During Occupy Wall Street, and one of the reasons it eventually fizzled out, to determine who would get priority to speak a technique known as the Progressive Stack was used. This was to give "underprivileged" voices a greater voice. In order, the progressive stack is:
1. Race
2. Heteronormativity
3. Gender
4. Sexuality
5. Ability
6. Class
Missing from this list is religion, and there is no listing of which races are prioritized over others. Unofficially different races are ranked differently based on how dark the race is, so an African American ranks higher on the stack than a Hispanic - George Zimmerman was considered to be white because the person he shot was Trayvon Martin. Heternormativity refers to gender expression, as opposed to gender or sexual orientation.
This is highly correlated to the Social Justice Warrior belief in privilege, a modern political equivalent of original sin. A person is born with privilege and never able to expunge it, the only way to account for it is to admit and apologize for it, and spend the rest of one life atoning for it. There is no proof that the person did anything wrong, other than being born, but still the person is considered to be saddled with a lifetime of guilt.
Assuming a black man and a black woman both wish to speak, they both get first place due to race. Then going down the stack eventually the third determinant is reached where the black woman speaks first. There is no indication if any stack rankings are cumulative - would a transgender female rank higher or lower than a straight black male? Or could it be considered a point system where one might have several lower categories that place a final higher rank?
The problem is, as much as this was done for progressive purposes it is ultimately divisive. Every person is judged not on individual merit but on innate characteristics of the person. People are not judged as people, but are judged entirely by their demographic. This is what ultimately drove many white men away from Occupy, to the detriment of the safety of those remaining at the Occupy locations.
This also contributes to why Hillary Clinton eventually lost the 2016 election. Her campaign was focused on appealing to demographics, various groups based on innate characteristics. She forgot to campaign to everyone, believing wrongly that she could hold the Obama coalition together by focusing on many of its component parts. In a way, the election of Donald Trump could be considered a revolt against identity politics.
Given the concept of privilege, the progressive original sin, rejection of identity politics IS racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia. That is why, even though Donald Trump was the first person elected president to be in favor of Gay Marriage while entering office, there is a lot of rhetoric about how he is against the very ideas he is in favor of. Not being a bigot is the new form of bigotry because that is a denial of privilege.
Wednesday, February 15, 2017
Tuesday, February 07, 2017
Calexit
In 2008, when Barack Obama was elected to president, Governor Rick Perry discussed the possibility of Texas seceding from the United States. He was rather roundly denounced and ridiculed by the mainstream press for even speculating on the topic. In 2017, now that Donald Trump has become president, there is an actual movement for California to secede from the United States, called "Calexit."
Given the recent riots at Berkeley where violent agitators forced the university to "uninvite" Milo Yiannopoulos as a guest speaker, President Trump has threatened to cut off federal funds to the university. There is also a move to make California a "sanctuary state" in response to President Trump's plans to enforce immigration laws, again with a threat to cut off federal funding to the state (as well as any other states or cities that may declare themselves "sanctuaries").
An independent California would be no libertarian paradise. Unrestrained by the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, the first thing to be eliminated would be any and all firearm rights. Still, if this were to go forward, the prospect for liberty as a whole look promising due to the ramifications outside of California.
The first thing to notice is the electoral balance. It is possible for Democrats to be elected to the presidency due to the 55 electoral votes provided by California, just as it is possible for Republicans to be elected due to the 34 electoral votes provided by Texas. Absent California, the Democratic Party would be at a serious loss, and not just in the electoral college. Removing California would remove two Democrat senators and a significant block of Democrat representatives. This would swing the rest of the country strongly Republican. That is not necessarily good for liberty in itself, but the eventual result could become a cascade of secession from other heavily Democrat states finding themselves in a country that has just swung strongly Republican.
Calexit would also mean that, for the second time, it is the Democratic Party leading secession. Due to the War Between the States, the concept of secession is highly tied to the idea of slavery and racism. Allegedly the parties have reversed roles on the subject of race, so if California were to lead a new wave of secession by the Democratic Party it would lead to untying the concept of secession from the racism. That would make secession a more available option for any state, whether predominantly Republican, predominantly Democrat, or fairly well mixed.
Then there is the subject of which states subsidize the others, known as red state socialism. If true, this would be an opportunity for the heavily Democrat states to stop subsidizing other states. A secession movement would actually decrease wealth transfers between states, leading to a necessity to reconstruct state budgets.
An independent California would not be beholden to the foreign policy of the United States. This would enable local solutions to the question of migration of people with Mexico. Also, in 1999, the California Public Employees' Retirement System considered divesting from Turkey for political reasons. This created opposition on the grounds that California was creating its own foreign policy contrary to United States foreign policy. Were an independent California to make such a move, there would be no similar controversy.
Ultimately this would weaken the federal government as a whole, as concessions will need to be made to prevent states from leaving when the federal government takes actions contrary to state wishes. This may be the key to finally recognizing legalized marijuana in several states, and the first step towards ending the drug war as a whole. This would also lead to greater competition between the states, especially the newly independent ones, in order to provide the best climate for people to want to live or work in those states.
That leaves just one major issue, should voters in California actually vote in favor of Calexit (not a likely prospect given the current polls). What would be the response from a Republican-led federal government? Would they allow California to leave? Would they risk looking like hypocrites given Governor Perry's musings in 2009? Would they stay true to Lincoln and attempt to stop the secession? It is difficult to determine exactly what would be the response.
Given the recent riots at Berkeley where violent agitators forced the university to "uninvite" Milo Yiannopoulos as a guest speaker, President Trump has threatened to cut off federal funds to the university. There is also a move to make California a "sanctuary state" in response to President Trump's plans to enforce immigration laws, again with a threat to cut off federal funding to the state (as well as any other states or cities that may declare themselves "sanctuaries").
An independent California would be no libertarian paradise. Unrestrained by the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, the first thing to be eliminated would be any and all firearm rights. Still, if this were to go forward, the prospect for liberty as a whole look promising due to the ramifications outside of California.
The first thing to notice is the electoral balance. It is possible for Democrats to be elected to the presidency due to the 55 electoral votes provided by California, just as it is possible for Republicans to be elected due to the 34 electoral votes provided by Texas. Absent California, the Democratic Party would be at a serious loss, and not just in the electoral college. Removing California would remove two Democrat senators and a significant block of Democrat representatives. This would swing the rest of the country strongly Republican. That is not necessarily good for liberty in itself, but the eventual result could become a cascade of secession from other heavily Democrat states finding themselves in a country that has just swung strongly Republican.
Calexit would also mean that, for the second time, it is the Democratic Party leading secession. Due to the War Between the States, the concept of secession is highly tied to the idea of slavery and racism. Allegedly the parties have reversed roles on the subject of race, so if California were to lead a new wave of secession by the Democratic Party it would lead to untying the concept of secession from the racism. That would make secession a more available option for any state, whether predominantly Republican, predominantly Democrat, or fairly well mixed.
Then there is the subject of which states subsidize the others, known as red state socialism. If true, this would be an opportunity for the heavily Democrat states to stop subsidizing other states. A secession movement would actually decrease wealth transfers between states, leading to a necessity to reconstruct state budgets.
An independent California would not be beholden to the foreign policy of the United States. This would enable local solutions to the question of migration of people with Mexico. Also, in 1999, the California Public Employees' Retirement System considered divesting from Turkey for political reasons. This created opposition on the grounds that California was creating its own foreign policy contrary to United States foreign policy. Were an independent California to make such a move, there would be no similar controversy.
Ultimately this would weaken the federal government as a whole, as concessions will need to be made to prevent states from leaving when the federal government takes actions contrary to state wishes. This may be the key to finally recognizing legalized marijuana in several states, and the first step towards ending the drug war as a whole. This would also lead to greater competition between the states, especially the newly independent ones, in order to provide the best climate for people to want to live or work in those states.
That leaves just one major issue, should voters in California actually vote in favor of Calexit (not a likely prospect given the current polls). What would be the response from a Republican-led federal government? Would they allow California to leave? Would they risk looking like hypocrites given Governor Perry's musings in 2009? Would they stay true to Lincoln and attempt to stop the secession? It is difficult to determine exactly what would be the response.
Monday, January 30, 2017
Social Justice
The person in the video is YouTube vlogger Milo Stewart. She is not particularly remarkable for her views or presentation, but this video of hers is. It is not because she is expressing any new ideas, but instead her video is a summary and encapsulation of modern Social Justice views. She expresses the position that all white people are racists, men are misogynists, all straight people are homophobes, all cis people are transphobes, and all members of a majority are prejudiced against the minority.
The Social Justice movement is an extension of, and goes farther than its original parent, Political Correctness. There are those who defend both with the simple proposition that it is simply about common decency, and that any objection is based out of a desire to say or do things that would be at best impolite. The Modus Tollens argument is a good way of refuting this. If Political Correctness was simply about common decency, there would be no controversy. There is controversy. Therefore Political Correctness isn't simply about common decency.
If P then Q
Not Q
Therefore Not P
The stated intention of combatting racism is a good intention. That does not excuse any of the rest of political correctness, which extended to speech codes. Then, as the Social Justice movement grew out of it, more disturbing ideas grew out of it. First was the idea that members of minorities cannot be racist, based on the false idea that institutional power is required for one to be racist. This newer idea, that all members of a majority are automatically bigoted, is even worse. It is an automatic condemnation of groups of people based solely on the very secondary characteristics that one has no control over, the very same definition of bigotry.
It gets worse. It is considered acceptable to behave badly towards racists, misogynists, homophobes, transphobes, etc., which means that under Social Justice it is acceptable to behave badly towards anyone who is in any majority group. These people are considered guilty by definition, so treating them as guilty is now allowed.
This is then followed by a belief in privilege, as in "white privilege" or "male privilege" or "straight privilege". It is assumed that no matter a persons standing otherwise, a person with these characteristics is assumed to have privilege. It is an original sin that cannot be atoned for, and the only way to commit even the allowable partial atonement is by admitting to the existence of the privilege in the first place. Denying such privilege is considered to be a symptom of said privilege. This form of circular logic is particularly nasty, because all evidence against it is therefore considered to be evidence for it.
The definition of racism that combines racial prejudice with institutional power is found within certain schools of sociology, but not all of them. Those who prefer that definition try to argue that their definition therefore has scientific backing as they assert it is the definition with sociology. Instead, in their effort to be correct, they are doing far more harm than the original wrongs the movement started out to rectify.
Monday, January 23, 2017
Barack Obama did not pardon Hillary Clinton
One things many people anticipated in Barack Obama's final days as president was that he would issue a last minute pardon of Hillary Clinton much in the way that Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon. Then people who expected this were surprised when such an event did not happen. Some fans of Hillary Clinton tried to claim this lack of a pardon was based on her having done nothing deserving of a pardon, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
Given that the White House is inhabited by a Republican, and therefore the cabinet positions are Republican, and therefore the law enforcement apparatus is Republican, there is a good rason for Hillary Clinton to desire a pardon.
Then why would Barack Obama fail to pardon Hillary Clinton? One thing to consider is that in spite of them being in the same party and working together in the same administration, the two actually have never actually gotten along and actually do not like each other very much. His failure to pardon her could be due to him not wanting to do her any favors, as well as a punishment for her having failed to defeat Donald Trump in the general election.
Barack Obama has been shown that he can be quite petty. His behavior in escalating hostility with Russia is definitely an attempt to make things difficult for Donald Trump as he takes office. His failure to pardon Hillary Clinton could be even more petty than dislike. He could also be setting Hillary Clinton up for the uncomfortable position of being dependent on the good will of Donald Trump, making her dependent on his good will after a particularly vicious campaign. This would have the effect of making sure she behaves during the transition. She could have made this transition more difficult, but instead she had to stay on the good side of first Barack Obama and then Donald Trump. If she does anything to make things difficult for Donald Trump, he could always change his mind on the subject of legal activity against Hillary Clinton. This could be why she has been so completely out of the spot light since her defeat. She had no other choice.
Given that the White House is inhabited by a Republican, and therefore the cabinet positions are Republican, and therefore the law enforcement apparatus is Republican, there is a good rason for Hillary Clinton to desire a pardon.
Then why would Barack Obama fail to pardon Hillary Clinton? One thing to consider is that in spite of them being in the same party and working together in the same administration, the two actually have never actually gotten along and actually do not like each other very much. His failure to pardon her could be due to him not wanting to do her any favors, as well as a punishment for her having failed to defeat Donald Trump in the general election.
Barack Obama has been shown that he can be quite petty. His behavior in escalating hostility with Russia is definitely an attempt to make things difficult for Donald Trump as he takes office. His failure to pardon Hillary Clinton could be even more petty than dislike. He could also be setting Hillary Clinton up for the uncomfortable position of being dependent on the good will of Donald Trump, making her dependent on his good will after a particularly vicious campaign. This would have the effect of making sure she behaves during the transition. She could have made this transition more difficult, but instead she had to stay on the good side of first Barack Obama and then Donald Trump. If she does anything to make things difficult for Donald Trump, he could always change his mind on the subject of legal activity against Hillary Clinton. This could be why she has been so completely out of the spot light since her defeat. She had no other choice.
Monday, January 16, 2017
A better reason to expand the House of Representatives
Increasing the number of Representatives in the House would address the issue of disparity in votors per elector, but that is neither the only nor the best reason to do so. This is actually a good idea in itself. It may seem paradoxical, but the best way to reduce government overall could be to increase one particular part of it.
This is technically feasible. An isolated hardwired network can be built, giving each Representative a physical key that can be used to activate that Representatives physical terminal, would make the voting possible. As the network is isolated, it is cannot be hacked from the outside. Since each Representative would have a physical key and a matching physical terminal, it would not be possible (as it is in California) for any Representative to cast a different Representative's vote.
With 700,000 people per Representative on average, and 435 Representatives total, the balance of power is shifted strongly away from the people and towards both lobbyists and the establishment parties. It is far easier to control 435 people than it is to control 4,465 people. On the other side of the equation, it is far easier for one person to have any influence when he is one out of 70,000 instead of one out of 700,000.
Those who believe in government power will describe the feasibility as the reason to oppose this, but the real reason this would be opposed is because of how it shifts power away from the government. It would be far easier for the constituents to control their Representative with that representation ratio. Lobbyists will need to expand their budget by a factor of ten in order to buy as much influence as they can currently buy on their existing budget. With ten times as many races to monitor, it will be much harder for the national party, or even the state parties, to control the Representatives and give more power to the local parties. These local parties would also have to be smaller and more local to adequately serve the Representatives.
As counter-intuitive as it might seem at first, increasing this one component of the Federal Government grants much more power to the local communities and the people, and it doesn’t require amending the constitution or any action that might wind up being overturned by a judge on constitutional grounds.
This is technically feasible. An isolated hardwired network can be built, giving each Representative a physical key that can be used to activate that Representatives physical terminal, would make the voting possible. As the network is isolated, it is cannot be hacked from the outside. Since each Representative would have a physical key and a matching physical terminal, it would not be possible (as it is in California) for any Representative to cast a different Representative's vote.
With 700,000 people per Representative on average, and 435 Representatives total, the balance of power is shifted strongly away from the people and towards both lobbyists and the establishment parties. It is far easier to control 435 people than it is to control 4,465 people. On the other side of the equation, it is far easier for one person to have any influence when he is one out of 70,000 instead of one out of 700,000.
Those who believe in government power will describe the feasibility as the reason to oppose this, but the real reason this would be opposed is because of how it shifts power away from the government. It would be far easier for the constituents to control their Representative with that representation ratio. Lobbyists will need to expand their budget by a factor of ten in order to buy as much influence as they can currently buy on their existing budget. With ten times as many races to monitor, it will be much harder for the national party, or even the state parties, to control the Representatives and give more power to the local parties. These local parties would also have to be smaller and more local to adequately serve the Representatives.
As counter-intuitive as it might seem at first, increasing this one component of the Federal Government grants much more power to the local communities and the people, and it doesn’t require amending the constitution or any action that might wind up being overturned by a judge on constitutional grounds.
Monday, January 09, 2017
Minors Tried as Adults
The various governments within the United States have a very unclear view of when a person is an adult. The right to vote, sign contracts, and enlist in the military (or be drafted in to the military) are all granted at the age of eighteen. The age at which one can get a driver’s license varies state by state but generally hovers around sixteen, with various additional restrictions in place at first. However, the age to rent a car is as low as twenty one and as high as twenty five.
The age of consent also varies by state between sixteen and eighteen. The age of marriage is more consistent being eighteen in most states, nineteen in Nebraska, and twenty one in Mississippi, but with earlier marriages being available in most states given special situations. The age to purchase tobacco varies between eighteen and twenty one, while the age to purchase alcohol is consistently twenty one.
Then there are times when legal adults are included in statistics that appear to be about minors when they should not be. A nineteen year old woman, married and a high school graduate, would be included in statistics about teenage pregnancy. A nineteen year old man involved in a gang fight and killed by a firearm will be included in statistics about teens being killed by firearms.
Then there is the age of majority at which a person can be tried as an adult in a court of law. This is where the inconsistency becomes severely detrimental. Although the laws about the age of majority are inconsistent to the point where it is nearly impossible to say when someone is actually fully an adult with all the rights and privileges therein, there are laws that say minors should be tried in juvenile court and adults should be tried in criminal court. These laws restrict the activities of government, and so it should never be the government that decides when these laws should be waived.
A canny defense lawyer should, upon hearing that the prosecutor wants to try a minor as an adult, request that if the defendant is found not guilty then the defendant should get all the other rights and privileges of being an adult. The alternative is that the individual is made to bear the responsibilities but not the rights, when the theory of separating minors from adults is that minors lack the rights but gain the benefits of the responsibilities, while adults bear the responsibilities but also have the rights.
In a more ideal world, it would be easy to determine when an individual is an adult and can therefore bear the rights and responsibilities thereof. The government cannot operate on that standard, though, and a distinct and objective standard, such as age, must be a substitute. Once the government sets such a standard, the government must never violate said standard. If the standard itself is wrong, then it should be changed. The one agency that must never be allowed to pick and choose the rules it operates under is government itself.
The age of consent also varies by state between sixteen and eighteen. The age of marriage is more consistent being eighteen in most states, nineteen in Nebraska, and twenty one in Mississippi, but with earlier marriages being available in most states given special situations. The age to purchase tobacco varies between eighteen and twenty one, while the age to purchase alcohol is consistently twenty one.
Then there are times when legal adults are included in statistics that appear to be about minors when they should not be. A nineteen year old woman, married and a high school graduate, would be included in statistics about teenage pregnancy. A nineteen year old man involved in a gang fight and killed by a firearm will be included in statistics about teens being killed by firearms.
Then there is the age of majority at which a person can be tried as an adult in a court of law. This is where the inconsistency becomes severely detrimental. Although the laws about the age of majority are inconsistent to the point where it is nearly impossible to say when someone is actually fully an adult with all the rights and privileges therein, there are laws that say minors should be tried in juvenile court and adults should be tried in criminal court. These laws restrict the activities of government, and so it should never be the government that decides when these laws should be waived.
A canny defense lawyer should, upon hearing that the prosecutor wants to try a minor as an adult, request that if the defendant is found not guilty then the defendant should get all the other rights and privileges of being an adult. The alternative is that the individual is made to bear the responsibilities but not the rights, when the theory of separating minors from adults is that minors lack the rights but gain the benefits of the responsibilities, while adults bear the responsibilities but also have the rights.
In a more ideal world, it would be easy to determine when an individual is an adult and can therefore bear the rights and responsibilities thereof. The government cannot operate on that standard, though, and a distinct and objective standard, such as age, must be a substitute. Once the government sets such a standard, the government must never violate said standard. If the standard itself is wrong, then it should be changed. The one agency that must never be allowed to pick and choose the rules it operates under is government itself.
Monday, January 02, 2017
All the Right People Lost
The election of Donald Trump, while not necessarily good in itself from a libertarian point of view, has certainly had effects that are very good. The best part of his victory is who lost when he won.
The election was supposed to be a boring contest between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, with Hillary Clinton eventually winning on the platform of being the first woman president. Even if Donald Trump changes nothing, he succeeded in forcing all the right people out of the office they sought. He ended the Bush dynasty and the Clinton dynasty.
Some suspect that his cabinet choices are deliberately crafted to place people into positions where they can destroy the agencies they are in charge of, or at least bring ridicule upon said agencies. Although a good theory that is currently supported by the initial evidence, it is perhaps too early to determine the validity of this theory and more data will be needed before a conclusion can be drawn.
The insulated establishment political class, although still in power, lost through the election of Donald Trump. Also the secondary media class that has been telling the people that Hillary Clinton was going to won, that daily campaigned against Donald Trump while claiming that it was simply reporting the news, saw that all their efforts failed to steer the election.
Those who engage in identity politics also lost. Donald Trump's win is often described as due to racism. Although David Duke didn't actually endorse Donald Trump, he gave an impression that he had a favorable opinion of him. The same can be said of William Quigg and his statements regarding Hillary Clinton. The Southern Poverty and Law Center estimates that there are at most about 7,000 members of the KKK in the United States. They have a vested interest in estimating as high a number as possible, and that is the number they came up with. Assuming all 7,000 broke for the same candidate instead of being split like the leadership was (an unreasonable assumption) that still constute less than 0.01% of the total vote for the candidate they supported. Instead it has been shown in exit polling that Donald Trump did better than Mitt Romney among minorities, and Hillary Clinton did worse than Barack Obama. Minorities who voted for Donald Trump are being accused of betraying the group they are told they belong to, showing that identity politics lost.
Another group that lost were the NeoConservatives. They are not as fixated on supporting a particular party, they can be flexible with partisanship as long as they get their desired outcomes. They did not have a particular problem with Barack Obama, and would have been hapy had any standard Republican won or had Hillary Clinton won, because they would have been able to further their agenda of military domination of the Middle East. The last time a candidate actually opposed that from the inside, and did so with any degree of effect, was Ron Paul and his staunch anti-war agenda. Donald Trump has already indicated that, perhaps not nearly as in favor of peace as a libertarian would be, he is by no means the hawk that is Hillary. He will actually have the nerve to talk to the Russians, a move being ridiculed as being a puppet of the Russians.
Although it may very well happen that Donald Trump will not bring any major changes, the fact that he was elected has had the benefit of all the right people losing. Even if he brings no real changes, the futures of both major parties are shaken by his victory.
The election was supposed to be a boring contest between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, with Hillary Clinton eventually winning on the platform of being the first woman president. Even if Donald Trump changes nothing, he succeeded in forcing all the right people out of the office they sought. He ended the Bush dynasty and the Clinton dynasty.
Some suspect that his cabinet choices are deliberately crafted to place people into positions where they can destroy the agencies they are in charge of, or at least bring ridicule upon said agencies. Although a good theory that is currently supported by the initial evidence, it is perhaps too early to determine the validity of this theory and more data will be needed before a conclusion can be drawn.
The insulated establishment political class, although still in power, lost through the election of Donald Trump. Also the secondary media class that has been telling the people that Hillary Clinton was going to won, that daily campaigned against Donald Trump while claiming that it was simply reporting the news, saw that all their efforts failed to steer the election.
Those who engage in identity politics also lost. Donald Trump's win is often described as due to racism. Although David Duke didn't actually endorse Donald Trump, he gave an impression that he had a favorable opinion of him. The same can be said of William Quigg and his statements regarding Hillary Clinton. The Southern Poverty and Law Center estimates that there are at most about 7,000 members of the KKK in the United States. They have a vested interest in estimating as high a number as possible, and that is the number they came up with. Assuming all 7,000 broke for the same candidate instead of being split like the leadership was (an unreasonable assumption) that still constute less than 0.01% of the total vote for the candidate they supported. Instead it has been shown in exit polling that Donald Trump did better than Mitt Romney among minorities, and Hillary Clinton did worse than Barack Obama. Minorities who voted for Donald Trump are being accused of betraying the group they are told they belong to, showing that identity politics lost.
Another group that lost were the NeoConservatives. They are not as fixated on supporting a particular party, they can be flexible with partisanship as long as they get their desired outcomes. They did not have a particular problem with Barack Obama, and would have been hapy had any standard Republican won or had Hillary Clinton won, because they would have been able to further their agenda of military domination of the Middle East. The last time a candidate actually opposed that from the inside, and did so with any degree of effect, was Ron Paul and his staunch anti-war agenda. Donald Trump has already indicated that, perhaps not nearly as in favor of peace as a libertarian would be, he is by no means the hawk that is Hillary. He will actually have the nerve to talk to the Russians, a move being ridiculed as being a puppet of the Russians.
Although it may very well happen that Donald Trump will not bring any major changes, the fact that he was elected has had the benefit of all the right people losing. Even if he brings no real changes, the futures of both major parties are shaken by his victory.
Monday, December 26, 2016
The Puzzle of Trump
Anyone familiar with Austrian Economics can see the direction the economy is going, and know that it is not a good direction. Anyone familiar with Libertarian Politics can figure out how most politicians are going to try to fix the economy, and how those solutions will not work.
That applies to almost every career politician, as they have long records showing where they stand on the issues. What they say doesn't matter nearly as much as what they do, especially since the two are often at odds and what they do has the most direct and relevant impact.
Trump has no such record. Guesses can be made, but he doesn't have a record of public service and his statements can be construed to cover almost any possible position.
There are two things that can be known for sure. The first is from the closest he has to a record, which is his very long record of friendship with the Clinton family before he dared to oppose her for the presidency. The second is the advisors he is surrounding himself with, which are very traditional Republican. The two indicators are, unfortunately, opposite, which makes reading Trump even more difficult.
It is still a given that economic trends are not good, but what might be done about these trends is very difficult to determine.
That applies to almost every career politician, as they have long records showing where they stand on the issues. What they say doesn't matter nearly as much as what they do, especially since the two are often at odds and what they do has the most direct and relevant impact.
Trump has no such record. Guesses can be made, but he doesn't have a record of public service and his statements can be construed to cover almost any possible position.
There are two things that can be known for sure. The first is from the closest he has to a record, which is his very long record of friendship with the Clinton family before he dared to oppose her for the presidency. The second is the advisors he is surrounding himself with, which are very traditional Republican. The two indicators are, unfortunately, opposite, which makes reading Trump even more difficult.
It is still a given that economic trends are not good, but what might be done about these trends is very difficult to determine.
Monday, December 19, 2016
Fixing the Electoral College
Every four years the American public rediscovers the electoral college, and there are many calls for reform that never happen. Most of those laws require getting the legislatures of the many states to each act in cooperation with each other, or a constitutional amendment. But there is a much easier way to repair the problem of the electoral college, and it does not require a constitutional amendment.
It also has many other benefits above and beyond the electoral college.
The number of electors is determined by adding the number of Representatives to the number of Senators. Currently there are 435 voting members of the U. S. House of Representatives, and it has been that way for decades. There is no reason, in the constitution, for it to be that way. The only limiting factor mentioned in the constitution is in Article One, Section Two, Clause Three, which states "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative".
Currently each Representative represents, on average, 700,000 people. If the number of Representatives were doubled, the apportionment would not come near the constitutional limit. If the Representatives were increased by a factor of 10 that would bring the representation more in line with what was intended with the constitution and still not risk violating the constitutional limit.
Given the current apportionment, California has 55 electors representing 677,000 people per elector while Wyoming has 3 electors representing 188,000 people, rounded to the nearest thousand.
Reapportioning so that there is one Representative per 70,000 people results in 4,465 Representatives. This leads to 4,567 electors, including the District of Columbia. This leads to California having approximately 70,000 people per elector while Wyoming has 56,000 people per elector, a far smaller disparity than currently exists.
It also has many other benefits above and beyond the electoral college.
The number of electors is determined by adding the number of Representatives to the number of Senators. Currently there are 435 voting members of the U. S. House of Representatives, and it has been that way for decades. There is no reason, in the constitution, for it to be that way. The only limiting factor mentioned in the constitution is in Article One, Section Two, Clause Three, which states "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative".
Currently each Representative represents, on average, 700,000 people. If the number of Representatives were doubled, the apportionment would not come near the constitutional limit. If the Representatives were increased by a factor of 10 that would bring the representation more in line with what was intended with the constitution and still not risk violating the constitutional limit.
Given the current apportionment, California has 55 electors representing 677,000 people per elector while Wyoming has 3 electors representing 188,000 people, rounded to the nearest thousand.
Reapportioning so that there is one Representative per 70,000 people results in 4,465 Representatives. This leads to 4,567 electors, including the District of Columbia. This leads to California having approximately 70,000 people per elector while Wyoming has 56,000 people per elector, a far smaller disparity than currently exists.
Friday, March 28, 2014
Further on the College Scam
There are many reasons why someone being tens of thousands of dollars in debt for a degree in Women's Studies is symptomatic of the problems with higher education, or indeed all of education, in the United States. This goes beyond the problem of trying to steal the cause by emulating the effect and is actually a problem with education itself.
The biggest problem with higher education is that it is trying to achieve conflicting purposes. Some say that higher education is for enrichment and enlightenment, to teach people how to think and to create a broadened perspective. If that is true, then a higher education is a luxury item, and not one that a person should go into debt for at all. The more expensive the luxury item, the more people who cannot afford expensive luxury items should not purchase education. It is horribly politically incorrect to think of education as a luxury for the rich though.
On the other hand, if education is supposed to train one for a career, then again there is no reason why a person should go tens of thousands of dollars into debt for a Women’s Studies degree. If the purpose is to train for a career, then there is something horribly wrong with the educational priorities demonstrated in the United States today. Many people talk about the need for STEM, but the discussion on campus is typically about strengthening the position of the multi-cultural departments.
Even on a typical campus not overrun by multi-culturalism, when the curriculum is being developed each department lobbies to increase their share of the core requirements. It takes a firm hand by the college administration to hold down the core requirements to that they do not overwhelm the course load required by the student of the college. Each of these additions to the required courses hearkens back to the purpose of college being enlightenment instead of applicable to a career. Assuming the purpose is to apply to a career, the enlightenment purpose tends to seep back in over time, increasing the cost.
Assuming again that the purpose is to train for a career, the many people taking the enlightenment and enrichment courses are competing for class space and allocated funds, taking funds away from career oriented courses of study and raising the price for those who would directly benefit from being in college. Both the philosophy major and the engineering major have to take Freshman English, and there are only so many seats in the class. That raises the price of college for the engineering major who is a perfect example of the second potential purpose of education.
One does not need to major in science to have a directly applicable career coming out of college. A typical junior college includes many departments not offered in a typical four year college that train in many trades. At a four year college there are departments that include various aspects of finance, education, or interpreting, as examples of immediately applicable majors.
Then, as John Taylor Gatto has pointed out, there is a third purpose to education as it is set up today, also conflicting. It is to train people to accept the governmental system that exists today and to make obedient workers. That has potential to overlap with the purpose of training for a career but conflicts grossly with the purpose of enlightenment.
Combine all of these with the progressive effort to capture the cause by emulating the effect, a cargo-cult mentality with what makes one successful, and the cost of education can only climb absurdly so that even those who do manage to cut through the nonsense and are sensible enough to major in something that can be applied, even they can no longer afford college. The cargo-cult mentality, hoping to make everyone successful, will result in nobody being successful.
The biggest problem with higher education is that it is trying to achieve conflicting purposes. Some say that higher education is for enrichment and enlightenment, to teach people how to think and to create a broadened perspective. If that is true, then a higher education is a luxury item, and not one that a person should go into debt for at all. The more expensive the luxury item, the more people who cannot afford expensive luxury items should not purchase education. It is horribly politically incorrect to think of education as a luxury for the rich though.
On the other hand, if education is supposed to train one for a career, then again there is no reason why a person should go tens of thousands of dollars into debt for a Women’s Studies degree. If the purpose is to train for a career, then there is something horribly wrong with the educational priorities demonstrated in the United States today. Many people talk about the need for STEM, but the discussion on campus is typically about strengthening the position of the multi-cultural departments.
Even on a typical campus not overrun by multi-culturalism, when the curriculum is being developed each department lobbies to increase their share of the core requirements. It takes a firm hand by the college administration to hold down the core requirements to that they do not overwhelm the course load required by the student of the college. Each of these additions to the required courses hearkens back to the purpose of college being enlightenment instead of applicable to a career. Assuming the purpose is to apply to a career, the enlightenment purpose tends to seep back in over time, increasing the cost.
Assuming again that the purpose is to train for a career, the many people taking the enlightenment and enrichment courses are competing for class space and allocated funds, taking funds away from career oriented courses of study and raising the price for those who would directly benefit from being in college. Both the philosophy major and the engineering major have to take Freshman English, and there are only so many seats in the class. That raises the price of college for the engineering major who is a perfect example of the second potential purpose of education.
One does not need to major in science to have a directly applicable career coming out of college. A typical junior college includes many departments not offered in a typical four year college that train in many trades. At a four year college there are departments that include various aspects of finance, education, or interpreting, as examples of immediately applicable majors.
Then, as John Taylor Gatto has pointed out, there is a third purpose to education as it is set up today, also conflicting. It is to train people to accept the governmental system that exists today and to make obedient workers. That has potential to overlap with the purpose of training for a career but conflicts grossly with the purpose of enlightenment.
Combine all of these with the progressive effort to capture the cause by emulating the effect, a cargo-cult mentality with what makes one successful, and the cost of education can only climb absurdly so that even those who do manage to cut through the nonsense and are sensible enough to major in something that can be applied, even they can no longer afford college. The cargo-cult mentality, hoping to make everyone successful, will result in nobody being successful.
Saturday, March 15, 2014
College Scam
This image has become popular recently among conservatives, and while the authenticity is not verified it is sufficiently likely that one can assume that if this exact picture is not real then there are others in the described situation. While there are several other problems in the 99% statement being held, the most glaring one is the problem of student debt and underemployment.
Other libertarian writers have described just how bad of an investment college generally is. This picture sums up the case as well. Unless a person majors in a field that is likely to have jobs available, a college education can indeed be a losing proposition.
Popular advice is to major in "STEM", Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. The problem is only three of those are actually good advice - mathematics even can be considered too general a field, too unspecialized, to be easily applicable to the job market.
On the other hand, there are people who major in fields that have no immediately recognizable applications to such a degree that even the generalized field of mathematics seems like a good alternative. The woman in the picture apparently has a Masters Degree in Women’s Studies. Before going into debt the question should have been asked what was the intended career path of someone with that degree.
Given the soaring costs of college, and the reduced payout even in immediately applicable degrees, it would also be advisable to consider technical schools and trade schools. Many community colleges offer courses in auto repair, plumbing, sheet metal, etc. The point is that each of these, much like STEM, are jobs that can be applied quickly and easily.
The age of liberal arts majors are waning. There was a time when college was a luxury only the rich could afford, or that the very intelligent could attain with scholarships. Confusing cause and effect, it was determined that since the rich went to college, then going to college would make people wealthy, and therefore more and more people should be encouraged to go to college. But instead of producing an entire society of those who were able to afford the status symbol of college, the value of the degree has been weakened while the cost has gone up.
One cannot impose the effects of a better life in order to create the substance. The substance is what creates the effects. College once was, and is becoming again, an effect or feature of wealth, and no longer a guarantee of wealth. And colleges that emphasize useless majors over anything related to science are a symptom of the decline.
Friday, March 07, 2014
Jim Crow was Law, yes, Law
Whenever civil rights legislation is discussed, especially any threat to the existing civil rights legislation, there are always people read to defend the legislation by stating that without it this country could return to the "days of Jim Crow" because people would not be restrained from bigotry. It is a very spurious argument.
Yes, some people are bigots and would gladly indulge in their bigotry without the current civil rights legislation, but that does not equal a return to the "days of Jim Crow" because the most salient feature of Jim Crow is that it was law. It was passed by the various city, county, and state governments and enforced by the police. Those who violated Jim Crow laws were subject to legal sanctions.
It is important to remember, laws are passed to either to prevent someone from doing what they are already doing, or to compel someone to do what they are not doing. That statement is without value judgment, it is fact. But that implies that there were people willingly not complying with any racist culture that gave rise to the passing of the Jim Crow laws.
Some will object at this point by pointing out that the fact that the laws passed is proof of the racist culture and that the people would not have served minorities anyway. Even if the majority of the culture was racist, that does not mean all were. Laws are passed to stop people from doing what they are doing, even if that means ignoring any racist culture surrounding those allegedly minority businesses that operated without regards to race.
Also, assuming the dominant culture is an example of the Democratic Fallacy, that the actions of a government in a representative voting system automatically represent the will of the people who vote. It happens many times that there is a severe disconnect between the electorate and the elected, with countless examples available.
Still, there are those who will never be satisfied with knowing that Jim Crow was law, and try to insist that it was culture until another law superseded it. If it was cultural, then there exist the problem of explaining away the Montgomery Bus Strike, in which a majority of the people were in favor of a peaceful resolution of the strike. The strike only went on as long as it did because the government found ways to fight against its own people, the people that it allegedly represents and follows the will of.
The problem with civil rights legislation is that it is most often the case of one law combating another law. It is a case of conflicting levels of government passing laws to combat what the other levels of government are mandating or forbidding. That makes a poor case for arguing the necessity of new legislation, when the real case is repealing the old legislation that is creating the problem in the first place.
Yes, some people are bigots and would gladly indulge in their bigotry without the current civil rights legislation, but that does not equal a return to the "days of Jim Crow" because the most salient feature of Jim Crow is that it was law. It was passed by the various city, county, and state governments and enforced by the police. Those who violated Jim Crow laws were subject to legal sanctions.
It is important to remember, laws are passed to either to prevent someone from doing what they are already doing, or to compel someone to do what they are not doing. That statement is without value judgment, it is fact. But that implies that there were people willingly not complying with any racist culture that gave rise to the passing of the Jim Crow laws.
Some will object at this point by pointing out that the fact that the laws passed is proof of the racist culture and that the people would not have served minorities anyway. Even if the majority of the culture was racist, that does not mean all were. Laws are passed to stop people from doing what they are doing, even if that means ignoring any racist culture surrounding those allegedly minority businesses that operated without regards to race.
Also, assuming the dominant culture is an example of the Democratic Fallacy, that the actions of a government in a representative voting system automatically represent the will of the people who vote. It happens many times that there is a severe disconnect between the electorate and the elected, with countless examples available.
Still, there are those who will never be satisfied with knowing that Jim Crow was law, and try to insist that it was culture until another law superseded it. If it was cultural, then there exist the problem of explaining away the Montgomery Bus Strike, in which a majority of the people were in favor of a peaceful resolution of the strike. The strike only went on as long as it did because the government found ways to fight against its own people, the people that it allegedly represents and follows the will of.
The problem with civil rights legislation is that it is most often the case of one law combating another law. It is a case of conflicting levels of government passing laws to combat what the other levels of government are mandating or forbidding. That makes a poor case for arguing the necessity of new legislation, when the real case is repealing the old legislation that is creating the problem in the first place.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Economics as Medicine
It is interesting the way people react to various economic proposals on what should be done about the current economic malaise. The two most divergent proposals are those of the Keynesians and the Austrians, with most other proposals being somewhere on a spectrum between the two.
It is interesting because of the disaster that Keynesian economists predict were Austrian proposals to be implemented. If an analogy were to be made between economics and medicine, with the economy being a sick patient, it highlights the absurdity of some of the Keynesian predictions of doom.
Imagine a patient is brought to a hospital with a broken leg. The patient is in pain and unable to walk. Doctor Keynes wishes to give large doses of pain killers, while Doctor Hayek wishes to set the bone before applying a cast. Hearing what Dr. Hayek plans, Dr. Keynes interjects with "There will be a lot of pain while you set the bone. I am interested in treating the patient's pain, your proposals only cause more pain."
Or if a patient is brought in with operable cancer, Dr. Hayek would suggest surgery and a few weeks of recovery. Dr. Keynes would point out that there will be harm caused by the scalpel going in, harm caused to the skin and muscle covering the tumor, and great difficulty for the patient in recovering from the tumor.
These comparisons are absurd, because if the subject were medicine there would be no argument about setting a bone or operating to remove a tumor. But the comparison is also valid.
The Austrian method of ending a recession or a depression is to allow malinvestments to liquidate and to remove barriers to growth. The Keynesian method of ending a recession is to stimulate aggregate demand through fiscal policy, as well as by any other interventionist method since no Keynesian in practice is confined to fiscal policy. Therefore failing industries would be subsidized until theoretically they are no longer failing, and prices that need to fall would be propped up through loose fiscal and monetary policy to prevent the specter of deflation.
Every Keynesian proposal treats a symptom. But what of the actual cause of the ailment? It is the well known "animal spirits", which are not a rational explanation of the cause. Austrian economics, on the other hand, tries to do a diagnosis.
Yes, transition to sound currency and balanced budgets would cause economic turmoil during the transition, and yes some people - especially those who depend on unbalanced budgets and fiat currency - would be hurt. In the long term the short term pain would lead to long term health, like setting a bone.
It is interesting because of the disaster that Keynesian economists predict were Austrian proposals to be implemented. If an analogy were to be made between economics and medicine, with the economy being a sick patient, it highlights the absurdity of some of the Keynesian predictions of doom.
Imagine a patient is brought to a hospital with a broken leg. The patient is in pain and unable to walk. Doctor Keynes wishes to give large doses of pain killers, while Doctor Hayek wishes to set the bone before applying a cast. Hearing what Dr. Hayek plans, Dr. Keynes interjects with "There will be a lot of pain while you set the bone. I am interested in treating the patient's pain, your proposals only cause more pain."
Or if a patient is brought in with operable cancer, Dr. Hayek would suggest surgery and a few weeks of recovery. Dr. Keynes would point out that there will be harm caused by the scalpel going in, harm caused to the skin and muscle covering the tumor, and great difficulty for the patient in recovering from the tumor.
These comparisons are absurd, because if the subject were medicine there would be no argument about setting a bone or operating to remove a tumor. But the comparison is also valid.
The Austrian method of ending a recession or a depression is to allow malinvestments to liquidate and to remove barriers to growth. The Keynesian method of ending a recession is to stimulate aggregate demand through fiscal policy, as well as by any other interventionist method since no Keynesian in practice is confined to fiscal policy. Therefore failing industries would be subsidized until theoretically they are no longer failing, and prices that need to fall would be propped up through loose fiscal and monetary policy to prevent the specter of deflation.
Every Keynesian proposal treats a symptom. But what of the actual cause of the ailment? It is the well known "animal spirits", which are not a rational explanation of the cause. Austrian economics, on the other hand, tries to do a diagnosis.
Yes, transition to sound currency and balanced budgets would cause economic turmoil during the transition, and yes some people - especially those who depend on unbalanced budgets and fiat currency - would be hurt. In the long term the short term pain would lead to long term health, like setting a bone.
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Sorry, Republicans, the illusion is gone
Usually the accusation comes from liberals or progressives, that somehow in some undefinable way libertarians are at least allied to conservatives, and at worst are merely a minor variant of the same basic ideology. Even then, it is only the less experienced and less informed liberals and progressives who make that accusation, the rest having found out otherwise and relying on the very lame joke that a libertarian is a conservative that wants to smoke pot.
As a side note, why is it never "a democrat that likes money"?
There are still those who try to compare the two, but after the 2012 Republican National Convention there should be no doubt left of the distance between the two. The way the mainstream Republican Party treated Ron Paul and his delegates showed clearly and effectively that Republicans want nothing to do with those of the libertarian ideology.
Some will protest at this point saying that an unjustified equivocation is being made here between conservatives and Republicans. The problem is, if a large majority of people who self-identify as conservative also self-identify as Republican, and if a large majority of people who self-identify as Republican also self-identify as conservative, then the equivocation is not at this end.
So conservatives, as represented by the Republican Party, do not want the company of libertarians. This has been true for many years, but the 2012 convention established it beyond any doubt. Moreover, it was at that convention where it was announced formally that Representative Paul Ryan would be the Vice Presidential candidate, in a move that was supposed to mollify supporter of Ron Paul. Here are the positions of supposedly libertarian-leaning Paul Ryan:
He voted Yes on TARP.
He voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140
He voted YES on $15billion bailout for GM and Chrysler
He voted YES on $192billion additional anti-recession stimulus spending
He voted YES on federalizing rules for drivers licenses to hinder terrorists
He voted YES on making the USAPATRIOT Act permanent
He voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant
He voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq
He voted YES on emergency $78Billion for war in Iraq and Afghanistan
He voted YES on declaring Iraq part of the War on Terror with no exit date
He voted NO on reducing US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days
He voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients
He voted YES on providing $70million on Section 8 Housing vouchers
He voted YES on extending unemployment benefits to 59 weeks
He voted YES on No Child Left Behind
He voted YES on Head Start Act
So then why is this unexpected attack coming from the other direction? Justin Amash, who should know better, is saying the two ideologies are the same. Not just similar, not just allied, but actually the same. Although Justin Amash is better than the average Republican, he should know better than to make this basic mistake.
It is because, after so thoroughly alienating libertarians, the argument that libertarians should line up behind whatever statist candidate the Republicans are offering has become little more than a bad joke. People aren’t buying that argument. Even progressives are having a tough time explaining what mysterious appeal the current Republican Party should have to libertarians. On top of that, Senator Rand Paul is making things harder for the Republican Party to attract libertarians by endorsing Senator Mitch McConnell over a primary candidate endorsed by the Kentucky Republican Liberty Caucus. Every so often Rand Paul realizes he’s alienated too many libertarians and makes a token gesture to say “don’t worry, I’m still with you.” Then he alienates them again.
The gulf between conservatives and libertarians has become starkly visible. It is visible because the Republican Party has made it visible. So if there is going to be any way to pull the wool over the public’s eyes, it has to come from the Republican Party as well. That is where the recent remarks by Justin Amash come in. Perhaps he actually believes what he said, making him a distinct minority within the Republican Party if so. Otherwise he is trying to recreate a shattered illusion.
Even progressives are having a problem pretending that libertarianism is a strain of conservatism. This is creating a real problem for both the major parties. As long as the Republican Party keeps shunning, insulting, and suppressing libertarian views, supporters of the Democratic Party cannot say that libertarian views belong in the Republican Party. The illusion, shared by both, is shattered.
So Justin Amash is saying the two are the same in spite of them not being the same.
Not only are libertarians consistently against war, not just against it when the wrong person is in office...
Not only are libertarians against the drug war...
Not only were libertarians in favor of gay marriage before the progressives were...
Not only were libertarians in favor of interracial marriage before the progressives were...
Not only do libertarians want to legalize prostitution...
Not only are libertarians even stronger in defense of the 1st Amendment...
Not only do libertarians oppose every single instance of police abuse that libertarians become aware of (which in this day and age can lead to outrage fatigue because these instances are far too common)...
Not only do libertarians want to slash the military budget...
Not only are a super-majority of libertarians pro-choice...
Not only are libertarians opposed to business subsidies...
Not only are libertarians opposed to business bailouts...
Not only are libertarians opposed to corporate welfare...
The real gripe that conservatives and progressives have with libertarians is that libertarians won't admit that libertarians are conservatives.
As a side note, why is it never "a democrat that likes money"?
There are still those who try to compare the two, but after the 2012 Republican National Convention there should be no doubt left of the distance between the two. The way the mainstream Republican Party treated Ron Paul and his delegates showed clearly and effectively that Republicans want nothing to do with those of the libertarian ideology.
Some will protest at this point saying that an unjustified equivocation is being made here between conservatives and Republicans. The problem is, if a large majority of people who self-identify as conservative also self-identify as Republican, and if a large majority of people who self-identify as Republican also self-identify as conservative, then the equivocation is not at this end.
So conservatives, as represented by the Republican Party, do not want the company of libertarians. This has been true for many years, but the 2012 convention established it beyond any doubt. Moreover, it was at that convention where it was announced formally that Representative Paul Ryan would be the Vice Presidential candidate, in a move that was supposed to mollify supporter of Ron Paul. Here are the positions of supposedly libertarian-leaning Paul Ryan:
He voted Yes on TARP.
He voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140
He voted YES on $15billion bailout for GM and Chrysler
He voted YES on $192billion additional anti-recession stimulus spending
He voted YES on federalizing rules for drivers licenses to hinder terrorists
He voted YES on making the USAPATRIOT Act permanent
He voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant
He voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq
He voted YES on emergency $78Billion for war in Iraq and Afghanistan
He voted YES on declaring Iraq part of the War on Terror with no exit date
He voted NO on reducing US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days
He voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients
He voted YES on providing $70million on Section 8 Housing vouchers
He voted YES on extending unemployment benefits to 59 weeks
He voted YES on No Child Left Behind
He voted YES on Head Start Act
So then why is this unexpected attack coming from the other direction? Justin Amash, who should know better, is saying the two ideologies are the same. Not just similar, not just allied, but actually the same. Although Justin Amash is better than the average Republican, he should know better than to make this basic mistake.
It is because, after so thoroughly alienating libertarians, the argument that libertarians should line up behind whatever statist candidate the Republicans are offering has become little more than a bad joke. People aren’t buying that argument. Even progressives are having a tough time explaining what mysterious appeal the current Republican Party should have to libertarians. On top of that, Senator Rand Paul is making things harder for the Republican Party to attract libertarians by endorsing Senator Mitch McConnell over a primary candidate endorsed by the Kentucky Republican Liberty Caucus. Every so often Rand Paul realizes he’s alienated too many libertarians and makes a token gesture to say “don’t worry, I’m still with you.” Then he alienates them again.
The gulf between conservatives and libertarians has become starkly visible. It is visible because the Republican Party has made it visible. So if there is going to be any way to pull the wool over the public’s eyes, it has to come from the Republican Party as well. That is where the recent remarks by Justin Amash come in. Perhaps he actually believes what he said, making him a distinct minority within the Republican Party if so. Otherwise he is trying to recreate a shattered illusion.
Even progressives are having a problem pretending that libertarianism is a strain of conservatism. This is creating a real problem for both the major parties. As long as the Republican Party keeps shunning, insulting, and suppressing libertarian views, supporters of the Democratic Party cannot say that libertarian views belong in the Republican Party. The illusion, shared by both, is shattered.
So Justin Amash is saying the two are the same in spite of them not being the same.
Not only are libertarians consistently against war, not just against it when the wrong person is in office...
Not only are libertarians against the drug war...
Not only were libertarians in favor of gay marriage before the progressives were...
Not only were libertarians in favor of interracial marriage before the progressives were...
Not only do libertarians want to legalize prostitution...
Not only are libertarians even stronger in defense of the 1st Amendment...
Not only do libertarians oppose every single instance of police abuse that libertarians become aware of (which in this day and age can lead to outrage fatigue because these instances are far too common)...
Not only do libertarians want to slash the military budget...
Not only are a super-majority of libertarians pro-choice...
Not only are libertarians opposed to business subsidies...
Not only are libertarians opposed to business bailouts...
Not only are libertarians opposed to corporate welfare...
The real gripe that conservatives and progressives have with libertarians is that libertarians won't admit that libertarians are conservatives.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Recession or Depression
Even though economic difficulties continue, supporters of President Obama insist that the Great Recession is over. The problem is, technically they are correct. A recession has a technical definition of consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. A single quarter of miniscule GDP growth and the recession is considered to be over, so that even if there is negative GDP growth in the quarter after that it is not the same recession anymore.
Of course one could access Shadowstats to argue that there have been continued quarters of negative GDP growth but that only leads to an argument over which set of numbers is more accurate with most conservatives and all liberals trusting government numbers. The real problem is that even though the definition of "depression" isn't as firmly settled as is the definition of "recession", it is clear that the two are not the same.
This is important when discussing the dismal economic situation with supporters of whoever is in office, of whatever party. Supporters of whoever is in office will argue that the recession is over, and that the recession ended during the term of their own person in office. Even though technically the recession ended a long time ago.
The best way to illustrate to supporters of the current administration is with a concept from trigonometry, a simple Sine wave.
There are four distinct parts to the wave that can be used when discussing economics. The first is when the value and the slope are both positive, the second is when the value is positive and the slope is negative, the third is when the value and the slope are both negative, and the fourth is when the value is negative and the slope is positive.
Recession would then be when the slope is negative, and growth would be when the slope is positive. Prosperity would be when the value is positive and depression would be when the value is negative.
Understanding it from this point of view can explain why the Great Recession (as it is commonly known) can actually be over, while the negative effects of the Great Recession aren't over, that the United States is still in Great Depression II. It still won't convince any supporter of a current administration, but it might be enough to educate the neutral observer and make the supporter seem foolish in denying reality.
Of course one could access Shadowstats to argue that there have been continued quarters of negative GDP growth but that only leads to an argument over which set of numbers is more accurate with most conservatives and all liberals trusting government numbers. The real problem is that even though the definition of "depression" isn't as firmly settled as is the definition of "recession", it is clear that the two are not the same.
This is important when discussing the dismal economic situation with supporters of whoever is in office, of whatever party. Supporters of whoever is in office will argue that the recession is over, and that the recession ended during the term of their own person in office. Even though technically the recession ended a long time ago.
The best way to illustrate to supporters of the current administration is with a concept from trigonometry, a simple Sine wave.
There are four distinct parts to the wave that can be used when discussing economics. The first is when the value and the slope are both positive, the second is when the value is positive and the slope is negative, the third is when the value and the slope are both negative, and the fourth is when the value is negative and the slope is positive.
Recession would then be when the slope is negative, and growth would be when the slope is positive. Prosperity would be when the value is positive and depression would be when the value is negative.
Understanding it from this point of view can explain why the Great Recession (as it is commonly known) can actually be over, while the negative effects of the Great Recession aren't over, that the United States is still in Great Depression II. It still won't convince any supporter of a current administration, but it might be enough to educate the neutral observer and make the supporter seem foolish in denying reality.
Tuesday, February 04, 2014
Corporatism really isn’t Capitalism
Every so often, on websites like In These Times, arguments are made that appear to be against Capitalism. The problem is, ever time, the detail of the argument isn’t against Capitalism but is instead against Corporatism. The difference between the two should be immediately evident. Yet no matter how often it is explained, those making the argument insist on conflating the two.It should be easy to differentiate between the two. Although what follows are not the textbook definitions of various economic systems, they serve as a good way to differentiate the various economic systems.Capitalism – no government interference in the economyMonetarism – government interference in the economy through manipulation of the money supplyKeynesianism – government interference in the economy through manipulation of fiscal budgetary policyCorporatism – government interference in the economy through benefits to the wealthyWelfarism – government interference in the economy through benefits to the poorSupply Side – government interference in the economy through stimulating aggregate supplyDemand Side – government interference in the economy through stimulating aggregate demandOf the seven economic systems listed, one of the stands out as starkly different from the rest. Yet it is often inexplicably lumped with various others, most often Corporatism. There is an actual relationship between Corporatism and Capitalism. It is akin to the relationship between a parasite and a host. A host does not need a parasite, and Capitalism does not need Corporatism. But those making the argument are trying to insist that the host and the parasite are the same thing.There is an attempt to justify such a conflation by saying that one is the natural outcome of the other, that Capitalism eventually evolves into Corporatism. But that does not justify the attack.Interestingly, those making that argument seldom argue against freedom in other areas. If their argument on Capitalism is to be believed and extended, then tyranny is late stage liberty. Those making the argument are keen to support other areas of liberty, but to reject it in the case of economics. They could be consistent and say that since they believe liberty to be hopeless they do not support it in any area. Instead they support it in all other areas except economics, and say that since liberty is hopeless in economics they choose a tyranny different from Corporatism to replace the liberty of Capitalism.Rejecting Capitalism on the grounds that it eventually becomes Corporatism should lead the person making that argument to reject free speech on the grounds that it eventually becomes censorship, reject freedom of religion on the grounds that it eventually becomes a state church, reject the fourth amendment on the grounds that it eventually becomes warrantless searches, reject the sixth amendment on the grounds that it eventually becomes secret courts, etc.The argument is horribly inconsistent. And, after all these years of people pointing out the difference between Corporatism and Capitalism, there is no excuse for making the argument in the first place.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Justice for Kelly Thomas
Many people were surprised when some of the officers involved in the beating death of Kelly Thomas were actually put on trial. It was a departure from the normal procedure of the pretense of an internal investigation that the public cannot find out anything about. The trial is public. Yes, it was only three of the six officers, but still it was far more than people were expecting.
Yet the surprise turned into cynicism when Officer Manuel Ramos, Corporal Jay Cicinelli, and Officer Joseph Wolfe were found not guilty. It seems that even going to an official court trial is not enough when an officer is a criminal. Protests erupted as a result of the verdicts. Protests took place at the police station and at the site of the beating. Police responded by ordering the dispersal of the protestors after some of the people at the protest claiming to be protestors turned violent.
These protests are well intentioned, but unfortunately are unlikely to achieve any practical result. They are demanding that the criminal officers be placed in prison, which is very unlikely without violating double jeopardy or violating habeas corpus. This does not mean that protests cannot achieve a positive result. These protests need to be directed in a new direction, though to achieve that result.
When a dangerous sex offender is released from prison, the community that receives the criminal often erupts with protest at the site of the offender’s residence. Flyers are printed up and distributed all over the surrounding neighborhood announcing that a sex offender is moving in. These flyers include the name, address, and picture of the offender so that the offender can be easily identified.
If protests were to take place at the homes of the officers, then and only then would the criminal officers actually feel some pressure for the crimes they committed. These protests would alert neighborhoods that they are living next to dangerous and violent criminals. And the officers would know that their neighbors know they are violent and dangerous. Flyers posted on street lamps, a common practice, will lead to neighborhood shunning.
This leads to neighborhood shunning, especially if these flyers made it to the stores the officers shop at. Neighborhood shunning is the desired goal since there won’t be any official punishment. Officer Ramos feels so entitled that he’s actually trying to get his old job back. Protests in front of his house, flyers in his neighborhood and at his favorite stores, children signing rhymes about how there is a bad person living at his house, all of those will put pressure on him to realize that no matter how innocent he thinks he is others do not think a badge absolves bad behavior.
Yet the surprise turned into cynicism when Officer Manuel Ramos, Corporal Jay Cicinelli, and Officer Joseph Wolfe were found not guilty. It seems that even going to an official court trial is not enough when an officer is a criminal. Protests erupted as a result of the verdicts. Protests took place at the police station and at the site of the beating. Police responded by ordering the dispersal of the protestors after some of the people at the protest claiming to be protestors turned violent.
These protests are well intentioned, but unfortunately are unlikely to achieve any practical result. They are demanding that the criminal officers be placed in prison, which is very unlikely without violating double jeopardy or violating habeas corpus. This does not mean that protests cannot achieve a positive result. These protests need to be directed in a new direction, though to achieve that result.
When a dangerous sex offender is released from prison, the community that receives the criminal often erupts with protest at the site of the offender’s residence. Flyers are printed up and distributed all over the surrounding neighborhood announcing that a sex offender is moving in. These flyers include the name, address, and picture of the offender so that the offender can be easily identified.
If protests were to take place at the homes of the officers, then and only then would the criminal officers actually feel some pressure for the crimes they committed. These protests would alert neighborhoods that they are living next to dangerous and violent criminals. And the officers would know that their neighbors know they are violent and dangerous. Flyers posted on street lamps, a common practice, will lead to neighborhood shunning.
This leads to neighborhood shunning, especially if these flyers made it to the stores the officers shop at. Neighborhood shunning is the desired goal since there won’t be any official punishment. Officer Ramos feels so entitled that he’s actually trying to get his old job back. Protests in front of his house, flyers in his neighborhood and at his favorite stores, children signing rhymes about how there is a bad person living at his house, all of those will put pressure on him to realize that no matter how innocent he thinks he is others do not think a badge absolves bad behavior.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
3-D Printed Handguns
It is clear, and has been for some time, that 3-D printers are going to destroy the entire “gun control” effort to disarm people. In order to assuage the fears of gun owners, gun prohibitionists have ensured that their laws only forbid the sale, purchase, gift, or inheritance of firearms, but not the ownership itself. How one is supposed to own a firearm without the ability to receive it is a mystery that is self-explanatory.
The 3-D printers therefore find the large loophole in the entire gun prohibitionist effort. People with a 3-D printer do not need to purchase or inherit a firearm. They can make the weapons themselves, and these firearms do not contain any traceable serial numbers that would enable the government to determine who had purchased firearms in the past.
While this is leaving most progressive hoplophobes confused, some are taking an interesting line to attack the 3-D printed firearms. They are deriding these firearms on the grounds that these firearms are fragile and of very low quality. If used seriously they would not last long.
This is a fascinating attack. It is analogous to saying that since Gutenberg’s press could only print twelve lines per page there is no way it would ever evolve into the modern newspaper and book publishing industry. Babbage’s difference engine is much too slow to handle millions of calculations per second.
The printing press and the difference engine did indeed improve after they were first invented by Gutenberg and Baggabe, which is why there is now the internet in which people can access phenomenal amounts of information instantly.
The same is true of the 3-D printer. It is in its earliest stages of development, which means that the current printer is much like a twenty line printing press. Those who deride the quality of the 3-D printed firearms are effectively saying that it is no use to develop the technology any farther much like it was not useful to develop the movable type printer.
Yes, the current printed firearm is not as of high quality as a manufactured firearm. That does not mean it will always be not as of high quality.
The 3-D printers therefore find the large loophole in the entire gun prohibitionist effort. People with a 3-D printer do not need to purchase or inherit a firearm. They can make the weapons themselves, and these firearms do not contain any traceable serial numbers that would enable the government to determine who had purchased firearms in the past.
While this is leaving most progressive hoplophobes confused, some are taking an interesting line to attack the 3-D printed firearms. They are deriding these firearms on the grounds that these firearms are fragile and of very low quality. If used seriously they would not last long.
This is a fascinating attack. It is analogous to saying that since Gutenberg’s press could only print twelve lines per page there is no way it would ever evolve into the modern newspaper and book publishing industry. Babbage’s difference engine is much too slow to handle millions of calculations per second.
The printing press and the difference engine did indeed improve after they were first invented by Gutenberg and Baggabe, which is why there is now the internet in which people can access phenomenal amounts of information instantly.
The same is true of the 3-D printer. It is in its earliest stages of development, which means that the current printer is much like a twenty line printing press. Those who deride the quality of the 3-D printed firearms are effectively saying that it is no use to develop the technology any farther much like it was not useful to develop the movable type printer.
Yes, the current printed firearm is not as of high quality as a manufactured firearm. That does not mean it will always be not as of high quality.
Sunday, September 01, 2013
Monsanto and the Bees
It has been a story recently, that there was a beekeeper doing research into breeding honey bees capable of resisting Monsanto’s pesticide Roundup. It is believed by many that Roundup is a contributing factor to the honey bee deaths that have been plaguing the United States, so of course there would be people interested in researching this matter.
The biggest obstacle to those seeking to research the negative effects of Monsanto products has been Monsanto itself and the ties of that company to the United States government. The tests required by the United States government, after sufficient input from Monsanto lobbyists, reveal nothing about the long term effects of Monsanto pesticides or of the GMO crops designed to resist them.
Some smaller independent research has been done. The case of the Illinois bee keeper is just such an example where by selective breeding of bees he was able to breed a honey bee that is resistant to the detrimental effects of Monsanto products in the long term.
The Illinois Department of Agriculture then seized the bees, and even promptly lost them according to most reports, while others have reported that the queens have been destroyed.
Of course this would be the case that a government in the United States would do that, given that the official position of the United States government is that Monsanto products are completely harmless. Said products have been deemed so completely harmless that aspersions are cast upon those who might doubt their safety.
The alleged reason was a disease called “foulbrood” but the owner of the bees, Terrence Ingram, insists that his bees did not have foulbrood.
The most obvious explanation is that the State of Illinois was acting at the behest of Monsanto to eliminate research that would embarrass Monsanto. A more sinister explanation is that the executives of Monsanto do not actually want there to be any Monsanto pesticide resistant bees.
The most sinister explanation of them all is that Monsanto does indeed want there to be bees resistant to Monsanto pesticides, bees that are patented by Monsanto and therefore any bee keeper that has bees with patented genes owes a royalty to Monsanto. And perhaps the bees weren’t actually destroyed the way the article reports, but were taken into Monsanto custody and reported destroyed as a step towards this goal.
Although it is only speculation, it is indeed possible given Monsanto’s record on all other GMO related matters.
The biggest obstacle to those seeking to research the negative effects of Monsanto products has been Monsanto itself and the ties of that company to the United States government. The tests required by the United States government, after sufficient input from Monsanto lobbyists, reveal nothing about the long term effects of Monsanto pesticides or of the GMO crops designed to resist them.
Some smaller independent research has been done. The case of the Illinois bee keeper is just such an example where by selective breeding of bees he was able to breed a honey bee that is resistant to the detrimental effects of Monsanto products in the long term.
The Illinois Department of Agriculture then seized the bees, and even promptly lost them according to most reports, while others have reported that the queens have been destroyed.
Of course this would be the case that a government in the United States would do that, given that the official position of the United States government is that Monsanto products are completely harmless. Said products have been deemed so completely harmless that aspersions are cast upon those who might doubt their safety.
The alleged reason was a disease called “foulbrood” but the owner of the bees, Terrence Ingram, insists that his bees did not have foulbrood.
The most obvious explanation is that the State of Illinois was acting at the behest of Monsanto to eliminate research that would embarrass Monsanto. A more sinister explanation is that the executives of Monsanto do not actually want there to be any Monsanto pesticide resistant bees.
The most sinister explanation of them all is that Monsanto does indeed want there to be bees resistant to Monsanto pesticides, bees that are patented by Monsanto and therefore any bee keeper that has bees with patented genes owes a royalty to Monsanto. And perhaps the bees weren’t actually destroyed the way the article reports, but were taken into Monsanto custody and reported destroyed as a step towards this goal.
Although it is only speculation, it is indeed possible given Monsanto’s record on all other GMO related matters.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Sanjay Gupta and Medicinal Marijuana
First Dr. Sanjay Gupta went public on CNN endorsing medicinal marijuana, claiming that the research shows that he was wrong to trust the reports of the DEA. Then prominent media outlets ran stories about a father in New Jersey who claims that medicinal marijuana is vital for his daughter and her severe form of epilepsy, and also discussed a medicinal marijuana bill on Governor Christi’s desk.
This indicates that the tide is definitely turning on the issue. Public support for medicinal marijuana or just marijuana in general has been rising to the point where it is difficult for the ruling class to ignore.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta, the medical mouthpiece of the establishment, would never have come out in favor of medicinal marijuana without knowledge that it would be safe for him to do so. Were the political establishment still firmly against marijuana in any form, Dr. Gupta would have been quickly discredited.
Instead of discrediting Dr. Gupta, a story was covered that supports medicinal marijuana. Several outlets covered the father and his attempt to get an answer out of Governor Christi, and Governor Christi’s non-committal answer.
There is still dissent, with Republicans generally on the side of leaving matters the way they are, but increasing Democratic support for the issue is revealed by the way the media is leading this issue. Like gay marriage, an issue that previously only libertarians were bold enough to take, eventually progressives and liberals caught up and are starting to fight on the same side as well.
This indicates that the tide is definitely turning on the issue. Public support for medicinal marijuana or just marijuana in general has been rising to the point where it is difficult for the ruling class to ignore.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta, the medical mouthpiece of the establishment, would never have come out in favor of medicinal marijuana without knowledge that it would be safe for him to do so. Were the political establishment still firmly against marijuana in any form, Dr. Gupta would have been quickly discredited.
Instead of discrediting Dr. Gupta, a story was covered that supports medicinal marijuana. Several outlets covered the father and his attempt to get an answer out of Governor Christi, and Governor Christi’s non-committal answer.
There is still dissent, with Republicans generally on the side of leaving matters the way they are, but increasing Democratic support for the issue is revealed by the way the media is leading this issue. Like gay marriage, an issue that previously only libertarians were bold enough to take, eventually progressives and liberals caught up and are starting to fight on the same side as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)