There were many who were challenged by the 2012 campaign by Representative Ron Paul’s 2012 campaign for president. There were unique challenges for both liberals and conservatives as they were forced to confront what they really believe. Now that the campaign is over there is a whole new challenge for libertarians based on the campaign.
His campaign has given new life to the old lie about how libertarians and conservatives have some sort of closeness that excludes liberals and progressives. Because Representative Paul ran in the Republican Party instead of the Libertarian Party, he somehow demonstrated that libertarians have a home there.
It doesn't matter how poorly Ron Paul was treated through the primary, and how reprehensibly his supporters were treated at the Republican convention. It doesn't matter that Governor Mitt Romney and Representative Paul have nothing in common ideologically, or how much Governor Romney and President Obama do have in common. It doesn't matter how Ron Paul's ideas were kept out of discussion through the whole process from first debate to convention close.
None of that matters. All that matters is that Ron Paul has an "R" after his name. The fact that he ran in the Republican Party instead of the Libertarian Party is proof of that closeness. Never mind that in order to have a reasonable chance at victory he had to run in some major party - that he ran in a major party proves that there is some special affinity for the major party he ran in.
Since the argument being made is not a logical argument, there is no logical counter-argument. One could point out how much Ron Paul was at odds with his own party. One could point out how he wasn't even given a speaking spot at the convention. One could point out how he had to fight for speaking time at the debates. One could even point out how Romney cheated Paul of his delegates even though Romney didn't need to because his victory was already assured.
This isn't an argument meant to appeal to the intellect. It is an argument meant to appeal to the emotions. There is no counter-argument to be made as a result. Although one can say many good things about the Ron Paul 2012 effort, it also gave new life to the big lie.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Hyperinflation or Default?
The big debate in libertarian circles regarding the economic future of the United States government managed economy is whether the future contains hyperinflation or if it contains default. The answer is really quite simple; the question cannot be answered. An economist cannot predict the actions of politicians, but can instead only tell what will be the result of decisions made by politicians. What path exactly the United States will follow when conditions worsen is a question that can be answered only by politicians.
The biggest question can only be answered by the Federal Reserve, which has a hybrid nature that is partly political and partly private. If the "Audit the Fed" bill passes, then the resulting audit will surely reveal facts that will not please the political class. Given that the only advocate of a sound currency is retiring from the congress, the result of an audit will instead result in tighter governmental controls over the Federal Reserve, which could ultimately end up in nationalization of the Federal Reserve.
This would be the solution favored by the other great opponents of the Federal Reserve, the Greenbackers. If the Federal Reserve is brought under greater governmental control it will result in a Federal Reserve that has no choice but to continue purchasing worthless government bonds and in that event the flood of worthless currency will indeed result in hyperinflation.
On the other hand, the Federal Reserve as it is currently structured is ultimately owned by the private banks that do not desire hyperinflation. If the Federal Reserve remains mostly independent of the government, the private banks could order the Federal Reserve to purchase no more bonds that it can sell on the market. As the federal budget remains unbalanced, with almost half of the revenue the result of borrowing that will result in the Federal Reserve refusing to purchase any more bonds from the government. That ends with a government default as the money to pay for more than can be sustained simply isn’t there anymore.
Both cases hinge on the decisions made in the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. Congress and the President are in full control of that decision, and thus no economist can actually predict what will happen.
In either case, though, there will be upheaval and social unrest. Again, there are many options but no economist can predict which will happen. Economists can only outline the different options and describe the resulting conditions of each.
In one scenario the unrest results in riots. There may be riots due to the banks being unable to process any more payments as an emergency measure. If the electronic payment network breaks down, most people do not have enough currency on hand to purchase more than a few trinkets or a few snacks. Currency riots would lead to food riots.
In another scenario, politicians actually act before the riots start by declaring martial law before the riots instead of after them. Strict controls barely contain the chaos, with political control breaking down farther away from the armed encampments of the cities.
In a third scenario the infrastructure grid in the country cannot sustain the delicate balance and this ultimately results in food shortages, which will result in even more desperate riots throughout the country as people flee the cities to find food.
Of course, in order to preempt those outcomes, the political class may decide that a war against an external enemy is necessary to distract the population. This would most likely result in a war against Iran If that happens, there will be both high inflation but not necessarily hyperinflation, as well as shortages and other hardships. There will be much more direct management of the economy, with people receiving their basic sustenance from the government.
That is also an unsustainable solution, but the additional bloodshed abroad may forestall the inevitable result of either hyperinflation or default for a short time. But as any economist can predict, the government cannot ignore reality forever.
The biggest question can only be answered by the Federal Reserve, which has a hybrid nature that is partly political and partly private. If the "Audit the Fed" bill passes, then the resulting audit will surely reveal facts that will not please the political class. Given that the only advocate of a sound currency is retiring from the congress, the result of an audit will instead result in tighter governmental controls over the Federal Reserve, which could ultimately end up in nationalization of the Federal Reserve.
This would be the solution favored by the other great opponents of the Federal Reserve, the Greenbackers. If the Federal Reserve is brought under greater governmental control it will result in a Federal Reserve that has no choice but to continue purchasing worthless government bonds and in that event the flood of worthless currency will indeed result in hyperinflation.
On the other hand, the Federal Reserve as it is currently structured is ultimately owned by the private banks that do not desire hyperinflation. If the Federal Reserve remains mostly independent of the government, the private banks could order the Federal Reserve to purchase no more bonds that it can sell on the market. As the federal budget remains unbalanced, with almost half of the revenue the result of borrowing that will result in the Federal Reserve refusing to purchase any more bonds from the government. That ends with a government default as the money to pay for more than can be sustained simply isn’t there anymore.
Both cases hinge on the decisions made in the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. Congress and the President are in full control of that decision, and thus no economist can actually predict what will happen.
In either case, though, there will be upheaval and social unrest. Again, there are many options but no economist can predict which will happen. Economists can only outline the different options and describe the resulting conditions of each.
In one scenario the unrest results in riots. There may be riots due to the banks being unable to process any more payments as an emergency measure. If the electronic payment network breaks down, most people do not have enough currency on hand to purchase more than a few trinkets or a few snacks. Currency riots would lead to food riots.
In another scenario, politicians actually act before the riots start by declaring martial law before the riots instead of after them. Strict controls barely contain the chaos, with political control breaking down farther away from the armed encampments of the cities.
In a third scenario the infrastructure grid in the country cannot sustain the delicate balance and this ultimately results in food shortages, which will result in even more desperate riots throughout the country as people flee the cities to find food.
Of course, in order to preempt those outcomes, the political class may decide that a war against an external enemy is necessary to distract the population. This would most likely result in a war against Iran If that happens, there will be both high inflation but not necessarily hyperinflation, as well as shortages and other hardships. There will be much more direct management of the economy, with people receiving their basic sustenance from the government.
That is also an unsustainable solution, but the additional bloodshed abroad may forestall the inevitable result of either hyperinflation or default for a short time. But as any economist can predict, the government cannot ignore reality forever.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Why did they find him?
Recently an absurdity of a film called "Innocence of Muslims" has been making the rounds in the news. Although all the evidence indicates that the attacks on the embassies and consulates had been planned long in advance, the film is being blamed for the attacks.
Although it is understandable that some people are curious about who produced this teaser for a movie that doesn’t even actually exist, and therefore various news media organizations have been trying to find out who it is so that they can satisfy the demand, there is a very disturbing element to the quest for the identity of the producer.
Why is the United States government involved in trying to figure out his identity? Has the producer of this teaser actually broken any laws of the United States or of the fifty states? What law could he have broken that would spur such an investigation? And if he were put on trial, say for incitement, would he not have a solid first amendment defense under freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion?
Having the Associated Press try to find his identity is one thing. If a person thrusts himself into the public eye, then the public has every right to try to find out more. But having the government do the same without any identifiable cause is itself cause for concern.
Yes, people can say things that impede the foreign policy of government officials. People can say things that embarrass government officials to, although far less so than in the past.
This following so closely on the heels of having Brandon Raub committed to a psychiatric hospital for the “crime” of criticizing the government, while having the British "ally" threaten Ecuadorean sovereignty to claim Julian Assange shows that the line has been crossed a long time ago with regards to the lawlessness of the United States regime.
Although it is understandable that some people are curious about who produced this teaser for a movie that doesn’t even actually exist, and therefore various news media organizations have been trying to find out who it is so that they can satisfy the demand, there is a very disturbing element to the quest for the identity of the producer.
Why is the United States government involved in trying to figure out his identity? Has the producer of this teaser actually broken any laws of the United States or of the fifty states? What law could he have broken that would spur such an investigation? And if he were put on trial, say for incitement, would he not have a solid first amendment defense under freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion?
Having the Associated Press try to find his identity is one thing. If a person thrusts himself into the public eye, then the public has every right to try to find out more. But having the government do the same without any identifiable cause is itself cause for concern.
Yes, people can say things that impede the foreign policy of government officials. People can say things that embarrass government officials to, although far less so than in the past.
This following so closely on the heels of having Brandon Raub committed to a psychiatric hospital for the “crime” of criticizing the government, while having the British "ally" threaten Ecuadorean sovereignty to claim Julian Assange shows that the line has been crossed a long time ago with regards to the lawlessness of the United States regime.
Sunday, September 09, 2012
Government by Blackmail
There is a tax initiative on the California ballot for November; Proposition 30, Sales and Tax Increase (2012), otherwise known as Jerry Brown's Tax Increase. All of the public unions support it, of course, because it backfills the pension programs for state employees. But it has other groups supporting it as well.
There is a lot of support coming from the film companies in Hollywood. At first glance that would make sense, given how strongly most people in that industry support the Democratic Party. But even so, the studios are trying to fight against films being shot in more business friendly environments. More and more films are being shot out of state and out of country. So why is there such support for a measure that would only accelerate the trend?
There are special tax exemptions for filming in California, to support the local film industry. And unlike many parts of the tax code, these exemptions are renewed annually instead of being a normal (until a new bill is passed) part of the tax code. The threat is implicit, that if the studios do not support measures supported by the permanent Democratic Party majority in the legislature, those exemptions could easily and quickly disappear simply by failing to renew them. That would not even need the 2/3 vote required by Proposition 13, passed many years ago in order to combat ever increasing taxes.
The American Beverage Association is also backing this measure, in spite of how easily it can harm their operations in California. Shortly before gaining the support of the American Beverage Association, there was much discussion among prominent Democrat politicians about how the state needs to combat obesity by putting punitive taxes on sugary drinks as is happening in other areas of the country. This discussion died down quickly after the American Beverage Association gave its backing to Proposition 30. They even donated $250,000 towards the passage of Proposition 30.
Although there is no explicit threat, at least not one where there is a written demand that could be used as proof, this is pretty clearly a case where various organizations are being threatened to support a measure that they otherwise would not, in exchange for not being harmed more directly. It is the highway man saying "your money or your life" to these groups.
There is a lot of support coming from the film companies in Hollywood. At first glance that would make sense, given how strongly most people in that industry support the Democratic Party. But even so, the studios are trying to fight against films being shot in more business friendly environments. More and more films are being shot out of state and out of country. So why is there such support for a measure that would only accelerate the trend?
There are special tax exemptions for filming in California, to support the local film industry. And unlike many parts of the tax code, these exemptions are renewed annually instead of being a normal (until a new bill is passed) part of the tax code. The threat is implicit, that if the studios do not support measures supported by the permanent Democratic Party majority in the legislature, those exemptions could easily and quickly disappear simply by failing to renew them. That would not even need the 2/3 vote required by Proposition 13, passed many years ago in order to combat ever increasing taxes.
The American Beverage Association is also backing this measure, in spite of how easily it can harm their operations in California. Shortly before gaining the support of the American Beverage Association, there was much discussion among prominent Democrat politicians about how the state needs to combat obesity by putting punitive taxes on sugary drinks as is happening in other areas of the country. This discussion died down quickly after the American Beverage Association gave its backing to Proposition 30. They even donated $250,000 towards the passage of Proposition 30.
Although there is no explicit threat, at least not one where there is a written demand that could be used as proof, this is pretty clearly a case where various organizations are being threatened to support a measure that they otherwise would not, in exchange for not being harmed more directly. It is the highway man saying "your money or your life" to these groups.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Paul Ryan is no Objectivist
As soon as Paul Ryan was chosen to be Mitt Romney’s vice presidential candidate, there was dialogue in both parties about how he was supposedly quite libertarian, to the point where he was inspired by Ayn Rand. If Paul Ryan was inspired by Ayn Rand, it is likely that upon finishing the reading of Atlas Shrugged he said "I want to grow up to be just like Wesley Mouch."
The weaker version of this argument comes from Republicans. They act as if simply mentioning that Paul Ryan has read Atlas Shrugged is sufficient to convince Ron Paul voters to abandon all principle and support the Romney/Ryan ticket, even though it is far from sufficient and Ron Paul supporters are not buying it. Then there are those who should know better. The Ayn Rand institute has an article on various statements made by Paul Ryan that would indicate that he leans that way, ignoring the rich history of conservatives saying one thing and doing another. Objectivism does not advocate ignoring reality, and the reality of Paul Ryan's voting record is something that should not be ignored.
There is a slightly stronger version of this argument from Democrats. Many of them also act as if simply mentioning that Paul Ryan has read Atlas Shrugged is sufficient to tar him as libertarian. But there are a few who are making a very interesting argument to try to support that accusation.
Their argument is based on the principle of rational self interest. They argue that, even though Paul Ryan’s voting record is antithetical to Objectivist principles, that same voting record is exactly the series of choices a person would make if he had the goal to rise through the ranks of his party.
It is true that, given a particular goal certain choices become inevitable if one actually wishes to achieve that goal. But there is a problem with that interpretation. Objectivism does not allow for seeking power over others as a rationally chosen goal. Nor would it advocate any goal that would lead to the choice to violate the rights of others as a means to achieve that goal.
Assuming the best about Paul Ryan, an assumption he does not deserve, the character then to compare him to would be Doctor Robert Stadler. In the novel, Dr. Stadler decided that the use of ignoble means was appropriate to achieve noble ends; specifically, to use politics to advance the quest for knowledge. It was that contradiction that eventually led to Dr. Stadler's downfall. But since Paul Ryan isn't up to the level of a Dr. Stadler, he has more in common with the Eugene Lawson, Chick Morrison, Wesley Mouch, and Mr. Thompson characters. One could say that Wesley Mouch made all the choices one would rationally choose if the desire is to become "economic dictator of the economy." But becoming "economic dictator of the economy" is not a rational choice.
Also, by that same logic, one could argue that Barack Obama made all the choices one would rationally choose if the desire is to rise through the ranks of a political party. He made all the right choices given his situation for one desiring to become president. But yet the argument is not made that Barack Obama is an Objectivist for that reason, and is in fact refused. The fact that the argument does not work both ways is proof that there is no genuine substance behind it, and that it is only a rationalization instead of a proof.
The weaker version of this argument comes from Republicans. They act as if simply mentioning that Paul Ryan has read Atlas Shrugged is sufficient to convince Ron Paul voters to abandon all principle and support the Romney/Ryan ticket, even though it is far from sufficient and Ron Paul supporters are not buying it. Then there are those who should know better. The Ayn Rand institute has an article on various statements made by Paul Ryan that would indicate that he leans that way, ignoring the rich history of conservatives saying one thing and doing another. Objectivism does not advocate ignoring reality, and the reality of Paul Ryan's voting record is something that should not be ignored.
There is a slightly stronger version of this argument from Democrats. Many of them also act as if simply mentioning that Paul Ryan has read Atlas Shrugged is sufficient to tar him as libertarian. But there are a few who are making a very interesting argument to try to support that accusation.
Their argument is based on the principle of rational self interest. They argue that, even though Paul Ryan’s voting record is antithetical to Objectivist principles, that same voting record is exactly the series of choices a person would make if he had the goal to rise through the ranks of his party.
It is true that, given a particular goal certain choices become inevitable if one actually wishes to achieve that goal. But there is a problem with that interpretation. Objectivism does not allow for seeking power over others as a rationally chosen goal. Nor would it advocate any goal that would lead to the choice to violate the rights of others as a means to achieve that goal.
Assuming the best about Paul Ryan, an assumption he does not deserve, the character then to compare him to would be Doctor Robert Stadler. In the novel, Dr. Stadler decided that the use of ignoble means was appropriate to achieve noble ends; specifically, to use politics to advance the quest for knowledge. It was that contradiction that eventually led to Dr. Stadler's downfall. But since Paul Ryan isn't up to the level of a Dr. Stadler, he has more in common with the Eugene Lawson, Chick Morrison, Wesley Mouch, and Mr. Thompson characters. One could say that Wesley Mouch made all the choices one would rationally choose if the desire is to become "economic dictator of the economy." But becoming "economic dictator of the economy" is not a rational choice.
Also, by that same logic, one could argue that Barack Obama made all the choices one would rationally choose if the desire is to rise through the ranks of a political party. He made all the right choices given his situation for one desiring to become president. But yet the argument is not made that Barack Obama is an Objectivist for that reason, and is in fact refused. The fact that the argument does not work both ways is proof that there is no genuine substance behind it, and that it is only a rationalization instead of a proof.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Russia Confronts Britain regarding Assange
Russia's Foreign Ministry has issued a statement today warning Britain against attacking the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, saying it was unthinkable for a nation to violate "the spirit and the letter" of the Vienna Convention, which makes diplomatic premises inviolable - Antiwar.com. This really is a fascinating situation on many levels, given the threat by members of the British government to use force to extricate Julian Assange from the Ecuadorean Embassy.
The first thing to notice is the role reversal involved given the cold war history between Great Britain and the United States on one side and Russia on the other in its former guise as the Soviet Union. It was the United States and allies that were considered the guardians of human rights and the protectors of international law. The western powers were those most involved in protecting the sanctity of the embassy against more despotic regimes. Granted, Russia is not the Soviet Union, but this is a situation that would cause uncomfortable feelings were politicians in Great Britain and the United States capable of feeling irony.
But there is more to this situation than this. The premise that the Russian officials are operating from is that they are actually warning their British counterparts against setting a precedent with undesirable results. Great Britain currently has residents that are claiming asylum, and a significant number of them are from Russia. The Russian government has asked for these people to be extradited, and the British government has refused.
If the British government breaches the sanctity of the Ecuadorian embassy, then the precedent set is that it is perfectly acceptable to use force to gain extradition of wanted fugitives from foreign lands. The Russian officials are saying "The British are saying it is acceptable to send troops in to foreign territory to apprehend people claiming asylum. The British has people claiming asylum in their territory. We have troops we can send to apprehend them."
What would the members of Parliament say if the Russians were willing to follow through on that threat to the final conclusion? Would they protest that this is somehow different? Actually, that does seem somewhat likely, as it appears the mindset of the United States Imperium is that international law is there to protect the Imperium and to punish those who resist.
If a third world war does break out, Britain and Russia would be on opposite sides making this a very dangerous game of brinkmanship. It will also encourage more countries from Latin America and South America to side against the United States Imperium. Venezuela is already opposed, and the residents of Columbia are being heavily punished for supplying a product that people in the United States are eager to purchase.
The only way this can end well is if the British government backs down. It would be an embarrassment to the United States, and the emperor has an image that needs to be maintained. This is a no-win situation for the western powers, unless one is willing to say that victory comes from being willing to descend to any level to get what one wants. Or perhaps the Russian officials, in making these veiled threats, are not intending to follow through.
The first thing to notice is the role reversal involved given the cold war history between Great Britain and the United States on one side and Russia on the other in its former guise as the Soviet Union. It was the United States and allies that were considered the guardians of human rights and the protectors of international law. The western powers were those most involved in protecting the sanctity of the embassy against more despotic regimes. Granted, Russia is not the Soviet Union, but this is a situation that would cause uncomfortable feelings were politicians in Great Britain and the United States capable of feeling irony.
But there is more to this situation than this. The premise that the Russian officials are operating from is that they are actually warning their British counterparts against setting a precedent with undesirable results. Great Britain currently has residents that are claiming asylum, and a significant number of them are from Russia. The Russian government has asked for these people to be extradited, and the British government has refused.
If the British government breaches the sanctity of the Ecuadorian embassy, then the precedent set is that it is perfectly acceptable to use force to gain extradition of wanted fugitives from foreign lands. The Russian officials are saying "The British are saying it is acceptable to send troops in to foreign territory to apprehend people claiming asylum. The British has people claiming asylum in their territory. We have troops we can send to apprehend them."
What would the members of Parliament say if the Russians were willing to follow through on that threat to the final conclusion? Would they protest that this is somehow different? Actually, that does seem somewhat likely, as it appears the mindset of the United States Imperium is that international law is there to protect the Imperium and to punish those who resist.
If a third world war does break out, Britain and Russia would be on opposite sides making this a very dangerous game of brinkmanship. It will also encourage more countries from Latin America and South America to side against the United States Imperium. Venezuela is already opposed, and the residents of Columbia are being heavily punished for supplying a product that people in the United States are eager to purchase.
The only way this can end well is if the British government backs down. It would be an embarrassment to the United States, and the emperor has an image that needs to be maintained. This is a no-win situation for the western powers, unless one is willing to say that victory comes from being willing to descend to any level to get what one wants. Or perhaps the Russian officials, in making these veiled threats, are not intending to follow through.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Would India Fight Against Russia?
In response to Worst Case War Scenario the comment was made that a portion of the scenario was off because India would not fight against Russia.
It is true that, for a while during the Cold War, India and Russia were close to each other. This was a balance to closeness between Pakistan and the United States, which was part of an encircling attempt around Iran. This does not mean that India wouldn’t fight on the side of the United States in a worst case war scenario.
A key point in the scenario is that China and Russia are allies against the United States. However, there was a time during the Cold War, when China and the Soviet Union were very close to going to war against each other. That was part of the strategy behind President Nixon visiting China, as part of the plan to eventually pull out of Vietnam. By visiting China, President Nixon caused concern in the Soviet government that the United States and Chine might coordinate against the Soviet Union.
But as bitter enemies the United States and the Soviet Union were during the Cold War, they were allies during World War Two. The Cold War blossomed under President Truman as a way to justify intervening in Greece, turning a former ally into an enemy.
In World War Two, Germany and Japan were the main enemies of the United States. Today both are considered friendly countries. Germany in particular is now the anchor to the European Union with many former enemies.
Political alliances shift constantly. It is part of the nature of the game. Just because two governments were enemies doesn’t mean that they cannot shift to allies, and just because two governments were allies doesn’t mean that they cannot shift to enemies. George Orwell noticed this, which is why he included it in "1984" when he had Oceana constantly shift between alliance with Euraisa and alliance with Eastasia.
So, why would India side with the United States against Russia?
There exists tension between India on the one hand, and both Pakistan and China on the other. There has been concern at times that if nuclear war were to break out it would be in the Himalayan Mountain range, either between India and Pakistan or India and China. There is still disputed territory at the intersection of those countries, and religious conflict is particularly strong between the people of India and Pakistan. Plus, relations are souring between Pakistan and the United States while relations are improving between Pakistan and China.
If India were to intervene on the side of the United States, going against Russia would be incidental instead of purposeful. Just as Finland, by being an enemy of the Soviet Union, was an enemy of chance against Great Britain and the other allied powers, India would be fighting primarily against Pakistan and China and not primarily against Russia.
Pakistan and China would both be against the United States in that scenario. That would mean, even if India doesn’t intervene, that India would be closer to the side of the United States and therefore farther from the side of Russia. If India doesn’t intervene, that would make that country a silent ally instead of active ally of the United States, similar to the role played by Spain to Germany in World War Two.
Of all the parts of the scenario, that is the one with the lowest probability. Just because India would be favoring the United States and experiencing poor relations with both Pakistan and China doesn’t mean that intervention has to happen. The government of India has the least cause of all the countries mentioned in the scenario. That could mean that some sense would break out, the government of India could choose to sit out the war, and therefore emerge as very dominant in the area after China, Russia, and the United States finish tearing each other apart. But if it were to intervene, it would not be on the same side as China and Pakistan, and therefore on the opposite side of Russia.
It is true that, for a while during the Cold War, India and Russia were close to each other. This was a balance to closeness between Pakistan and the United States, which was part of an encircling attempt around Iran. This does not mean that India wouldn’t fight on the side of the United States in a worst case war scenario.
A key point in the scenario is that China and Russia are allies against the United States. However, there was a time during the Cold War, when China and the Soviet Union were very close to going to war against each other. That was part of the strategy behind President Nixon visiting China, as part of the plan to eventually pull out of Vietnam. By visiting China, President Nixon caused concern in the Soviet government that the United States and Chine might coordinate against the Soviet Union.
But as bitter enemies the United States and the Soviet Union were during the Cold War, they were allies during World War Two. The Cold War blossomed under President Truman as a way to justify intervening in Greece, turning a former ally into an enemy.
In World War Two, Germany and Japan were the main enemies of the United States. Today both are considered friendly countries. Germany in particular is now the anchor to the European Union with many former enemies.
Political alliances shift constantly. It is part of the nature of the game. Just because two governments were enemies doesn’t mean that they cannot shift to allies, and just because two governments were allies doesn’t mean that they cannot shift to enemies. George Orwell noticed this, which is why he included it in "1984" when he had Oceana constantly shift between alliance with Euraisa and alliance with Eastasia.
So, why would India side with the United States against Russia?
There exists tension between India on the one hand, and both Pakistan and China on the other. There has been concern at times that if nuclear war were to break out it would be in the Himalayan Mountain range, either between India and Pakistan or India and China. There is still disputed territory at the intersection of those countries, and religious conflict is particularly strong between the people of India and Pakistan. Plus, relations are souring between Pakistan and the United States while relations are improving between Pakistan and China.
If India were to intervene on the side of the United States, going against Russia would be incidental instead of purposeful. Just as Finland, by being an enemy of the Soviet Union, was an enemy of chance against Great Britain and the other allied powers, India would be fighting primarily against Pakistan and China and not primarily against Russia.
Pakistan and China would both be against the United States in that scenario. That would mean, even if India doesn’t intervene, that India would be closer to the side of the United States and therefore farther from the side of Russia. If India doesn’t intervene, that would make that country a silent ally instead of active ally of the United States, similar to the role played by Spain to Germany in World War Two.
Of all the parts of the scenario, that is the one with the lowest probability. Just because India would be favoring the United States and experiencing poor relations with both Pakistan and China doesn’t mean that intervention has to happen. The government of India has the least cause of all the countries mentioned in the scenario. That could mean that some sense would break out, the government of India could choose to sit out the war, and therefore emerge as very dominant in the area after China, Russia, and the United States finish tearing each other apart. But if it were to intervene, it would not be on the same side as China and Pakistan, and therefore on the opposite side of Russia.
Sunday, August 05, 2012
Worst Case War Scenario
It is becoming increasingly likely that eventually either the government of the United States or the government of Israel will launch an attack against Iran. The current support for the Syrian rebels by President Obama is to undermine a mutual defense treaty between the governments of Syria and Iran that if either is attacked by the United States the other would respond. If the rebels take control of Syria, that isolates Iran from one more ally.
But if either the United States or Israel attacks Iran, not only will the other country be brought into the conflict, many other countries are poised to be brought into the conflict as well. The support that the government of the United States shows for the government of Israel has been a source of discontent in many other Middle Eastern countries.
If Israel attacks Iran, it would be with the understanding that the United States will support Israel against a counter-attack, thus proving the dangers of entangling alliances once again. As the Iranian military launches what counter-attacks they are capable of, the government of Israel will be calling upon the United States to save Israel from destruction.
If the United States launches an attack against Iran, Israel will likely be drawn in by popular sentiment among the peoples and government of the other countries in the area. Popular support no longer exists for the United States in most countries, and the various "Arab Spring" revolutions have not brought to power governments friendly to the United States. It would not be hard to imagine these new post-revolution countries retaliating against Israel for an attack by the United States against Iran.
A general war against many Middle-East countries is not the worst scenario though. The whole situation can get very bad very quickly if the governments of Russia and China get tired of provocations by the United States and come to the aid of Iran. The government of Iran has been carefully cultivating ties with both of those countries, and China in particular is very interested in more sources of petroleum.
It could start like Vietnam, with the armies of various countries supporting one side and armies of various countries supporting the other side. It would be a terrible war for the Persian people, with United States troops fighting Russian and Chinese troops on Persian soil, but there is no need to believe that the war would be maintained there.
With the United States so heavily engaged in Iran, the government of Pakistan would finally see an opportunity to act against the United States in retaliation from drone bombings. Working with the people of Afghanistan, the Pakistani military would also come to the support of Iran. China and Pakistan have been cultivating closer ties in an effort to put pressure on a mutual rival of India.
A general Muslim uprising coupled with Russian and Chinese support would force the call-up of the NATO allies. Britain would already be heavily involved because the United States is involved, but this would mobilize the militaries of several other countries, especially former Warsaw Pact members. In 2008 the government of Georgia tried to pull the United States into a conflict with Russia over the Georgian province of South Ossetia. The government of Russia saw the admittance of former Warsaw Pact and former Soviet Socialist Republics into NATO as a provocational encroachment.
Although the war would not be directly between NATO and Russia, the war would be directly between Europe and the Middle East. Many European countries are already experiencing difficulty assimilating immigrants, although it is politically incorrect to discuss the subject. These people would be easily made into scapegoats for the problems in various European countries, from Algerians in France to Pakistanis in England to Turks in Germany. A similar conflict might also occur in Australia.
The country with the most to lose at this point is Turkey. Straddling the border of Europe and the Middle East as it does, being a predominantly Muslim country with a secular government, already a NATO member and trying to gain entry into the European Union, a war between Europe and the Middle East spells disaster for Turkey no matter which side is chosen. Relations between Turkey and Israel have cooled significantly over the Gaza flotilla issue. While Turkey wouldn’t mind a weakened Iran, giving Turkey more influence in the Middle East, it is questionable if the population would support Turkey siding with Europe. Siding with the Middle East, on the other hand, would be in violation of both treaties and political objectives.
Finally, in the worst case scenario, tension between Pakistan and China on one side and India on the other brings India into the conflict on the side of the United States. Although that would be a great relief to the United States considering the population of India rivals that of China, it would in the long run only make the war worse for everyone. Plus North Korea might try to take advantage of the confusion to attack South Korea, although that would not work very well for North Korea. It could draw the United States into another front, fighting North Koreans and Chinese on the east side of Asia.
With the United States, Israel, India, and NATO on one side, and China, Iran, Russia, and the Middle East on the other, this would be a devastating war. So devastating, in fact, that it is surprising that politicians in office today are still calling for action against Iran. This is not the only possible outcome, and might not even be the most likely outcome, but World War One was started by a complicated series of entangling alliances as well.
But if either the United States or Israel attacks Iran, not only will the other country be brought into the conflict, many other countries are poised to be brought into the conflict as well. The support that the government of the United States shows for the government of Israel has been a source of discontent in many other Middle Eastern countries.
If Israel attacks Iran, it would be with the understanding that the United States will support Israel against a counter-attack, thus proving the dangers of entangling alliances once again. As the Iranian military launches what counter-attacks they are capable of, the government of Israel will be calling upon the United States to save Israel from destruction.
If the United States launches an attack against Iran, Israel will likely be drawn in by popular sentiment among the peoples and government of the other countries in the area. Popular support no longer exists for the United States in most countries, and the various "Arab Spring" revolutions have not brought to power governments friendly to the United States. It would not be hard to imagine these new post-revolution countries retaliating against Israel for an attack by the United States against Iran.
A general war against many Middle-East countries is not the worst scenario though. The whole situation can get very bad very quickly if the governments of Russia and China get tired of provocations by the United States and come to the aid of Iran. The government of Iran has been carefully cultivating ties with both of those countries, and China in particular is very interested in more sources of petroleum.
It could start like Vietnam, with the armies of various countries supporting one side and armies of various countries supporting the other side. It would be a terrible war for the Persian people, with United States troops fighting Russian and Chinese troops on Persian soil, but there is no need to believe that the war would be maintained there.
With the United States so heavily engaged in Iran, the government of Pakistan would finally see an opportunity to act against the United States in retaliation from drone bombings. Working with the people of Afghanistan, the Pakistani military would also come to the support of Iran. China and Pakistan have been cultivating closer ties in an effort to put pressure on a mutual rival of India.
A general Muslim uprising coupled with Russian and Chinese support would force the call-up of the NATO allies. Britain would already be heavily involved because the United States is involved, but this would mobilize the militaries of several other countries, especially former Warsaw Pact members. In 2008 the government of Georgia tried to pull the United States into a conflict with Russia over the Georgian province of South Ossetia. The government of Russia saw the admittance of former Warsaw Pact and former Soviet Socialist Republics into NATO as a provocational encroachment.
Although the war would not be directly between NATO and Russia, the war would be directly between Europe and the Middle East. Many European countries are already experiencing difficulty assimilating immigrants, although it is politically incorrect to discuss the subject. These people would be easily made into scapegoats for the problems in various European countries, from Algerians in France to Pakistanis in England to Turks in Germany. A similar conflict might also occur in Australia.
The country with the most to lose at this point is Turkey. Straddling the border of Europe and the Middle East as it does, being a predominantly Muslim country with a secular government, already a NATO member and trying to gain entry into the European Union, a war between Europe and the Middle East spells disaster for Turkey no matter which side is chosen. Relations between Turkey and Israel have cooled significantly over the Gaza flotilla issue. While Turkey wouldn’t mind a weakened Iran, giving Turkey more influence in the Middle East, it is questionable if the population would support Turkey siding with Europe. Siding with the Middle East, on the other hand, would be in violation of both treaties and political objectives.
Finally, in the worst case scenario, tension between Pakistan and China on one side and India on the other brings India into the conflict on the side of the United States. Although that would be a great relief to the United States considering the population of India rivals that of China, it would in the long run only make the war worse for everyone. Plus North Korea might try to take advantage of the confusion to attack South Korea, although that would not work very well for North Korea. It could draw the United States into another front, fighting North Koreans and Chinese on the east side of Asia.
With the United States, Israel, India, and NATO on one side, and China, Iran, Russia, and the Middle East on the other, this would be a devastating war. So devastating, in fact, that it is surprising that politicians in office today are still calling for action against Iran. This is not the only possible outcome, and might not even be the most likely outcome, but World War One was started by a complicated series of entangling alliances as well.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
An Uninspired Campaign
The strongest argument that the Republican Party can make in favor of candidate Mitt Romney is that he isn't Barack Obama. He most certainly was not the candidate favored by the Tea Party or many other more conservative Republicans, in spite of efforts to paint him as such. The nomination of Mitt Romney was a fairly decisive defeat of the Tea Party's influence within the Republican Party and a victory for the central leadership over the base.
The strongest argument that the Democratic Party can make in favor of candidate Barack Obama is that he isn't Mitt Romney. He fails to inspire the base, even with his alleged achievements. The strongest argument in favor of Barack Obama is potential judicial appointments, as Mitt Romney would appoint people like John Roberts who voted to uphold Obamacare. "Hope and change" makes a good mantra when a candidate is fresh, but not after failing to deliver either for four years.
Small wonder that partisans react so angrily to having it pointed out how little difference there is in this campaign. The standard comparison of "not a dimes worth of difference" is even stronger given just how similar the two candidates really are. Mitt Romney wrote the rough draft of Obamacare, and Barack Obama has shown greater militarism than even George W. Bush.
The cries of "this is the most important election ever" are even louder than before, and yet those cries fail to inspire the base of either party. These cries are meant to convince the reluctant base to come out and vote in spite of, not because of, the candidates that the party is running. They are also a vain attempt to convince third party voters to cross party lines, which sometimes does happen if a candidate is appealing enough. In the 2012 electoral race, it would be hard to describe either candidate as "appealing enough."
It will be interesting to see how a campaign between two unappealing candidates develops. Negative campaigning, trying to appeal to fear in order to bring out the base, will be the only option for both candidates, but ultimately that will reinforce the basic problem that neither candidate is good. It will also be interesting to see how the two parties arrange to negate the opportunity being given to third parties this time around.
The strongest argument that the Democratic Party can make in favor of candidate Barack Obama is that he isn't Mitt Romney. He fails to inspire the base, even with his alleged achievements. The strongest argument in favor of Barack Obama is potential judicial appointments, as Mitt Romney would appoint people like John Roberts who voted to uphold Obamacare. "Hope and change" makes a good mantra when a candidate is fresh, but not after failing to deliver either for four years.
Small wonder that partisans react so angrily to having it pointed out how little difference there is in this campaign. The standard comparison of "not a dimes worth of difference" is even stronger given just how similar the two candidates really are. Mitt Romney wrote the rough draft of Obamacare, and Barack Obama has shown greater militarism than even George W. Bush.
The cries of "this is the most important election ever" are even louder than before, and yet those cries fail to inspire the base of either party. These cries are meant to convince the reluctant base to come out and vote in spite of, not because of, the candidates that the party is running. They are also a vain attempt to convince third party voters to cross party lines, which sometimes does happen if a candidate is appealing enough. In the 2012 electoral race, it would be hard to describe either candidate as "appealing enough."
It will be interesting to see how a campaign between two unappealing candidates develops. Negative campaigning, trying to appeal to fear in order to bring out the base, will be the only option for both candidates, but ultimately that will reinforce the basic problem that neither candidate is good. It will also be interesting to see how the two parties arrange to negate the opportunity being given to third parties this time around.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Bain Capital
People within the Obama campaign are making comments about Mitt Romney’s involvement with Bain Capital. It is possible that Mitt Romney is much more heavily involved in his company than previously claimed, and that there may be legal grounds to prosecute Mitt Romney for such. Some even comment that the charges may rise to the level of felony.
The question is, if the Obama campaign is confident enough to make these allegations, why is the Obama administration not confident enough to press charges? If there exists sufficient grounds to suspect illegal activity, then there should be sufficient grounds to open an actual investigation into those potential activities.
Of course one could claim that opening up an investigation at this time would be clearly politically motivated. A stronger claim could be made that doing so after the convention, once Mitt Romney is officially the nominee, is politically motivated because to do so then would hamstring the Republican campaign. If an investigation is opened before the primary the Republican Party would have time to recover and potentially select a new candidate.
Another possible interpretation is that those making the claims against Mitt Romney know that sufficient grounds for an investigation do not actually exist, but that the public might become sufficiently convinced that the eventual vote in November can be swayed against him to a degree sufficient that Barack Obama is reelected.
Finally there is a lesser but real chance that there is substance to the accusations, but an actual investigation would not be launched unless it appears that Mitt Romney actually poses a threat to the Obama reelection campaign. Barack Obama won his first office primarily by having his opponents removed from the ballot on technicalities, so this would be in character.
A best case scenario would be if an investigation is launched before the Republican convention, tainting Mitt Romney sufficiently that a new candidate has to be found at the last minute. A sufficiently large number of delegates are either open or stealth supporters of Ron Paul, which would mean he has a very realistic shot at the nomination in that event. Since the Obama campaign is gearing up for a fight with Mitt Romney, this scenario would result in chaos all around. Still, it would be a chaos with a chance of producing a desirable outcome.
The question is, if the Obama campaign is confident enough to make these allegations, why is the Obama administration not confident enough to press charges? If there exists sufficient grounds to suspect illegal activity, then there should be sufficient grounds to open an actual investigation into those potential activities.
Of course one could claim that opening up an investigation at this time would be clearly politically motivated. A stronger claim could be made that doing so after the convention, once Mitt Romney is officially the nominee, is politically motivated because to do so then would hamstring the Republican campaign. If an investigation is opened before the primary the Republican Party would have time to recover and potentially select a new candidate.
Another possible interpretation is that those making the claims against Mitt Romney know that sufficient grounds for an investigation do not actually exist, but that the public might become sufficiently convinced that the eventual vote in November can be swayed against him to a degree sufficient that Barack Obama is reelected.
Finally there is a lesser but real chance that there is substance to the accusations, but an actual investigation would not be launched unless it appears that Mitt Romney actually poses a threat to the Obama reelection campaign. Barack Obama won his first office primarily by having his opponents removed from the ballot on technicalities, so this would be in character.
A best case scenario would be if an investigation is launched before the Republican convention, tainting Mitt Romney sufficiently that a new candidate has to be found at the last minute. A sufficiently large number of delegates are either open or stealth supporters of Ron Paul, which would mean he has a very realistic shot at the nomination in that event. Since the Obama campaign is gearing up for a fight with Mitt Romney, this scenario would result in chaos all around. Still, it would be a chaos with a chance of producing a desirable outcome.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
We Need More Fear
According to the Department of Homeland Security, warned that hackers are attacking software that controls medical devices, elevators, video cameras, security systems and a wide array of other sensitive operations. Except that is not included in the details of the report.
In the details of the report, a software vulnerability was found. There was no indication of any planned or attempted attacks by hackers into those systems. It was revealed that hackers could access through the discovered vulnerabilities, but not that this weakness had been exploited.
The internet has been a major problem for government officials. News reporting and political commentary are no longer confined to the major media outlets anymore. Not only does it disseminate news stories that said officials would rather keep buried, and not only does it enables large scale organization to oppose controversial decisions, through the actions of people like Julian Assange the users of the internet can now rip the mask off of the government and enable people to see just how ugly it really is.
In "Atlas Shrugged," the character Francisco Danconia compared the San Sebastian Mines to ripping the cover off of hell and letting people see it, saying that he had outdone Nero. Wikileaks has done the same thing outside the realm of fiction.
It is no surprise that congress was recently debating SOPA and PIPA. Small wonder as well that net neutrality is so heavily discussed. Government officials are afraid, and want more power to deal with what they fear. To get more power, they need to make a significant portion of the population afraid as well.
Threats need to be exaggerated. Just as when the neocons warned about the Iraqi threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and just as they warn about Iran's nuclear capabilities, in both cases exaggerations, the threat of the hackers has to be magnified to a degree sufficient to terrify people.
If remote control medical devices are hacked and disabled by hackers, that would be terrible. If an elevator was to suddenly plummet due to the actions of a hacker, that would also be terrible. There is no indication that this is happening, and those who issued the press release know this. The vulnerability was all they needed to hype it into a threat though. They needed more fear, and that is why they reported this the way they did. Only with enough fear can they try to take on the internet.
In the details of the report, a software vulnerability was found. There was no indication of any planned or attempted attacks by hackers into those systems. It was revealed that hackers could access through the discovered vulnerabilities, but not that this weakness had been exploited.
The internet has been a major problem for government officials. News reporting and political commentary are no longer confined to the major media outlets anymore. Not only does it disseminate news stories that said officials would rather keep buried, and not only does it enables large scale organization to oppose controversial decisions, through the actions of people like Julian Assange the users of the internet can now rip the mask off of the government and enable people to see just how ugly it really is.
In "Atlas Shrugged," the character Francisco Danconia compared the San Sebastian Mines to ripping the cover off of hell and letting people see it, saying that he had outdone Nero. Wikileaks has done the same thing outside the realm of fiction.
It is no surprise that congress was recently debating SOPA and PIPA. Small wonder as well that net neutrality is so heavily discussed. Government officials are afraid, and want more power to deal with what they fear. To get more power, they need to make a significant portion of the population afraid as well.
Threats need to be exaggerated. Just as when the neocons warned about the Iraqi threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and just as they warn about Iran's nuclear capabilities, in both cases exaggerations, the threat of the hackers has to be magnified to a degree sufficient to terrify people.
If remote control medical devices are hacked and disabled by hackers, that would be terrible. If an elevator was to suddenly plummet due to the actions of a hacker, that would also be terrible. There is no indication that this is happening, and those who issued the press release know this. The vulnerability was all they needed to hype it into a threat though. They needed more fear, and that is why they reported this the way they did. Only with enough fear can they try to take on the internet.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Child Labor
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)