Yet another Obama "reversal"

Obama has filled his cabinet with people who have positions in alignment with Obama's voting record but at variance with his campaign rhetoric and the wishes of his true believers. One example is that "peace candidate" Obama has appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. It is no secret that she was one of the most hawkish members of the Senate.

Also Obama supposedly is not as bad on gun liberty as most Democrats are, based on one speech he gave where he expressed some support for the second amendment. This stands in contrast to his record, but with Obama the image has been shown to be more important than the reality time and again. Then, like the appointment of Hillary which reflects questionable positions on war, he appointed Eric Holder who has never met a restriction on gun rights that he did not like to the position of Attorney General.

When confronted by the dissonance between the position and the appointment, Obama supporters are quick to assure people that these subordinates will take their cues from Obama, that they will not press their own agenda. A more interesting question to ask, and one avoided by Obama supporters, is whether or not these appointments reflect Obama's actual positions and therefore there is no need for Obama to rein in his underlings.

According to Attorney General Holder, Obama has recently come out in favor of renewing the "assault" weapon ban.

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

The "assault" weapon ban was one of the worst pieces of firearm legislation ever passed, and its renewal should be opposed by both who believe in the liberty of self defense and those who oppose the liberty of self defense.

There is no actual definition of "assault weapon." Firearms are classified by operation. Primary classifications are fully automatic, semi-automatic, and those that are not automatic at all. Secondary classifications include muzzle velocity and caliber.

The "assault" weapon ban did not impact a single fully automatic weapon. Not only did none of them fit into the bill's definition, fully automatics were already generally forbidden to the public before the "assault" weapon ban passed.

Every firearm banned by the "assault" weapon ban was a semi-automatic, but it did not ban all semi-automatics. Nor did it ban semi-automatics according to classifications such as muzzle velocity or caliber. It banned some due to cosmetic effects, and failed to ban others that were functionally equivalent in every way.

It was a horrible bill, one that deserved to expire. Only someone with absolutely no regard for any form of common sense with regards to gun control could possibly support it. Eric Holder supports it, and according to Holder, Obama also supports it.

Libertarian responses to Darwin

Thursday, February 12, 2009, was the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin. Many years later he codified the theory of evolution, and more than a century afterwards it is still a subject of debate.

Unfortunately it is still a subject of debate among libertarians. Gary North, Bill Sardi, and especially Fred Reed all took time away from the useful task of promoting libertarian ideas to criticize the fact that Darwin made a major contribution to understanding the science of biology.

The most common accusation against evolution is that, somehow, it leads to the idea of Social Darwinism. The problem is that Darwin never advocated anything of the sort as he tried to understand the source and diversity of life. Evil people will find whatever excuse they want to justify their actions, including religious texts of all sorts as well as misinterpretation and misapplication of scientific theories.

Honest, Informed or Creationist. You can at most have two. You can have less than two. You cannot have all three.

Gary North commits guilt by association by pointing out the similar timelines of Lincoln and Darwin in the advancement of their careers and how they both managed to change the world at about the same time. But not all changes are equal and guilt by association is not an honest rhetorical tactic.

Bill Sardi goes farther with guilt by association by attributing to Darwin's theory many things not included in the theory, such as militant atheism, purposelessness, and Social Darwinism. The last in particular is used to say that because some people looking for justification for misbehavior have latched onto something that isn't even in the theory, the theory must be wrong. Social Darwinism is not part of biological evolution, and Darwin's theory was about biological evolution.

Sardi goes further to show a basic misunderstanding of science. Yes, evolution doesn't answer "who am I" but then no other science does either. It's a question of philosophy, which means it is in the wrong field. Evolution no more answers that then it explains why falling objects accelerate to the earth at 9.8 meters per seconds squared. That latter bit is physics, and physics fails to account for the diversity of life. He also commits many of the basic errors of those who dislike this scientific theory by committing the 2nd law of thermodynamics error and mentions the frauds but never mentions the fossils that have been found. Creationists always mention Piltdown, they never mention Homo Erectus. It is true that at one time that there was little evidence, but it is no longer 1860.

Fred Reed goes the farthest in his criticisms. He also commits guilt by association by creating from scratch an association with cultural Marxists, as well as arguing that the subject of evolution versus creation is somehow inexplicably related to the court battles over nativity scenes. His refers to those who support science as "Knights Templar" in order to make them appear as if they are on a holy crusade. He also makes knowledge errors such as ignoring the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. He says the mechanism is mutation, when the mechanism is both mutation and natural selection. For some reason creationists never talk about both mutation and natural selection at the same time, perhaps because either one of those alone would actually be insufficient. But they are not alone. He makes assertions about what evolution would predict that are not reflected by the theory of evolution itself. And the reason that people who understand the subject agree with the theory is ... they are marching in lockstep and dare not deviate from each other.

In truth, the Theory of Evolution doesn't even contradict Christianity or the Bible in the first place. All it does contradict is one particular heretical view of the Bible. Creationism is not a Christian doctrine.

The only intersection between evolution and libertarianism is that since we have government schools people are not free to choose a school that teaches religion in the science classroom. The only subject allowed in the science classroom in a government school is science.

But trying to argue that there is a libertarian issue in creationism versus evolution itself is frankly embarrassing to other libertarians. Every attempt to convince people one doesn't have to be saddled with the baggage of the religious right in order to prefer small government and free markets is undermined by scientific ignorance and dishonest debate.

Partial Reneg of the National Debt

Although debt repudiation is slowly becoming a topic outside of libertarian circles, one could make the counter-argument that people are responsible for the debt because the government that accrued it is the government elected by the people.

One could counter argue that the politicians in power weren't the one supported, and therefore the person who voted against the politician in power isn't liable. There are two different, and contradictory, counterarguments used against that. First, by voting at all, the person agrees to the outcome. Second, by not voting, the person agrees to the outcome. It is the deadly double-bind of democratic statism used to ensnare all who dare dissent by showing that they agree.

In truth the debt is owed by the politicians, past and present, who voted for it. But as they not only will never be held accountable, and they cannot afford it, they also insist the rest of us owe the debt, let us examine taking them at their word.

For some of the following calculations, both of those are going to be assumed to be true, in spite of the fact that they contradict each other. It is a common practice to say that the debt, divided by the population, gives us the share of debt owed by each person in this country. Given that debt, the following figures are the result.

President	Debt	Population	Share
Kennedy / Johnson	311,712,899,257.30	180,671,158	1,725.31
Johnson	347,578,406,425.88	191,888,791	1,811.35
Nixon	427,260,460,940.50	200,706,052	2,128.79
Nixon / Ford	620,433,000,000.00	209,896,021	2,955.91
Carter	907,701,000,000.00	218,035,164	4,163.09
Reagan Term 1	1,572,266,000,000.00	227,224,681	6,919.43
Reagan Term 2	2,602,377,701,041.16	235,824,902	11,035.21
Bush Sr	4,064,620,655,521.66	244,498,982	6,624.28
Clinton Term 1	5,224,810,939,135.73	254,994,517	20,489.90
Clinton Term 2	5,674,178,209,886.86	265,189,794	21,396.67
Bush Jr Term 1	7,379,052,696,330.32	281,421,906	26,220.61
Bush Jr Term 2	9,007,653,372,262.48	293,655,404	30,674.23

Those figures are crooked. They hold people liable for debt accrued before people could vote, or before people were even born. Whether by voting or by not voting a person gives consent, it is impossible to give or withhold consent when a person is not able to vote, whether by virtue of age or not yet existing.

A more honest figure would include the debt accrued only during that term, and dividing it up among the population in various ways. Using term debt (debt accumulated during the term of the president) instead of national debt (debt accumulated by all previous presidents) and dividing it up among the population in various ways different results emerge.

Using the assumption that both the contradictory arguments are true, that all eligible voters are responsible, then dividing up the debt of each term by the eligible voters of each term yeilds the following results.

President	Term Debt	Share by Voting Age
Kennedy / Johnson	25,382,138,408.93	232.52
Johnson	35,865,507,168.58	314.36
Nixon	79,682,054,514.62	662.21
Nixon / Ford	193,172,539,059.50	1,372.20
Carter	287,268,000,000.00	1,886.08
Reagan Term 1	664,565,000,000.00	4,037.53
Reagan Term 2	1,030,111,701,041.16	5,904.37
Bush Sr	1,462,242,954,480.50	8,000.10
Clinton Term 1	1,160,190,283,614.07	6,121.44
Clinton Term 2	449,367,270,751.13	2,286.73
Bush Jr Term 1	1,704,874,486,443.46	8,283.53
Bush Jr Term 2	1,628,600,675,932.16	7,360.68

Thus someone who only able to vote in the 2004 election is only to be held liable for the $7,360.68 of debt accumulated during that term, while someone who was able to vote for the first time in 1992 is to be held liable for $24,052.37 of the debt. Those who are not able to vote are not liable for any of it, which should come as a relief to anyone under the age of eighteen.

If that is too broad, and only those who actually registered to vote are counted a different outcome is the result.

President	Term Debt	By Registered
Kennedy / Johnson	25,382,138,408.93	391.50
Johnson	35,865,507,168.58	486.54
Nixon	79,682,054,514.62	975.80
Nixon / Ford	193,172,539,059.50	1,984.75
Carter	287,268,000,000.00	2,734.90
Reagan Term 1	664,565,000,000.00	5,878.83
Reagan Term 2	1,030,111,701,041.16	8,297.27
Bush Sr	1,462,242,954,480.50	11,570.24
Clinton Term 1	1,160,190,283,614.07	8,669.71
Clinton Term 2	449,367,270,751.13	3,073.40
Bush Jr Term 1	1,704,874,486,443.46	10,899.25
Bush Jr Term 2	1,628,600,675,932.16	9,316.94

Thus someone who was only registered to vote in the 2004 election is only to be held liable for the $9,316.94 of debt accumulated during that term, while someone who was registered to vote since 1992 is to be held liable for $31,959.29 of the debt.

Finally if you only count those who voted, there is yet another outcome.

President	Term Debt	By Voted
Kennedy / Johnson	25,382,138,408.93	368.72
Johnson	35,865,507,168.58	507.69
Nixon	79,682,054,514.62	1,088.38
Nixon / Ford	193,172,539,059.50	2,485.54
Carter	287,268,000,000.00	3,522.35
Reagan Term 1	664,565,000,000.00	7,681.48
Reagan Term 2	1,030,111,701,041.16	11,117.99
Bush Sr	1,462,242,954,480.50	15,964.28
Clinton Term 1	1,160,190,283,614.07	11,112.39
Clinton Term 2	449,367,270,751.13	4,658.76
Bush Jr Term 1	1,704,874,486,443.46	16,146.74
Bush Jr Term 2	1,628,600,675,932.16	13,316.99

Thus someone who first voted in the 2004 election is only to be held liable for the $13,316.99 of debt accumulated during that term, while someone who was registered to vote since 1992 is to be held liable for $45234.88 of the debt.

These all operate on the principle that there can be no taxation without representation.

While the these calculations do increase the debt per person on older voters all fo them hold younger voters to be not responsible for taxes levied without their representation. Assuming an average age of 40, enabling a person to cast their first vote in the race between Dukakis and Bush, that gives an of age debt of $32,052.48, a registered debt of $43,529.53, and a voted debt of $61,199.16.

But they also leave one third of the debt unaccountable. One third of the debt is owed by absolutely nobody.

Even further and more advanced calculation would also reveal that a good share of the older debts are not owed by anybody, because some who voted for older presidents have died and therefore so has their share. So the 232.52, 368.72, or 368.72 owed by each person who could be held accountable in the election of Kennedy isn't shifted from those who have died to those who haven't, but is instead to be written off as the debtor is deceased.

This does make an excellent argument for not voting and not registering to vote when the system itself is corrupt. It is also very sad that two thirds of the national debt occured within most peoples lifetimes, and that is true in both regular and constant dollars.

Of course the best argument is that the debt actually belongs to those who accrued it, the Senators and Representatives who voted for it and the Presidents who signed for it. Let the debt be divided up amongst the gang of 540.

The State of the State of California

California is in a dire financial condition. The state has a budget deficit of $40 billion, and the state is not supposed to have an unbalanced budget. The only reason taxes haven't gone up to pay for this is due to the work of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association. Propositions sponsored by the HJTA have made it difficult to raise taxes. Any measure that increases taxes must pass with at least 2/3 of the vote. While the Democrats have a permanent majority in the State Assembly and State Senate they are short of the 2/3 necessary to pass tax increases.

The Republicans have, until now, actually stood firm against tax increases. California is already one of the most taxed states in the United States.

At one point the legislature tried to pass a tax increase by simple majority, in defiance of the law. Governor Schwarzenegger appeared as if he was going to sign it until a lawsuit made him back down.

Now negotiations are going on to try to sell a tax increase to Assembly and Senate Republicans, with the promise of a spending cap and a rollback of some environmental regulations.

The unions are furious about the spending cap, and the environmentalists are furious about the regulation rollback. Meanwhile the average Republican is against any further increase in taxes. Constituents from both parties are against this deal for different reasons.

The spending cap is an interesting proposal. It's interesting in that it is indicative of a false deal that Republicans fall for so often it is cause to wonder if they are actually fooled or merely pretend to be so in an effort to appease constituents.

At the federal level, budget balancing deals usually go like this:

The Democrats propose to increase taxes now and in two years will implement spending cuts. The Republicans agree.

Two years later the Democrats have conveniently forgotten about the promised spending cuts, and any efforts by Republicans to remind them are met with "everything's different now."

The interaction is so regular and so routine it gives serious cause to wonder if the Republicans are actually fooled, or if they hope that by pretending to be fooled they can fool those who vote for them.

A better deal, if the Republicans actually support a balanced budget would be "spending cuts now, and if that's not enough tax hikes later". An even cannier move would be to conveniently forget about the tax hikes when "later" arrives.

The spending cap is just such a proposal. It will be overturned as soon as it is met unless stringent controls are put in place. These controls would need to be stronger than the 2/3 majority needed to raise taxes. It should require at least 75%, and preferably 90%, to overturn the spending cap in the face of an emergency.

Offering that sort of a spending cap will reveal just how genuine the Democrats are in their efforts to balance the budget by more than just raising taxes.

Pragmatic Politics

There are many people who resist labeling their political beliefs by insisting that they are merely pragmatic while everyone else is idealistic. They suppose that gives them an edge in political debates because unlike the ideologue they are simply being practical when they expound their own ideology.

It is a rhetorical tool used to sway the emotions, an attempt to make the opposition appear to be not grounded in reality. In most cases it amounts to little more than a trick. Sometimes those saying that their politics are simply pragmatism actually believe what they say, and that is when the discussion gets difficult.

Someone who actually has no ideology has nothing to say about politics. Someone without ideology is not only not liberal, conservative, or libertarian, that person is not moderate or middle of the road. Someone who actually has no ideology actually doesn't care one way or the other about the outcome of any political contest.

When confronted with that, most who try to avoid claiming no ideology say that is a mischaracterization and that they actually only care about what works.

The problem is how to define what works. What is it they want to accomplish? That will define what works. If the goal is to ensure inflation, increasing the money supply works. If the goal is to ensure greater unemployment, supporting the Employee Free Choice Act works.

What works depends on what goal. As Ayn Rand wrote, "practical" depends on what you want to practice.

What goal is ideology. Nobody who is pragmatic and practical lacks an ideology; everyone who claims to be pragmatic and practical is pragmatic and practical towards some particular goal. Someone with no ideology doesn't participate at all.

When others offer solutions for the recession that involve bailouts, and decry opposition to those solutions as "partisanship" or "ideology", throw the accusation back in their face. Their own ideology is what causes the pro-government solutions, not the lack of an ideology.

Employee "Free" Choice Act

Organized labor leaders supported Obama. They did not do so selflessly, but out of a desire to have a certain law passed that would greatly increase the strength and wealth of organized labor. They look forward to the passage of the Orwellian named "Employee Free Choice Act."

That act does not give employees free choice; it gives union organizers free choice over the employees.

Currently, if there is a drive to form a union, it is a two step process. First employee signature cards are collected to show sufficient interest, and then a secret ballot election is held to determine whether or not a majority of employees actually want a union. The biggest complaint of the union organizers is that employees who sign the check cards that leads to the election then vote against forming a union on their secret ballots.

The EFCA will eliminate the requirement for a secret ballot election. The employee check cards will be considered sufficient to form a union.

Allegedly this is done to prevent employer intimidation. The theory is that during the time interval between the collection of the signature cards and the balloting, a sufficient number of pro-union employees would be fired to ensure the election goes the way the employer wants, presumably anti-union. This flies in the face of currently existing employment laws which protect union organizers from being treated in this manner.

Also allegedly somehow employers would know how employees voted in the secret ballot and therefore punish those employees who support the union. The truth is that union organizers are disgruntled that they do not know how employees voted and therefore can not punish those employees who oppose the union. Some organizers even make the Orwellian suggestion that in the interest of fairness the ballot should not be secret.

Instead of being a protection for the employee, this EFCA is actually a way for unions to abuse employees. Signing the union card is a public act, analogous to registering to vote. Peer pressure can move people to act in ways that they wouldn’t act if granted privacy. The Employee Free Choice Act allows Guido and Nunzio to walk up to an employee and say "Youze gonna sign the union card? You don't want no 'accidents' to happen so youze gonna sign it."

For the sake of the employee, the EFCA should not pass.

The need for police to police each other

Those who distrust government often extend that distrust to the police themselves. That leads to the criticism that police have a very difficult job and do not need the opprobrium that is often heaped on them by those who dislike their enforcement of unconstitutional laws. Attention should only be paid to those who are actually bad, and good police should not be judged by the bad seeds in their company.

The law enforcement structure, consisting of both the police and the district attorneys, may very well be full of well meaning people. That cannot be denied. While it is obvious some of those in the structure entered it because of a desire for power over others, others entered it out of a genuine desire to serve or protect the public.

Unfortunately they do not police themselves enough. Every police officer who does not arrest a bad seed is in himself a bad seed because he did not do so. Every district attorney who does not file charges against a bad seed is in himself a bad seed because he did not do so.

That’s what it comes down to. People talk about “the thin blue line”, a phrase meant to indicate that police will protect other police when one of them is accused. Police will not take action against other police unless public outcry is so great (as in the case of the BART subway shooting) that they cannot afford to do otherwise.

Although solutions have been proposed, until and unless they are acted upon the only way the law enforcement structure can earn the respect that was once their due is to break the blue wall of silence.

Until that happens the bad opinion people have of the police in general, as a result of the "bad seeds", is entirely justified.

The Factors of Reneging on the National Debt

President-Elect Obama has recently announced that the national deficit will be in the trillions over the next several years as he proposes to spend the United States out of depression. China may stop buying United States bonds, which means the money will not be available for the trillion dollar deficits being proposed.

Worse still for the government, creditors may start demanding repayment of the debt.

There are three solutions for repayment. The first is a mix of tax hikes and spending cuts. The second is to print the repayment. The current policy appears to be a mix of the two. The third is to renege on the National Debt.

The third is the policy favored by most libertarians. Although there is ample historic precedent, most people seem not only unfamiliar with the idea, but seem to think that it is a unique idea when it is proposed. Even the United States has already engaged in the practice twice, once under F. Roosevelt and once under R. Nixon, when they refused payment in gold. Additionally many states reneged on their individual debts after the looting that took place after the War Between the States.

There are four principle arguments that need to be looked at as to whether the United States Federal Government can renege on the debt: the legal, the international, the economic, and the moral.

The legal argument asks whether or not the government has that authority. The answer is simply "yes". Whereas it is the government that makes the laws, the government can decide that the actions of the government are legal.

Then there is the international argument, specifically with relation to those foreign nations that hold the bulk of the United States debt. Usually this question comes down to the potential for hostile relations with China.

It is not a secret that the Chinese government views the United States as a rival, or perhaps even as an enemy. The purchase of debt is seen in intelligence circles as a deliberate action to gain leverage against the United States by the threat to dump that debt if the United States stands too boldly on a position that is against China's own interests. Dumping United States debt would ruin the value of that debt on international markets, crippling the ability of the United States to act in many areas.

Some outside of military or intelligence circles protest this analysis by pointing out that such an act would hurt China as well. The assumption is that the Chinese government would never take any actions that would hurt China. Based on that assumption no country ever goes to war against any other country because even the victor in a war is hurt by the war. The question is who is hurt more and some think that China would be able to take the blow but the United States would be hurt more.

In addition to hurting the United States, this move would also hurt Japan, an ancillary benefit. Historically either China or Japan is strong, making the present situation with both of them strong historically rare.

If the United States were to renege on the debt, that would nullify the threat of the Chinese held debt on a timetable more acceptable to the United States. While it would hurt the United States, a planned dumping of the debt by the United States is much more manageable while it hurts Chinese plans, if any, to use the debt as a weapon.

The third consideration is the economic one. It is said that dumping the debt would be a financial catastrophe for the United States economy. Actually it would only really hurt the credit rating of the United States government. It should be remembered that the debts of individuals, corporations, cities, and states are all not part of the national debt. A renege by the United States government would only impact the credit rating of the United States government, not the credit rating of every entity in the United States.

Some claim that the repercussions of such a renege would send the United States further into recession. Perhaps it would, but it would also remove many of the destabilizing factors of that are presently in the economy and more quickly enable the United States to climb out of recession.

Some claim that a renege would make it impossible for the United States to fund various obligations. So would a dumping of the debt.

The economy is in bad shape. Such a move, while painful, is a restorative move.

The final consideration is the moral one. Does the United States have a moral obligation to pay the debt?

In contract law, one cannot make a contract to receive stolen goods. It is not allowed, and any contract that says otherwise is considered null and void.

Another consideration is that once is not required to inherit debt. If someone dies with massive debt, nobody is required to inherit it. Many of those expected to pay this debt were not alive when the debt was initially acquired, and many of the rest were not voters when more of the debt was acquired. Given that much of this debt is in the names of people who were not able to consent to it, this debt is inherited.

Thus those who purchased the bonds should not have an expectation to receive payment, and those who are expected to pay have no obligation to do so.

The United States not only does not have an obligation to pay the debt, it has an obligation not to.

Libertarianism is Comprehensive

It really was my intent to write an entry last week even though it was the week of Christmas. However having a cold while having family visit during Christmas made three strikes and I was out. On the plus side conversations with a family member did contribute to the idea for this topic.


A common refrain from those who are libertarian but hesistate to use the name to describe their ideological leanings is that if some part of the libertarian platform were implemented it would cause problems because of the way it would react with the status quo. For instance, if drug laws were liberalized right now then the resulting stress on the Medi/Medi system would increase taxes on everyone else to pay each time someone uses drugs to excess and cannot afford treatment.

There are actually many issues like this, contingent issues in which people would be libertarian except for the consequences of fulfillment of a plank. What they are really having a problem with is partial fulfillment of the libertarian platform because of perceived omissions.

But the omissions are only perceived. The libertarian platform would indeed allow someone to ride a motorcycle without wearing a helment, but would also not pay for the healthcare of a person who rode a motorcycle without a helment. Both the rule giver and the care giver aspects of government are addressed in the libertarian platform.

Not only are people able to make their own decisions (not "allowed" but "able" since "allowed" connotes that the government has the proper role of decision making but has delegated it to the person) but people are forced to bear the consequences of their own decisions.

The financial markets would be deregulated AND nobody would receive a bailout if they failed. Education would not be mandatory AND nobody would live off the public largess for failing to receive an education. Drugs would be legal AND nobody would get Medi / Medi health care for scrambling their brains.

In each and every case, it’s already in the platform.

Then it is said sometimes that certain aspects are not sufficiently emphasized. That’s not the case. Republicans exposed to libertarianism wouldn’t pay much attention to opposition to government sponsored health care because that issue isn’t important to them and they already sort-of agree with libertarians on it, but they will immediately think of the status quo of government health care when they get to the motorcyclist without a helment. Having failed to pay attention to healthcare they see only hedonism. But a Democrat exposed to libertarianism would indeed say that the opposition to government health care is a major point. It’s reader bias, not platform bias.

One could make the case that certain issues should be more heavily emphasized than they currently are. The problem is that since libertarianism is such a contrast to the current system as represented by the socialist warmongers in both parties, that would require that every aspect of the platform receive primary emphasis. That means equal emphasis, and in many ways that is currently the case, or at least was in 2004.

The Libertarian Rubicon

Over on Rad Geek People’s Daily the Rad Geek recently made some interesting comments. These comments were regarding the death of FBI Narcotics Agent Sam Hicks while executing a no-knock raid.

Seeing as Sam Hicks was a professional thug who was shot in the course of violently enforcing a tyrannical law on an innocent man — and endangering that man's whole family in the process — I'm glad he got himself shot while he was doing it. That was a righteous kill. If only more of his fellow gangsters had reason to fear that they might get shot whenever they attempted these storm-trooper raids on innocent families to enforce unjust laws. And I don't even care whether FBI Special Agent Sam Hicks could have saved his own skin by enforcing that tyrannical law through other, less confrontational means.

He goes further.

But, speaking only for myself, as a libertarian, I think that drug dealers' lives are worth far more than the lives of FBI agents, because at least some drug dealers make their living nonviolently, by peddling a valued product to willing customers. Whereas FBI agents, and especially FBI agents on drug task forces, make their livings by imprisoning people who have done nothing to deserve it, in the name of "protecting" people who never asked for it and often don’t want that kind of "protection," and taking home a salary that was extracted from their "protected" victims at the point of a gun.

This is a courageous stand to take. Libertarians are accustomed to disagreeing with police, even to the point of describing them as tyrants or thugs. But libertarians often stop short of cheering for the death of police officers, no matter how well deserving.

While libertarians generally embrace a revolutionary spirit and talk about the possibility of some day needing to rebel and fight back against government oppressors, the tendency is to couch such language in the future sense and always theoretically. Some of the more disgruntled libertarians like to say "is it time to shoot the bastards yet?"

Another step taken by the Rad Geek is to say that the life of a drug dealer is worth more than that of a police officer. People are trained since childhood to respect police as heroes doing an important and difficult job. While libertarians in general have a dissenting view, they often stop short of actively demeaning officers or glorifying those who defend their homes as heroes, especially when the person the so-called criminal was defending from was a police officer.

In other cases where a person shot a police officer who was presumed to be a home invader, the debate sometimes devolves to whether or not burglary is a death sentence offense. Since it isn't in a court, there is no reason for a person to shoot a burglar, other than the obvious one of the burglar being a threat. Other times the debate devolves into whether or not it is credible that the person didn't know the intruder was a police officer. Plus, given the self-defense angle of those who shoot invading burglars (and police officers) there will be those who insist that the lives of criminals are of equal value to others and therefore should never be taken. That argument is used to make libertarians appear callous for thinking that those who violate the rights of others have forfeited those rights themselves, even though it is true. What makes a police officer different is only a mistaken identity in those arguments.

While cheering is short of actually advocating armed resistance, it is a step closer. The first ones to take it will, of course, be jeered and treated as just a step above criminals themselves even among libertarians. But if the government is oppressive enough it is a necessary step and the first ones to take it will eventually be joined with other voices cheering when a home invader with a badge is treated like any other home invader. And daring to say that the police officer is not a valuable member of society, and that a drug dealer is, is another important step. This goes a step beyond simply comparing police to the criminals they "protect" us from.

This is a Rubicon that each libertarian needs to cross individually, but it is an important one. It's time to stop showing criminals respect simply because they have badges. It's time that people start saying that these thugs get what they deserve when they act like criminals.


Please give to the Salvation Army. They are a charity with a good record on how much of each donation goes to the intended recipient, and this year due to the depression their donations have fallen significantly. That’s unfortunate because in depressions is when charities like this are needed most. Yes, they are a religious based charity, and while I don’t agree with their religious beliefs they do good work. If you’re going to give to a non-political charity, please consider the Salvation Army.

Comparing 1929 to 2008

One of the rebuttals to those who compare the depression of 1928 to 2008 is that unemployment is far lower today than it was then. Of course there are problems with that comparison.

One problem is that every government statistic is a poor reflection of reality. It is well known that inflation calculations exclude certain high inflation items in order to bring the actual rate down. The same is true for unemployment statistics that do not count those who are underemployed, have multiple jobs, and have given up on looking for work or are looking for their first job.

But there is another entirely different factor in the unemployment rates that is overlooked even by most who know how government statistics are inaccurate. A greater portion of the population today work for the government than did in 1929.

This is an important statistical variance. Government jobs are not productive jobs, but instead are a drain on the wealth of those who have actual productive jobs. It is hard to accurately measure the number that work for the government, because in addition to three levels of government to count (federal, state, and local) there are many contractors and subcontractors who directly or indirectly work for the government.

According to government statistics direct government employees include 2.7 million people employed by the federal government, 5 million employed by the state governments, and 14 million people employed by local governments. With a total workforce of 136 million people that’s 16% who are government employees.

The official unemployment rate is 6.7 percent. According to Shadow Stats Alternate Data the actual unemployment rate is about 7 percent higher. That would make an alternate unemployment rate of about 14 percent.

Add to that the number who are government employed, and that puts the non-productive employment rate at 30 percent.

That makes an interesting comparison to the unemployment rate during the Great Depression. In 1930 the unemployment rate was comparable to the current rate, and in 1931 the rate was comparable to the alternate unemployment rate. In 1932 the rate was below the current non-productive employment rate.

Year Unemployment Rate
-------------
1929 3.2
1930 8.7
1931 15.9
1932 23.6
1933 24.9
1934 21.7
1935 20.1
1936 16.9
1937 14.3
1938 19.0
1939 17.2

The problem with those numbers is that government employment greatly increased due to public works projects due to the Hoover/Roosevelt New Deal.

Given all the factors that go into calculating employment, the rate of those who are productively employed is indeed comparable already to the Great Depression. The usual proposed Keynesian solution, even more public works programs, will be extremely difficult to implement given the large percentage of people who already work for the government.


Please give to the Salvation Army. They are a charity with a good record on how much of each donation goes to the intended recipient, and this year due to the depression their donations have fallen significantly. That’s unfortunate because in depressions is when charities like this are needed most. Yes, they are a religious based charity, and while I don’t agree with their religious beliefs they do good work. If you’re going to give to a non-political charity, please consider the Salvation Army.

States and the Recession

In spite of federal efforts to stop it, the recession is continuing unabated. Unemployment is rising while prices and property values are falling. While the federal government has mismanagement options that enable it to spend in spite of decreased revenues, other levels of government do not have the same capabilities.

The states generally get funding from income taxes and sales taxes. Cities and counties generally get funding from property taxes and sales taxes. As unemployment rises, income tax revenues decline. As sales decrease, sales tax revenues decline. As property values plummet, property tax revenues decline.

Government officials find the prospect of cutting the budget abhorrent. That leaves the states in a quandary.

Some states are already turning to the federal government for bailout money. Not all agree, but the trend is there. Other states are looking for which taxes can be raised. Some are increasing their ticketing to increase revenue.

On the issue of raising taxes during a recession, Keynesians and Austrians agree it is a bad idea. States that do so are implementing bad economic programs, often in opposition to tax decreases implemented by the federal government.

A better solution would simply be for the states to do what everyone else has to do, and to adjust expenditures downward to match revenues.

Liberals versus the Nolan Chart

To those who followed the link here from Rational Review, I did not suggest there is an economic relationship between conservatives and libertarians. One of the links goes to an entry called "Conservatives versus the Nolan Chart" which argues that the relationship does not exist. References to that relationship in this article are meant to be used as "that one was false, what about this one?"

It's often assumed that libertarians share a civil outlook with the liberals and an economic outlook with conservatives. The economic differences between conservatives and libertarians have been documented several times here and here. That leaves the question of whether or not libertarians share a civil outlook with liberals, or if that is as accurate a representation as the economic relationship between libertarians and conservatives has proven to be.

The problem is both camps do appear to be talking about different things when the subject of civil liberty is mentioned. When California Proposition 98 was put on the ballot to oppose eminent domain, the ACLU of Southern California opposed it while the Libertarian Party of California supported it. Liberals do not seem to regard surety of property as a civil liberty, but only an economic one.

That’s the first difference. Libertarians believe you cannot have civil liberty without private property, but liberals believe the two to be entirely different and, in some cases, antithetical.

But if it were possible to separate out the economic from the civil are there differences remaining? Indeed there are, and both sides consider themselves to be on the correct side of each divide because both define the matter differently.

The biggest area of difference is freedom of association. Libertarians would not restrict distasteful choices people make. Liberals would. Both sides say that by doing so they are advancing civil liberty. For the greater good liberals are willing to eliminate freedom of association and call it racial justice, or gender justice, or some other group justice. Affirmative action programs and other similar programs will force individuals to act in ways that the liberal feels with expand civil liberty.

The libertarian feels that there is no civil liberty unless it is on the individual level, that there is no such thing as civil liberty for groups, that groups do not have rights. Libertarians feel that if the rights of the individual are diminished for the sake of any group right then the rights of all individuals are diminished.

Much like when the conservative is unable to differentiate between a libertarian and a libertine, accusing a libertarian who would never touch drugs of being a druggie since he supports drug legalization, a liberal is unable to differentiate between a libertarian and a bigot due to the libertarian's objection to the entire concept of group rights. In both cases the libertarian's position has been either misunderstood or is being distorted.

Both the conservative and the liberal in that example are ascribing to libertarians a sort of legal positivism, an ideology that is as far removed from libertarianism as it is possible to be. The legal positivist believes something good because the law says so. From a legal positivist point of view, the libertarian call to legalize drugs is the same as the libertine call to do drugs, and the libertarian call to end group rights is the same as the bigot's call to discriminate against those groups.

It’s a straw man.

The Automotive Bailouts

The "Big Three" of the automobile industry are lining up to be next at the trough of government funds. For a pleasant change, Congress is insisting on knowing what the money will be spent on before wasting it on yet another bailout that will do more harm than good.

If they do not get a bailout, they will probably have to go into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which will cause a restructuring of the companies and a renegotiation of the contracts. The companies will not actually disappear.

While it was the executives that went to Washington to ask for the bailout, the major supporter of the bailout is the unions.

The United Auto Workers is a very large an important union. If the "big three" go into bankruptcy, it will cause a renegotiation of the contracts they have with the unions. That will severely weaken the UAW, and through them, the unions as a whole. This comes just when the unions were eagerly anticipating the Orwellian "Employee Free Choice Act" which will greatly strengthen the unions. Just as they were expecting to increase their power is when their power was suddenly threatened.

This bailout may look like a bailout to big business, but it is more a bailout to big labor. The ability to drain the wealth of those who purchase their goods through restraint of trade being threatened, the unions are instead attempting to drain the wealth of everyone without regards towards purchases by having the government do it through taxation.

Given that the government is bankrupt and that the country is in a recession that is turning into a depression, the UAW might try to set more realistic goals regarding their ability to squeeze more money out of the consumer through anti-competitive practices. Once there are no longer any jobs, it doesn’t matter how much those jobs pay

Obama the war hawk

Barack Obama has not yet been sworn in as President and already he is abandoning campaign promises.

In the primaries, when campaigning against Hillary Clinton, she ran as a staunch hawk on foreign policy issues. Obama ran a campaign opposing both Clinton and Bush by running as a peace candidate, pledging to withdraw from Iraq and to favor diplomacy over military action. By successfully tying Clinton to Bush and running against both and for peace, he was able to defeat her in the primaries.

Then, in the general election, his anti-war rhetoric was dramatically softened. He still ran on a pledge to withdraw from Iraq and to engage in diplomacy with other countries perceived as potential threats, but favored escalation in Afghanistan. That was sufficient given that his opponent publicly stated he was willing to remain in Iraq for one hundred years and joked in song about bombing Iran.

After having won the general election, Obama’s first major cabinet appointment was pro-war Rahm Emanual for Chief of Staff. Now it appears he is planning to offer the major diplomatic spot, the Secretary of State, to Hillary Clinton. The Secretary of State is the highest diplomatic office, and Obama is offering the spot to someone whose position on diplomacy is the opposite of Obama’s campaign rhetoric.

This follows quickly on the heels of his promise to not hire lobbyists, another change that he quickly abandoned. Already the special pleading has begun to explain why this shows he is showing superior judgement.

Combine his newfound hawkishness with his calls for national service, and the potential for a draft becomes quite ominous.

When Obama promised change, many people assumed he meant to change the country, but it seems that instead he proposed to change himself once elected. Which Barack Obama was actually elected, the one whose record he appears to continue or the one his supporters thought he was?

The Path Ahead

Now that the election is over, and Obama has beaten McCain, the question for libertarians is "now what?"

There are several things that a lover of liberty must do now that the socialist and reluctant warmonger beat the warmonger and reluctant socialist.

First, it is important to keep pressure on the Democrats to remember that one of the reasons Obama won their support was because he was allegedly the peace candidate. Granted that compared to McCain in the general election or Clinton in the Democratic primary he does appear to be a peace candidate, but compared to actual peace candidates like Paul or Kucinich he’s very much a hawk.

Pressure must be kept on the Democrats to actually work to disengage militarily. During the next year they are going to discover that they do like war after all, because the President leading the war effort is of their party instead of the other party. The appointment of Rahm Emmanuel to Chief of Staff is disturbing because it shows the process is already underway.

Second, all libertarians should prepare for when Obama (and a compliant congress) tries to introduce Universal Health Care or some other version of Socialist Medicine. It may even be necessary to work with the underdog Republicans on this. A necessary step for the Democrats to take if they want to implement this will be to change the cloture rules so that the Republicans cannot filibuster the proposal. Loudly and publicly proclaim any tinkering with the cloture rules to be a power grab and vociferously denounce it.

Third, be prepared to oppose calls for national service. Obama already wants us to perform national service simply in order to graduate from high school. His Chief of Staff has different plan for forcing everyone to do community service, and it is even less voluntary than the allegedly voluntary plan of Obama.

Fourth, many Obama supporters believed he was going to act in direct contrast to his record on issues other than the war, on issues like the USAPATRIOT Act and FISA Amendment, the Wall Street Crisis, and NAFTA, as well as a few others where (perhaps by accident) Obama was actually right and his supporters still believed he held the opposite view. Every time Obama acts in a manner consistent with Obama's record but inconsistent with how his supporters thought he would act is another moment to say "see I told you so." It will not likely work as on each of those positions his supporters will discover that the position Obama actually supports was what they supported all along, just like Oceana was always at war with EastAsia.

Fifth, the Republicans are busy trying to figure out where they went wrong. Be sure to tell them that they had a candidate who could have beaten Obama, and they wouldn’t even count his votes at the convention. Be sure to remind the local Republican organizations about that. Send them the message "don't blame me, I voted Paul." Even if it isn't true, because not all libertarians did so, it should be said because all Republicans need to hear that.

Sixth, work should not stop on trying to open up the electoral process, a task that is never finished.

Seventh, there will be an effort by Democrats to blame the depression on a hypothetical laissez faire attitue of Bush that must be countered at every turn. Do not allow anyone to describe the financial meltdown as the result of deregulation as Hoover leaves office and Roosevelt enters office.

Finally, never forget to ask the Reform Caucus where are the additional votes Barr was supposed to deliver.

Conspiracy Theory and its Discontents

In 2006 the Reform Caucus radically watered down the LP platform. In 2008 the Reform Caucus pushed forward Bob Barr and Wayne Root as the nominees. Due to these two efforts it is now difficult to distinguish the Libertarian Party from a watered down Republican Party. The Drug War is perhaps the only area of clear difference, as the War Caucus (misnamed as the Defense Caucus) insists that it is wrong to list being against wars of aggression as a libertarian value.

In 2008 Alan Keyes also attempted to gain the nomination of the Constitution Party, but succeeded only in getting their ballot line in the state of California. Being the most populous state that ballot line is crucial to any party that seeks to grow large enough to be considered a major party someday, and the vote is split between Keyes and the actual Constitution Party nominee. In 2000 Patrick Buchanan sought and won the nomination of the Reform Party, and that party has since disappeared.

It would not be far fetched to suggest that the Republican Party has been cynically manipulating third parties for their personal gain. It would not be far fetched to suggest that Buchanan, Keyes, and Barr are all Republican Party plants to either neutralize or destroy third parties that are perceived as threats. It’s not a secret that Republicans have also donated to Ralph Nader and the Green Party in order to bolster threats to the Republican Party.

The problem with saying that that is the case is that there is insufficient proof. Every bit of evidence is circumstantial. None of it proves an actual policy on the part of Republicans or the Republican Party.

That’s the problem with conspiracy theory. It’s obvious who would benefit if there is a conspiracy of this sort. What is missing is any actual proof.

In all attempts to participate in the political process, roadblocks are placed in the way of anyone outside of the party machinery to get anything done. These roadblocks are said to be there to regulate what is done, not to prevent people from acting. They do, in fact, prevent people from acting. If two people get together to make signs against a ballot proposition, they are in fact an unregistered political action committee and their signs therefore do not contain the appropriate legal notices of the committee that put them up, and therefore those two individuals could be subjected to thousands of dollars of fines for violating campaign finance laws.

The authors of those laws claim that the purpose of those laws is to regulate the process, not to exclude. In no public statement have they said otherwise. Therefore to suggest otherwise is to engage in conspiracy theory, since actual proof is lacking. It’s obvious by effect what these laws do, but one cannot prove that the effect is the desired effect of the law.

The First Brigade has been deployed to the United States. The major media doesn’t cover it, much as major media doesn’t cover third parties and the major media doesn’t cover non-mainstream candidates from the major parties. All four of the Campaign for Liberty candidates aren’t covered (Barr is one of them whether he admits so or not) just as the founder of the CfL wasn’t covered when he was a candidate for a major party. Some suggest they aren’t newsworthy, because that is the non-conspiracy viewpoint. It can be shown that they are newsworthy but still not covered. To suggest there’s a deliberate effort to exclude these stories is to engage in conspiracy theory as there is no actual proof, only circumstantial evidence.

Is there a police state coming in the United States? The expanded police powers of the USAPATRIOT Act, the Protect America Act, and similar laws, coupled with the domestic deployment of the First Brigade suggest as much, but since nobody in any official position of power has come out and said "yes, we are planning on a police state" the position that there may very well be a police state coming is not considered a credible position and is considered instead to be conspiracy theory in spite of the circumstantial evidence.

The problem with asserting these as true is that there is no proof that it is true. The problem with asserting these as false is that the circumstantial evidence all points the other way. The problem with dismissing these as conspiracy theory is that just because something is a conspiracy theory doesn’t mean that it is false, only that it is unproven.

If there are these conspiracies, then the labeling of anyone who investigates them as a “conspiracy theorist” and then to have anyone with that label considered mentally unbalanced would be their biggest triumph. Anyone who looks for anything beyond what the media reports is therefore unbalanced.

To be fair, many conspiracy theorists brought this on themselves because faced with circumstantial evidence but no proof too many have declared that to be sufficient and declared their theory to be true. Having found who benefits they decide that the same are the initiators of the conspiracy itself.

Also the question needs to be asked of those who harp on insufficient proof if they actually expect those who would be the conpirators to confiess to what they are planning? If there is a plan in the Republican Party to nullify third parties (or take them over) would Republican leaders admit to this? If there is a plan for a police state, would politicans admit to this? If there is a conspiracy to black out certain candidates and parties from the media, would the media cover it?

The rational and skeptical point of view is that there may be truth to these conspiracies, that they should not be dismissed out of hand, but not proclaimed true until further proof is forthcoming. Those who benefit from these measures should be treated with suspicion instead of being treated as guilty (as the theorists do) or as innocent (as the critics do). Those who are interested should work to find proof or disproof, using qui bono and circumstantial evidence as a starting point.

On a final note, is it possible that Republicans, anticipating the demise of their own party, degraded the Libertarian Party platform in 2006 and alienated the "purists" in 2008 so that the LP could be a replacement of their own party in 2012?

Arizona Proposition 105

Innovative ways to restrain the state are always interesting and always a good idea, provided that they actually do restrain the state. Proposition 13 of California was such a one, restricting the ability of governments in California from raising the property taxes.

Arizona is set to vote on another way of restraining the state by restraining taxation, Proposition 105.

The proposition requires that any tax increase, in order to pass, gain a true majority in the polls. A true majority is a majority of all registered voters, not just those that show up to the polls.

This means that unless a majority of the voters show up at all, tax increases will fail. This means that if a majority does show up, and a majority of that majority votes for the tax increase, it does not mean it will pass because 50% of 50% is 25%, which is a minority of the voters.

Critics of this measure decry this as a way to count the votes of those who did not vote, because there is truth to the argument that any absent vote counts against the measure. The argument is that the state is unable to determine the true intent of those who do not vote, and therefore should not be able to count them in favor or against any tax increase.

The critics acknowledge that raising taxes via ballot initiatives, a popular method among state legislatures that do not want to take responsibility for tax increases, will be much harder.

And that is good. That is why 105 should pass.

Issues Designed to Divide

In California there is a proposition on the ballot of very little importance. It is the one receiving the most media attention and has passions running the highest. Proposition 8 is about gay marriage.

There are two aspects to the gay marriage debate. The first is whether or not homosexual couples should have the same legal rights in their unions as heterosexual couples do in their unions. The second is whether or not these unions can be called "marriages." The first touches on libertarian issues, in an oblique way. The second is utterly irrelevant.

The libertarian take on the first question is that government should not be in the marriage business in the first place. The debate in the public arena is whether the government’s involvement should be to recognize or not recognize with government approval and government licensing the gay union. Libertarians who take a stand on this question will often come down on "if the have to be involved, they should at least treat everyone equally" which is a fair position.

There is absolutely no libertarian take on the second question. It is designed to keep the public debating a completely irrelevant point. It doesn't matter if congress just is busy incrementally voting in a police state if everyone is debating whether or not homosexual unions can be called "marriage". It doesn’t matter which direction the question is settled, the fact that everyone is debating the question is sufficient to keep people from questioning other issues.

If everyone is debating whether or not McCain looked Obama directly in the eyes during the debate, nobody is noticing that they didn't disagree on any basic issues.

If everyone is debating whether or not ACORN submitted phony voter registrations (or had infiltrators submit them) they do not see the bigger voter fraud picture of Ballot Access Laws, Campaign Finance Laws, and Safe Districts.

Distractions are the method of modern politics. Many are distracted by the tabloids. For those who actually think politics is important, there are distraction issues to deal with them.

George W. Bush is Herbert Hoover

George W. Bush is very much like Herbert Hoover, but not in the way most people understand that statement.

Herbert Hoover was, contrary to the myths, a very economically activist president. When the Great Recession started, he worked tirelessly to try to bail out the failing banks. He started many of the programs that eventually became part of FDR's "New Deal". In doing so he made the Great Recession worse, and since his programs were those of the New Deal, he started the Great Depression. As a result he lost his party the office of the Presidency for decades. The other party (in the person of FDR) gained power and formally instituted the New Deal.

Some of the blame Bush is getting is for allegedly being too free market, allowing the market to proceed unchecked. Allegedly his disbelief in government caused him to deregulate the banking industry, even though there is no truth to that belief.

It should be noted that the Republican Party does not believe in deregulation. The Republican Party believes in regulation, just to the benefit of a different group than the Democratic Party does. Both of them have faith in the government; they just have different faiths from each other. Libertarians are the ones without faith in the government. The Democrats seem confused on the issue of this faith, mistaking heresy for disbelief, but the truth is that compared to the Democrats the Republicans are heretics of big government instead of atheists of big government. Even then few regulations were removed or changed.

The free market got the blame in 1929 for the inflation of the Federal Reserve and the failure of the market interventions of Hoover. The free market is getting the blame in 2008 for the inflation of the Federal Reserve and the failure of the market interventions of Bush.

Bush is in the process of losing his party control of the Presidency, and will be handing the office over to Barack Obama, who will bring us a New Deal to try to solve the economic woes of the United States, completing the cycle and bringing a new Great Depression out of Bush’s Great Recession.