consistently apply libertarian principles.

Your retort should be: "Are you saying we should abolish certain sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?" And then destroy them utterly, because they will have nowhere to hide. They will be exposed for the frauds they are.

I understand the desire to be consistent and principled, but we need to be more practical and tactical. When leftists suddenly start making libertarian arguments, your Spidey-senses should start tingling. Use the opportunity to attack. Use their own principles and beliefs against them. Discredit and destroy them.

You'd think I'd embed the great Led Zeppelin, but no:

GIVE NO QUARTER!

Inheritance as Insurance Policy

Captain Capitalism linked to me today, so I'm seeing a little more traffic and thinking more about my post on reverse mortgages and Baby Boomers.

A couple readers commented on how expecting an inheritance is wrong - how it's acting like a whiny, spoiled brat - and I agree. The point of the post about the popularity of reverse mortgages with Boomers is that it proves they are not concerned at all about passing on wealth to their families.

The idea of providing an inheritance to your children was once viewed as something to aspire to - historically, it was an organizing principle of our family structure and thus fundamental to our development as a species and civilization - but the Boomers have been so reckless, selfish and greedy there will be nothing left to pass on when they die. The long chain of history breaks with them.

Like the muscle cars they popularized in their youth, they are running on fumes right now, and the tank will be bone dry when the engine finally sputters and dies. They just hope beyond hope they get across the finish line before it does.

As an added bonus, these former V8 driving, now V8 drinking abominations will leave behind a mountain of debt for their children and grandchildren to contend with. "Free love" has become "Free Healthcare" just in time for them to need it. "Don't trust anyone over 30" has become "Lifestyle Lifts" and "Cialis." They're living it up like there's no tomorrow, because in their drug addled minds there is no tomorrow. They inherited a ethos of "Live Free or Die" and mutated it into "Live for Free and Diet." They've strip-mined this country for all it's worth, leaving behind the refuse piles, debris, toxic chemicals and sludge for others to clean up. The USA will be a giant superfund site when the last Boomer is dead and gone. This is our inheritance, and their legacy.

Is selfishness to blame for the "Me Generation?"

At first glance, building up a nest egg to pass on to your loved ones seems like a selfless idea. You worked hard, saved, and when you're gone, you selflessly leave a little generational wealth to pass along so your children have a chance at better life than you did. And on and on, presumably, your family becoming ever more wealthy with the seed money you planted. Rather than you enjoying all the fruits of your labor, you sacrifice for your family's benefit, so that greater fruits may be harvested in the future.

The overall negative view of the Boomer Generation and its legacy proves that the idea of an inheritance may not be as selfless as it appears. An inheritance is more of an insurance policy than a gift.

You want your kids to come home for Christmas? They are much more likely to do so if they know there is an inheritance coming. It's a little carrot waiting for them for good behavior, right? But the inheritance doesn't have to just be monetary either. If you've done a good job as a parent, and prepared your child for life, and created a loyal, loving family, that is an inheritance worth more than money. But at its core, an inheritance is a bribe for good behavior.

He just wants to grow old gracefully

No one would ever think to allow a WWII generation senior to die in a gutter someplace, strewn aside like a crushed can of cheap beer. The "Greatest Generation" accomplished much, and made the world a better place for their children and grandchildren. Even if individually they don't have much to pass along to their children monetarily, they are still held in high esteem by society at large by virtue of what they suffered and accomplished. Social Security will be there for them. Medicaid will be there for them. They will be cared for when they cannot care for themselves, because society owes them a debt. Whatever their faults, and there are many as with all generations, they will be viewed as a net positive in history.

She just wants to stay young forever

But the Boomers? Not only did they screw up their own families through divorce, they've likewise screwed up the country through their irresponsibility, greed, self-aggrandizement and negligence. Rather than correcting the mistakes of their parents, they doubled, tripled, quadrupled down on them. They rebelled against the virtues of their elders that made them feel bad about themselves, and adopted and championed what made them feel good. "If it feels good, do it."

The Boomers are not held in high esteem by society at large, because there is no inheritance, neither monetary, moral, or spiritual, forthcoming. They were in it for themselves. They are taking it all with them, and leaving behind debts beyond imagination - again, monetary, moral, and spiritual. The "Me Generation" were not selfish enough to realize that leaving something behind is insurance against being allowed to die in the gutter. The shortsightedness of their naval-gazing blinded them to the long-view reality of the consequences of their actions and in-actions.

An inheritance is an insurance policy. It is tangible proof that you value their children and their future, and so they will value you in return.

Snap-Craptastic Music While Lifting

So I'm at the gym - the "fitness center" - whatever you want to call it, trying to break my muscles down to build them up stronger, and playing over the speakers was this little number:



I turned to the only other guy lifting weights, much more pumped up than me and without earbuds, and said "It's hard to get pumped up with this whiny music."

He didn't say anything in response - he might've been part franchise owner, I don't know - I said it to him right after I heard him whistling the whiny song. I don't think he appreciated the comment. Oh well, to each their own.

A previous time I overheard someone who worked there talking about how people cleaning up after themselves was a problem, and management from time to time would kick people out of the club. He went on to talk about how grunting was an issue, and that they preferred to play easy listening music because they were trying to run a business and didn't want anyone feeling uncomfortable. In other words, they cater to women and old people, so any displays of aggression or testosterone were generally frowned upon. No vulgarity either.

Now, I'm not one of these guys that bellows a primal scream to squeeze out one more rep. But a little grunting and heavy breathing is mandatory. You're just not pushing yourself hard enough if you don't. I understand the desire to tone down the "musclehead" stereotype if you're trying to run a business, if you're trying to cast as wide a net as possible in attracting clients, so that people feel comfortable in the space and not intimidated.

But for Christ's sake could you at least have the radio tuned into a classic rock station in the weight lifting area? Not this whiny crap? "Say something I'm giving up on you?" I don't expect death metal, which would be my preference, as others don't expect equally crappy rap music. But could we at least hear music similar to what is played at a sports event to pump people up, rather than music that makes you want to slit your wrists?

I work out for about 30 to 45 minutes every other day, or four days a week - upper body one day, lower body the next. In that short amount of time, listening to the snap-craptastic music, I've heard the same songs over and over again. Like E!'s "The Soup" is my only exposure to popular television, my time in the gym is my only exposure to popular music, and I already know the songs by heart. I don't know how women can listen to the same crap over and over and over again, with the additional bonus being all the songs sounding the same! Whiny, estrogen-laden crap.

I know I could wear earbuds and listen to what I want to listen to, but they just get in the way and I'm always fiddling with them and adjusting them. I want to show up, hit the weights hard, burn out, and get out of there as fast as I can.

Palate cleanser:

Reverse Mortgages Says Much About Baby Boomer Generation

I'm sure you've all seen commercials like this one:

 

Reverse Mortgages. I love how good old Fred Thompson pronounces it, that southern drawl making it sound so damn good and wholesome. Or maybe it sounds like he's a little drunk. Anyway, these commercials from many different financial companies run on television all the time, roping in seniors with money problems, I guess.

I don't remember these kinds of commercials when I was younger. I don't remember companies gearing this financial product towards the WWII generation in their retirement. I remember my grandparents owning their homes outright. Homes that they lived in since having children after the war. Homes they will die in, leaving a little wealth behind to pass on to their children.

In theory, a reverse mortgage sounds great. If you own your home, why not tap into the equity and enjoy your retirement with money you earned? It's your money - if you have to pay someone a little off the top to access it right now, why not? You get to live a little better, and someone makes a little money helping you do so. Fair is fair.

But ah, we are talking about the Baby Boomer generation here. What is the first reason they list for doing a reverse mortage? "Eliminate monthly mortgage payments." I've even seen recent commercials where it is further clarified as "Reduce or eliminate monthly mortgage payments." After a little research, I've found that this is the number one reason retirees are tapping into their home equity through a reverse mortgage.

This product is geared towards people who don't fully own their home. Let's face it, if people are responsible enough with their money to pay off their home before retirement, they likely have no need for a reverse mortgage. The people targeted with this government insured product might own enough of it to pay off their existing mortgage, with nothing else left over after paying all the fees and the interest to the reverse mortgage agency. With the addition of "reducing mortgage payments" in recent commercials, it would appear that many people don't have enough equity in their homes to pay off the balance.

These are people either nearing or already into retirement. 62 and older. And they don't own their homes yet.

These commercials boast, "And you still own your home!" No you don't! You never did! The bank owns your home. And now AAG owns your home. In fact, you've never owned your own home. You kept refinancing it, or trading up, or tapping into a home equity line of credit. It's what caused the housing boom and bust! No one actually owned their homes, and used someone else's money to buy and sell and buy and sell. Or they used their home like an ATM machine to go buy things they didn't need, artificially inflating the economy with artificially created dollars drawn out of an artificially inflated home price.

So now, in their twilight years, having saved nothing, Baby Boomers are turning to the one thing they were kinda sorta able to pay down, gaining that equity after paying quite a high premium in mortgage interest. They're tapping into the only thing that's left to eliminate their current debts at best, reduce current debts at worst.

They. Are. Broke.

The Boomers are going to suck this society dry of every last drop. If they are doing it now, at 62 years of age, to themselves - to their own homes, and their own money they have somehow managed to save and not fritter away - what do you think they will be willing to do to their children and grandchildren? (Fact is, they already have done it to their children and grandchildren though the National Debt.) The Boomers are just now beginning to retire, and already they need to tap into their home equity to just make ends meet?

These people are the most irresponsible, reckless, selfish, narcissistic generation to ever grace this planet with their presence. They had everything given to them, and they squandered it. Not only were they terrible stewards of their inheritance from the WWII generation - everything from moral values to the economy to the nation's infrastructure, all of which are crumbling - they obviously have also been terrible stewards of their own wealth that they created.

Know this, and really ponder its implications: when the Boomers are gone, there will be nothing left. If you are still lucky to have a WWII generation grandparent still living, when they die, and pass on their inheritance to their Baby Boomer children, know that you will see none of it. The Boomers will spend it all. They're going to take it all. There will be no inheritance from the Boomers. Nothing.

But, hey! It's a safe and effective financial tool! Yeah, a tool to screw your children and grandchildren out of any inheritance. What you've done to the country, you are now doing directly to your own families. Bravo, Baby Boomers!

I can't wait to see what else they've got in store for us.

More GGCPS Data

Via Mybudget360.com:

Quoting my previous Going Galt Cloward Piven Style (GGCPS) analysis, "Making anything over $43,000 per year and you are a sucker."

If you look at the above bar graph, it totals 150.9 million income earners. The current labor force participation rate via BLS is around 63% for those 16 years and older. That means that roughly 239 million people are non-institutional civilians aged 16 years and older in the USA, which roughly matches the BLS figure at around 247 million.  So we'll assume the above graph is accurate, and continue pondering its implications with a GGCPS mindset.

Again, GGCPS assumes a family of four. A total of 108 million people make an income less than or equal to our "sucker threshold" of $43,000 per year. This is 72% of current income earners, and 45% of the total population above 16 years of age who are non-institutionalized - in other words, they can work. Ponder that for a moment. Whether by choice or not, almost 3/4 of the working population have already Gone Galt. If they are taking advantage of government entitlements and benefits, they are Going Galt Cloward Piven-Style.

Another graph on Mybudget360.com shows a median household income of $49,445 in 2010. So, this data point results in 50% of households earning roughly less than our "sucker" threshold, and likely includes many dual income households. Remember, earning $49,000 in income still results in a net income of around $43,000 after taxes.

The "sucker range" in the above graph I would consider from $45,000 to $400,000 per year. This range accounts for 42.7 million wage earners, or 28% of current income earners, and 18% of the total non-institutionalized population. Without these people working hard, this unjust system would collapse. Every man or woman in this range who decides to no longer be played for a sucker, to no longer pull the cart everyone else is riding, does tremendous damage to the system.

The "elite" make incomes above $400,000 per year, a total of 0.47 million people, who are 0.3% of income earners and 0.2% of the total non-institutionalized population. These are the 1% that the Occupy Wall Street types rightly complain about and treat as villains. However, these are income earners, not the uber-elite wealthy who do not earn a wage. Regardless, the people in this range are the rich who get richer, who are juiced into the system, who are the first to realize the benefits of printing money at the FED. In other words, these people will never be you, and you will never be them.

The "elite" benefit from the system even more than the great unwashed below the "sucker threshold." They depend on the people in the "sucker range" to prop up the unjust and failing system with their blood, sweat and tears. They are the ones that want you contributing to your 401(k), paying your taxes, taking on debts, paying your mortgage, etc. They are the ones that desperately want you to maintain your faith and belief in the system - a system where you always lose, and they always win.

The suckers are slaves. Is it worth the crumbs from the table of the elite? Is it worth the long hours working, the health effects of a higher stress job, missing out on watching your children grow up, never feeling like you're getting ahead?

So, again, stop being a sucker and a slave.

Step 1: Get out of the system as much as you can.
Step 2: Downsize and pay off your house.
Step 3: Quit your job and work a low wage, low stress job.
Step 4: Apply for as many government benefits as you can.
Step 5: Buy silver, gold and tangibles with your savings.
Step 6: Await the collapse and enjoy life.
Step 7: Post collapse, be a part of the solution.

Let's hope that 2014 is the year this unjust system collapses. If not, use the time we're given to prepare. The longer the delay, the more dangerous and chaotic the collapse will be. That's why Going Galt Cloward Piven Style is the moral choice. Do not give your consent to this system through your participation.