This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at

Your Ad Here

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Andre Bauer Welfare Fnord

Andre Bauer is one of my new favorite politicians! Whenever you see a politician denounced for saying something, that's a good indication of the importance of the subject. The problem is not "The politician said something stupid." The problem usually is "The politician said something that contradicted official State propaganda." One of the unquestioned axioms of US politics is "The Welfare State is good!"

I'm referring to this quote.

My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed! You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that.
The problem is not "Andre Bauer is a scumbag!", which is what mainstream media insiders want you to believe. The problem is "Andre Bauer said something important, which exposes everyone else as a fraud."

The Welfare State is damaging, because it creates a cycle of dependency among welfare recipients. The analogy was "If you feed stray cats, all you accomplish is that you're breeding more stray cats!" That is true. I actually observed that when I saw a woman who regularly fed stray cats. There were 5+ stray cats coming there to feed, and some were obviously less than 1 year old!

Another analogy is "If you give money to a homeless person on the train, all you accomplish is that you encourage people to beg on the train." I suspect that some beggars on the train are fakes. Allegedly, it's a pretty good job if you're convincing! I'm actually getting better at noticing the fakes. Real homeless people usually can tell that I'm not plugged into the Matrix.

The Welfare State is damaging to productive workers. They pay higher taxes to support the Welfare State, leaving them less resources to grow their business and "create jobs". If I paid less in taxes, it would be easier to save my salary and start a business. Via inflation and a declining stock market, a huge chunk of my savings were stolen. The banksters got a bailout, but I lost most of my seed capital for potentially starting a business. Taxes and other State overhead lower my potential profits if I do start a business. If I did own a business, the taxes I pay directly correspond to fewer employees or less opportunity to expand. A State parasite gets a job, but jobs are lost in the productive sector of the economy.

Welfare is also damaging for the welfare recipient. As Andre Bauer observed, welfare creates a vicious cycle of dependency. If a welfare recipient gets a job, then they lose their welfare benefit, and they owe taxes on their salary.

A welfare recipient who gets a job might face a marginal taxation rate over 100%, if you include lost welfare benefits. Or, the effective salary might be only $1-$2 per hour. Why bother working?

Welfare also comes with strings attached. A State social worker has the right to enter the welfare recipient's home at any time, to make sure they aren't secretly working. Two welfare recipients can't choose to live together to save expenses; that's a violation of the rules.

There is one solution. A welfare recipient could work off-the-books agorist style. They could find work on evenings or weekends when the social worker doesn't work. For example, they could work off-the-books in a restaurant.

The primary beneficiaries of the Welfare State are government parasites. Welfare programs like Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare are huge profit centers for the State. For each year of their existence, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid taxes collected have exceeded benefits paid. Via Ponzi scam accounting, huge benefits have been promised in the future. There will have to be a default, a tax hike, or greater inflation, or all three.

The primary beneficiaries of the Welfare State are the government parasites/bureaucrats who administer the welfare program. A politician can appoint his friend to be a manager in the welfare program. The social workers earn a nice salary and benefits, without doing anything useful. The Welfare State really is welfare for government parasites!

Minimum wage laws hurt the poorest workers, whose labor is worth less than the minimum wage. State restriction of the market makes it hard for poor people to start a business to earn extra money. For example, a poor person with a car can't earn extra money by working part-time as a taxi driver; you need a State license. You can't earn extra money selling food out of your kitchen due to "food safety" laws. This forces poor people to work off-the-books as a drug dealer or go on welfare.

Perhaps State insiders like a mass of poor people, eager to take minimum wage jobs. Perhaps the secret goal of the Welfare State really is to increase the population of poor people! Another goal is that the poor people are only thinking about their next welfare check, rather than doing something useful or realizing they've been conned.

Another amusing bit is that State comedians are demanding that Andre Bauer apologize. This evil fnord is repeated over and over again. A State insider who contradicts official State propaganda must later apologize.

An apology has zero economic value. Via an apology, the slave acknowledges the legitimacy of the master. "I demand an apology!" is a State mind control trick.

Just once, I'd like to see a State insider say "No! I'm not apologizing! You're a scumbag for demanding an apology! Even if you disagree with one thing I said, that doesn't invalidate everything else I've done!"

As another example, ESPN fired a freelance writer, Paul Shirley, for criticizing the State propganda on Haiti. There is a valid point. Why donate to Haiti, when there are people living in the USA who are suffering? If you donate to Haiti, aren't you rewarding people who didn't properly plan for a disaster? However, anyone who suggests that is roundly decried. Also, the "Haiti donations!" are being funneled through the Red Cross. Isn't the Red Cross a front group for the CIA? Why not donate directly to specific people living in Haiti?

There are two issues, which is "People may, if they choose, voluntarily spend their money on donating to Haiti." That's fine. The other issue is "The Federal government, via taxation/theft, forces people to donate to Haiti." That is immoral.

Why should ESPN, a sports website, care about its writers' opinion on non-sports subjects? The reason is censorship. ESPN/ABC/Disney is a branch of the State, dependent on State subsidies for profits. The mainstream media controls what its contributors say, even when not at work. The mainstream media has a monopoly. If you're unfairly fired, your career is over and you have no recourse. By firing Paul Shirley and ruining his career, now other State propagandists know to be careful about what they say, even when not at work. Most mainstream media corporations now have clauses restricting what employees can write about when not at work, even on the Internet.

This seems obviously unfair. You have a freelance contract with a mainstream media corporation. You are fired based on things you write on another subject on the Internet. Thugs with guns didn't send Paul Shirley to a death camp. By unfairly firing him and restricting the market, the net effect is almost the same.

As another example, Harry Reid got criticized for saying (paraphrasing) "Barack Obama doesn't really have that much in common with a typical poor African American. He's a State parasite just like me. The American people sure were fooled by his skin color!"

Whenever I see a politician roundly criticized for saying something, my reaction now is "He said something that contradicted official State propaganda, and must be punished!" The pattern is obvious.
  1. Politician accidentally hints at the truth.
  2. The mainstream media roundly and uniformly decries him.
  3. An apology is demanded.
  4. An apology or half-hearted apology/clarification is given. This makes him seem stupid or wimpy.
  5. The State insider's career is ruined. He is replaced with another figurehead eager to take his place.
If you're a State insider, you must continually be on guard. If you accidentally say something true, your career will be over. If you're a State figurehead, you're easily replaceable.

The #1 goal of a State insider is "Preserve your job at all costs!" You're an overpaid unqualified loser, and are desperate to keep your gravy train. State insiders learn to adopt a mindset of self-censorship. Occasionally, there is a slip-up and someone accidentally tells a bit of the truth. That person's career is ruined. Other State parasites take note, and are careful to not make the same mistake.

Like all politicians, Andre Bauer is a parasite. However, in this incident, I'm sympathetic with his viewpoint. He was punished for saying bits of the truth, which is "Maybe the Welfare State is evil?"


theftthroughinflation said...

In nazi Germany the truth is always verboten! People don't understand that freedom of speech entails the freedom to listen to the ideas of others or ignore them. Freedom of speech does not end because something is "offensive". The state likes people to react that way because naturally the state gets more power to outlaw such behavior.
I feel bad for Haiti. But I also feel bad my tax money is being spent there by the Canadian government without my permission. Maybe I would voluntarily feel bad and donate, but right now my stolen tax money is funding direct intervention in Haiti and with 3500 rejugees coming to my city you can be sure my taxes will suffer their burden here aswell. Like the ESPN guy wrote Haiti is nothing new. Back in highschool in the 90ies my friend showed me pictures of his dad who was working there as a cop to help them. You mean that after 15+ years it is still a shithole?

Anonymous said...

Because I've had to pay taxes and rent all my life, I could never save money.

When I was kicked out of my job, because a newly hired bozo wanted to give jobs to his friends, I was left with no money. Really no money.

I had no money to do a university course or start up my own business.

Having no money left a lasting impression on me.

So I saved money and next time I was in the mud, had just enough to start up my own business.

Now my business has enough income to fund me to expand my business.

I was lucky. But if I didn't have to pay so much in taxes and rent all my life, I wouldn't have been screwed over for so long in the first place. So much of my life wouldn't have been wasted. I could have been productive earlier and for longer.

Anonymous said...

The Welfare State is bad because it coerces individuals to hand over money to the people the State decides should have it.

Without it, individuals themselves would hand over money to people they think deserve it, in the form of charity and because they would know the person they are giving to, they would not give to people who abused it.

As for the malthusian attitude of not feeding dependents because they will multiply, I reject it as wrong morally and in terms of life process.

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at