Please critique this and I will discard or rewrite as appropriate.
Dave.
This morning I heard that Michelle Obama had visited a farmer's market near the White House. I thought it was wonderful. However, having read a little Rothbard, I knew there was something wrong with this picture. How could the administration be encouraging local growers and such when the big corporate interests are so threatened by them, and when local growers create such independence and strength in the citizenry? It turns out they have a rather brilliant (albeit perverted) plan.
Google "atrophy crutch" (without quotes). Read the one at Everything2: http://everything2.com/title/crutch
Atrophy is the general goal of government and explains a lot of the seemingly unnecessary "help" it provides to people, such as what Michelle said: "I want to reinforce the fact that this market and other farmers' markets around the city participate in the WIC program, the SNAP program, the Double Dollar program, and the Seniors benefits program. And each SNAP and WIC dollar equals two dollars at a farmers' market to purchase fresh produce."
What atrophies here is the farmer's markets' motivation and ability to advertise and educate people who are not on welfare. She's basically saying, look, if you're poor, be a customer of these local food growers and we'll get all the taxpayers to help pay your way.
But why would the government have atrophy as a goal? Don't worry it isn't obvious until you think about it. The weaker you are, the more likely you are to choose the brute force of a government over the hard work of finding and building trading relationships with other citizens to support yourself. Grow weak and stupid, and see how hard it is to "just say no" when his lordship the president offers to make your neighbor give you dinner. We wouldn't sink if they weren't trying to sink us, but they know that we wouldn't need them either. This is the problem England faced in the late 1700s. They tried using their brute force to keep us enslaved, but that didn't work out too well. So now governments force support on us wherever we have strength in order to diminish it, and Farmer's Markets is an excellent example.
However, there's a whole other side to the reason government intentionally creates atrophy. We all know that DC is a whorehouse in which corporations are the tricks, the politicians are the whores, and the taxpayers are their families – the ones who really get screwed. Atrophying the specific abilities citizens have that enable them to avoid using the services of a corporation is a natural goal of the corporation. Since the corporate-government partnership is so seedy and well supported ($2.8B lobbying industry: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1461231811.html), we should expect to see government stealthily atrophying whatever they can, and generally that means competition from the little guy.
In any case, I learned that this goes a little deeper. The NPR story that I heard reports that "Tom Vilsack showed up at that farmer's market, and announced $4.5 million in grants to promote farmers markets nationwide." (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112983926). So there's another $4.5M crutch that the government will be using to destroy farmer's markets while pretending to help. If they really wanted to help, domestic military schools and camps like Pendleton and Anapolis would be buying their produce from farmer's markets. Look into that and note the great void.
You may be wondering if I see any role for the money collected through taxation - because if they use it to help, I call it a crutch, and if they use it to harm, I lambast them for harming us. True enough: I see no role whatsoever for money collected through taxation. Once money is taken by force, the only good use of it is to be returned to those who earned it. The government would have to provide services that people - the people who pay the "tax" - actually wanted. If they did this, it wouldn't be a tax - it would be a price, just like what private enterprise charges its (hard earned) customers.
This is one small example of the disease that plagues this country. Please join me in spreading the awareness that government has grown into a deceitful parasite gorging itself with taxes and destroying our independence. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It soothes us with calming words and superficial kindness as it drains our lifeblood. But it will be diminished, and sooner if you help.
3 comments:
Hello Dave,
I didn't read the post or the blog completely but I seem to find it very convincing, when you say 'Religion and taxes are avoidable evils' . Let me know if something can be done to make it happen.
So the government is making people dependent on them and weakening their ability to speak and stand for themselves. Not very unfamiliar though the strategy is really no less than innovation.
Yes, it is innovative, and many private companies do the same thing. The introduction of nicotine into cigarettes is a good example.
The government's use of this innovation is perverted because the funds are taxed away from the citizens by force.
The cigarette companies' use of it is perverted because they hid the fact that they made their product addictive on purpose. Still, people get to choose whether or not to buy the product, and therefore whether or not they pay for the nicotine additive.
Private companies don't generally try to make their products addictive using addictive substances, but rather using benefits, and they tout those benefits rather than hiding them. Since potential customers are therefore well aware of the potentially atrophying qualities, I can only condone it.
Post a Comment