Government: An Intollerable Monopoly if a Private Company

As a thought experiment, try thinking of the federal government as a private monopoly.  They control the services they offer and prevent any competition by outlawing it.  They set their prices, in this case taxes and fees, with minimal input from their customers.  They force you to buy their services, even if you don't want them or even need them.  Rich people who make "contributions" get lucrative contracts.  The monopoly's leaders say they are selfless saints doing good for the disadvantaged.  While they say this, their employees get pensions worth multi-millions and former officials generally end up with huge sums of money normal folks can't match with a lifetime of earnings.  The monopoly is constantly announcing new services you will have to buy. 

Would anyone allow a private company to do this?  Why does the fact that it's the federal government make this behavior acceptable?  If anything, this behavior backed by abusive government power makes it even more threatening. 

Why Vote For A Free Lunch?

When I was 7, my grandfather told me, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."  He explained that whoever was offering "free" stuff always had a hook in there somewhere that would probably cost you as much or more than a paid lunch.  I idolized my grandfather, so I paid very close attention.  His explanation made perfect sense, both at age 7 and ever since.  What I will never understand is how adults in massive numbers will vote for politicians offering free stuff, and not even consider there might be a hook in there somewhere. 

Rich or Poor, It's Better to Vote for the Party of the Rich

The Democrats say they are the party of the poor.  What this means is they adopt policies to make as many voters as they can reach as poor as possible.  Conversely, if the Republicans are the party of the rich, like the Democrats say they are, then Republican policies will be aimed at making as many voters as they can reach as rich as possible.

Now that I've explained it to you, who would you rather vote for?

Feds Should Sell, Not Manage, Western Land

Some kooks have occupied a bird sanctuary building in Oregon. At least that’s what you can get out if the news.  Their reasons are all about how much land the federal government owns out west and how poorly they manage it.

Arbitrary federal management of land out west is notorious.  It matters because the federal government owns between 30 to 60% of most western states.  The size of the federal debt is also notorious.  We can solve both problems with a single program.  The federal government should sell western public land to private parties in regular auctions to raise money to pay off federal debt.  This would help in two ways.  First, it would bring in money directly to the treasury.  But secondly, it would also place the land under the management of private owners who would have an incentive to develop and use the land productively.

Placing federal land under state ownership merely exchanges one bad landlord for another.  Worse, it strips the federal government of assets it can use to satisfy its creditors.  Selling the land is the best way to lessen the tax payers debt burden and at the same time put the land into more productive use which would generate economic growth and increased tax revenue without raising tax rates.

If Congress could tie the western land sales to the size of the deficits, it would be perfect.  All of the socialists who don't want to sell western land would face a dilemma.   If they did the usual borrow and spend, land would be sold to make up the difference.  If they budgeted responsibly, they could keep western land in government hands, but only at the cost of fewer votes purchased with federal free stuff.