Wednesday, December 23, 2009


We do not have an obligation to support the government. Our obligation is to defend the Constitution. Government is a collective noun constituting a cohort of politicians and bureaucrats. Theoretically, it is their job to support us. Once again, theory fails the harsh test of practice.

You might say that since pols are duly elected, if they are, then they are owed support. I respond, unnecessarily I think, that politicians get elected the way conmen bilk old ladies out of their life savings. By making promises that are not kept. Tickling ears is a skill.

So we pay taxes, not because they do good, but because the government will bring the brunt of its coercive power against us if we don't. It isn't a matter of ethics. There is no place for ethics, in a corrupt system. It's a Chamberlain-Hitler thing, otherwise, of dupe vs fiend. Wise up. You don't bring a rule book to a street fight. You run, and if you can't, you gouge eyes.

So we don't evade taxes. That's a crime. We avoid them. As I had cause to say the other night, I'd pay an accountant a thousand dollars, to save a thousand dollars in taxes. Why? Because it's better to support enterprise than to waste. Give money where it is earned, not demanded with a corrupt sense of entitlement. Hm -- it seems the government is all about entitlements. What ever happened to duty?

That's the principled response to a corrupt situation. Meet the letter of the law. It has no spirit. No need to get religious about it. Sometimes you go to court and you're right, but you lose. Can't become a renegade because you suffered injustice. Indeed, you have to pay court costs, say. Suck it up, don't be cynical, but drop the schoolboy attitude.

There are a few principled politicians. Of course. But the big city near me is LA, and they've got an assemblyman who's spending seven hundred thousand dollars to redo his office. Not enough teak and Etruscan marble, apparently. Discretionary funds. The pols who voted yes on it replied when questioned, "It's his money." They've been shamed into rescinding the vote. Apparently it was made clear to them that the funds are not his. A revolution in thinking.

In the vote that undid the Mark Ridley-Thomas scam, the resolution was named only with an alphanumeric string, and no description. They knew they were being recorded. No evidence. They learned from Nixon. Of course the bloated glad-handing back-slapping fatcat will get his remodel. Just in bits and pieces over the next few months, slipped in so no one will notice.


Now this health assurance thing the Left Senate is cramming through. Here's the deal. Sit and eat and never exercise and never stop eating pseudofood, and when you ruin yourself, be assured that you will be taken care of. Everybody will be assured.
If you make yourself a drug addict, you should not be taken care of. You have no right at all to it. Sure, someone may do so, take care of you. There are plenty of suckers and saints running loose. But you don't deserve it. You have diminished your human worth, by your actions. Your lack of worth will be supplemented by the compassion of others, undeserved. It's grace. No worries. Accept grace. It's the heart of the only true religion. But by definition, it's not a right.

In this season, holiday, the air vibrates with cliches. Something about giving. Oh? Is that the reason for the season? This must be a new idea. It's not a bad one, but it's new. I'm not a curmudgeon. But I'm curmudgeon-like. Sometimes I feel obligated to give a present. I resist the pressure as best I can. But I give people things. When I see the need. See? It's not about some special day. Eat when you are hungry. Give when there is a need. I know, it's odd. But I think it's more honest. I remember being outraged on my various childhood birthdays. It was supposed to be my day, but the viciousness was unabated. So, lies. Am I poisoned? No. My eyes are open.

There. Got all that off my chest. Happy day before Christmas Eve. What did you get me?


No comments: