Van Jones and "Mockingjay"

Former Marxist/Communist Van Jones (who was booted from Obama's advisory team for being a former Marxist/Communist) has written a silly review of the new film "Mockingjay". 

For those without a young daughter, the Hunger Games/Mockingjay series is about a dystopian future where the children of the outlying regions are forced into gladiatorial combat for the purpose of entertaining the government elites at "The Capitol".  (Spelled with an "O"....)

Jones claims that the film is a "sweeping indictment of income inequality". 

Horseshit. 

It's a sweeping indictment of the Van Jones political philosophy. 

Here's a pic of the wealthiest counties in the U.S., most of which now surround the U.S. Capital.  (With an "A".) 

Every dollar forcibly extracted from taxpayers goes to the Capital, and a little bit trickles back to the outlying regions.  This is what you wind up with....

Every child in the U.S. now has a $100,000.00 share of our national debt. 

The unfunded liabilities are now around $1,000,000.00 per child. 

I bet a few kids wish they could be randomly chosen to get a free pass from the current mess by....

Naw, I'm not going to go there. 

Pass the popcorn. 

 

I love this picture

I wish I could say that we built these bread racks at my employer, Jukt Micronics.  But that's not how we make our wire front guards. 

Awesome comparison, don't you think??

 

Canada has a lottery to determine who gets to see the local doctor

Here's some good stuff about Canada's healthcare system, and I can't believe that Republicans didn't make more of it during the ObamaCare enactment tragedy of several years ago. 

All of the "civilized" nations have universal healthcare, right? 

It seems that Canada has a doctor shortage.  Canada's healthcare system is run by the government. 

To quote the great Milton Friedman,  "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand."  That probably applies on both sides of the U.S. northern border. 

There are places in Canada that have a freakin' lottery to determine who gets to have a family doctor. 

There are places in Canada that have a freakin' lottery to determine who gets to have a family doctor.

There are places in Canada that have a freakin' lottery to determine who gets to have a family doctor.

There are places in Canada that have a freakin' lottery to determine who gets to have a family doctor.

Ok, that's out of my system.  Why a lottery?

As of 2007, there were 12,000 Canadian docs practicing in the USA. 

In 2006, 1 in 9 Canadian-educated physicians practised in the United States. If physicians who were born in the United States are excluded, this number is reduced to 1 in 12. This accounts for just over half of the net loss of physicians from the Canadian-trained physician workforce. Collectively, this is equivalent to having 2 average-sized Canadian medical schools dedicated to producing physicians for the United States. Canada is the second largest source of immigrant physicians to the United States, second only to India.

People go where they can get a better return for their labor.  Doctors do it, I do it, and you do it. 

No one smart enough to get through medical school wants to be at the mercy of some charismatic, photogenic idiot who managed to get elected by claiming that a doctor's time and labor is a basic human right. 

So Canada now has a doctor shortage, especially in rural areas.  So do they turn healthcare over to the free market? 

No.  That wouldn't be "fair". 

Do they open more medical schools and train more doctors?  Do they allow nurses to handle more of the medical treatment load (which every nurse I've ever known claims that she could do....)? 

No.  That would be giving up central control. 

Canada has a lottery to see who gets a family doctor. 



Within 20 years, the USA will have a lottery system for family doctors. 

Enjoy the decline! 

Liberty Book Discussion Group - "It Takes A Village" by Hillary Clinton

Tonight the Liberty Book Discussion Group will study Hillary Clinton's inspirational classic "It Takes A Village".

Join us as we discuss why it's best that Washington's charismatic social-climbers join with you in raising your children, planning their diets, providing their healthcare, evaluating their fitness, dominating their educations, and teaching your little offspring to work for them and only them.

While this is a departure from our usual "free minds and free markets" approach, it's time that we opened our minds to the concepts that have made Europe the creative and economic hotbed that we see today.

So come and learn more about self-enrichment through "public service". 7:00 p.m. tonight. Feel free to bring your own children to this event. We will arbitrarily appoint someone from the group to provide childcare.

And please join us next month as we discuss Ms. Clinton's investment masterpiece "How I Turned One Grand Into A Hundred Grand By Betting On Cattle Futures", co-authored by her supporters who just happened to lose $100,000.00 at the same time.

We'll be meeting 7:00 p.m. April 1st, at the Border's Books & Cafe at 1996 Vince Foster Lane, Whitewater Arkansas.

Socialism Does NOT Lead To Marxism

Socialism Does NOT Lead To Marxism.  Not all the time, anyway.  
But it does have a fairly consistent record of leading to cannibalism.  

I was doing some research on the total disaster known as North Korea.  Parents over there are eating their children.  Go here.  Parents are eating their children.  Parents are eating their children.  (On the upside, North Koreans have free healthcare, excellent gun control, and less of an income gap between rich and poor than the capitalist countries.)

I found this gem on Libertarian Reddit.  The blog from which it came has been taken down, but the horrors mentioned below are well-documented elsewhere.  

Freeze prices, take away the free market, eliminate incentives, eliminate property rights, all "for the common good" and for "fairness", and people will start eating each other.  It really is that simple.  

Socialists are everywhere these days. They loosely model themselves after the hippy movement; they drink PBR, smoke from elaborate bongs, and pretentiously advocate a form of socialism that they can’t quite define. They are unapologetically anti-American, anti-West, and usually, they aren’t worth anyone’s time, but lately, it has become overwhelming, so I would just like them to know one thing: socialism (i.e. abandoning property rights), wherever it has been tried, in whatever form, on whatever scale, has resulted in starvation and cannibalism. I compiled just a few examples for you:

North Korea: “We started seeing cannibalism. When one is very hungry, one can go crazy. One woman in my town killed her 7-month-old baby, and ate the baby with another woman. That woman's son reported them both to the authorities. I can't condemn cannibalism. Not that I wanted to eat human meat, but we were so hungry. It was common that people went to a fresh grave and dug up a body to eat meat. I witnessed a woman being questioned for cannibalism. She said it tasted good.”

Ukraine: “Some went insane. They never did become completely still. One could tell from their eyes–because their eyes shone. These were the people who cut up and cooked corpses, who killed their own children and ate them. In them the beast rose to the top as the human being died. I saw one. She had been brought to the district center under convoy. Her face was human, but her eyes were those of a wolf. These are cannibals.”

Soviet Union: “It is now and only now, when in the regions afflicted by the famine there is cannibalism and the roads are littered with hundreds if not thousands of corpses, that we can (and therefore must) pursue the acquisition of [church] valuables with the most ferocious and merciless energy, stopping at nothing in suppressing all resistance.” –Lenin

China: “Most of the culprits on the list practiced necrophagy, either eating those who had passed away or exhuming and eating cadavers after burial. When a team of inspectors was sent to review the Quiatou commune in Shizhu county, Sichuan, in early 1961, they were startled by the extent of cannibalism. In some cases, only parts of a body were eaten Zemin’s heart, for instance, was scooped out. Some people covered the meat in hot peppers.” (p. 323)

Cambodia: “When I got to the spot, I hid in a thicket from which I could watch the “ceremony” without being seen. But I was so horrified by what I saw that I nearly fainted. The condemned man was tied to a tree, his chest bare and blindfold over his eyes. Ta Sok, the executioner, using a large knife made a cut in the stomach of the poor man. In pain, the man screamed like a wild beast. Even today his cires still ring in my ears. Blood rushed out everywhere, his insides were all laid bare, and Ta Sok cut out his liver and cooked it on a little stove that Ta Chea had just heated up. They divided up the liver among them and ate it hungrily.” Another witness reports, “They ate many human livers this way.”

Angola: "The commander gave Kakule his knife, told him to pare the skin from an arm, a leg. He told Kakule and his other assistant to build a fire. From their satchels, the soldiers brought cassava bread. They sat in a circle. The commander placed the dead man's head at the center. He forced the two loggers to sit with them, to eat with them the pieces of boiled limb. The grilled liver, tongue and genitals had already been parceled out among the commander and his troops."

Jamestown, VA:  (Yes, Jamestown was founded as a Socialist Paradise.  The failed experiment ended when their government said "every man for himself".  The settlement then prospered.  Hit the Thanksgiving label at the bottom of this post. - TWS)  “So great was our famine that a savage we slew and buried, the poorer sorte tooke him up againe and eat him; and so did divers one another boyled and stewed with roots and herbs. It were too vile to say and scarce to be believed, what we endured: but the occasion was our own, for want of providence, industrie and government, and not the barrennesse and defect of the Country, as is generally supposed.”

“Can you really find anyone who is guilty? Just go and ask, and they will all tell you that they did it for the sake of virtue, for everybody’s good. That’s why they drove mothers to cannibalism.” -Ukraine

On Facebook Envy

Russian Joke, from Hedrick Smith's "The Russians", supposedly told by Russians about themselves:

An Englishman, a Frenchman and a Russian rescue a genie and the genie gives them one wish each. The Englishman wishes to be the richest man in the world–and “whoosh!” he is. The Frenchman wishes to be the world’s great lover – and “whoosh!” he is. The Russian thinks hard and says “Most of all I want my neighbour Ivan’s cow to die”.

For anyone who thinks he understands envy, wealth redistribution, or the motivations behind either, that joke is a real knee-slapper....

Here's something about envy from the Reuters News Service.  It's about Facebook and envy:

A study conducted jointly by two German universities found rampant envy on Facebook, the world's largest social network that now has over one billion users and has produced an unprecedented platform for social comparison.

The researchers found that one in three people felt worse after visiting the site and more dissatisfied with their lives, while people who browsed without contributing were affected the most.

"We were surprised by how many people have a negative experience from Facebook with envy leaving them feeling lonely, frustrated or angry," researcher Hanna Krasnova from the Institute of Information Systems at Berlin's Humboldt University told Reuters.

"From our observations some of these people will then leave Facebook or at least reduce their use of the site," said Krasnova, adding to speculation that Facebook could be reaching saturation point in some markets.

Researchers from Humboldt University and from Darmstadt's Technical University found vacation photos were the biggest cause of resentment with more than half of envy incidents triggered by holiday snaps on Facebook....


"Passive following triggers invidious emotions, with users mainly envying happiness of others, the way others spend their vacations and socialize," the researchers said in the report "Envy on Facebook: A Hidden Threat to Users' Life Satisfaction?" released on Tuesday.

"The spread and ubiquitous presence of envy on Social Networking Sites is shown to undermine users' life satisfaction."

They found people aged in their mid-30s were most likely to envy family happiness while women were more likely to envy physical attractiveness.

These feelings of envy were found to prompt some users to boast more about their achievements on the site run by Facebook Inc. to portray themselves in a better light.

Men were shown to post more self-promotional content on Facebook to let people know about their accomplishments while women stressed their good looks and social lives....

That's what I absolutely love and adore about my fellow Libertarians and libertarians.  They don't care how much stuff the other guy has, as long as he got it honestly.  They want everyone to have as much as the other guy has. 
I believe that most Libertarians are bewildered by Facebook Envy, and have little or no experience of the sensation.  They can look at someone else's vacation pics from Greece, and think "Good for him.  He's worked hard.  He's smart.  I hope that one day, everyone in the world can have vacations as cool as that one." 
May the tribe increase !!!
(Hit that Facebook tab to your right if you want to friend me on FB !!) 

The Tragedy Of The Commons

I used to be in charge of a warehouse in Everman, TX.  Everything that happened in the place was my fault, for better or worse.  The warehouse usually looked good.  We had good controls on the inventory there. 

We eventually outgrew it and moved into a much bigger facility in north Fort Worth. 

In the meantime, we still had the lease for the Everman facility, and kept a few dead or slow-moving products there.  And so did everyone else at other shops in the company.  Instead of a facility devoted to shipping only, it has become a storage bin for a wood shop, a metal shop, a plastics shop, and a trade show group.    

It isn't my place any longer.  It belongs to everyone in the company who has more crap than space.  It looks like hammered shit.  I would post before and after pics if I was sure it wouldn't offend co-workers. 

Here's why the place is now a dump.  And incidentally, it's why Socialism usually doesn't work very well.  This is from the Library of Economics and Liberty, on a concept called "The Tragedy Of The Commons":

In 1974 the general public got a graphic illustration of the “tragedy of the commons” in satellite photos of the earth. Pictures of northern Africa showed an irregular dark patch 390 square miles in area. Ground-level investigation revealed a fenced area inside of which there was plenty of grass. Outside, the ground cover had been devastated.


The explanation was simple. The fenced area was private property, subdivided into five portions. Each year the owners moved their animals to a new section. Fallow periods of four years gave the pastures time to recover from the grazing. The owners did this because they had an incentive to take care of their land. But no one owned the land outside the ranch. It was open to nomads and their herds. Though knowing nothing of Karl Marx, the herdsmen followed his famous advice of 1875: “To each according to his needs.” Their needs were uncontrolled and grew with the increase in the number of animals. But supply was governed by nature and decreased drastically during the drought of the early 1970s. The herds exceeded the natural “carrying capacity” of their environment, soil was compacted and eroded, and “weedy” plants, unfit for cattle consumption, replaced good plants. Many cattle died, and so did humans.

The rational explanation for such ruin was given more than 170 years ago. In 1832 William Forster Lloyd, a political economist at Oxford University, looking at the recurring devastation of common (i.e., not privately owned) pastures in England, asked: “Why are the cattle on a common so puny and stunted? Why is the common itself so bare-worn, and cropped so differently from the adjoining inclosures?”

Lloyd’s answer assumed that each human exploiter of the common was guided by self-interest. At the point when the carrying capacity of the commons was fully reached, a herdsman might ask himself, “Should I add another animal to my herd?” Because the herdsman owned his animals, the gain of so doing would come solely to him. But the loss incurred by overloading the pasture would be “commonized” among all the herdsmen. Because the privatized gain would exceed his share of the commonized loss, a self-seeking herdsman would add another animal to his herd. And another. And reasoning in the same way, so would all the other herdsmen. Ultimately, the common property would be ruined.

Even when herdsmen understand the long-run consequences of their actions, they generally are powerless to prevent such damage without some coercive means of controlling the actions of each individual. Idealists may appeal to individuals caught in such a system, asking them to let the long-term effects govern their actions. But each individual must first survive in the short run. If all decision makers were unselfish and idealistic calculators, a distribution governed by the rule “to each according to his needs” might work. But such is not our world. As James Madison said in 1788, “If men were angels, no Government would be necessary” (Federalist, no. 51). That is, if all men were angels. But in a world in which all resources are limited, a single nonangel in the commons spoils the environment for all.

Hit this link to read the whole thing.  I'm working to try to appoint ONE random person to be in charge of the place.  That's really all it takes - ownership and authority. 

Happy Thanksgiving !!!

“Any man worth his salt would fight for his home but only a damn fool would fight for his boarding house.”
                                                                    -Mark Twain


Here's a story that I first heard in China several years ago, and I'm probably going to re-run this post about it every Thanksgiving until I die.  The best online account I've found is on the World Socialist Website (chuckle chuckle).  It's about some Chinese farmers who got tired of starving. 


On one night in Nov. 1978, 18 villagers of Xiaogang, including (leader) Yan Jinchang, risked their lives to sign secretly an agreement, which divided the then People's Commune-owned farmland into pieces for each family to cultivate.

This was a bold move, as it was seen as "capitalist" and might have led to severe punishment from the government at that time.

Thus, on that secret agreement covered with villagers' seals and red fingerprints, there was a wobbly line saying that "If any word about this is divulged and the team leader is put in prison, other team members shall share the responsibility to bring up his child till he (or she) is 18. "


The original copy of this agreement is now in a museum someplace in China.  It had a huge influence.  Instead of farming the land together, and putting up with slackers, loafers, regulatory parasites and the other inevitable Socialist baggage, this brave group of Chinese farmers decided that each family would be responsible for a certain section of the land. 


That clause about agreeing to care for each others' children was a simple insurance policy.  To the best of my knowledge, none of the farmers agreed to care for the families of those who didn't share their risks.  In other words, you couldn't waltz into the agreement AFTER losing your head of household.  There's not even a hint of Obamacare in this document. 


The facts proved that it's worthwhile to take the adventure. Allocating farmland to each household, also known as "household contract responsibility system", fired the locals' enthusiasm for agriculture production, which had been contained in the outmoded planned economy, and helped poverty-stricken locals out of starvation.


That's just what happened when they agreed to stop the collectivist nonsense.  Think of what could happen if they'd been allowed to own the land, instead of having it allocated to them by their "leaders".   


The grains that a local farmer turned over to the state in the following year almost totaled what he did in past two decades, recalled Yan Hongchang, one of the 18 Xiaogang villagers who initiated the contract system.

Their practice was later supported by Deng Xiaoping, chief architect of China's reform and opening-up drive, and recognized by the Chinese government. Xiaogang has since been labeled as the pace-setter of the nation's rural reform.


Here's a similar story, from the Volokh Conspiracy.  This one hits closer to home.

Many people believe that after suffering through a severe winter, the Pilgrims’ food shortages were resolved the following spring when the Native Americans taught them to plant corn and a Thanksgiving celebration resulted. In fact, the pilgrims continued to face chronic food shortages for three years until the harvest of 1623. Bad weather or lack of farming knowledge did not cause the pilgrims’ shortages. Bad economic incentives did.


Time to quote Thomas Sowell for the 10,000th time.  Laws and policies should never be evaluated by their stated goals and objectives, but by the incentives they create. 


In 1620 Plymouth Plantation was founded with a system of communal property rights. Food and supplies were held in common and then distributed based on equality and need as determined by Plantation officials.


Like we're about to do with healthcare. 


People received the same rations whether or not they contributed to producing the food, and residents were forbidden from producing their own food. Governor William Bradford, in his 1647 history, Of Plymouth Plantation, wrote that this system was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. The problem was that young men, that were most able and fit for labour, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. Because of the poor incentives, little food was produced.


In other words, when the hardest-working, most creative Pilgrims realized that they were working themselves to death for people who didn't want to work as hard?  They started Going Galt.   


Faced with potential starvation in the spring of 1623, the colony decided to implement a new economic system. Every family was assigned a private parcel of land. They could then keep all they grew for themselves, but now they alone were responsible for feeding themselves. While not a complete private property system, the move away from communal ownership had dramatic results.

This change, Bradford wrote, had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. Giving people economic incentives changed their behavior. Once the new system of property rights was in place, the women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability.

Once the Pilgrims in the Plymouth Plantation abandoned their communal economic system and adopted one with greater individual property rights, they never again faced the starvation and food shortages of the first three years. It was only after allowing greater property rights that they could feast without worrying that famine was just around the corner.


And what have we learned from this? 

Nothing.  Absolutely nothing. 

A Day In The Life Of A Statist. Or A Departmentist.

Someone (with the aid of schoolteachers, The Department Of Education, and the roadbuilders of the Information Superhighway) has written a clever little socialist parable that is making the rounds on Facebook:

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door, I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads to my house, which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshall’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the internet, which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how socialism in medicine is bad because the government can’t do anything right. 

-Anonymous Wingnut

It begs for a response, doesn't it?  If the phrase "electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy" doesn't make you break out in fits of giggles, hell, it can't be done.  And then there's the long lists of unnecessary government departments, all staffed with tens of thousands of useless seat warmers, helping this guy get through his day. 

Because if the government didn't provide those services, the private sector could never ever do so.  Is that really what this dude believes?   

Someone called Ipster76 on Reddit wrote a response that goes as follows:

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the local public power monopoly. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the latest misleading liberal dominated mass media reports are. I watched this while eating my unhealthy, subsidized corn-byproduct dominated breakfast thanks to the US Department of Agriculture.

Had I written this, I would've put in something about "the US Department of Agriculture - a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto."  But I tend to over-write. 

I then get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration used automobile, whose renewed title I was forced to pay an exorbitant amount for when I bought it. I then set out to my job on the roads built by the local, state and federal departments of transportation, passing by groups of 8 or more Union laborers, of which only about 2 are actually doing work at any given moment due to their collective bargaining agreement. I am also forced to slow down or risk being caught and fined by speed cameras implemented by the local government, despite the fact that I am a fully competent driver with no violations on his record, and the highway repairs have yet to be finished after 5 years. I also do not stop to purchase exorbitantly priced fuel from Big Oil subsidized by the Federal Government using legal tender that has lost value thanks to inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve Bank. At some point in the future when I am married with children, I will drop off my kids off at a private school 20 minutes away, because despite my future residence in a decent neighborhood, I am zone for an unsafe public school fraught with gang activity, and staffed by underpaid teachers.

This guy must live on Fort Worth's East Side. 

After work, I drive by the same unproductive union workers in the alleged construction zones, and am again forced to slow down because of the speed cameras. I do not stop by the liquor store, because although I am legally an adult who can vote and serve in the military, I cannot legally purchase alcohol, thus violating my rights under the Equal Protection Clause of Section I, Amendment IIV of the Constitution; however, because I am over the age of 18, it will also remain on my permanent record if I am caught in possession of it. I continue driving my car back to my apartment, which I discover has been plundered of all its valuables. I contact the local Police Department, who make a cursory investigation and fail to find any evidence, because they are too busy fighting the prohibitionist war on drugs under which gang activity has flourished for the past 30 years. I consider smoking some marijuana on my own private property to relax after a long, hard day at work, but I can’t because it has been made illegal by politicians that receive campaign funds from big pharma and the liquor lobby.

I then get on to the internet, which the Federal Government is trying to stifle through regulation and censorship, and proceed to post on r/politics about how libertarians are selfish and that the government needs to be more involved with healthcare.

Well done, sir.  Well done. 

What is the economic system in the United States?

I'll admit it.  I'm confused. 
I don't think we can claim to live in a "free market capitalist" system any more.  Benevolent Fascism?  Randomly Occurring Acts Of Socialism?  Crony Marxism?  Vegas Paternalism?  Insider Protectionism?  Teleprompter-Driven Panic? 

I don't know if I could answer this Citizenship Test question correctly.  Lordy, who knows what the answer is going to be in a few weeks? 

Here's a definition that I've enjoyed posting every couple of months.  (If I'm not mistaken, the entry was written sometime during Bush's last year.)

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.


Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace.

Let's see....we've got a Department Of Energy jacking around with fuel prices.  Jeff Immelt of G.E. is whispering sweet nothings into Obama's ear while he outlaws bulbs he doesn't like and mandates the ones G.E. can make overseas.  Washington will soon be in charge of healthcare.  It appears that Monsanto has written more laws than any senator who ever lived, trying to control the freakin' food supply.  And on and on and on.....

I'm glad that Obama hasn't noticed my employer's fruitstand industry and its risky, unfettered, unregulated, free-wheeling....oh, wait.....now I'm hearing rumors that our Lords And Masters might declare that all produce has to be refrigerated. 

Never mind. 

We better get on board. 

On water leaks in bathtubs, as they relate to ObamaCare

I'm spending Thanksgiving in Memphis, Tennessee, with some high school friends of mine.  Because God loves us and wants us to be happy, we're crashing at the apartment of a surgeon who grew up with us in Mississippi. 
This loft apartment is near the river, has a pool table, a flatscreen that rivals the one Jerry Jones hung in the roof of his stadium, and a coffeemaker with more elaborate controls than a, well, a thing with lots of elaborate controls. 
I like it here. 
However, there is a water leak in the bathtub.  I said that our host's water bill is going to be $300.00 this month, and he better get it fixed before it gets worse.  (I speak from experience.)
One of my friends said "Oh, he doesn't have to pay the water bill.  It's included in the rent.  I'm sure he'll mention it to the landlord in a few months when it becomes a steady flow." 

And that is why socialism, outside of tight-knit family units, doesn't work. 

For the best thing ever written on this subject, go here. 

Happy Thanksgiving !!!

“Any man worth his salt would fight for his home but only a damn fool would fight for his boarding house.”
                                                                    -Mark Twain


Here's a story that I first heard in China several years ago, and I'm probably going to re-run this post about it every Thanksgiving until I die.  The best online account I've found is on the World Socialist Website (chuckle chuckle).  It's about some Chinese farmers who got tired of starving. 


On one night in Nov. 1978, 18 villagers of Xiaogang, including (leader) Yan Jinchang, risked their lives to sign secretly an agreement, which divided the then People's Commune-owned farmland into pieces for each family to cultivate.

This was a bold move, as it was seen as "capitalist" and might have led to severe punishment from the government at that time.

Thus, on that secret agreement covered with villagers' seals and red fingerprints, there was a wobbly line saying that "If any word about this is divulged and the team leader is put in prison, other team members shall share the responsibility to bring up his child till he (or she) is 18. "


The original copy of this agreement is now in a museum someplace in China.  It had a huge influence.  Instead of farming the land together, and putting up with slackers, loafers, regulatory parasites and the other inevitable Socialist baggage, this brave group of Chinese farmers decided that each family would be responsible for a certain section of the land. 


That clause about agreeing to care for each others' children was a simple insurance policy.  To the best of my knowledge, none of the farmers agreed to care for the families of those who didn't share their risks.  In other words, you couldn't waltz into the agreement AFTER losing your head of household.  There's not even a hint of Obamacare in this document. 


The facts proved that it's worthwhile to take the adventure. Allocating farmland to each household, also known as "household contract responsibility system", fired the locals' enthusiasm for agriculture production, which had been contained in the outmoded planned economy, and helped poverty-stricken locals out of starvation.


That's just what happened when they agreed to stop the collectivist nonsense.  Think of what could happen if they'd been allowed to own the land, instead of having it allocated to them by their "leaders".   


The grains that a local farmer turned over to the state in the following year almost totaled what he did in past two decades, recalled Yan Hongchang, one of the 18 Xiaogang villagers who initiated the contract system.

Their practice was later supported by Deng Xiaoping, chief architect of China's reform and opening-up drive, and recognized by the Chinese government. Xiaogang has since been labeled as the pace-setter of the nation's rural reform.


Here's a similar story, from the Volokh Conspiracy.  This one hits closer to home.

Many people believe that after suffering through a severe winter, the Pilgrims’ food shortages were resolved the following spring when the Native Americans taught them to plant corn and a Thanksgiving celebration resulted. In fact, the pilgrims continued to face chronic food shortages for three years until the harvest of 1623. Bad weather or lack of farming knowledge did not cause the pilgrims’ shortages. Bad economic incentives did.


Time to quote Thomas Sowell for the 10,000th time.  Laws and policies should never be evaluated by their stated goals and objectives, but by the incentives they create. 


In 1620 Plymouth Plantation was founded with a system of communal property rights. Food and supplies were held in common and then distributed based on equality and need as determined by Plantation officials.


Like we're about to do with healthcare. 


People received the same rations whether or not they contributed to producing the food, and residents were forbidden from producing their own food. Governor William Bradford, in his 1647 history, Of Plymouth Plantation, wrote that this system was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. The problem was that young men, that were most able and fit for labour, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. Because of the poor incentives, little food was produced.


In other words, when the hardest-working, most creative Pilgrims realized that they were working themselves to death for people who didn't want to work as hard?  They started Going Galt.   


Faced with potential starvation in the spring of 1623, the colony decided to implement a new economic system. Every family was assigned a private parcel of land. They could then keep all they grew for themselves, but now they alone were responsible for feeding themselves. While not a complete private property system, the move away from communal ownership had dramatic results.

This change, Bradford wrote, had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. Giving people economic incentives changed their behavior. Once the new system of property rights was in place, the women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability.

Once the Pilgrims in the Plymouth Plantation abandoned their communal economic system and adopted one with greater individual property rights, they never again faced the starvation and food shortages of the first three years. It was only after allowing greater property rights that they could feast without worrying that famine was just around the corner.


And what have we learned from this? 

Nothing.  Absolutely nothing. 

Are you going to take your stand with the drummers of the Occupy Wall Street movement?

There will come a time when every man, woman and child will have to answer this question: Will you stand with The Drummers of the Occupy Wall Street Movement?

Or are you going to stand with The Man, The Oppressors, The 1%, Those Who Aren't Palestinian Enough, and The Evil Rich? 

There will come a time when you will all have to answer this question.  We, the drummers, we're taking names and keeping score.   

Pick a side, dammit !!! 

Here's an email from the so-called Occupy Wall Street "movement", outlining their strategy to silence the voices of the people.  OWS is over after Tuesday:

Friends, mediation with the drummers has been called off. It has gone on for more than 2 weeks and it has reached a dead end. The drummers formed a working group called Pulse and agreed to 2 hrs/day at times during the mediation, and more recently that changed to 4 hrs/day. It’s my feeling that we may have a fighting chance with the community board if we could indeed limit drumming and loud instrumentation to 12-2 PM and 4-6 PM, however that isn’t what’s happening.

Last night the drumming was near continuous until 10:30 PM at night. Today it began again at 11 AM. The drummers are fighting among themselves, there is no cohesive group. There is one assemblage called Pulse that organized most of the drummers into a group and went to GA for formal recognition and with a proposal…

At this point we have lost the support of allies in the Community Board and the state senator and city electeds who have been fighting the city to stave off our eviction, get us toilets, etc. On Tuesday there is a Community Board vote, which will be packed with media cameras and community members with real grievances. We have sadly demonstrated to them that we are unable to collectively 1) keep our space and surrounding areas clean and sanitary, 2) keep the park safe, 3) deal with internal conflict and enforce the Good Neighbor Policy that was passed by the General Assembly…

In the meantime, there are other drummers who refuse to acknowledge OWS or the GA as a body they are interested in, and these drummers show up on site when they fell like it and drum when they feel like it. Over the weekend, it was for 10 or 11 hours straight, until late night.

So in the meantime, while we are grateful for the negotiations and positive relations with Pulse, we recognize that the issue of whether we’re evicted over drumming or not remains. For that reason we are asking for people to show up during quiet hour shifts, to ensure that drumming does not start....

And from one of the other messages, here are some Wall Street sympathizing pigs, enemies of The People, calling for more pawns to enforce the whims of the non-rhythmic, reactionary agenda:

We’re in serious need of bodies here. The drumming will happen daily from 12-2 and 4-6pm, that’s OK. But that means that we need folks in these shifts:


2-4 PM: people here to make sure drumming doesn’t start

5:45–8 PM: ppl here to make sure drumming stops at 6 PM sharp and doesn’t start again

8–10 PM: ppl here to make sure drumming doesn’t start

This is an all-call. Really really need help, tonight. There are some fabulous drummers here who have been in mediation with OWS and the community board for weeks. There are a small handful of drummers who have been violent, agro, and committed to playing as loud as they can, for as long as they can (until 11 PM this weekend).

Tomorrow night is the community board meeting, they are logging when they hear drumming and keeping a record. If we can show that we’ve made progress in implementing the Good Neighbor Policy that limits drumming then they won’t call for our eviction (they in fact have been bending over backwards to support and defend us). If we can’t get support here tonight at 6pm, or tomorrow, then we are facing an eviction vote at tomrorow’s meeting, in front of all the cameras, and we lose the electeds and allies who’ve gone to bat for us.

This is a final ditch effort as it’s been weeks of false promises and failed enforcement, so we may be close to the end of OWS over this issue this week, but we have a fighting chance!

And finally, we see the traitors in our midst....

Unfortunately there is one individual who is NOT a drummer but who claims to speak for the drummers who has been a deeply disruptive force, attacking the drumming rep during the GA and derailing his proposal, and disrupting the community board meeting, as well as the OWS community relations meeting. She has also created strife and divisions within the POC caucus, calling many members who are not ‘on her side’ “Uncle Tom”, “the 1%”, “Barbie” “not Palestinian enough” “Wall Street politicians” “not black enough” “sell-outs”, etc. People have been documenting her disruptions, and her campaign of misinformation, and instigations. She also has a documented history online of defamatory, divisive and disruptive behavior within the LGBT (esp. transgender) communities. Her disruptions have made it hard to have constructive conversations and productive resolutions to conflicts in a variety of forums in the past several days.


DRUMMERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE !  YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR CHAINS !!!

The Occupy Wall Street movement discriminates against drummers !!!

This irritates me more than it should. 
I am a drummer.  Not a great one, but I get by. 
I was in the drum lines at Ole Miss and Delta State. 
Here's a picture of me, way off in the background, thumping the skins at Jazz Cafe. 

Yes, I've heard all the jokes. 


What do you call a guy who hangs out with four musicians?  A drummer.
 
How can you tell a drummer is at your door?  The knocking speeds up. 

How many drummers does it take to change a light bulb?  None.  Thank God they have a machine for that now !!!


And now we have this freakin' outrage:

All occupiers are equal — but some occupiers are more equal than others. In wind-whipped Zuccotti Park, new divisions and hierarchies are threatening to upend Occupy Wall Street and its leaderless collective. . . .

Facilitators spearheaded a General Assembly proposal to limit the drumming to two hours a day. “The drumming is a major issue which has the potential to get us kicked out,” said Lauren Digion, a leader on the sanitation working group.

But the drums were fun. They brought in publicity and money. Many non-facilitators were infuriated by the decision and claimed that it had been forced through the General Assembly.

“They’re imposing a structure on the natural flow of music,” said Seth Harper, an 18-year-old from Georgia. “The GA decided to do it … they suppressed people’s opinions. I wanted to do introduce a different proposal, but a big black organizer chick with an Afro said I couldn’t.”

To Shane Engelerdt, a 19-year-old from Jersey City and self-described former “head drummer,” this amounted to a Jacobinic betrayal. “They are becoming the government we’re trying to protest,” he said. “They didn’t even give the drummers a say … Drumming is the heartbeat of this movement. Look around: This is dead, you need a pulse to keep something alive.”

The drummers claim that the finance working group even levied a percussion tax of sorts, taking up to half of the $150-300 a day that the drum circle was receiving in tips. “Now they have over $500,000 from all sorts of places,” said Engelerdt. “We’re like, what’s going on here? They’re like the banks we’re protesting.”

(The drummers are learning that if The Collective gives, then The Collective can also take away. - TWS)

All belongings and money in the park are supposed to be held in common, but property rights reared their capitalistic head when facilitators went to clean up the park, which was looking more like a shantytown than usual after several days of wind and rain. The local community board was due to send in an inspector, so the facilitators and cleaners started moving tarps, bags, and personal belongings into a big pile in order to clean the park.

But some refused to budge. A bearded man began to gather up a tarp and an occupier emerged from beneath, screaming: “You’re going to break my f***ing tent, get that s**t off!” Near the front of the park, two men in hoodies staged a meta-sit-in, fearful that their belongings would be lost or appropriated.

First they came for The Drummers, but I did not speak out, for I was not a Drummer.... 

A modest proposal from Perry de Havilland for those who are under attack

Samizdata's Perry de Havilland, one of the guys whose excellent typing got me hooked on this blogging thing, has an excellent suggestion for those trying to respond to the London rioters:  Be a vigilante. 

I am delighted to see that some people are 'taking the law into their own hands' and not just abandoning their communities to the barbarian thugs...

When the trouble came, hairdressers, sales assistants and butchers were among the scores of Turkish and Kurdish workers who stood outside their businesses in Green Lanes, Haringey, from 8pm having been warned by police to expect trouble.

The Guardian filmed others – some armed with baseball bats – on guard outside shops and restaurants in Kingsland Road, only a mile away from Hackney's burning high street. Three workers from Re-Style Hairdressers were among those out in Green Lanes, after word spread that an attack was imminent at about 4pm [...]

"We were outside ready and expecting them," said the manager of Turkish Food Market, who asked not to be named. "But I felt very panicky because we are not safe from either the rioters or police. We put all of our efforts into this shop. It took 20 years to get it like this. But we do not know about our rights. I'm scared that the police and the government will attack us if we defend our businesses. We are being squeezed between the two."

Firstly, to those blaming 'immigration' rather than the welfare state, and the utterly grotesque way the state demands you do not protect what is yours, well people would do well to emulate the Turkish and Kurdish community in Britain. Indeed the looters we see on television and streamed over the internet are so multi-racial it must gladden the hearts of the Welfare Statists who created them.

So when the police decry 'vigilantes', I would point out that communities can often do a better job at protecting themselves than the police can and the folks who got out on the streets, not to loot but to defend their neighbourhoods, well they are the real heroes here.

The safety of you and your property is only tangentially of interest to the state (certainly they want to tax what you own, so to that extend they do indeed care about your life and property), but as demonstrated starkly over the last few days, the state also created the conditions that led to these riots and is therefore rather uneasy about punishing people who, after all, only do what the state does every day only without having to smash any windows.

A community of few people with rifles and something worth protecting are not such a soft target to thugs, even armed thugs, than a disarmed general population looking vainly for the Plod to save them. But for all sorts of reasons, the British state has so effectively propagandised this country that to even suggest armed self-defence puts you on the lunatic fringe... so crowbars and cricket bats it is then.

If these last few days shows anything it is that when push comes to shove, only you and your neighbours can defend against what can only be called barbarian scum. Contrary to what the state would have you believe, you have the right to defend yourself and your property that morally supersede any law that would deny that right. The rioters 'took the law into their own hands' so I applaud those Turks and Kurds (and many others whom the Guardian would not be so keen to report on) who did the same... they took the law back from the barbarians with and put it where it belongs: in their own hands.

Go here to read de Havilland's last sentence.  It says it all. 

If any Fort Worth readers disagree or think it is over the top, come live in the East Side for a while.  Yeah, some places aren't safe.  But if you have proper armaments in your castle, you can sleep like a baby. 

Good luck, London !!!

British Hospitals - People are dying to get in !!

From The Manchester Evening News comes a preview of what we'll experience with our new ObamaCare© medical system:

Two patients died after being left waiting in ambulances outside an over-stretched hospital.
The patients, believed to have been in their 80s, couldn’t get into the Royal Oldham Hospital for seven and 20 minutes respectively.

They were assessed by ambulance crews as ‘very sick’ and were both suspected of having suffered heart attacks.
The A and E department was so busy that all but the most urgent cases were being sent to other hospitals at the time. All five resuscitation beds at Oldham were full.
The two patients were assessed and treated by a casualty doctor and senior nurse in the ambulances.

It is understood neither actually had suffered a heart attack by the time they were admitted – although both later died at the hospital. One died in the resuscitation unit the following day and the other three days after being admitted to a ward.
A probe has been launched after ambulance chiefs reported the incident to regional health authority NHS North West.

Ah, the joys of Socialism.  From the comments, someone named Jay Tilzey writes:

After 35 working years of never bothering the NHS (but paying my contributions) I now need it and am appalled at how badly I am being let down by it. Hospitals are depressing, overcrowded, untidy places, I am rushed in and out of appointments (having waited months for them) without being given a chance to express myself, and find myself almost crippled with pain because of budgetary restraints or overloaded doctors (who should, nonetheless, ensure that their patients are not affected). It is no consolation to me, nor doubtless to the families of these unfortunate people, that many people have "positive experiences".

Only to be rebutted by someone calling himself Bolton Lad:

Thank you for insulting my many thousands of colleagues. It is lovely to know that our hard work and determination isn't appreciated anymore. Next time you need emergency treatment we'll just kick you out the door and you can crawl along to The Alexandra who will turn you away as they don't want blood on their carpet.

The main problem with the NHS is it is used as a political football and every time there is a Goverment change they feel the need to tinker with it. Just leave us alone and let us get on with what we were set up to do. Labour's reorganisations were only just settling in repairing years of cronic under investment and now the new kids on the block are making us change again. Is it any wonder beuracracy is rife.

Sorry, Bolton Lad, but for politicians, that's not a bug, that's a feature.  If you socialize medicine, it's going to be a political football.  Just like education, the roads, the sewers and the dog pound.  Why bother getting elected if you can't kick the political football?  Any time you turn something over to a gang of beauty contest winners, you surrender your control over it, and it becomes a political football.   


Seriously.  Would it not be best to keep the government out of medical care, turn it into a free market system, and let private charities take care of the rest? 


And to readers in the U.S.....  What levels of expertise do you think John Bolton, Nancy Pelosi, Michelle Bachmann, Harry Reid, Henry Waxman and Charlie Rangel are going to bring to our medical system when ObamaCare© kicks in?  Those characters are going to make the British look like Seal Team 6. 

At this point, people are seeking waivers by the hundreds and hundreds (with an astounding number from Ms. Pelosi's district.)  What do you think will happen when your broken leg becomes a political football? 

One last thing about the picture above...I was looking for a good picture of the Royal Oldham Hospital, and found it here, in an article about The Royal Oldham's staff wheeling a man outside to die of a brain hemorrhage because they thought he was drunk. 

National Death Service - Now coming to a hospital near you !!!

Britain's National Death Health Service has a target date of treating all patients within 18 weeks. 

Yeah.  18 weeks.  In the U.S., we can grow a cotton crop within 18 weeks. 

Here's The Guardian:

New NHS performance data reveal that the number of people in England who are being forced to wait more than 18 weeks has risen by 26% in the last year, while the number who had to wait longer than six months has shot up by 43%.


In March this year, 34,639 people, or 11% of the total, waited more than that time to receive inpatient treatment, compared with 27,534, or 8.3%, in March 2010 – an increase of 26% – Department of Health statistics show.

Similarly, in March this year some 11,243 patients who underwent treatment had waited for more than six months, compared with 7,841 in the same month in 2010 – a 43% rise.

Despite rising demand for healthcare caused by the increasingly elderly population and growing numbers of people with long-term conditions, the NHS treated 16,201 fewer people as inpatients in March 2011 compared to March 2010, the latest Referral To Treatment data disclose.

In other words, their government-run medical system is accomplishing less, and taking much, much longer to do it. 

Sound familiar?  Like the post office, the public schools, the department of motor vehicles, the federal government, the state government, the county government, and the city government?

If you feel a cold coming on, better get in line now. 

Jews For The Preservation Of Firearm Ownership

Go here to marvel at the website of "Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership"

The site refers you to the chart I've included below.  Here's some info on where these guys are coming from:

Why must all decent non-violent people fight against "gun control"? Why is the right to keep and bear arms truly a fundamental individual right? You can find the answers in this new book.

People frequently ask why we are so dedicated to our cause? This book answers that question by collecting the key facts and arguments in one place.

People have asked us to present the whole JPFO argument in one place. We have done it. Available now in an easy-reading format and a handy size, the new book is entitled Death by Gun Control: The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament.

The message is simple: Disarmed people are neither free nor safe - they become the criminals' prey and the tyrants' playthings. When the civilians are defenseless and their government goes bad, however, thousands and millions of innocents die.

Professor R.J. Rummel, author of the monumental book Death by Government, said: "Concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth." For power to concentrate and become dangerous, the citizens must be disarmed.

What disarms the citizens? The idea of "gun control." It's the idea that only the government has the right to possess firearms, and that citizens have no unalienable right to use force to defend against aggression.

Death by Gun Control carefully examines the "gun control" idea: its meaning, its purposes, its effects. It comes in many forms, but in every form it enables the evildoers and works against righteous defense.

Yeah.  See below. 

The Genocide Chart © JPFO.org 2002
Government	Dates	Targets	Civilians Killed	"Gun Control" Laws	Features of Over-all "Gun Control" scheme
Ottoman Turkey	1915-1917	Armenians (mostly Christians)	1-1.5 million	Art. 166, Pen. Code, 1866 & 1911 Proclamation, 1915	• Permits required •Government list of owners •Ban on possession
Soviet Union	1929-1945	Political opponents; farming communities	20 million	Resolutions, 1918 Decree, July 12, 1920 Art. 59 & 182, Pen. code, 1926	•Licensing of owners •Ban on possession •Severe penalties
Nazi Germany & Occupied Europe	1933-1945	Political opponents; Jews; Gypsies; critics; "examples"	20 million	Law on Firearms & Ammun., 1928 Weapon Law, March 18, 1938 Regulations against Jews, 1938	•Registration & Licensing •Stricter handgun laws •Ban on possession
China, Nationalist	1927-1949	Political opponents; army conscripts; others	10 million	Art. 205, Crim. Code, 1914 Art. 186-87, Crim. Code, 1935	•Government permit system •Ban on private ownership
China, Red	1949-1952 1957-1960 1966-1976	Political opponents; Rural populations Enemies of the state	20-35 million	Act of Feb. 20, 1951 Act of Oct. 22, 1957	•Prison or death to "counter-revolutionary criminals" and anyone resisting any government program •Death penalty for supply guns to such "criminals"
Guatemala	1960-1981	Mayans & other Indians; political enemies	100,000- 200,000	Decree 36, Nov 25 •Act of 1932 Decree 386, 1947 Decree 283, 1964	•Register guns & owners •Licensing with high fees •Prohibit carrying guns •Bans on guns, sharp tools •Confiscation powers
Uganda	1971-1979	Christians Political enemies	300,000	Firearms Ordinance, 1955 Firearms Act, 1970	•Register all guns & owners •Licenses for transactions •Warrantless searches •Confiscation powers
Cambodia (Khmer Rouge)	1975-1979	Educated Persons; Political enemies	2 million	Art. 322-328, Penal Code Royal Ordinance 55, 1938	•Licenses for guns, owners, ammunition & transactions •Photo ID with fingerprints •License inspected quarterly
Rwanda	1994	Tutsi people	800,000	Decree-Law No. 12, 1979	•Register guns, owners, ammunition •Owners must justify need •Concealable guns illegal •Confiscating powers

Governments killed around 200 million of their own people in the previous century.  Never forget that.  Please. 

Pilgrims, Chinese Farmers, and Property Rights

“Any man worth his salt would fight for his home but only a damn fool would fight for his boarding house.”
                                                                    -Mark Twain

Here's a story that I first heard in China several years ago, and I'm probably going to re-run this post about it every Thanksgiving until I die.  The best online account I've found is on the World Socialist Website (chuckle chuckle).  It's about some Chinese farmers who got tired of starving. 

On one night in Nov. 1978, 18 villagers of Xiaogang, including (leader) Yan Jinchang, risked their lives to sign secretly an agreement, which divided the then People's Commune-owned farmland into pieces for each family to cultivate.
This was a bold move, as it was seen as "capitalist" and might have led to severe punishment from the government at that time.
Thus, on that secret agreement covered with villagers' seals and red fingerprints, there was a wobbly line saying that "If any word about this is divulged and the team leader is put in prison, other team members shall share the responsibility to bring up his child till he (or she) is 18. "

The original copy of this agreement is now in a museum someplace in China.  It had a huge influence.  Instead of farming the land together, and putting up with slackers, loafers, regulatory parasites and the other inevitable Socialist baggage, this brave group of Chinese farmers decided that each family would be responsible for a certain section of the land. 
That clause about agreeing to care for each others' children was a simple insurance policy.  To the best of my knowledge, none of the farmers agreed to care for the families of those who didn't share their risks.  In other words, you couldn't waltz into the agreement AFTER losing your head of household.  There's not even a hint of Obamacare in this document. 

The facts proved that it's worthwhile to take the adventure. Allocating farmland to each household, also known as "household contract responsibility system", fired the locals' enthusiasm for agriculture production, which had been contained in the outmoded planned economy, and helped poverty-stricken locals out of starvation.

That's just what happened when they agreed to stop the collectivist nonsense.  Think of what could happen if they'd been allowed to own the land, instead of having it allocated to them by their "leaders".   

The grains that a local farmer turned over to the state in the following year almost totaled what he did in past two decades, recalled Yan Hongchang, one of the 18 Xiaogang villagers who initiated the contract system.
Their practice was later supported by Deng Xiaoping, chief architect of China's reform and opening-up drive, and recognized by the Chinese government. Xiaogang has since been labeled as the pace-setter of the nation's rural reform.

Here's a similar story, from the Volokh Conspiracy.  This one hits closer to home. 

Many people believe that after suffering through a severe winter, the Pilgrims’ food shortages were resolved the following spring when the Native Americans taught them to plant corn and a Thanksgiving celebration resulted. In fact, the pilgrims continued to face chronic food shortages for three years until the harvest of 1623. Bad weather or lack of farming knowledge did not cause the pilgrims’ shortages. Bad economic incentives did.


Time to quote Thomas Sowell for the 10,000th time.  Laws and policies should never be evaluated by their stated goals and objectives, but by the incentives they create. 

In 1620 Plymouth Plantation was founded with a system of communal property rights. Food and supplies were held in common and then distributed based on equality and need as determined by Plantation officials.

Like we're about to do with healthcare. 

People received the same rations whether or not they contributed to producing the food, and residents were forbidden from producing their own food. Governor William Bradford, in his 1647 history, Of Plymouth Plantation, wrote that this system was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. The problem was that young men, that were most able and fit for labour, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. Because of the poor incentives, little food was produced.

In other words, when the hardest-working, most creative Pilgrims realized that they were working themselves to death for people who didn't want to work as hard?  They started Going Galt.   

Faced with potential starvation in the spring of 1623, the colony decided to implement a new economic system. Every family was assigned a private parcel of land. They could then keep all they grew for themselves, but now they alone were responsible for feeding themselves. While not a complete private property system, the move away from communal ownership had dramatic results.

This change, Bradford wrote, had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. Giving people economic incentives changed their behavior. Once the new system of property rights was in place, the women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability.

Once the Pilgrims in the Plymouth Plantation abandoned their communal economic system and adopted one with greater individual property rights, they never again faced the starvation and food shortages of the first three years. It was only after allowing greater property rights that they could feast without worrying that famine was just around the corner.

And what have we learned from this? 
Nothing.  Absolutely nothing. 

The Socialism Kills sign came from here. 
The Pilgrims, from here.

Fidel Castro finally figures it out

Fidel Castro now says that (after decades of glorious success) his unique brand of Socialism isn't getting it done any longer:

Jeffrey Goldberg, a writer for the Atlantic Monthly magazine, wrote in a blog that he asked Castro, 84, if Cuba's model -- Soviet-style communism -- was still worth exporting to other countries and he replied, "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore."


As Stephen Smith pointed out somewhere or another, "the words 'still' and 'anymore' in the question and the answer imply that there was once a time where the Cuba/Soviet scheme was succesful".  Not his exact words, but you get the idea. 
The comment appeared to reflect Castro's agreement, which he also expressed in a column for Cuban media in April, with his younger brother President Raul Castro, who has initiated modest reforms to stimulate Cuba's troubled economy.

What is it with all these collectivists who are having such a hard time stimulating their economies? 

Goldberg said Julia Sweig, a Cuba expert at the Council on Foreign Relations think tank in Washington who accompanied him to Havana, believed Castro's words reflected an acknowledgment that "the state has too big a role in the economic life of the country."

It has taken Fidel more than 50 years in power to figure that out.  Obama will only be president for 2 and a half more years.  Castro (and this isn't saying much) is a lot smarter than Barack Obama.  Therefore, we are doomed. 

Readers who like my schtick will possibly like this earlier posting about Castro stepping down as CEO of Cuba, Inc.