Feb 8, 2012
Funeral in Afghanistan
The US Military has a new tactic that they are using with there bomb-dropping drone airplanes. First, they will bomb a building, killing some and wounding others. Then the drones wait. When neighbors come to pull their friends and family out of the rubble, the drones drop another bomb, wounding and killing the rescuers. Then the drones wait. When the survivors manage to sort through the carnage and distant relatives come for the funeral, the drones drop another bomb, wounding and killing the mourners.
Each of these three bomb droppings makes sense. The first makes sense because dropping a bomb is a good way to kill a terrorist. It may kill people besides the terrorist, but if you are near a terrorist, then you are probably a terrorist, too.
The second bombing makes sense because if you are trying to help a terrorist, or someone who was near a terrorist when a bomb was dropped, then you must also be a terrorist, terrorist sympathizer, etc.
The third bombing makes the most sense of all
Continue Reading »
Jun 6, 2011
It costs $1,000,000 / year to keep each social worker, like the ones pictured above, helping people in Iraq.
One objection to anarchy is that many people will not choose to help others unless the government forces them to through taxes and wealth redistribution. My main objections to this point are that government does not help people and the free market turns selfish people into public servants.
Why doesn’t government help people? Well, the presumption is that government steals a dollar from rich Peter and gives it to poor Paul, and this helps Paul more than it hurts Peter. The first mistake is that the government does not give Paul a dollar. First, twenty five cents is used to murder brown people, mostly foreign ones. Then another 25 percent is paid to government employees and retirees. After all the corporate welfare, bank bailouts, boondoggles and bridges to nowhere, after every friend of every politician gets a cut, 12 cents are left over for welfare.
So the question should be: if there were no government, would I still spend twice as much money trying to destroy other countries as I did trying to help the poor? If the difference was to spend only 20 cents on blockades to starve “insolent” people into submission, that could be considered a net positive for anarchy.
Continue Reading »