Wednesday, February 07, 2007

I-Pod Death Machines

Night of the living iPod dead

Yes it is true politicians in New York are now trying to ban iPods. It would be funny if it wasnt so stupid.

NY (state and city) is famous for high taxes and over-regulation. Instead of looking busy and staying busy (no graceful rest and enlightened meditation when there are people to be saved from themelves) placing bad upon bad why can't the busybodies be busy undoing some of the stupid things done in the past instead of finding more stupid things to control in the future? Either way they would be busy and proposing stuff so would get the satisfication that comes with thinking you are earning your money, but in the latter case, would actually be creating a better future (eg one with more rather that less options) for people.

I agree that cellphones and iPods can be rude (eg when the former is not creating much more efficient markets) and are helping to atomitize society but thats aesthetic taste not a call for regulation. As are the personal options of going into private places where people are smoking and buying transfat-laden products, but that doesnt mean you and I are not ridiculously preventing others from doing that here in NY as well. And no-smoking is pretty universal now, even in Vegas?

How stupid, it wouldnt be so bad if it was just nickles on the dollar but government is up there around 50 cents on the dollar and it doesnt seem to be getting any better as, needless to say, shown by the absurdity of proposed iPod laws. Isnt there enough criminals to catch, potholes to fill, and trash to take out?

Sometimes anarchy (eg anarcho-capitalism) as an idealism doesnt seem so absurd after all. People can agree to do stupid things, just leave me and the people I know and like - and trust - out of it.

The Way Out of Iraq


Today's NY Times (thats alot of the way a blog works, the mainstream press writes about something then the bloggers pick it up and comment) had article on $12 billion in cash being unaccounted for in Iraq under P. Bremer III, the first American overlord of the area, before the "Government of Iraq" was put back in charge. Point is is that they used the cash to pay people that were working for Uncle Sam. And some say some of the cash is missing eg unaccounted for.

That is highly unlikely, the US Government, has believe it or not, very good systems to account for where they spend their (our) money and who it goes to and how much. The problem is who they give it to and for what reasons (eg not usually to help the common man but the special interest man).

So the cash is unaccounted for (but that is just a Times media-buzz superificial thing). But if so why should it be surprising. Government spends other people's money. Why should they be careful with it or expect to get something for it? There is no risk-return incentives like there is in the real world.

The way out of Iraq is to just get out. We deposed their dictator (and why was that our business other than the fact that we helped to arm Saddam in the first place?) which was allegedly the reason - once WMDs and solid Al Quaeda connections couldnt be shown (eg there is a moving target on why we are there in the first place anyway, so feeding the military machine and the nation-state ego seems more and more to be the only - unjustifiable - rationale).

So just give the "Government of Iraq" enough cash to cover all the damages our military has done there and get out, ceteris paribus. Who wants to live in a military dictatorship with foreign troops in uniform everywhere? And who wants to be responsible - and pay - for creating this type of consciousness ?

This does no-one any good not least the U.S. kids and locals getting killed under zero rational reasoning. (One person killed is too many, let alone tens of thousands.) Let's wake-up, pay-back in cash, and get-out.