Archive for May, 2012

Obama did NOT cut spending

May 25, 2012

There is a lot of hay over the fact that under Obama, spending has fallen. Except, you’d be wrong. It hasn’t fallen at all. We’re spending more money in the federal government than we ever have.

Let me break it down for you.

Go to the treasury website: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

That’s the balance/debt of the government. It’s how much we owe or have on hand. It would be the equivalent of your all your debts. If it’s 0, then you don’t owe anyone anything.

Note that this does NOT take into account money owed to the entitlement programs. No one really knows how much we owe them. It is only how much money we borrowed.

Now, copy and paste that data into your favorite spreadsheet program. It’s not formatted particularly well, but that’s ok. It’s not rocket science to fix the numbers.

Add a column to the right that simply subtracts the previous number from the next number. That’s the surplus/deficit. It’s how much more we bring in than we spend. Notice that there is NO surplus in the 90’s. The last surplus was in the late 50’s, and then the 20’s. (Quiz: Who was president then?)

Now that we have the deficit, we can measure how much the deficit changed. If the deficit is reducing, thent that means we are slowing our borrowing, even though we are likely to still be borrowing. You’ll not that what Obama claims to have achieved is not remarkable. No president has ever increased deficit spending faster than him. On the other hand, several times President Bush achieved a slowing of the deficit.

Here’s a link to that in LibreOffice format: http://jonathangardner.net/balance.ods

President Obama has NOT reduced the size of government debt. He just slowed the pace of how fast the debt is growing.

Advertisements

The Federal Government is BANKRUPT

May 24, 2012

The Federal Government is completely bankrupt. They cannot honor all of their financial obligations.

Let me help the reader understand.

Let’s say I started a company, and as part of the compensation package for the employees, I promised them a nice fat pension check. After going through all the traditional accounting, namely, income, expenses, etc…, how would you tell if my company were making money or losing money?

What you have to do is figure out how much money I need to have today to meet my future obligations. You would need to add this under the “debt” column because it is money we promised to pay.

If the company ever got to the point where it was uncertain whether we could meet all of our pension promises, the company would be under a moral obligation to disclose this to their future pensioners, investors, and debtors. The reason why is because they all have claim on the money and assets that make up the company. If the company can’t meet all of its financial requirements, then the company needs to tell some of its debtors that it can not pay as soon as possible.

Pension checks are notoriously difficult to estimate how much you need on hand today. The same cash invested at different times in our history in different vehicles could render massive gains or losses. Even conservatively investing the money could give you returns in a ballpark. Knowing what your return will be is important, unless you plan to sit on the money and do nothing with it except collect interest from the government. That’s why I never, ever count on pensions from any company, no matter how stable they are. You simply can’t promise that it will be there when I retire, no matter what you do.

When you factor in inflation, and changes to the cost of living, it’s questionable what value a fixed income would be in the future anyway. I’d rather take cash today than promises in the future.

The federal government unwisely promised to take care of our senior citizens. The programs of Social Security and Medicare, today, require huge cash disbursements. The income from both of these programs is not enough to cover today’s expenses. That means we are taxing to pay off these programs. That’s not surprising: the cash surplus was loaned to the federal government’s general budget, and the taxpayers are on the hook to pay back those loans with interest. The fact that the taxpayers and the retirees are one and the same seems to bother no one. It’s entirely foreseeable that, at best, you get $200 in the mail, turn around and pay it to the government in taxes, which is just enough to get next month’s $200 check.

When the federal government reports a deficit of $1.3 trillion, they are talking only about cash flow. This is only a small part of the bigger picture. See, nowhere is the increase or decrease in future obligations addressed. In reality, Social Security and Medicare have been losing solvency over the past few years. This is a combination of a decreased income supply and inflation. Both of these mean we need even more money today if we are to meet our future obligations.

The “real” deficit, the deficit any publicly-traded legally compliant corporation would have to report, is $5.0 trillion. That’s for 2011 alone. That’s a scary number, when you consider the GDP, the gross income, the total manufactured wealth in this country, is only about $15 trillion. We’ve already obligated ourselves to pay 1/3 of everything every created and produced in this country. It is not our money to spend.

This is only the change over time. 2010 saw $5.6 trillion in real deficit. This is a disaster if it happened in one year, but it’s happening every year!

In reality, people really don’t know what we really have promised to pay as a federal government. No one can say with certainty how much cash we need to have on hand today to satisfy all of our future obligations for all time. Some estimates I have seen put our total debt at well over $200 trillion, which is so much money that it’s impossible to think of where it could possibly come from.

The bottom line is that the federal government cannot pay its obligations. We are already bankrupt, but refuse to admit it to ourselves. We are the family who live in a house they can’t afford, on an income that can’t even cover their annual spending. We promise to pay people money that we will never, ever have, and we continue as if nothing is wrong. Our financial house is already in ruins, and we are already toast.

Social Security? Medicare? They don’t exist. What we have are shams. If you are able to get a dime out of it, you are one of the lucky ones. Forget whatever you’ve been promised by these programs, you will not get it unless you are lucky and line up to receive your paycheck first.

Do you want to know what’s really scary? Congress and the budget offices have already told themselves that they will not honor Social Security and Medicare obligations. We are going to rewrite who gets what, and it’s probably already been largely decided. And at the same time, we’re telling our people that we haven’t done any such thing. We are lying to ourselves, and we feel proud about it.

I honestly shake my head in disgust. I want to vomit when I think about it. If I worked for a company that did this, I would quit and tell the world. I would welcome a lawsuit to shut me up, because it would bring truth to the world. I can think of nothing any corporation in the United States or world can do that can compare with the outright fraud, dishonesty, and lies that have been forced upon the American people since the introduction of the entitlement programs.

I’m glad that Washington State is out of the liquor business. It’s a filthy business I want nothing to do with. I detest alcohol and its effects and its addictiveness, and I wish no one would waste one moment of their time making it or consuming it. I tolerate other’s imbibing and manufacture of it only because I believe government force will not end the alcohol problem our nation has, but persuasion, kindness, and tolerance will.

I can’t wait until the federal government gets out of the financial fraud business. Here’s something I do believe the government should be actively involved in ending, something that is so morally and horribly wrong no one should tolerate it even for one minute.

The Pro-Gay Marriage Argument

May 18, 2012

A WSJ writer details why the polls for marriage amendments and laws always favor, by a significant degree, the anti-traditional marriage degree. In short, those arguing against traditional marriage threaten the job security and safety of those who defend traditional marriage. And so when the pollster ask the question, people are likely to lie and say they oppose traditional marriage because they know publicly defending traditional marriage means you will be tarred and feathered.

I can’t disagree. I certainly don’t go about broadcasting that I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, even though probably 60%+ of the people I work with agree with me. Why? Those who want to destroy traditional marriage are likely to do something intolerant towards me, whereas those who defend traditional marriage are confident and don’t need to lash out at those who oppose them.

Here’s a hint, folks. If your political position boils down to, “I want to hurt my political opponents,” you’re in the wrong.

Watching the Left Implode

May 15, 2012

If you were alive when Reagan was elected, you were alive during our country’s darkest hour. While we faced mortal peril during World War II, we faced a crisis far more dangerous to us and our future during the Carter years. That crisis was a crisis of identity. Were we a nation of free men, subject only to God, or were we merely pawns of the state, out to get as much from our neighbor as we could through the power of the state? In the Carter years, we looked more like the latter than the former.

When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, we were deeply concerned about what he would do with a favorable congress. Our fears were not unfounded. Every action out of the administration seemed calculated to maximize the power of the state, pay off his political supporters, and divide the country against his political opponents. When 2010 came around, the Tea Party Revolution ended all that. Now we had control of the house, not just with a Republican majority, but with a large number of staunch anti-government types, the type of people that founded our country long ago.

We held our breath for 2012. Would we be able to unseat Obama, and get a president who would protect the people from threats, foreign and domestic? Would our new president understand that the power of the government can only be wielded to defend the rights of the individual, and not as a system to reward supporters and punish opponents? I think we know now that the race is Romney’s to lose. Obama is an incompetent campaigner. Every move he makes seems calculated to turn public opinion towards Romney.

There are other issues than the presidency. Would we maintain our control of the house, and further, replace more moderate republicans with more conservative ones, representatives who understand their mission is to stand between the awesome power of the federal government and their people at home? Signs across the country are saying yes, it looks like we are going to see that in 2012.

What about the senate? With Sen. Lugar’s defeat in the primaries, and other senators busily trying to produce an image of Tea Party compliance, it’s quite clear that we are still replacing moderates with conservatives. Across the country, it also appears like Democrats will not only lose seats, but lose a lot of them. The possibility of a super-majority in the senate is very real.

What about the issues of the day, as expressed by the legislatures all across our country? In truth, government spending as a whole may have decreased, largely because states are not able to leverage their children as well as the federal government can. While Reagan’s slashing of taxes merely resulted in the states raising their’s, no such transfer is occurring today.

On the issue of homosexual marriage, we were frightened and all but consigned to defeat when we saw that the majority of Americans polled favored it. We laid plans to fight for the next 50 years, hoping to reverse public opinion. However, our victory in North Carolina suggested that polling on this important issue is most likely overstated, but a large amount. Combined with the fact that support is waning, and that people are less likely to support full marriage benefits when everything-but-marriage civil unions are made available, and it looks like homosexual marriage may eventually disappear from our country altogether.

Other social issues show promise: abortion is deeply unpopular. Finding a politician who actively campaigns on it that doesn’t come from a deep-blue district is impossible, while pro-lifers are more than comfortable challenging incumbents from blue districts. It’s clear that conservative social issues are carrying the day across the country.

Our foreign policy has been reset by Obama. Never again will we apologize and try to coddle our enemies. It simply doesn’t work. The War on Terror was declared over with Osama’s death, only to find that Al Qaeda was still plotting and dispatching bombers, some of whom are working for us. Iran is always going to remain an issue until they change their government or we change it for them. Israel’s willingness to go it alone means that we cannot stand on the sidelines and hope for a favorable outcome. Cutting the military is not an option in today’s world, and decreasing our role in foreign affairs is not going to happen, at least not as long as Ron Paul polls last among presidential hopefuls. (A convicted felon got more support than Ron Paul could ever hope for in West Virginia.)

One of the ways the liberals intended to maintain support was to manipulate the polls. Motor Voter laws made it all but impossible to remove people from the voting rolls. Other voting law changes made it trivial to game the system. Across the country, more states are fighting for the right to simply identify voters and purge those who are not eligible to vote. The Left engaged in catcalls about how this is all motivated by racism and there is no fraud to see, but now we are seeing reports roll in from investigative journalists (the kind that don’t work for liberal organizations) uncovering massive fraud, fraud beyond a scale we though we’d ever see. Bit by bit, this fraud will disappear as it meets the light of day. The one hope that the left had, manipulation of the polls, is going to disappear.

Conservatives are carrying the day on every issue, on every front. We march forward, boldly, steadily, and uncompromisingly. American culture and political attitudes are resetting back to where they came from. Liberals are running in fear, exposing their true nature, which is Anti-Americanism, meaning, opposition to everything that makes us unique in the world.

It’s fun to watch this process happen. Back in the 80’s, one could only hope for a future day when liberals lose all credibility.

 

What Mormons Really Believe

May 9, 2012

Allow me to expose some of the LDS beliefs and doctrines that don’t get spoken of very much in public.

LDS members believe that angels, God, and man are the same kind of thing. God is literally our father, angels are simply messengers sent by God (and may come as spirits, or resurrected beings, or mortal beings living around you). We all possess the ability to become like God, just like a child can grow into an adult. To us this is a self-evident and obvious from a plain reading of the Bible. I do not understand why people get so worked up about this, and why they insist in putting God and men and angels in separate boxes. I find Jesus’ teachings on this particular subject to be extraordinarily clear and precise.

The priesthood is when a man (male or female) takes upon themselves the attributes of God, and actively engages in the work of God on this earth. There are, of course, official ordinations and offices and assignments and callings as part of this, and they are absolutely necessary, but there is a great deal a man or woman can do in the priesthood without much more authority than you have as simply being a member of the church.

The opposite of priesthood is priestcraft. Priestcraft are simply people who treat doing God’s work as a day job. We have people practicing priestcraft within our church, of course, and they are condemned for it. (Sunday Mormons are not Mormons at all.) There are also those who exercise priestcraft outside of the church. I know this cuts deep into other religions, and is probably the reason why established, profitable churches despise Mormons, but it must be said. If you’re doing priestcraft, you’re working for the other guy.

LDS members claim rights to the priesthood; this is true. What people do not talk about is what we intend to do with our unique power and authority. We intend, simply, to baptize the entire world, bring them into our temples, and have them covenant with God for time and all eternity in unbreakable covenants that seal their families together forever. We intend to be the mechanism whereby the entire earth can be redeemed and live with God and like God in eternal bliss. In more immediate terms, we foresee a disaster. When Jesus returns to earth, all the wicked will be burnt as stubble. If we have our way, there will be no one wicked at the time of his coming. That means there will be no wars, no inequality, in any part of the world. That is our grand Mormon conspiracy.

(Priesthood authority also exists with the tribe of Levi and the sons of Aaron. We admit this. We know of no other existing priesthood lines on the earth than ours and theirs.)

LDS make sacred covenants and oaths in the temple. Among these are promises to obey the law and gospel of Christ, to avoid excess and to dedicate our lives and property to the church. This may sound nefarious to some, but the church mission is as I described above. Greater love hath no man than he lay down his life for his brother, so spake the Savior himself. We have covenanted to lay down our lives for the church, whose mission is to bring people to Christ. In other words, we are sacrificing our lives to bring people to Christ, both within and without the church, the living and the dead.

There is no secret doctrine or teaching in the temple. The lessons we teach and the ordinances we perform are already found scattered in the Bible. I will not point it out to you, but suffice it to say that it is there and you can find it yourself. If you study the Bible and the publicly available writings on Mormon doctrine (official church doctrine, not the book Mormon Doctrine which is not official), you will have exactly no surprises when you enter the temple and see for yourself.

Our temples are open to the world. However, they are a “clean room”, similar to the clean rooms we manufacture microchips in. You must go through a purification process that lasts at least a year. This starts with the ordinance of baptism, and requires that one obey a certain minimum standard and live spiritually for a year. If you entered the temple prematurely, you will miss the message because you will fail to receive the proper spiritual promptings and you will miss the deeper meaning of the symbols found in and around the temple. In short, if you want to experience the temple for yourself, get baptized, live according to our commandments for a year, and then you will understand.

We freely admit that the members of the church are far from perfect, but the structure and priesthood organization is of God. The church is still under a curse that Joseph Smith pronounced long ago. We have not yet been lifted from that curse. The curse is that we have not used the Book of Mormon as it was meant to be used, and so we are held back from certain doctrines and teachings. When we begin to use the Book of Mormon the way it was intended, we will be freed from the curse and have available to us greater spiritual knowledge and insight.

We embrace imperfection. We love you as you are. We know that inside of you is something much, much greater held back by your sins. Many members of the church are not perfect and do not embrace imperfection; it makes me sad to hear about someone who encounters these people. I hope they repent of their pride and learn to love people for who they are. I vow to be your close friend, even if you sin differently than I do.

We embrace imperfection, but we strive to eliminate it within ourselves. We teach each other often and freely, but we are very self-focused when it comes to working out our salvation and eliminating our imperfection. Say you have a problem smoking. You are free to come to our meetings and associate with us even as you maintain the habit. We will, hopefully, never take you aside and say, “Br. so-and-so, it’s time to give up smoking.” Instead, we will teach you our doctrine, and eventually, the spirit will prick your heart and you’ll say, “I believe God wants me to give up smoking.” At that point, we’ll do whatever we can to help you change your life, especially in providing spiritual help and a circle of friends you feel comfortable associating with.

Let me sum up what the priesthood is all about with a story. A young woman listened to the missionaries, received a spiritual witness, and decided to get baptized. In her former life, she had an abortion, which is a gross sin. Imagine her feelings and thoughts as she approached the baptismal interview. A young, 20-year-old missionary asked her the questions about her faith and preparation. When she expressed that she had an abortion, the interviewer excused himself to make the requisite phone call. The mission president answered the call, and told the young missionary, “Make sure she understands that the Lord loves her and forgives her, and make sure she forgives herself.” Satan would have us believe the priesthood is about holding people back, but it’s all about building people up, lifting them over the things that hold us back from God. Without the priesthood, there would be no one who could speak with absolute spiritual authority on behalf of Christ’s sacrifice to drive away all fear and doubt and guilt from that young woman’s heart.

We believe Thomas S. Monsen is a prophet of God, formally, a prophet, seer, and revelator, as well as president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This means if God is going to reveal something to the world, it will be through him. This also means that he can see into the future, past, or present, and understand what is really happening behind the scenes. However, the president delegates his priesthood authority all the way down to the lowliest of church members. His calling is not to lord over the earth as God’s representative, but to empower everyone who wants to to serve the Lord in a similar capacity.

It is true that women in our church do not receive the laying on of hands for the priesthood, and do not hold certain offices such as bishop, apostle or prophet. Given what I described above, it is trivial to see how women are just as much a part of the priesthood as the men. Although we have not been perfect in this regard, I can state with absolute authority that women in the church today are equal co-partners in the work we do. They hold authority comparable to the men. We joke sometimes that the Relief Society President (a position exclusive to women) is the third counselor in the bishopric (positions exclusive to men.) We freely acknowledge that a ward only functions when the bishop and relief society presidents, along with other ward leaders, male and female, are working cooperatively towards the same goals, sharing all the responsibility for the salvation of mankind among themselves without regard to gender.

When the church makes a press release detailing some of our beliefs, it has never been in contradiction to our actual beliefs. Some people accuse us of saying one thing and then doing another. Individuals within our church are mortal and prone to error, but organizationally, we strive to be consistent with what our leaders tell us to do. What we say we do with baptisms and with politics is what we actually do.

If you see a member of my church behaving in a way that is incongruent with our teachings, let them know. We hold ourselves to the highest standards imaginable. We should also admit our imperfection, and welcome criticism and strive to do better constantly. If it is a gross incongruity, such as dishonesty, theft, slander, adultery or murder, or even a profession in contradiction to our basic doctrines, let members of the church know. We do not want to keep people in our church who do not wish to be a part of it.

The priesthood operates exclusively by persuasion. If anyone tries to use the priesthood to force people to do things, as our doctrine says, “AMEN” to his authority and power. The powers of the priesthood are only present when the actor is living righteously. Translation: if someone wants to use the priesthood to do something, it must be done with persuasion, and the person must rely on their own righteousness, not bullying or force or coercion.

Joseph Smith’s teachings on the Law of Consecration detail how to build a Zion community where there is no poor or inequality among the people. Several attempts were made in Joseph Smith’s time, all of which ended in disaster and failure because the members of the Zion communities were not right in their hearts. Joseph Smith declared that no further attempts should be made until a time that would be revealed later. We understand that Zion begins within one’s own heart, and you can create a Zion environment in your own home. In Zion, property rights are established and protected; the bishop would administer donated surplus to those in need; substance would be shared freely among people according to their needs and wants. We believe that Zion will bring unprecedented wealth, prosperity, and happiness to people who practice it correctly. This is not related to Communism at all, which tends to work from the outside in, top-down, and relies on coercion rather than persuasion. In fact, Communism can be considered as a complete opposition to the Law of Consecration. The Law of Consecration is capitalism unbound because the people’s hearts are actually right and not set upon their substance.

Science Assumes Nothing?

May 9, 2012

I often read self-proclaimed scientists who deny the existence of a god or gods write that science assume nothing. The default scientific position, they claim, is nothing. That means until they see evidence of something, they do not consider it to be real.

I don’t know where people get this idea from. Science, after all, assumes a great deal.

The first assumption science makes is that the universe is ordered and logically consistent. Where is the evidence for that? Our ancestors who lived in the world believed the most sensible explanation for things was that random gods acted randomly in their realm. Storms, floods, and earthquakes were caused by angry gods. A couple that falls in love was caused by the god of love. Crops grew because the fertility gods favored men. So on and so forth.

The first time someone assumed the universe was ordered and logically consistent was a pious fellow by the name of Socrates. Christian philosophers such as Sir Isaac Newton expanded on this and assumed that not only was the universe generally ordered, but exactly ordered, in the minutest of detail, so much so that math was a perfect description of the motions of the planets and stars, as well as apples falling from trees here on earth.

This is an assumption that is such a large leap from what you see around you that it should never be assumed lightly. When you probe into statistical mechanics (which gives us entropy) or quantum mechanics (which uncovers the wave function and its probabilistic interpretation), you see a universe that is not ordered the way Isaac Newton assumed. His assumptions of a mechanical, predictable universe were simply wrong. He was correct, however, that the universe was logically consistent and followed universal laws. At least, as far as we can determine from experiments.

Where did we get this assumption from? Who gave us this idea, before people knew it was a very good assumption? The answer lies in religion.

The next assumption is one that is not to be treated lightly. It is the assumption that the human mind is capable of not only comprehending the laws that govern the universe, but to reason about them and deduce new laws. If we look at the world around us, we see animals that behave mindlessly. At best, the most intelligent animals are comparable to human babies. Even within the human world, we see humans who prioritize learning about the universe around them very low compared to baser desires. What is it that compels someone to abandon the traditional pursuits of a “normal” person and dedicate himself to the pursuit of science? Once again, the answer lies in religion. Something stirs within us and tells us that we must, of necessity, pursue knowledge, and abandon the mortal trappings of the world around us.

When you ponder the assumptions of science, you see that religion and science are not at odds at all. In fact, science is a subset of religion. It is religion that gave us science, and religion that maintains us.

I see a similar argument that goes something like this. “Religion is illogical. The universe is logical. Therefore, religion is not true.” At best, the conclusion can simply be drawn that “religion is not part of the universe”, not that it isn’t true. After all, when you start with the assumption that something is logical, you can’t use logic to explain why it is so. Religion is, and must ever be, illogical. You can only explain the logical nature of the universe with non-logic, because any logical explanation assumes the conclusion, which thus gives us circular reasoning. (At best, you can only show that logic is logically consistent, nothing more.)

The Problem With Statists

May 3, 2012

The problem with statists is that they refuse to accept reality as it is, but instead pretend that things are the way they are not.

A healthy understanding of Christian theology clears up any confusion about the state of man. We are fallen sons and daughters of God. The thing that separates us from perfection is our unwillingness to accept the authority of God in our lives. No one can be forced to obey God and love him; we must all independently choose to do so, or not. The power is within us, and no one can change that.

The Statist looks at the world, and ignores some fundamental qualities of the nature of physics and the nature of man. They suppose that science isn’t an observational art, but an art that can be used to obtain the results one wants to see. Do we need to look very hard to find instances of Statists embracing pseudo-science? Is it any wonder why? No one really likes to have their world-view changed. No one really likes to know they were wrong.

No one, that is, but the pure Christian. See, as a Christian, I admit and embrace the fact that I am wrong about many things. God’s ways are not my ways. If I ever hope to do anything good in this life, it is only in changing my understanding of the universe. Change towards a more godly understanding is not just a good thing, but a necessary thing. Of course, not every change is good, so we must weight carefully whether a change is for the better, or towards error. There is an influence just as strongly influencing our hearts that is set in opposition to that influence for good. If it weren’t so, we really wouldn’t be free to choose for ourselves.

The Statist looks on the nature of man and sees an animal that can be trained much like dogs or goldfish. If only they were trained properly, they could behave in ways that benefits everyone, they vainly imagine. They refuse to admit that men have the power to choose for themselves what they will do with their lives. As such, the Statist looks to mold and bend people’s minds to their wills, while the Christian seeks only to influence respectfully. That’s why we have the death camps and starvation campaigns in socialist and communist countries that murdered hundreds of millions, while no such parallel exists in the Christian world.

Capitalism is a description of the way things are. It is not a philosophy that is taught or imposed. The very fact that the universe is the way it is, and human nature is the way it is, means that capitalism will be with us forever, as long as men have needs and have choice. You can no more overthrow capitalism than you could overthrow death, or disease, or hopelessness. You may try to pervert nature such that death, disease, and hopelessness, along with capitalism disappear, but all you are really doing is hurting people.

The Christian does not look to the state to do what he would not do himself. The idea that if government doesn’t take care of the poor, no one will, is an insult to men’s free will. Every time I hear this, I think, “What are you saying about me? That I won’t step forward to care for the people around me unless I am compelled by my government? Do you really think I am as horrible as that?” No, not everyone is charitable, but enough of us in this country are, so much so that I am confident that if we simply stopped all the social welfare programs at all government levels, that the communities would spontaneously organize to meet and exceed whatever aid people received from the government.

And so it is for defense. The government is merely a by-product of our willingness to help each other in securing each other’s liberties. If you eradicated the government, we would build it again for the same reason. We pool our resources and freedoms in the constitution of the government, and we do so for a specific reason. Defense is not one of many reasons for government, it can be argued that it is the only reason. When you see our governments spend the majority of their budgets on securing people’s liberties, then we have a government doing what it was intended to do, even if it means you have to hold a bake sale to procure books for schoolchildren.

The Statist, in short, is the one living in a fantasy world. The fact that they have never been right is testament to this. Every prediction they have made has always turned out to the contrary.