Paradocracy

The insidiousness of the political system is no clearer than in the way it metamorphoses along with the complexity of the civilization it enslaves.  Where enterprise has succeeded in developing the networks for utilities, transportation and supply, the political system will soon succeed in regulating or monopolizing it, albeit occasionally with sound intentions.  Where these networks become increasingly complex, so too will government increase its claim over the processes in order to purportedly preempt abuse or enhance oversight for the so-called public welfare.  That government will further finance subsidies and expenditures, its true aims, through a claim on some fraction of its slaves’ income streams, which that political system then claims as its own.  The added complexity of those networks leaves the average slave, or taxpayer, bewildered as he couldn’t possibly begin to imagine replacing it with his own designs.  So instead of rejecting the tax, he interprets it as the

'Diversity' serves as one of the most ambiguous, abused and misunderstood terms in the modern lexicon.  What does it mean, if anything?  At what level does it operate, and what end does it serve beyond aesthetics or politicking?  'Diversity' serves Western civilization as a sort of badge of honor adorning those who champion its undefined cause, who sport the language no differently than they wear a shirt with the name of a brand or political candidate they know only well enough to appreciate the membership it’s afforded them to some special club.  The term ‘diversity’ likewise serves as a moving target whereby the politically-minded jockey for their advantage by appealing to an abstract, idealistic yet untested hypothesis about a better civilization.  Nowhere in the historical record will one find any measure of certainty to support the theory that 'diversity' in and of itself can predictably achieve any semblance of harmony, prosperity or righteousnes

The median household in Oakland, California, grosses $52,000 annually, pays roughly $18,000 in income, FICA, fuel, sales and property taxes, for a net take-home of $34,000.  After the monthly mortgage payment, private mortgage insurance and home insurance, totaling no less than $30,000 per annum, that median household is then left with roughly $300 per month, while the median renter is alternatively left with nearly $900, to cover every other imaginable cost of living, from food and utilities to transportation, clothing and insurance.  This is precisely why so many Bay-Area residents take advantage of food stamps, why a household grossing $52,000 per year is considered "low income."  If not for the $18,000 tax liability, that median household could certainly afford to pay for its own food and much more; it could save, invest and plan for retirement, but instead the median household joins the ranks of welfare recipients who, incidentally, politically justify the programs

The man who saves has demonstrated an economic value-add in excess of what he requires in the interim.  This surplus, however, doesn’t constitute waste or deadweight, as some economists and politicians contend.  Instead, the man who saves anticipates putting this surplus to use in the form of investment or future consumption, perhaps in retirement.  Indeed, investment of all kinds must first find a source of savings somewhere; this is the lifeblood of all investment, which is patently impossible without it.  In the case of savings for purposes of future consumption, or similarly the case of retirement, the man produces in excess of his need today precisely in order to prepare for a future time when he may be unable, or less unable, to do so.  Over the course of life, man degrades in his cognitive and physical powers, and he who saves positions himself to continue enjoying life despite his diminished productivity.  What’s more, the capacity to work toward such a future, one