The government is gonna save your internet?

The notion of securing the internet with a codified set of regulations is rather ridicules.  Senators desire to regulate the internet desire to do so in order to collect revenu from it. That is after all the simplest form of regulation is to tax something.

For example prior to the schedule system established by Nixon the way in which drugs like marijuana or opium was with taxation. it's was unlawful to possess with out being taxed indicated by a rubber stamp.  But you couldn't apply for the stamp without possession. In computer terms (for those familiar with linux) this is a circular dependency. it works the same way anytime you regulate something like a webpage. In order for you to have a webpage it must meet the regulatory standards.  To determine if regulatory standards are met you must have someone to make a qualified judgment. The enforcer receives a pay cheque and labor is taxable revenu. Also you have revenu from violators of the regulation. When you have a webpage that users interact with than the users can harm the webpage by modifying in a way as to bring it out of compliance.  Businesses desire to mitigate this risk and will do so in several ways. The first method that pops to mind is to share the cost of the risk in the form of insurance. Making a new industry that will require regulation by our benevolent government. Next they will insure user identity with use of biometrics.  Making another mandated industrial product (some form of biometric reader).  Yes which is regulated and taxed. Business will also pass the cost on to the user in the form of access fees.

In order to tax something with out imposing a direct tax you simply have to regulate it.  This way the government can generate revenu without telling their employers (us) about the revenu directly.

Let us step back for a moment from the legislative motivation for regulating the internet.  Let's focus on security it self for a moment.  Security on the internet is not and exorcise of meeting regulatory standards. Internet security is a function in technological and physical security systems.  If you have a computer with secure data on it you are careful of the things you plug into it like iPods or thumb drives.  You are also careful what you plug it into, you wouldn't plug it into the internet with out some sort of DMZ type firewall system.  Secure server are much like bank vaults of the early 20th century.  Sure they are really hard to get into.  Getting into them is not impossible however.  The idea is to detect and delay the attempt until the trespasser could be caught.  This is much the same way technological security is setup.  The more important your data the better the security of the system it is on will be. You see businesses will regulate themselves and insure the data is secured.  Hackers aren't really looking for your data. Because your data is like a house. yes sure there is some valuables in your house but you lock the front door and that keeps the bad guys out 97% of the time. vary valuable data is housed on servers of some corporation and is more secure.  Well what about all the pirating? (someone might say).  Well I think it's a bit overhyped. Really if it was so horrible no one would make a album any more or a movie for that matter. I haven't seen a big production house closing recently because pirates sharing files killed it. Why? because they have adpted there business model to adapt to the internet with companies like Netflicks and Hulu. They have invested in DRM. We will all see the reductions of websites like BitTorrent and other p2p sharing as these businesses adjust.  Sites that offer p2p sharing are more like small BBS's of the old days.  That is my point really. No matter the amount of laws you stack on the backbone  of the interent they will not squash all of the violators of the regulations. We will never stop pirating. There is no means to stop it technically so how can you stop it with statute.  Murder is pretty illegal but people still do it.

Symbolic Swan Song.

A bill to expand congressional authority to audit the Federal Reserve Bank. Should H.R. 459 be a political gesture? As reported by USA Today "The bill stands no chance of becoming law because the Democratic-controlled Senate will not take it up. The vote served as a symbolic swan song for Paul, who is not seeking re-election."  This brings up a question in my mind.  Why would democrats vote to protect the FED.  Everything I know about democrats, everything they talk about on the news outlets is how evil big business is.  What business is bigger than the federal reserve? A question was brought up in a comity hearing about "Why would we use brokers to sell the bonds to the federal reserve." The reply was to have an element of separation so that the relationship between the Federal Reserve and the Federal government so political influence wouldn't exist.  Kind of isn't working if you have a senate full of democrats voting to protect big business.  It sort of sings out someone is being influenced by the largest bank in the world.  I personally do not trust the Fed or the government for that matter. 

Let's figure it out a lil bit. If you go here to this website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking we learn that fo every $100 of deposit results in $457.05 of deposits and $357.50 of loans so by just multiplying by orders of magnitude (not actual number crunching) for every 10 million in federal securities that banks puts $475,050,00 in deposits and $357,500,000 loans into circulation. Heres the catch though guess who pays all the interest on all that credit? That's right we do. Basically the dollar bills you have in your wallet are certificates of debt. When you spend your money to buy something you are transferring debt. The value in your money is actually not value in the empirical sense (it's not backed by value) it's backed by debt. If the U.S. government were to take one dollar out of circulation it would still owe 70 cents to the federal reserve bank.  

Shouldn't we as a people be interested in the oversight of this very special institution?  I personally am of the mind that we really should't use the Federal Reserve to manufacture money.  I'm sure the Federal government has the capability to print and press cash and coin. I mean isn't that what the Treasury department used to do?  The government cannot really legally do Fractional Reserve Banking because the federal government isn't a bank.  So removing the Federal Reserve Bank out of the loop would reduce the currency the government could circulate. The government would actually have to pay it bills basically. 

Isn't that what is expected though?  When you get a loan from a bank and you spend all of that money do you go and get another loan to cover the interest payments? No you don't because that would be stupid. That is exactly what the government dose when it extends the debt ceiling.  This is yet another example of how our government is using us to make 97% of the population into debt slaves. We should do something. Don't you think?

The money in your breakfast.

     I was going about Obama's growing the economy from the middle out.  But I was having a conversation with a friend of mine tonight.  We touched on politics in our conversation.  I explained that it really dosen't matter your political stand or views.  He had mentioned that he wasn't sure about Romney's position on Roe V. Wade.  I'm not sure I like his view either and I don't think it matters his view.  Mit Romney isn't going to change the law so it's of no consequence.  Pretty sure my political views don't really matter either.  The only thing that is problematic is when I attempt to impose my views on other people.  With that I don't think your political views matter either.  Why couldn't we elect people a rune government on the bases of what is good for the country.  I don't mean the majority either I mean everyone and everything.

     For example I was watching c-span yesterday and I watching an Agricultural comity hearing  about the living space for laying hens.  Of course one side of the argument is that of the cost increases upgrading the housing systems.  But really any cost production increases will be passed to the consumer.  So in effect they are arguing for the consumer.  The other side is arguing for the living comfort of the hen.  Keep in mind that some states have made there own legislation regarding this and have there own standards.  Some of the farmers that had switched over to the new system saw a slight increase in feed cost.  Similar legislation came into effect in the U.K. and they saw a 20% increase and a 55% increase at the checkout.  I don't mind local or state government regulating this or even self regulation by the industry.  A chicken farmer isn't going to ignore consumer demand.  If consumers choose to buy eggs based on the living conditions of the laying hens than a producer will change it's business to meet the new demand or they will naturally suffer the loss of business.  The question I run into is why would anyone desire to force compliance with a regulation that would implement itself if the market demand existed?

    The answer makes itself clear. Regulation is a tax.  If this regulation were passed which I'm sure it will the cost to the producer would be about 8 billion dollars over the next 18 years.  The egg industry as of 2010 was worth about $6,904,530,000.00.  Don't hold me to that I crunched those number myself.   So the legislature is going to mandate the industry to basically double its cost over the next 18 years.  This will increase the related industries and produce more tax dollars from the additional cost of those transactions.


   This is one of those hidden taxes.  By artificially inflating the cost of eggs that makes peoples cost of living increase and that means they have to get more income and the federal government has a tax on that.  It aslo means it's more that people have to buy and the local governments have a sales tax.  This is basically a regulation to insure the growth of the government and the fundamental question really is, is this good for the country.  Is this what we need our government to be worried about?  Are these actions for the benefit of the people of this country.


Yes I'm sure there are larger issues to be worried about.  I haven't seen one story on any of the news outlets about this.  Most of the stories are about Syria or #romneyshambles.  The way I see it is these stories are the fluff of the media used to distract us from the real story.  The real story is that our government is systematically using us to perpetuate there own selves.


well that's it thank you for reading.