Sliding away from our self sufficient and independent selves.

To be completely independent, in all sense of the word, we would have to be entirely self sufficient.  Meaning, we would have only what we could grow, kill and make in the region we are in, with the resources available to us.

That's not the ideal of "living good" that most people think of.

It's actually a pretty meager existence.

Trade and barter is actually what made our lives "more" than what they were.

Different people's skills, abilities and the resources available to them where they are make having things we aren't so good at making, or don't have the resources to make, obtainable.

But, with the modicum of trade people had accessible to them, even into the modern commerce world that the train ushered in, people were by and large still mostly self sufficient.

Very few could afford to be more consumer than provider.

We will take note that when most people were more self sufficient, people were more likely to be independent and very much in favor of laws that supported individuals rights, individual freedoms and respect for an individual's right to own property.

In the century or so since then, as people have become more consumer than provider, they have become more dependent on others to provide for them.  This has had a dramatic impact on how people see government and it's role. 

People now want to have more group protections and the individual, the independent minded, the self sufficient and the providers must be cracked down on and forced to give up theirs for the good of the group.

Through all of this, those that are the brokers, the inspectors and authority figures (the government) have gained more power than they have ever had before and they are re-inventing themselves as a separate, ruling class in order to be the nanny, the parent, the arbitrator of goods, services and general conduct of those it provides for.

This is what consumerism and socialism bring.  Dependence and a relegation to a second class citizen.  Where the wealthy and the ruling class work to keep access to authority and government in the reach of only a select few.

Where is the tipping point? Where did the balance truly begin to fall in favor of dependent consumerism and is it too late to tip the scales?

I don't think it's too late.  I do think we are approaching a critical point in the next 20 years that will determine if we start moving back towards independence and self sufficiency or we are hopelessly and irrevocably become something completely opposite what the framers of the Constitution envisioned those many years ago.

I do know that if the latter happens, there will be another civil war in this country making the first civil war seem like a drunken argument.

Hard Core Independent's Manifesto of Independence in America

Everyone has a manifesto these days.  I thought I'd chime in and post my own to describe the "Hard Core Independent's Manifesto of Independence in America"

1)  Each person is born as one person in this world.  No, we are not all fraternal twins and each of us has to live our own lives.  If and when we collaborate by living together as a community, it is as a collection of individuals working together for our collective individual good.

2) The American government is an expression of that collective individual will and as such, is not a separate ruling class or body independent of society but exists at the will of society.  They were intended to carry out the intentions of the collected individuals in this country, not to determine them.

3) The government is tasked to ensure certain things are done, they are not mandated to do all those things themselves.  Where there is a private sector ability to perform those tasks and services, it is the government's duty to supervise and make sure they are being done as the collective will of the voters has determined.

4) Representatives elected by the collective individual voters and the employees of the government are not to live exempt of the laws and structure, but as one and the same, subject to the same laws and structure.

5) A duty to ensure public safety is does NOT give the government representatives or the employees of the government a pass on civil behavior.  We do not exist so they can do their job, they do their job as we allow them to do so.

6)  Your rights end where the next person's rights begin.  The moment you take it upon yourself to violate someone else's rights, you have simultaneously surrendered your own.  Convicted prisoners therefore have no rights until their sentence is completely served.  At which time they will be re-instated with proper release.

7) People seeking to be elected to public office should run on their own platform, independent of any political party.  

8)  Political parties have no place in a government of individual freedoms and respecting free will.

This manifesto reserves the right to be amended and added to as we determine the need.

"The Buffett Rule" for deceiving yourself

OK, let's see now.

Warren Buffett and now President Obama think millionaires need to have a new tax placed on them.

What will the exemptions and deductions be on that tax?

We know there will be, just as there are on the hundreds of tax acts taken up in the past.

If millionaires (billionaires) like Buffett want to pay more in taxes, it's as simple as not claiming deductions or hiding their money in banks in Sweden or other offshore spots.

Why on earth complicate the system with more tax laws?  Why do we need to have any new law put into place at all when all it requires is some self control and personal discipline?

Because it's all talk, that's why.

Once they successfully add a new tax to millionaires, it's easier to adapt it or add another to include lower income brackets.  They're playing the slippery slope game again and the only ones they are fooling is themselves.

Offer more incentives to those who meet American values

Here's an idea.  If we want to encourage businesses to offer livable wages and benefits and be willing to cut mega profiteering at the expense of jobs and quality products, why not just offer incentives to those companies who show a significant percentage increase in wages and benefits to employees?

The first thing that could be utilized is business tax cuts.  These then are earned for businesses who offer more to workers.  Companies don't have to do it though.  If they prefer to get by with fewer workers to gain maximum profits because they live for the almighty dollar, let them.  They just won't qualify for the incentives.

It still offers those businesses a choice to run their businesses as they choose to.  But puts into place societal ideals that as a country we want to promote.

It can be done, no good reason it shouldn't be done.  Democrats and republicans won't do it though because they would have to give up their polarizing finger pointing power game and and they could never do that.

Our government, do your job.

With all the talk about the U.S. Postal Service's financial troubles and the suggested possibility of doing away with the U.S.P.S., some in the media are now asking if the post office is still necessary.

Their biggest contention is that private business has filled the gap, thus making the post office irrelevant.

To this,  I respond, why do we have a government at all? Why bother?

My point is that supposedly, the government will "always" be there.  In the private sector, companies come and go.

For most people, "good" government is making sure the trains run on time.  It's all about infrastructure and core functionality.  When all else fails, the things we value as a country are supposed to keep going.  That includes public communications and transfer of goods.

This is the same reason that the government subsidizes Amtrack.  Even when it might not be making a profit, there is a value, a necessity, in ensuring the transportation of people and goods from one part of the country to another.

The same goes for the U.S. Postal Service.  They have a promise to keep.

It is in the U.S.'s best interests to maintain and ensure that mail and parcels are delivered despite what the private sector might be doing to compete with or duplicate those services.

Should services be modified at times to better meet public needs?  Absolutely.  Improving efficiency and streamlining services should always be expected, especially in government operated or subsidized services.

This talk of letting the U.S.P.S. collapse is ridiculous though.  What's the point of having a government if it's not going to do the things we expect it to do?

Our Federal government always seems to have time to stick their nose into things that have nothing to do with the core functionality or or infrastructure services they are supposed to be focusing on.

Social engineering, meddling in the affairs of other countries governments.  The time when we need them to focus on something they should be involved in, they want to consider walking away from it?   I don't think so.