A fourteen year old boy goes to the grocery store to ask for a job. He is turned away, told that hiring him is against the law. He’s not seeking full time employment; he’s seeking to bag groceries for a few hours on the weekend. He is not allowed to because the law, which knows better, tells him he is not yet ready to work for income. The only income allowable to people his age comes from chores, or sometimes lawn mowing or babysitting.
Mention allowing that child to get a job, and the response is horror stories about factories and coal mines. It is a temporal fallacy because while that was once the case it is not the case today. Allowing people under the age of sixteen to seek employment will not result in children being taken out of schools and locked in dangerous factories.
It is not as if there are no exceptions to child labor laws. Minors are employable on family businesses and in artistic pursuits. Allegedly these are different because of parental involvement, which would mean that those in favor of child labor laws believe that parents would abuse their children if given any other labor option for their children.
There are jobs today that are just as safe for a person of fourteen years as they are for a person of sixteen years. Those jobs involve asking "paper or plastic" or "would you like fries with that." Those jobs are there as entry level positions that enable a person to learn how to hold down a job. Some people even go so far as to suggest that those jobs are created specifically for teenagers to soak up some surplus labor.
Given that conditions have changed much since the days of the coal mines and the locked factories, it is clearly time to stop thinking of those times as a basis for restricting child labor, and allowing those who wish to succeed a chance to do so.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Apologies
Due to some personal problems, including my motorcycle getting stolen, I am unable to post a blog entry this week.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Let Them Eat Healthcare
It is not true that Marie Antoinette said "let them eat cake" when informed that the peasants had no bread. The point of that quote, however apocryphal, isn't to show her as callous though. The point is to show she had no comprehension of the plight of the poor. In the myth she was trying to be helpful by way of suggesting that since cake is like bread if someone is out of bread they can eat cake instead.
In the healthcare debate, with regards to the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, the debate often centers about people who do not have healthcare. In fact, many of those so described do have healthcare, they do not have health insurance. Those described as lacking care can easily get care, and in many cases do not have to pay.
An unfortunate aspect of the whole Healthcare Reform debate is that advocates of increased government intervention routinely confuse care and coverage. Even after this obfuscation is pointed out, advocates of increased government intervention continue to make the same error. There seems to be no way to shame an advocate of increased government intervention to accurately describe the debate as over healthcare coverage and not over healthcare itself.
And yet, that is the point. Healthcare does become less available the more the government intervenes. "But everyone is covered" does little good if there is nothing the coverage can buy. Many dentists refuse to accept Medi-Medi patients, and more doctors are refusing to do so as well. Massachusetts had to pass a law stating that all Ob-Gyns had to accept the state sponsored insurance. There is a crisis in West Virginia as more and more doctors flee the state due to malpractice lawsuit abuse.
Coverage is expanding, yet what that coverage can buy is shrinking. It leads to the question of what that coverage is supposed to purchase. Is someone in need of a bandage supposed to wrap insurance forms around the injury? Once there is plenty of healthcare coverage and yet no healthcare, perhaps it will be reported that some senior government official will be heard to say "let them eat healthcare."
In the healthcare debate, with regards to the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, the debate often centers about people who do not have healthcare. In fact, many of those so described do have healthcare, they do not have health insurance. Those described as lacking care can easily get care, and in many cases do not have to pay.
An unfortunate aspect of the whole Healthcare Reform debate is that advocates of increased government intervention routinely confuse care and coverage. Even after this obfuscation is pointed out, advocates of increased government intervention continue to make the same error. There seems to be no way to shame an advocate of increased government intervention to accurately describe the debate as over healthcare coverage and not over healthcare itself.
And yet, that is the point. Healthcare does become less available the more the government intervenes. "But everyone is covered" does little good if there is nothing the coverage can buy. Many dentists refuse to accept Medi-Medi patients, and more doctors are refusing to do so as well. Massachusetts had to pass a law stating that all Ob-Gyns had to accept the state sponsored insurance. There is a crisis in West Virginia as more and more doctors flee the state due to malpractice lawsuit abuse.
Coverage is expanding, yet what that coverage can buy is shrinking. It leads to the question of what that coverage is supposed to purchase. Is someone in need of a bandage supposed to wrap insurance forms around the injury? Once there is plenty of healthcare coverage and yet no healthcare, perhaps it will be reported that some senior government official will be heard to say "let them eat healthcare."
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Collapse in Motion
For some reason there exists a belief that economic collapses are sudden events. Because the collapse isn’t happening all at once, those who see what is happening must be wrong. This is true even in the rather fast collapse that started in 2008 with the housing collapse.
People generally think that the Great Depression of 1929, which started officially in, happened all at once with the stock market crash of 1929. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the crash was not the cause of the Great Depression, but was instead the trigger.
The same is true of the Great Depression of 2008 in that it was not caused by but was instead triggered by the collapse of the housing market. The second Great Depression actually started in late 2007, but the effects weren’t noticed until the housing market was no longer able to disguise the symptoms in the rest of the economy.
Collapses take time. This is true even of rapid collapses like in 1929 and 2008; it takes time for the many failed institutions to wind through and finish - longer if the government attempts intervention to rescue failed institutions.
Political collapses take even longer. The reason people do not believe that the current United States imperium is not in decline is because the decline has been going on for several decades. If the several years of an economic decline are too long for the average observer, then the several decades of political decline are beyond notice for the average observer.
Like an economic collapse, political collapses aren’t single events but often have a single event trigger. The collapse of the Roman Empire didn’t occur when barbarians invaded, but was made real when barbarians invaded. Until the invasion, Rome looked as might as ever, but was a hollow shell.
This decline, economic and political, will not be visible to someone who hasn’t studied history. Because it is not apparent on the surface it is something that won’t be believed, especially since so many people have an emotional investment in the current greatness of the United States. Reality doesn’t care of people don’t believe in the collapse.
People generally think that the Great Depression of 1929, which started officially in, happened all at once with the stock market crash of 1929. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the crash was not the cause of the Great Depression, but was instead the trigger.
The same is true of the Great Depression of 2008 in that it was not caused by but was instead triggered by the collapse of the housing market. The second Great Depression actually started in late 2007, but the effects weren’t noticed until the housing market was no longer able to disguise the symptoms in the rest of the economy.
Collapses take time. This is true even of rapid collapses like in 1929 and 2008; it takes time for the many failed institutions to wind through and finish - longer if the government attempts intervention to rescue failed institutions.
Political collapses take even longer. The reason people do not believe that the current United States imperium is not in decline is because the decline has been going on for several decades. If the several years of an economic decline are too long for the average observer, then the several decades of political decline are beyond notice for the average observer.
Like an economic collapse, political collapses aren’t single events but often have a single event trigger. The collapse of the Roman Empire didn’t occur when barbarians invaded, but was made real when barbarians invaded. Until the invasion, Rome looked as might as ever, but was a hollow shell.
This decline, economic and political, will not be visible to someone who hasn’t studied history. Because it is not apparent on the surface it is something that won’t be believed, especially since so many people have an emotional investment in the current greatness of the United States. Reality doesn’t care of people don’t believe in the collapse.
Sunday, June 03, 2012
The Hidden Premise of Collectivism
At the Library of Economics and Liberty, another argument was made to see if a justification for aggressive force could be made in certain limited circumstances. The situation is pretty simple, an island with ten people. Eight of them can produce enough food for one person each, one of them named Able Abel can produce enough food for all ten people, and one of them named Hapless Harry cannot produce any food at all.
The goal is to prove that under certain conditions it is justified to take from Able Abel and give to Hapless Harry, and for the other eight people to engage in the use of force in order to do so. In fact, there are some who already agree that use of force against Able Abel is justified.
There is one major problem with the scenario. It conflates a political obligation to help Hapless Harry with a moral obligation to do so, and that conflation is exactly the trap that Progressives hope people will fall in to. If Abel Able helps because it is the right thing to do, he is not a slave unless one is to call him a slave to his conscience. But according to progressives, unless Able Abel is forced to help then he will refuse to help. That hidden premise, that Able Abel would not help unless forced to, is actually quite monstrous, and says far more about progressives than libertarians.
Of course, the progressive response would be to say that libertarians are of course selfish. This is asserted without support, as if it is somehow self-evident that a desire to not steal from others is selfish.
Contrast this to the way the heroes of Ayn Rand’s novels behaved. The Classically Liberal Student described the scene from Atlas Shrugged where Dagny Taggart saw a beggar on a train.
He goes on to describe how Ayn Rand herself reflected the generosity of the characters that are heroes in her novels. And yet it is still asserted that libertarians are greedy, objectivists are greedy, that those who advocate liberty and the free market would never help Hapless Harry without being forced to do so.
The goal is to prove that under certain conditions it is justified to take from Able Abel and give to Hapless Harry, and for the other eight people to engage in the use of force in order to do so. In fact, there are some who already agree that use of force against Able Abel is justified.
There is one major problem with the scenario. It conflates a political obligation to help Hapless Harry with a moral obligation to do so, and that conflation is exactly the trap that Progressives hope people will fall in to. If Abel Able helps because it is the right thing to do, he is not a slave unless one is to call him a slave to his conscience. But according to progressives, unless Able Abel is forced to help then he will refuse to help. That hidden premise, that Able Abel would not help unless forced to, is actually quite monstrous, and says far more about progressives than libertarians.
Of course, the progressive response would be to say that libertarians are of course selfish. This is asserted without support, as if it is somehow self-evident that a desire to not steal from others is selfish.
Contrast this to the way the heroes of Ayn Rand’s novels behaved. The Classically Liberal Student described the scene from Atlas Shrugged where Dagny Taggart saw a beggar on a train.
Dagny actually looks at both men and sees that neither views the other properly: "The two men were not human beings to each other any longer." The tramp gets up, ready to jump, grabbing the small bundle of his belongings. Dagny yells out: "Wait." Rand wrote, "'Let him be my guest,' she said to the conductor, and held her door open for the tramp, ordering, 'Come in.'"
She offers the man a seat and asks him when he last ate. He responds, it might have been the day before. "She rang for the porter and ordered dinner for two, to be brought to her car from the diner." Damn, Rand, she missed a chance to prove that her critics aren't liars!
The tramp and Dagny talk. He tells her he doesn't want her to get in trouble. She wonders why she would, and he says because she must be traveling with a tycoon to be in her own car. She says she isn't. He assumes she must a tycoon's wife then. She says she isn't. He responds with a knowing, "Oh," implying her purpose was that of a prostitute or mistress. Was this where she sends him flying to his demise? Damn, not again! Instead, she laughed and told him she ran the railroad. They share dinner and conversation for several more pages. What a monster!
He goes on to describe how Ayn Rand herself reflected the generosity of the characters that are heroes in her novels. And yet it is still asserted that libertarians are greedy, objectivists are greedy, that those who advocate liberty and the free market would never help Hapless Harry without being forced to do so.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Lese Majesty
A farmer decides, in the wake of the Mad Cow outbreak to conduct tests above and beyond those required by the government in order to advertise that his beef is safer than the national standard. The USDA doesn’t allow him to do so, he cannot conduct his own tests with his own money.
Many consumers are worried, maybe rightly and maybe wrongly, about Genetically Modified Organisms in their food. Seeing that there is a demand, some food producers decided to label their food as "GMO free." The FDA would not allow it, not because the advertisement was false, but because the FDA has decided that GMO foods are safe and this label would cause some to think otherwise.
When the banks were bailed out, it is rumored that some of the banks didn’t need a bailout. They were told that they had to accept a bailout anyway lest the public come to the conclusion that said banks were safer. The government had determined that the bailout would make the unsafe banks as safe as the banks that did not need a bailout. A bank not receiving a bailout would be an indication it was more safe in spite of the government saying all the banks were now safe. Of course this is more of a rumor than a substantiated story.
When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, private efforts to assist people in New Orleans attempted to operate along side the government efforts. The private rescuers were turned aside prolonging the suffering of some in New Orleans.
When the TSA first launched the BXR and MMW body scanners, it was pointed out repeatedly that these scanners cannot scan inside a body cavity. A news story from Saudi Arabia was presented pointing out that a terrorist there had hidden a bomb in his rectum. Eventually the TSA announced that their searches would be intensified because of the possibility of surgically implanted device. Those who most vociferously criticize the TSA realized this was their response to realizing the presented threat was valid but not being able to acknowledge an idea coming from outside their own organization.
What these all have in common is an effort by the government to forbid doubt of the competence and effectiveness of the government and its actions. It is Lese Majesty in its modern form, where it is wrong to insult the image of the king. This isn’t Sedition, which also should not be considered wrong, but merely the crime of causing people to doubt the goodness of the government. It has died out in most monarchies. In the United States it has returned and is regulated out of existence rather than banned because that would be too obvious.
Many consumers are worried, maybe rightly and maybe wrongly, about Genetically Modified Organisms in their food. Seeing that there is a demand, some food producers decided to label their food as "GMO free." The FDA would not allow it, not because the advertisement was false, but because the FDA has decided that GMO foods are safe and this label would cause some to think otherwise.
When the banks were bailed out, it is rumored that some of the banks didn’t need a bailout. They were told that they had to accept a bailout anyway lest the public come to the conclusion that said banks were safer. The government had determined that the bailout would make the unsafe banks as safe as the banks that did not need a bailout. A bank not receiving a bailout would be an indication it was more safe in spite of the government saying all the banks were now safe. Of course this is more of a rumor than a substantiated story.
When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, private efforts to assist people in New Orleans attempted to operate along side the government efforts. The private rescuers were turned aside prolonging the suffering of some in New Orleans.
When the TSA first launched the BXR and MMW body scanners, it was pointed out repeatedly that these scanners cannot scan inside a body cavity. A news story from Saudi Arabia was presented pointing out that a terrorist there had hidden a bomb in his rectum. Eventually the TSA announced that their searches would be intensified because of the possibility of surgically implanted device. Those who most vociferously criticize the TSA realized this was their response to realizing the presented threat was valid but not being able to acknowledge an idea coming from outside their own organization.
What these all have in common is an effort by the government to forbid doubt of the competence and effectiveness of the government and its actions. It is Lese Majesty in its modern form, where it is wrong to insult the image of the king. This isn’t Sedition, which also should not be considered wrong, but merely the crime of causing people to doubt the goodness of the government. It has died out in most monarchies. In the United States it has returned and is regulated out of existence rather than banned because that would be too obvious.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Recasting Romney
For several decades Senator John McCain was regarded as the Democrat's favorite Republican. He was widely praised for cooperating with the Democrats on bi-partisan legislation while in the Senate. He was not considered radical or extreme at all, except by libertarians who viewed him as extreme for having the flaws of both Democrats and Republicans in one person.
Then Senator McCain became the Republican presidential nominee. In the course of one month he was regularly regarded and depicted as a radical hard-core right-wing extremist. All of the people who had previous praised him as a model of what a Republican can be and should be forgot everything nice they had ever said about him.
Once the election was over, Senator McCain was "rehabilitated" and is again regarded as a positive example of a Republican. Once President Barack Obama started experiencing problems during his administration it became important to portray Obama has having defeated a much more moderate Republican in order to show he had wider support when he had run.
There is no question about Governor Mitt Romney's conservative credentials. He is approximately as conservative as Senator McCain. It is Governor Romney who introduced Romneycare as the most glaring example among many of how his own beliefs are so far out of line with what Republicans allegedly believe (but quite in line with what they actually believe).
During the Republican presidential primary, it was widely regarded that the Tea Party constituency had no love for Governor Romney, preferring candidates such as Governor Rick Perry or Herman Cain. Now that the primary is essentially over, Governor Romney is being recast.
Looking at the preliminary Democratic campaign material in support of the reelection of President Obama, there is an attempt to associate Governor Romney with the Tea Party, portray him as an opponent of government-run health care, and strangely enough as radically different from President Obama.
The problem is, this rhetoric trying to portray Governor Romney as different from President Obama may work. With many of the United States electorate educated by government schools, and getting their news only from CNN or Fox, the facts matter less and less each year. And with the rhetoric from each side presenting the opponent as different in spite of the facts, this will become yet another in a long line of "most importation election ever" campaigns that will be used to argue that it is now too critical to vote third party.
Then Senator McCain became the Republican presidential nominee. In the course of one month he was regularly regarded and depicted as a radical hard-core right-wing extremist. All of the people who had previous praised him as a model of what a Republican can be and should be forgot everything nice they had ever said about him.
Once the election was over, Senator McCain was "rehabilitated" and is again regarded as a positive example of a Republican. Once President Barack Obama started experiencing problems during his administration it became important to portray Obama has having defeated a much more moderate Republican in order to show he had wider support when he had run.
There is no question about Governor Mitt Romney's conservative credentials. He is approximately as conservative as Senator McCain. It is Governor Romney who introduced Romneycare as the most glaring example among many of how his own beliefs are so far out of line with what Republicans allegedly believe (but quite in line with what they actually believe).
During the Republican presidential primary, it was widely regarded that the Tea Party constituency had no love for Governor Romney, preferring candidates such as Governor Rick Perry or Herman Cain. Now that the primary is essentially over, Governor Romney is being recast.
Looking at the preliminary Democratic campaign material in support of the reelection of President Obama, there is an attempt to associate Governor Romney with the Tea Party, portray him as an opponent of government-run health care, and strangely enough as radically different from President Obama.
The problem is, this rhetoric trying to portray Governor Romney as different from President Obama may work. With many of the United States electorate educated by government schools, and getting their news only from CNN or Fox, the facts matter less and less each year. And with the rhetoric from each side presenting the opponent as different in spite of the facts, this will become yet another in a long line of "most importation election ever" campaigns that will be used to argue that it is now too critical to vote third party.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Outrage Fatigue
At the Independent Institute, Anthony Gregory asks the question "Have We Become Accustomed to Police Brutality?" He makes a strong case, in that incidents of police brutality, had they occurred in the past, would have evoked a much stronger reaction than they do today. Comparing the beating of Rodney King to the beating of Kelly Thomas leaves a person wondering what has happened in the years between the two beatings.
One could argue that police brutality is a new prison normal and that what is actually an unnatural situation has become normal because people have adapted, adjusted their expectations. Just as people have come to regard 3% inflation as normal, they come to regard police not being held accountable for violating the law as normal, and they come to regard police brutality as normal. If a person were to argue that, it would be a pretty strong argument as well.
Another factor, though, could be outrage fatigue. There are more and more stories about police abuse, it is difficult to get outraged over and over again. It is especially difficult when those experiencing the prison normal of police abuse seem to not understand why civil libertarians are getting all worked up over what is, to them, just a police beating.
Eventually it becomes difficult to maintain any sense of urgency for what is becoming a common occurrence, and it becomes difficult to maintain any sense of importance in the face of masses who cannot see any significance to the incident being discussed. It becomes tiring to try to fight for liberty get a disinterested reaction from the very people they are trying to protect from the government.
To answer Anthony Gregory’s question, for many people it is a new prison normal. And for libertarians it is outrage fatigue.
One could argue that police brutality is a new prison normal and that what is actually an unnatural situation has become normal because people have adapted, adjusted their expectations. Just as people have come to regard 3% inflation as normal, they come to regard police not being held accountable for violating the law as normal, and they come to regard police brutality as normal. If a person were to argue that, it would be a pretty strong argument as well.
Another factor, though, could be outrage fatigue. There are more and more stories about police abuse, it is difficult to get outraged over and over again. It is especially difficult when those experiencing the prison normal of police abuse seem to not understand why civil libertarians are getting all worked up over what is, to them, just a police beating.
Eventually it becomes difficult to maintain any sense of urgency for what is becoming a common occurrence, and it becomes difficult to maintain any sense of importance in the face of masses who cannot see any significance to the incident being discussed. It becomes tiring to try to fight for liberty get a disinterested reaction from the very people they are trying to protect from the government.
To answer Anthony Gregory’s question, for many people it is a new prison normal. And for libertarians it is outrage fatigue.
Friday, May 04, 2012
The Third Party Game
The Third Party Game refers to all the ways the major parties use or manipulate third parties for their own advantage. The Republicans are far better at it than the Democrats are.
One way that it is played is to make donations to third parties that rival the opposition party. Democrats are still complaining about how Ralph Nader "stole" the 2000 election from Al Gore, but what made that "theft" possible was Republican donations to Nader. It is no secret that many of the donations for Nader's campaign came from Republicans.
If someone were to suggest to a Democrat that a donation be made to, say, the Constitution Party, the response would be shock and horror. "Oh no, they're evil, they want to destroy everything I believe in, I could never donate to them." Republicans didn't donate to Nader in order to advance Nader's agenda, but their donations weren't intended to advance Nader's agenda.
The other way that the Third Party Game is played is to nullify threats. Republicans also are better at this, sending Patrick Buchanan into the Reform Party, Alan Keyes into the Constitution Party, and sending Bob Barr into the Libertarian Party. Patrick Buchanan was able to destroy the Reform Party through an internal civil war. Alan Keyes didn't get the Constitution Party nomination, but did get the ballot line in California and thus lowering the nation-wide totals for their candidate Chuck Baldwin. Bob Barr (who has since endorsed Newt Gingrich) and Wayne Root (who has since endorsed Mitt Romney) alienated a sufficient portion of the Libertarian Party base that many wrote in Ron Paul, and thus lowered the totals for the Libertarian Party as well.
These tactics may be underhanded, but there are no rules saying not to do either of those actions with regards to third parties. What is interesting is that the Democratic Party leadership does such a poor job of doing the same thing. Perhaps it is a lingering sentiment of there being "no enemy to the left" so they cannot bring themselves to label parties such as the Green Party as enemies. Republicans have no such compunctions holding them back. Democrats are quite willing to share a stage at allies with various independent groups of a shared platform; the Republicans did a deliberate take over of the Tea Party when it appeared that a stage might be shared.
It will be interesting to see how the Third Party Game might be shared in the 2012 election cycle.
It is also possible, but somewhat far fetched, to suggest that occasionally Republicans support a party or candidate outside their own party that they would normally squash. This would be done to prevent a different third party from gaining prominence. Although Ross Perot did much to spoil George Bush's chances at re-election, he also gathered up all of the internal dissent that might have gone to more established third parties and catapulted them to prominence. Although John Anderson did not threaten Reagan, he did absorb much of the third party protest vote without even having much to offer in the way of concrete ideas. Perhaps Republicans are willing to throw an election in order to preserve the status quo of two parties interchangeable.
One way that it is played is to make donations to third parties that rival the opposition party. Democrats are still complaining about how Ralph Nader "stole" the 2000 election from Al Gore, but what made that "theft" possible was Republican donations to Nader. It is no secret that many of the donations for Nader's campaign came from Republicans.
If someone were to suggest to a Democrat that a donation be made to, say, the Constitution Party, the response would be shock and horror. "Oh no, they're evil, they want to destroy everything I believe in, I could never donate to them." Republicans didn't donate to Nader in order to advance Nader's agenda, but their donations weren't intended to advance Nader's agenda.
The other way that the Third Party Game is played is to nullify threats. Republicans also are better at this, sending Patrick Buchanan into the Reform Party, Alan Keyes into the Constitution Party, and sending Bob Barr into the Libertarian Party. Patrick Buchanan was able to destroy the Reform Party through an internal civil war. Alan Keyes didn't get the Constitution Party nomination, but did get the ballot line in California and thus lowering the nation-wide totals for their candidate Chuck Baldwin. Bob Barr (who has since endorsed Newt Gingrich) and Wayne Root (who has since endorsed Mitt Romney) alienated a sufficient portion of the Libertarian Party base that many wrote in Ron Paul, and thus lowered the totals for the Libertarian Party as well.
These tactics may be underhanded, but there are no rules saying not to do either of those actions with regards to third parties. What is interesting is that the Democratic Party leadership does such a poor job of doing the same thing. Perhaps it is a lingering sentiment of there being "no enemy to the left" so they cannot bring themselves to label parties such as the Green Party as enemies. Republicans have no such compunctions holding them back. Democrats are quite willing to share a stage at allies with various independent groups of a shared platform; the Republicans did a deliberate take over of the Tea Party when it appeared that a stage might be shared.
It will be interesting to see how the Third Party Game might be shared in the 2012 election cycle.
It is also possible, but somewhat far fetched, to suggest that occasionally Republicans support a party or candidate outside their own party that they would normally squash. This would be done to prevent a different third party from gaining prominence. Although Ross Perot did much to spoil George Bush's chances at re-election, he also gathered up all of the internal dissent that might have gone to more established third parties and catapulted them to prominence. Although John Anderson did not threaten Reagan, he did absorb much of the third party protest vote without even having much to offer in the way of concrete ideas. Perhaps Republicans are willing to throw an election in order to preserve the status quo of two parties interchangeable.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Libertarian Party Identity
Thomas Knapp makes an interesting argument, pointing out that the Libertarian Party is having identity problems. He points out how the "pragmatic" libertarians nominated conservative former Republican Bob Barr, selling out what the Libertarian Party for a vote bonus that never arrived.
And he is right. The watered down platform of the 2006 convention, the nomination of Bob Barr (who subsequently endorsed Newt Gingrich) and Wayne Root (who subsequently endorsed Mitt Romney), and the 2010 election of Wayne Root to the Libertarian National Committee and appointment to chair the Libertarian National Congressional Committee have all contributed to a very severe confusion of the libertarian message.
Now, in 2012, the same people who supported those previous actions are the strongest proponents of Gary Johnson for the Libertarian Party nomination for president. Although far better than Bob Barr or Wayne Root, he has people nervous because of his foreign policy positions and his position on the fair tax.
But there is no need for the Libertarian Party to have such an identity problem. There is a ready-made identity for the Libertarian Party - it can embrace and endorse libertarian positions. Why is this hard?
It is hard because libertarianism is, for some people, too consistent. If one wishes to be libertarian only in economics, that person is an unusually enlightened conservative. If one wishes to be libertarian only in civil matters, that person is an unusually enlightened liberal. And if one wishes to be libertarian only in foreign policy, that person would actually not be libertarian in foreign policy but would be an actual isolationist.
That last of the three is the greatest problem because many of those who are causing an identity problem for the Libertarian Party have great reservations with being libertarian on foreign policy. Peaceful trade with all, entangling alliances with none, and the military (if one exists at all) is only to be used defensively - and defense does NOT include "pre-emptive counter-attacks." Nor does it include wars of liberation, which always manage to accomplish the exact opposite of the stated goal.
If the Libertarian Party is to return to having a core established identity that sets it apart from other political parties, it is in foreign policy where people must start. The Libertarian Party must make it explicit that the Zero Aggression Principle also applies to foreign policy and that the Membership Oath about not advocating violence to achieve political aims also applies to foreign policy.
Perhaps that is why the Reformers want to do away with the oath as well.
And he is right. The watered down platform of the 2006 convention, the nomination of Bob Barr (who subsequently endorsed Newt Gingrich) and Wayne Root (who subsequently endorsed Mitt Romney), and the 2010 election of Wayne Root to the Libertarian National Committee and appointment to chair the Libertarian National Congressional Committee have all contributed to a very severe confusion of the libertarian message.
Now, in 2012, the same people who supported those previous actions are the strongest proponents of Gary Johnson for the Libertarian Party nomination for president. Although far better than Bob Barr or Wayne Root, he has people nervous because of his foreign policy positions and his position on the fair tax.
But there is no need for the Libertarian Party to have such an identity problem. There is a ready-made identity for the Libertarian Party - it can embrace and endorse libertarian positions. Why is this hard?
It is hard because libertarianism is, for some people, too consistent. If one wishes to be libertarian only in economics, that person is an unusually enlightened conservative. If one wishes to be libertarian only in civil matters, that person is an unusually enlightened liberal. And if one wishes to be libertarian only in foreign policy, that person would actually not be libertarian in foreign policy but would be an actual isolationist.
That last of the three is the greatest problem because many of those who are causing an identity problem for the Libertarian Party have great reservations with being libertarian on foreign policy. Peaceful trade with all, entangling alliances with none, and the military (if one exists at all) is only to be used defensively - and defense does NOT include "pre-emptive counter-attacks." Nor does it include wars of liberation, which always manage to accomplish the exact opposite of the stated goal.
If the Libertarian Party is to return to having a core established identity that sets it apart from other political parties, it is in foreign policy where people must start. The Libertarian Party must make it explicit that the Zero Aggression Principle also applies to foreign policy and that the Membership Oath about not advocating violence to achieve political aims also applies to foreign policy.
Perhaps that is why the Reformers want to do away with the oath as well.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Tax Increase Theater
In order to score rhetorical points, the Democrats are proposing raising taxes on the rich back up to Clinton-era levels. That means that the top tax rate will rise from 35% to 39.6%. That is an increase on one tax bracket of about 11%, and it shows not only that the Democrats are not interested in balancing the budget it shows that they believe the voters are idiots for thinking that 8% increase is what is needed to balance the budget.
Currently, approximately 66% of the government spending is paid for by taxation and 33% is paid for by borrowing. If the Democratic Party wants to balance the budget through tax increases, it would require approximately a 50% tax hike across the board, on all taxes and tax brackets. The top tax bracket would have to go from 35% to 52.5% which would not be displeasing to Democrats if they feel the voters wouldn’t react negatively. But that involves only taxing the rich, and a serious attempt to balance the budget through taxation will involve more than just taxing the rich.
That doesn’t include the other taxes, which must also be raised by a similar amount. The 7% employee contribution and 7% employer contribution to Social Security must go to 10.5%, and similar increases are needed to all other federal taxes. This includes, by the way, the very unrealistic assumption that this massive across-the-board tax increase will not result in a severe and nearly immediate economic downturn.
Some Democrats will protest that tax increases on the wealthy would be enough if they were high enough, but that argument is absurd. There aren’t enough people in the top two brackets and their combined incomes are not enough to cover the 33% of the budget that is in deficit. Only by taxing the rest of the population as well, including the 42% of the public that doesn’t pay taxes at all, can the budget be balanced. The taxes have to be on everyone, which is a proposal the Democrats are not courageous enough to make.
There are two ways to balance the budget, and they are through either tax increases or spending cuts. The Democrats clearly prefer the idea of using tax increases, but if their proposal is only a mild tax increase on the top brackets, their proposal is as much about balancing the budget as the Ryan Plan is about spending cuts – theater designed to give the illusion and appearance of doing something without any of the hard work of doing something.
If the Democrats in office are serious about using tax increases to balance the budget, and do without any spending cuts, then there is only one proposal that shows they are serious. It would be the Democratic Party equivalent of the Randall Paul budget proposal which cut the budget by $500 billion and even Senator Paul admitted didn’t go far enough. The real point of the current tax increase proposal isn’t to raise revenue or balance the budget, it is to encourage class jealousy in order to increase votes this coming November.
Currently, approximately 66% of the government spending is paid for by taxation and 33% is paid for by borrowing. If the Democratic Party wants to balance the budget through tax increases, it would require approximately a 50% tax hike across the board, on all taxes and tax brackets. The top tax bracket would have to go from 35% to 52.5% which would not be displeasing to Democrats if they feel the voters wouldn’t react negatively. But that involves only taxing the rich, and a serious attempt to balance the budget through taxation will involve more than just taxing the rich.
| Old rate | New rate |
| 10% | 15% |
| 15% | 22.5% |
| 25% | 37.5% |
| 28% | 42% |
| 33% | 49.5% |
| 35% | 52.5% |
That doesn’t include the other taxes, which must also be raised by a similar amount. The 7% employee contribution and 7% employer contribution to Social Security must go to 10.5%, and similar increases are needed to all other federal taxes. This includes, by the way, the very unrealistic assumption that this massive across-the-board tax increase will not result in a severe and nearly immediate economic downturn.
Some Democrats will protest that tax increases on the wealthy would be enough if they were high enough, but that argument is absurd. There aren’t enough people in the top two brackets and their combined incomes are not enough to cover the 33% of the budget that is in deficit. Only by taxing the rest of the population as well, including the 42% of the public that doesn’t pay taxes at all, can the budget be balanced. The taxes have to be on everyone, which is a proposal the Democrats are not courageous enough to make.
There are two ways to balance the budget, and they are through either tax increases or spending cuts. The Democrats clearly prefer the idea of using tax increases, but if their proposal is only a mild tax increase on the top brackets, their proposal is as much about balancing the budget as the Ryan Plan is about spending cuts – theater designed to give the illusion and appearance of doing something without any of the hard work of doing something.
If the Democrats in office are serious about using tax increases to balance the budget, and do without any spending cuts, then there is only one proposal that shows they are serious. It would be the Democratic Party equivalent of the Randall Paul budget proposal which cut the budget by $500 billion and even Senator Paul admitted didn’t go far enough. The real point of the current tax increase proposal isn’t to raise revenue or balance the budget, it is to encourage class jealousy in order to increase votes this coming November.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Who wants a race war?
One thing to take away from the Trayvon Martin case is that someone apparently wants there to be more racial tension in the United States, possibly up to a race war. It is difficult to determine who or why at this time, but that there is a pattern showing that the tensions are being increased is undeniable. The most ironic thing about this pattern is who is supposed to be fighting. A Hispanic man shoots a Black man, and now people are supposed to be angry at White racism.
The coverage started by referring to George Zimmerman as "White". Eventually it broke through the news cycle that he was actually Hispanic so the media started referring to him as "White Hispanic." Sometimes Hispanic is referred to as an ethnicity, sometimes it is referred to as a race. There are areas in the country where people would be deeply offended to be called "White" because they consider themselves otherwise.
Another item of evidence is the edited NBC recording. In the era before the internet, NBC could have probably gotten away with releasing the edited tape that has George Zimmerman saying what race Trayvon Martin is during the description of suspicion instead of after being asked to give a physical description.
Then there are the photographs that competing sides of the debate use, although it should be noted that both sets of photographs show George Zimmerman looking Hispanic. One set of photographs included a younger Trayvon Martin and a photograph of George Zimmerman that made him look fairly disreputable. The other set showed a more grown Trayvon Martin looking more "gangster" and George Zimmerman smiling and wearing a suit.
The part that is the least circumstantial in terms of evidence though is having Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson go to Florida to discuss racial matters. Following this was a rumor-story about White Supremacists who wanted to patrol streets, but failed to materialize.
Who would benefit from greater racial tension, and who would benefit if the perceived racial tension is White versus minority instead of Hispanic versus Black?
If the issue can continue to be framed as White versus Black, it may be a way of assisting President Obama during what could be a very difficult election. The continued failure of the economy to improve will be a burden, and the dislike many Americans have over Obamacare (even those that approve of travesties like Universal Health Care) will be an even bigger burden. Moreover, if the Supreme Court overturns the act that will also rob President Obama of one of his few triumphs during his time in office, leaving just the pull-out from Iraq that he opposed but went through with as his big accomplishment.
It is probably not President Obama fanning the flames of racial tension, but it may very well be supporters of President Obama.
On the other hand, if this is recast as Hispanic versus Black, that will divide the minority communities against each other when President Obama desperately needs to collect every vote he can get. The Hispanic vote is much less firmly committed to the Democratic Party than is the Black vote, and an internal schism might remind the Feminist vote of their harsh treatment during the 2008 campaign.
There are several who could benefit from heightening racial tensions in one direction, and several different who could benefit from heightening racial tensions in a different direction. So far there is nothing concrete as to who or why, but it is undeniable that it is being done.
The coverage started by referring to George Zimmerman as "White". Eventually it broke through the news cycle that he was actually Hispanic so the media started referring to him as "White Hispanic." Sometimes Hispanic is referred to as an ethnicity, sometimes it is referred to as a race. There are areas in the country where people would be deeply offended to be called "White" because they consider themselves otherwise.
Another item of evidence is the edited NBC recording. In the era before the internet, NBC could have probably gotten away with releasing the edited tape that has George Zimmerman saying what race Trayvon Martin is during the description of suspicion instead of after being asked to give a physical description.
Then there are the photographs that competing sides of the debate use, although it should be noted that both sets of photographs show George Zimmerman looking Hispanic. One set of photographs included a younger Trayvon Martin and a photograph of George Zimmerman that made him look fairly disreputable. The other set showed a more grown Trayvon Martin looking more "gangster" and George Zimmerman smiling and wearing a suit.
The part that is the least circumstantial in terms of evidence though is having Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson go to Florida to discuss racial matters. Following this was a rumor-story about White Supremacists who wanted to patrol streets, but failed to materialize.
Who would benefit from greater racial tension, and who would benefit if the perceived racial tension is White versus minority instead of Hispanic versus Black?
If the issue can continue to be framed as White versus Black, it may be a way of assisting President Obama during what could be a very difficult election. The continued failure of the economy to improve will be a burden, and the dislike many Americans have over Obamacare (even those that approve of travesties like Universal Health Care) will be an even bigger burden. Moreover, if the Supreme Court overturns the act that will also rob President Obama of one of his few triumphs during his time in office, leaving just the pull-out from Iraq that he opposed but went through with as his big accomplishment.
It is probably not President Obama fanning the flames of racial tension, but it may very well be supporters of President Obama.
On the other hand, if this is recast as Hispanic versus Black, that will divide the minority communities against each other when President Obama desperately needs to collect every vote he can get. The Hispanic vote is much less firmly committed to the Democratic Party than is the Black vote, and an internal schism might remind the Feminist vote of their harsh treatment during the 2008 campaign.
There are several who could benefit from heightening racial tensions in one direction, and several different who could benefit from heightening racial tensions in a different direction. So far there is nothing concrete as to who or why, but it is undeniable that it is being done.
Saturday, April 07, 2012
The Omniscience Fallacy
Austrian economics views people as rational actors when making decisions in the market, which is one of the many reasons government intervention is frowned upon. If a person wants to make one decision, and the government forces a different decision, then by definition that person is doing something they would normally consider irrational if not for the threat of government force.
Ayn Rand calls man the "rational animal" saying that reason is the tool of survival for man. She decried the use of government to intervene on the basis that since reason is the tool of survival, forcing a person to act differently is to force the person to act against their own survival.
Both of them would have that a person acting within the confines of their knowledge and desires will attempt to make the decisions that are best for themselves.
This runs into an interesting claim sometimes made by Progressives and Keynesians, that there is no way to consider a person to be a rational decision maker based on not having enough facts with which to make a decision. Supposing a person wants to buy a computer, and he compares several brands at several stores before coming to a conclusion based on cost, capability, and his needs. Well, the progressive will claim, if there is another model out there that still even more closely fits his needs then he didn't make the most rational decision.
By their unfairly high standard, it is impossible for anyone to make a rational decision. This clearly calls for the decision maker to know everything in order to make a decision. It is an attempt to deny that decisions are made rationally in the first place.
Accusing the progressive of demanding omniscience will only result in denials of that charge and a clarification that the person only need to know all the relevant information. But the problem is, that is omniscience. Suppose that same computer goes on sale the next day? Buying it that day will result in what is, from the progressive point of view, an irrational decision.
The irony here is that while creating a strawman in order to "prove" that an individual lacks sufficient facts, the progressive is undermining their own belief system. It is progressivism that believes that central planners can indeed have enough information to make plans, not only for themselves, but for others as well and for the economy as a whole.
The "rational" definition used by both Austrians and Objectivists clearly states that people are rational within the confines of their knowledge. Claims to the contrary are fallacies.
Ayn Rand calls man the "rational animal" saying that reason is the tool of survival for man. She decried the use of government to intervene on the basis that since reason is the tool of survival, forcing a person to act differently is to force the person to act against their own survival.
Both of them would have that a person acting within the confines of their knowledge and desires will attempt to make the decisions that are best for themselves.
This runs into an interesting claim sometimes made by Progressives and Keynesians, that there is no way to consider a person to be a rational decision maker based on not having enough facts with which to make a decision. Supposing a person wants to buy a computer, and he compares several brands at several stores before coming to a conclusion based on cost, capability, and his needs. Well, the progressive will claim, if there is another model out there that still even more closely fits his needs then he didn't make the most rational decision.
By their unfairly high standard, it is impossible for anyone to make a rational decision. This clearly calls for the decision maker to know everything in order to make a decision. It is an attempt to deny that decisions are made rationally in the first place.
Accusing the progressive of demanding omniscience will only result in denials of that charge and a clarification that the person only need to know all the relevant information. But the problem is, that is omniscience. Suppose that same computer goes on sale the next day? Buying it that day will result in what is, from the progressive point of view, an irrational decision.
The irony here is that while creating a strawman in order to "prove" that an individual lacks sufficient facts, the progressive is undermining their own belief system. It is progressivism that believes that central planners can indeed have enough information to make plans, not only for themselves, but for others as well and for the economy as a whole.
The "rational" definition used by both Austrians and Objectivists clearly states that people are rational within the confines of their knowledge. Claims to the contrary are fallacies.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Only Capitalism can work for Mary
This is a fable adapted from a child's storybook. It involves three people living on an island, Jack, Tom, and Mary. Jack is industrious: he likes to work hard, to be industrious, to make things, to have a nice house, and to have excess reserves stored in the case of an emergency. Tom, on the other hand, is unlucky: his ventures fail more often than they succeed, and he is also afflicted by poor health and has no money. Mary is a free spirit: while she has the skill and intelligence to earn more than Jack ever could, she prefers leisure to labor and only earns enough to sustain herself and her love of camping, hiking, and artistry. Natural resources are abundant, and they all have equal amounts of time.
This is of course a very constructed setup designed to get to weed out as many extraneous elements as possible. If there really were only three people on one island then the three would all be working hard at basic survival, and there would be no money to speak of. The question of who the medicine for Tom is purchased from is also glossed over for the sake of setting up a simplified system to analyze basic roles. Jack spends his time acquiring wealth while Mary spends her time acquiring leisure.
Most economic systems concern themselves only with the question of how to take some "excess" wealth from Jack and give it to Tom on the basis that he needs it so badly. It has to be Jack on the basis that he is the only one with wealth enough to have some transferred to other people.
This scenario, when presented to progressives, presents a riddle to them, because at first they are only concerned with the relationship between Jack and Tom. That will be their first answer, that of course some wealth must be transferred from one to the other and anything else is unfair. So it has to be pointed out that they missed the most important part - how their system deals with Mary.
At first, the answer is that progressives accuse Mary of "going Galt," that her failure to work up to her potential was some sort of political protest. Mary is accused of failing to pay taxes and leeching off the system by using the roads that taxes are supposed to pay for.
But once it is pointed out that Mary doesn't work hard because she liked leisure and not for political reasons, the answer is that she obviously must come from an upper class white background in order to be able to choose to not work. Except that was also not in the original description, which failed to list her race or class but did mention she had only enough money to get by because of her greater desire for leisure.
Once all the distractions are dispensed with, and it is very clear that Mary is nothing more and nothing less than someone who simply prefers leisure to labor in spite of a greater potential if she applied herself, a very different picture of how progressives would handle her emerged.
The more progressive a person is, the more they feel it is proper to take from Jack and give to Tom. Interestingly, they also feel it is more proper to require Mary to work hard in spite of her desire not to in order to produce enough to give to Tom. It is seen as unfair that Jack alone is made miserable, in that his pleasure is enjoying the fruits of his labor and that is taken away from him. Mary must also be made miserable in that her leisure is also taken away from her and given to Tom.
When it is pointed out that this basically makes Mary a slave, because unlike Jack she actually desires to not work, rationalizations are offered that her freedom is not restricted because "what is forced in one sense may be freed in another; what is restricted in one place may be relieved elsewhere." The argument was actually offered that she is not made a slave. "Yes Mary must work. Liberty and freedom simply shift their point of emphasis." Ironically, the person arguing Arbeit macht frei was actually arguing in favor of socialism replacing capitalism, and not arguing in favor of fascism. Jack also allegedly benefits because his "mind is freed from material pursuits."
Socialists and Communists have no problem with forcing Mary to work, as her labor choices do not belong to her but belong to the people. Fascists have no problem either, as her labor choices do not belong to her but belong to the state. Corporatists would force Mary to work through debt slavery, forcing her to labor far more than she would otherwise choose to in order to pay off an impossible debt. Keynesians and Monetarists would shrink back from using force, but would instead use fiscal or monetary policy in order to "guide" her decisions into a more "productive" direction.
Only Capitalism, the economic system which is often accused of dehumanizing people and reducing them to nothing more than commodities, can recognize that Mary’s choice is valid. Only in Capitalism is it recognized that people work to their level of satisfaction, and that people have different levels of satisfaction. Only in a free market is Mary able to work enough to get by because of her greater desire for leisure. And that is why only Capitalism is the only moral economic system.
This is of course a very constructed setup designed to get to weed out as many extraneous elements as possible. If there really were only three people on one island then the three would all be working hard at basic survival, and there would be no money to speak of. The question of who the medicine for Tom is purchased from is also glossed over for the sake of setting up a simplified system to analyze basic roles. Jack spends his time acquiring wealth while Mary spends her time acquiring leisure.
Most economic systems concern themselves only with the question of how to take some "excess" wealth from Jack and give it to Tom on the basis that he needs it so badly. It has to be Jack on the basis that he is the only one with wealth enough to have some transferred to other people.
This scenario, when presented to progressives, presents a riddle to them, because at first they are only concerned with the relationship between Jack and Tom. That will be their first answer, that of course some wealth must be transferred from one to the other and anything else is unfair. So it has to be pointed out that they missed the most important part - how their system deals with Mary.
At first, the answer is that progressives accuse Mary of "going Galt," that her failure to work up to her potential was some sort of political protest. Mary is accused of failing to pay taxes and leeching off the system by using the roads that taxes are supposed to pay for.
But once it is pointed out that Mary doesn't work hard because she liked leisure and not for political reasons, the answer is that she obviously must come from an upper class white background in order to be able to choose to not work. Except that was also not in the original description, which failed to list her race or class but did mention she had only enough money to get by because of her greater desire for leisure.
Once all the distractions are dispensed with, and it is very clear that Mary is nothing more and nothing less than someone who simply prefers leisure to labor in spite of a greater potential if she applied herself, a very different picture of how progressives would handle her emerged.
The more progressive a person is, the more they feel it is proper to take from Jack and give to Tom. Interestingly, they also feel it is more proper to require Mary to work hard in spite of her desire not to in order to produce enough to give to Tom. It is seen as unfair that Jack alone is made miserable, in that his pleasure is enjoying the fruits of his labor and that is taken away from him. Mary must also be made miserable in that her leisure is also taken away from her and given to Tom.
When it is pointed out that this basically makes Mary a slave, because unlike Jack she actually desires to not work, rationalizations are offered that her freedom is not restricted because "what is forced in one sense may be freed in another; what is restricted in one place may be relieved elsewhere." The argument was actually offered that she is not made a slave. "Yes Mary must work. Liberty and freedom simply shift their point of emphasis." Ironically, the person arguing Arbeit macht frei was actually arguing in favor of socialism replacing capitalism, and not arguing in favor of fascism. Jack also allegedly benefits because his "mind is freed from material pursuits."
Socialists and Communists have no problem with forcing Mary to work, as her labor choices do not belong to her but belong to the people. Fascists have no problem either, as her labor choices do not belong to her but belong to the state. Corporatists would force Mary to work through debt slavery, forcing her to labor far more than she would otherwise choose to in order to pay off an impossible debt. Keynesians and Monetarists would shrink back from using force, but would instead use fiscal or monetary policy in order to "guide" her decisions into a more "productive" direction.
Only Capitalism, the economic system which is often accused of dehumanizing people and reducing them to nothing more than commodities, can recognize that Mary’s choice is valid. Only in Capitalism is it recognized that people work to their level of satisfaction, and that people have different levels of satisfaction. Only in a free market is Mary able to work enough to get by because of her greater desire for leisure. And that is why only Capitalism is the only moral economic system.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Stand Your Ground Laws
The killing of Trayvon Martin is a tragedy. Also the average person does not know all of the facts of what happened in that encounter. But based on what is known one conclusion can be immediately drawn: the "Stand Your Ground" law that exists in Florida is not to blame.
People are blaming that law, and it appears that George Zimmerman may plan on using it as a defense if charges are brought against him.
A "Stand Your Ground" law only applies if the person doing the shooting does not initiate the encounter. That law only applies if the action is defensive. If someone initiates an encounter, and the confrontation escalates over the course of the encounter, there is still no interpretation that leaves defensive lethal force on the part of the person who initiated the encounter.
George Zimmerman, if the press reports are accurate, was trying to act as a neighborhood watch. At some point he confronted someone he thought was suspicious in his neighborhood. He initiated the encounter.
Those who are claiming this is the result of "Stand Your Ground" laws are deliberately obfuscating the issue. Their purpose can only be to argue against this particular aspect of self defense, so as to confine all defensive actions to those by the government on behalf of the people it allegedly protects. It is unfortunate that George Zimmerman is falling for that obfuscation as his doing so only adds fuel to those making the claim.
Vigilantism isn't the same as self defense, and "Stand Your Ground" and other related doctrines don’t apply to the vigilante. There are times when vigilantism is valid, but it should be clearly identified as such and not confused with a purely defensive action.
People are blaming that law, and it appears that George Zimmerman may plan on using it as a defense if charges are brought against him.
A "Stand Your Ground" law only applies if the person doing the shooting does not initiate the encounter. That law only applies if the action is defensive. If someone initiates an encounter, and the confrontation escalates over the course of the encounter, there is still no interpretation that leaves defensive lethal force on the part of the person who initiated the encounter.
George Zimmerman, if the press reports are accurate, was trying to act as a neighborhood watch. At some point he confronted someone he thought was suspicious in his neighborhood. He initiated the encounter.
Those who are claiming this is the result of "Stand Your Ground" laws are deliberately obfuscating the issue. Their purpose can only be to argue against this particular aspect of self defense, so as to confine all defensive actions to those by the government on behalf of the people it allegedly protects. It is unfortunate that George Zimmerman is falling for that obfuscation as his doing so only adds fuel to those making the claim.
Vigilantism isn't the same as self defense, and "Stand Your Ground" and other related doctrines don’t apply to the vigilante. There are times when vigilantism is valid, but it should be clearly identified as such and not confused with a purely defensive action.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
An Economic Bump
A tiny bump of economic good news has supporters of President Obama crowing about how this will guarantee his reelection. The conventional wisdom is that the best chance the Republican Party has of capturing the presidency is by running on the economy.
Although reports conflict on what is actually happening, the official numbers on unemployment have dipped slightly. If the CPI is to be believed, the number has actually dipped under 9% for the first time since 2008.
Running on this meager improvement in the economy would not be a good idea if the goal is to win in November. In spite of statistical improvements and a climbing stock market, these improvements are not reflected in the experience of those outside the government-financial complex. It presents the Obama administration as detached and aloof, disconnected from the concerns of the average American. Ironically that is probably the campaign attack Obama wishes to use against Romney should Romney become the Republican nominee.
The thing to watch is inflation. The inflation that Austrians have been predicting (and Keynesians have laughed because it didn’t instantly appear) is arriving. It is expressing itself most heavily in energy prices at this time, above the rises that would be expected simply from the saber rattling going on. It is also expressing itself in the stock markets, but people consider that to be good when stocks are up.
President Obama will probably win in spite of the economy, not because of the economy. Hyping up his achievements with regards to the economy seems like an odd strategy as a result.
Although reports conflict on what is actually happening, the official numbers on unemployment have dipped slightly. If the CPI is to be believed, the number has actually dipped under 9% for the first time since 2008.
Running on this meager improvement in the economy would not be a good idea if the goal is to win in November. In spite of statistical improvements and a climbing stock market, these improvements are not reflected in the experience of those outside the government-financial complex. It presents the Obama administration as detached and aloof, disconnected from the concerns of the average American. Ironically that is probably the campaign attack Obama wishes to use against Romney should Romney become the Republican nominee.
The thing to watch is inflation. The inflation that Austrians have been predicting (and Keynesians have laughed because it didn’t instantly appear) is arriving. It is expressing itself most heavily in energy prices at this time, above the rises that would be expected simply from the saber rattling going on. It is also expressing itself in the stock markets, but people consider that to be good when stocks are up.
President Obama will probably win in spite of the economy, not because of the economy. Hyping up his achievements with regards to the economy seems like an odd strategy as a result.
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
How to defeat some forms of electronic surveillance
There are more and more ways that people are under surveillance, but here are some simple ways this can be countered.
RFID is a big topic. It takes the form of small chips implanted in various forms of identification. If the identification does not have any necessary magnetic information, then simply putting it in the microwave for a few seconds will effectively and permanently disable the RFID chip.
If they are installed on a credit card, where the magnetic strip contains valuable information, then a more crude solution is necessary: put a thick piece of cloth, flannel will do, underneath and on top of the ID card, and then hit the spot with the chip with a hammer. The goal is to destroy the chip without destroying the card, and that is actually a fairly simple task.
With regards to the Backscatter X-Ray or the Millimeter Wave scanners used by the Transportation Security Agency, there are a few solutions. The simplest involves the choice of clothing that can be worn. Clothing made of lamé would scramble some of the signals, and also leather offers some resistance because the radiation theoretically does not penetrate the skin. A blogger recently found another flaw by having any metal sewn into pockets on the side of garments.
GPS tracking is actually absurdly easy to defeat, because it is a device that is easily removed from a vehicle. For maximum benefit, if a tracker is found, it should be mailed to a random address in a foreign country. The person who was tracked should claim no knowledge at all of any GPS tracking unit if following this plan. Meanwhile, since the FBI is supposed to be in charge of domestic intelligence actions and the CIA is supposed to be in charge of all international intelligence actions one can sit back and watch the turf war while the US government has to request the recipient nation kindly return the GPS unit.
The new Smart Meters being deployed by power companies also have a safe and effective way of defeating their transmission capability. All it takes is to build a Faraday cage around the meter. In order to avoid any legal hassles the ability to physically read the meter should not be impaired, so that the power company still has the same options for reading the meter as they did with the original analog meters.
Since these meters transmit their data to the power companies over what appears to be frequencies similar to cell phone frequencies a Faraday Cage will completely block those signals. It does not require the cage to touch the meter in any way at all, so there can be no questions of tampering with the meter. It is impossible to tamper with the meter if one doesn’t touch it or transmit any data to it. A visual reading doesn’t contain the hour by hour (or in some cases minute by minute) readout that is another offending feature of Smart Meters.
A Faraday Cage has one more benefit. It prevents the meter from communicating with compatible technology, most importantly the air conditioning unit. There will be no way for the meter to instruct an air conditioner to shut off.
These are only some solutions. The full number of solutions is as wide as human imagination.
RFID is a big topic. It takes the form of small chips implanted in various forms of identification. If the identification does not have any necessary magnetic information, then simply putting it in the microwave for a few seconds will effectively and permanently disable the RFID chip.
If they are installed on a credit card, where the magnetic strip contains valuable information, then a more crude solution is necessary: put a thick piece of cloth, flannel will do, underneath and on top of the ID card, and then hit the spot with the chip with a hammer. The goal is to destroy the chip without destroying the card, and that is actually a fairly simple task.
With regards to the Backscatter X-Ray or the Millimeter Wave scanners used by the Transportation Security Agency, there are a few solutions. The simplest involves the choice of clothing that can be worn. Clothing made of lamé would scramble some of the signals, and also leather offers some resistance because the radiation theoretically does not penetrate the skin. A blogger recently found another flaw by having any metal sewn into pockets on the side of garments.
GPS tracking is actually absurdly easy to defeat, because it is a device that is easily removed from a vehicle. For maximum benefit, if a tracker is found, it should be mailed to a random address in a foreign country. The person who was tracked should claim no knowledge at all of any GPS tracking unit if following this plan. Meanwhile, since the FBI is supposed to be in charge of domestic intelligence actions and the CIA is supposed to be in charge of all international intelligence actions one can sit back and watch the turf war while the US government has to request the recipient nation kindly return the GPS unit.
The new Smart Meters being deployed by power companies also have a safe and effective way of defeating their transmission capability. All it takes is to build a Faraday cage around the meter. In order to avoid any legal hassles the ability to physically read the meter should not be impaired, so that the power company still has the same options for reading the meter as they did with the original analog meters.
Since these meters transmit their data to the power companies over what appears to be frequencies similar to cell phone frequencies a Faraday Cage will completely block those signals. It does not require the cage to touch the meter in any way at all, so there can be no questions of tampering with the meter. It is impossible to tamper with the meter if one doesn’t touch it or transmit any data to it. A visual reading doesn’t contain the hour by hour (or in some cases minute by minute) readout that is another offending feature of Smart Meters.
A Faraday Cage has one more benefit. It prevents the meter from communicating with compatible technology, most importantly the air conditioning unit. There will be no way for the meter to instruct an air conditioner to shut off.
These are only some solutions. The full number of solutions is as wide as human imagination.
Saturday, March 03, 2012
The Mafia Fallacy
The question is asked: if the government were to recede wouldn't some other organization promptly take over? In earlier incarnations of this fallacy the "other organization" discussed was often the Mafia or other organized crime syndicates. It has since been updated to discuss "the corporations" taking over, and sometimes even specific corporations such as Blackwater / Xe. Since the argument started by using the Mafia, and that is the version closest to having a sensible basis to argue from, the fallacy should be named in honor of the Mafia.
With regards to corporations it is actually an absurd question. First of all, corporations as they exist today exist because of government charter. Without the government, corporations as we know them would not exist. Blackwater is even more special because it would not exist unless the government is itself imperial, as a company like Blackwater would not exist without government as a customer. It is, essentially, an adjunct of government. The powers that corporations have that are abused are powers that were granted by the government.
Corporations, with the power not abused, are there to conduct peaceful voluntary transactions with willing customers. How could they "take over" with that sort of mindset? And what exactly are the critics thinking of when they make that claim? With corporations form police forces and require people to purchase their goods?
That is why the original claim, about organized crime syndicates such as the Mafia, makes a better argument. The classic "protection money" correlates very well to paying taxes. But an analysis of organized crime reveals some flaws even in this.
The primary revenue source of organized crime is engaging in black market activities, the sale of goods or services that are illegal In the 1920s that included alcohol. When alcohol was no longer banned open competition drove organized crime out of that market. When alcohol was banned, competition took place in the form of territorial jurisdiction, while legal goods compete in terms of price and quality.
In the event of a government drawback the primary revenue source of organized crime will disappear. The primary criminal black markets - drugs, gambling, sex - will not have government restrictions. That leaves only the classic activity of protection money as a potential activity for organized crime.
Shakedowns, protection money, unauthorized taxation, that is the point which shows that the fallacy can only work when someone is ready and willing to use coercive force, and why criminal organizations may do this and why discussing corporations makes a much weaker fallacy.
The reason that organized crime is able to do shakedowns is because of their subversion of the police, how officers will look the other way at criminal activity. An individual who attempts to fight back against organized crime will find no help from the agencies that are supposed to assist.
But it has a very small economic return. Government is inherently an unprofitable activity. The shakedowns, under current criminal activities, augment the income of the crime syndicates and are not a major source of revenue. Depriving organized crime of black market revenue while allowing people to defend themselves from shakedown enforcers will make even the Mafia have a hard time instituting a new government.
It isn't impossible, but it is far more difficult than is assumed by those committing the fallacy, and it is only possible for criminal gangs and not the corporations. Not even Blackwater.
With regards to corporations it is actually an absurd question. First of all, corporations as they exist today exist because of government charter. Without the government, corporations as we know them would not exist. Blackwater is even more special because it would not exist unless the government is itself imperial, as a company like Blackwater would not exist without government as a customer. It is, essentially, an adjunct of government. The powers that corporations have that are abused are powers that were granted by the government.
Corporations, with the power not abused, are there to conduct peaceful voluntary transactions with willing customers. How could they "take over" with that sort of mindset? And what exactly are the critics thinking of when they make that claim? With corporations form police forces and require people to purchase their goods?
That is why the original claim, about organized crime syndicates such as the Mafia, makes a better argument. The classic "protection money" correlates very well to paying taxes. But an analysis of organized crime reveals some flaws even in this.
The primary revenue source of organized crime is engaging in black market activities, the sale of goods or services that are illegal In the 1920s that included alcohol. When alcohol was no longer banned open competition drove organized crime out of that market. When alcohol was banned, competition took place in the form of territorial jurisdiction, while legal goods compete in terms of price and quality.
In the event of a government drawback the primary revenue source of organized crime will disappear. The primary criminal black markets - drugs, gambling, sex - will not have government restrictions. That leaves only the classic activity of protection money as a potential activity for organized crime.
Shakedowns, protection money, unauthorized taxation, that is the point which shows that the fallacy can only work when someone is ready and willing to use coercive force, and why criminal organizations may do this and why discussing corporations makes a much weaker fallacy.
The reason that organized crime is able to do shakedowns is because of their subversion of the police, how officers will look the other way at criminal activity. An individual who attempts to fight back against organized crime will find no help from the agencies that are supposed to assist.
But it has a very small economic return. Government is inherently an unprofitable activity. The shakedowns, under current criminal activities, augment the income of the crime syndicates and are not a major source of revenue. Depriving organized crime of black market revenue while allowing people to defend themselves from shakedown enforcers will make even the Mafia have a hard time instituting a new government.
It isn't impossible, but it is far more difficult than is assumed by those committing the fallacy, and it is only possible for criminal gangs and not the corporations. Not even Blackwater.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Precision Murder
That President Obama has been just as much a hawk as President Bush, if not more so, has been for the last three years a major source of embarrassment to liberals and some progressives. He seemed like the most peaceful of the leading candidates, but to be fair that was in comparison to Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Then shortly after he was elected, on the expectation of what he was going to do instead of anything he had actually done, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
And he went on to expand the number of countries that had United States military involvement to include Yemen, Libya, and Somalia, as well as keeping up the military activity in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. He did keep his promise to withdraw from Iraq, but only after signaling that he intended to break that promise and keep the troops there indefinitely and thereby forcing the Iraqi government to force a withdrawal. Plus he continued the saber rattling against Iran.
So how is a liberal or progressive to cope with this embarrassment? Apparently the effort is to say that Obama's use of precision weapons somehow makes his interventions morally superior. The argument is that Bush carpet bombed from B-52s while Obama is very precise and surgical with his use of drone warfare.
Of course this overlooks how Obama is precise and surgical when he bombs emergency response teams from his previous bombing runs, and how Obama is precise and surgical when he bombs funeral processions that result from his previous bombing runs.
Because Obama's murder of innocent civilians is allegedly so much less indiscriminate than Bush's murder of innocent civilians, it is considered crude and unenlightened to say that the murder of innocent civilians by Obama is morally equivalent to the murder of innocent civilians by Bush.
There is one problem with that analysis: innocent civilians are still being killed either way. If a person murders an innocent, it doesn't matter if he used a chain saw or a scalpel, and it doesn't matter if he carefully selected the innocent rather than picking one at random. It also doesn’t matter if he killed two or ten. The person is still a murderer. Obama is still morally equivalent to Bush, and both are war criminals.
And he went on to expand the number of countries that had United States military involvement to include Yemen, Libya, and Somalia, as well as keeping up the military activity in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. He did keep his promise to withdraw from Iraq, but only after signaling that he intended to break that promise and keep the troops there indefinitely and thereby forcing the Iraqi government to force a withdrawal. Plus he continued the saber rattling against Iran.
So how is a liberal or progressive to cope with this embarrassment? Apparently the effort is to say that Obama's use of precision weapons somehow makes his interventions morally superior. The argument is that Bush carpet bombed from B-52s while Obama is very precise and surgical with his use of drone warfare.
Of course this overlooks how Obama is precise and surgical when he bombs emergency response teams from his previous bombing runs, and how Obama is precise and surgical when he bombs funeral processions that result from his previous bombing runs.
Because Obama's murder of innocent civilians is allegedly so much less indiscriminate than Bush's murder of innocent civilians, it is considered crude and unenlightened to say that the murder of innocent civilians by Obama is morally equivalent to the murder of innocent civilians by Bush.
There is one problem with that analysis: innocent civilians are still being killed either way. If a person murders an innocent, it doesn't matter if he used a chain saw or a scalpel, and it doesn't matter if he carefully selected the innocent rather than picking one at random. It also doesn’t matter if he killed two or ten. The person is still a murderer. Obama is still morally equivalent to Bush, and both are war criminals.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Social Security Default
In an interesting turn of events, the Congressional Budget Office has declared that Social Security will run out of money by 2020.
For years there have been two interpretations on when Social Security will actually be bankrupt. Those who believe in government also believed in the Social Security Trust fund, and therefore believed that when the Social Security Administration started disbursing more funds than it takes in that it would simply liquidate the treasury bonds and keep the program solvent for decades to come. Originally the end date was 2043, but it was moved up to 2036 due to deteriorating economic conditions.
Those who are less likely to believe the promises of politicians have long said that the due date for the bankruptcy of Social Security is 2018, the day that revenues start to exceed expenditures, and that would be a bankruptcy because the alleged trust fund does not exist. When Great Depression Two started that was moved up to 2017, and then moved up even further. Currently expenditures and revenues are nearly equal and all it will take to break the system will be a small jump in expenditures or a small drop in revenues.
But for the Congressional Budget Office to predict disaster for Social Security in the year 2020 is a startling admission. These people are paid to believe that the trust fund exists, so if they are predicting that the trust fund will be depleted that soon the situation must be pretty dire indeed.
The economy is deteriorating at an accelerating pace, but most people do not notice it at this time. This one item of news should be sending up alarm flags across the country, especially since it involves one of the most active voting blocs. This really is big news about how advanced the decay of the United States economy really is, since even the Congressional Budget Office is admitting to it and even CNN is reporting it.
For years there have been two interpretations on when Social Security will actually be bankrupt. Those who believe in government also believed in the Social Security Trust fund, and therefore believed that when the Social Security Administration started disbursing more funds than it takes in that it would simply liquidate the treasury bonds and keep the program solvent for decades to come. Originally the end date was 2043, but it was moved up to 2036 due to deteriorating economic conditions.
Those who are less likely to believe the promises of politicians have long said that the due date for the bankruptcy of Social Security is 2018, the day that revenues start to exceed expenditures, and that would be a bankruptcy because the alleged trust fund does not exist. When Great Depression Two started that was moved up to 2017, and then moved up even further. Currently expenditures and revenues are nearly equal and all it will take to break the system will be a small jump in expenditures or a small drop in revenues.
But for the Congressional Budget Office to predict disaster for Social Security in the year 2020 is a startling admission. These people are paid to believe that the trust fund exists, so if they are predicting that the trust fund will be depleted that soon the situation must be pretty dire indeed.
The economy is deteriorating at an accelerating pace, but most people do not notice it at this time. This one item of news should be sending up alarm flags across the country, especially since it involves one of the most active voting blocs. This really is big news about how advanced the decay of the United States economy really is, since even the Congressional Budget Office is admitting to it and even CNN is reporting it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)