State tends to make things worse.
Richard Nixon launched a War on Drugs, while Lyndon Johnson launched a War on Poverty.
Both men had great purposes, but they each made more bad decisions.
Advertisement
I hoped that the World War on Poverty had end hunger for all.
When my professors said,” It’s wrong that people are poor in this rich region, people are bad, so government may resolve that,” I was a foolish Princeton student at the time. People will be lifted out of poverty by qualified programs.
Have they?
We’ve spent more than$ 30 trillion so far. Some individuals received assistance.  ,
The poverty level dropped for seven years when security first started.
But then the improvement stopped. The number of Americans who have lived in poverty has increased and decreased since the 1970s, but the first victory hasn’t been as bad.
The reason behind that is that the aid encourages dependency. Because a second parent receives a larger test, Welfare yet discouraged marriage.
In consequence, security led to a permanent “underclass”: generations raised without parents and generations who remain impoverished and silent.
It occurred because people “are generally told,” You can’t take care of yourself, “”… In my most recent movie, Yaron Brook, the director of the Ayn Rand Institute, says,” It doesn’t encourage them to be ambitious.”  ,
When you start paying people not to work, they don’t believe them to accept responsibility for their own life.
Unexpected effects were also brought on by the drug war.
” When you start a war on drugs, you make big profits for organizations because there is so much at play,” Brook says.  ,
Advertisement
That resulted in “massive problem among officers,” illegal drugs, and more .
Simply put, I want to let everyone taking whatever arsenic they want.
According to Brook,” Yes,” in line with Ayn Rand’s advice,” the entity is responsible not to get the kind of things that destroy his mind.”
About how to protect the environment, Brook and I disagree. One neighborhood, in my opinion, requires government. The Environmental Protection Agency’s new regulations have made our air and water cleaner.  ,
Without the EPA, according to Brook, we might have been able to accomplish that if people had filed claims.
We have legal recourse to deal with the fact that “you poison in some way that is evidently making me sick”… However, when you give it to bureaucrats, they want to manage and oversee every activity we engage in.
He uses California’s fire and water shortages as an illustration of “government gone crazy” ( My new book also has that title. )
Authorities has experienced a significant growth. It will continue to grow yet with DOGE breaks. It does often.
Regulators generally demand more from the EPA, which previously made useful regulations. EPA may stand for Enough Protection Now today!
” Northern California has plenty of fluids,” Brook asserts. ” In the old days, they used to walk sizable amounts of water from the north to the south.” There are still a lot of water in the northern today that cannot be moved north due to some tiny little fish.
Advertisement
The Endangered Species Act protects the river tastes, which is similar to that of the terminal smelt.
They “are ready to shut down enormous improvements to human life” in the name of some small fish.
If the smelt isn’t the smelt, it’s an protected plant. Energy companies wanted to install fire-resistant steel poles.  ,
They didn’t extend fire lanes because of a plant they had to remove, they say.
They were shut down by campaigners because of this bizarre plant, and they didn’t even increase fire roads. Of program, thousands of homes will be destroyed as a result. When you prioritize the worth of a flower over the worth of a person’s life, you risk destroying that kind of life.
Brook makes the point that people should perform better than the state will ever do, not that the poor, the attached, and the world.
” All these federal initiatives that regulate and control institute stupidity at best.”
COPYRIGHT 2025 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
