Increasing the number of Representatives in the House would address the issue of disparity in votors per elector, but that is neither the only nor the best reason to do so. This is actually a good idea in itself. It may seem paradoxical, but the best way to reduce government overall could be to increase one particular part of it.
This is technically feasible. An isolated hardwired network can be built, giving each Representative a physical key that can be used to activate that Representatives physical terminal, would make the voting possible. As the network is isolated, it is cannot be hacked from the outside. Since each Representative would have a physical key and a matching physical terminal, it would not be possible (as it is in California) for any Representative to cast a different Representative's vote.
With 700,000 people per Representative on average, and 435 Representatives total, the balance of power is shifted strongly away from the people and towards both lobbyists and the establishment parties. It is far easier to control 435 people than it is to control 4,465 people. On the other side of the equation, it is far easier for one person to have any influence when he is one out of 70,000 instead of one out of 700,000.
Those who believe in government power will describe the feasibility as the reason to oppose this, but the real reason this would be opposed is because of how it shifts power away from the government. It would be far easier for the constituents to control their Representative with that representation ratio. Lobbyists will need to expand their budget by a factor of ten in order to buy as much influence as they can currently buy on their existing budget. With ten times as many races to monitor, it will be much harder for the national party, or even the state parties, to control the Representatives and give more power to the local parties. These local parties would also have to be smaller and more local to adequately serve the Representatives.
As counter-intuitive as it might seem at first, increasing this one component of the Federal Government grants much more power to the local communities and the people, and it doesn’t require amending the constitution or any action that might wind up being overturned by a judge on constitutional grounds.
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Monday, January 16, 2017
Thursday, February 09, 2012
Republicans are Jealous Lovers
After eight years of Bush it is apparent that Republicans love government. This love is on display with the candidacies of Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum. Not only do Republicans love government, when they get government alone they dim the lights, put on some Barry Manilow, and try desperately to get government's bra off.
The problem is that the government is a fickle mistress and sometimes will dally with her other suitor, the Democrats.
This drives Republicans into a jealous rage, in which they bad-mouth the object of their desire as well as the competitor who has captured her attention. If they cannot have her than nobody should, so they describe in detail how bad she really is. They desire her, or at least lust for her, so they really do not have the words to describe her faults. But they do know someone who is repulsed by her, and they listen to what Libertarians say about her and repeat it as if they mean it.
But they only say those things about her when their mistress is away. They never describe her as an immoral and loose woman when they have her to themselves.
Democrats do not like it when their mistress strays back to another dalliance with the Republicans. But unlike the Republicans they genuinely love her as well as desire her, so when she strays they do not blame her fickleness and they do not badmouth her for leaving. Instead they attack their rival suitor exclusively.
They attack the Republican rival by accusing him of not really loving mistress government, and use his bitter jealous language as proof. The Democrats say that if the Republicans really desired government so much then they wouldn't use such horrible language. It is true that when government is dallying with the Democrats the Republicans do use harsh language, but what the Democrats don’t realize is that the language is the result of a jealous rage. The Democrats then go on to say that since the jealous words prove the Republicans don’t really desire her, they should stop trying to woo her.
It's not that the Republicans don't desire her, it's that they cannot stand sharing her. They never say such horrible things when she is shacking up with them for the night and collecting her pay for doing so, and each time say that they never really meant any of it and they'll never say such horrible things if she will just remain faithful. They'd love nothing more than to spend the rest of their life with government in an exclusive relationship even though they know she doesn't care about them at all and only cares about what she can get out of the relationship.
Libertarians, married to the idea of liberty, simply shake their heads at these two competitors trying to seduce a harlot.
The problem is that the government is a fickle mistress and sometimes will dally with her other suitor, the Democrats.
This drives Republicans into a jealous rage, in which they bad-mouth the object of their desire as well as the competitor who has captured her attention. If they cannot have her than nobody should, so they describe in detail how bad she really is. They desire her, or at least lust for her, so they really do not have the words to describe her faults. But they do know someone who is repulsed by her, and they listen to what Libertarians say about her and repeat it as if they mean it.
But they only say those things about her when their mistress is away. They never describe her as an immoral and loose woman when they have her to themselves.
Democrats do not like it when their mistress strays back to another dalliance with the Republicans. But unlike the Republicans they genuinely love her as well as desire her, so when she strays they do not blame her fickleness and they do not badmouth her for leaving. Instead they attack their rival suitor exclusively.
They attack the Republican rival by accusing him of not really loving mistress government, and use his bitter jealous language as proof. The Democrats say that if the Republicans really desired government so much then they wouldn't use such horrible language. It is true that when government is dallying with the Democrats the Republicans do use harsh language, but what the Democrats don’t realize is that the language is the result of a jealous rage. The Democrats then go on to say that since the jealous words prove the Republicans don’t really desire her, they should stop trying to woo her.
It's not that the Republicans don't desire her, it's that they cannot stand sharing her. They never say such horrible things when she is shacking up with them for the night and collecting her pay for doing so, and each time say that they never really meant any of it and they'll never say such horrible things if she will just remain faithful. They'd love nothing more than to spend the rest of their life with government in an exclusive relationship even though they know she doesn't care about them at all and only cares about what she can get out of the relationship.
Libertarians, married to the idea of liberty, simply shake their heads at these two competitors trying to seduce a harlot.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
No Official Accountability
Troy Davis has been executed for killing a police officer. There appear to be a large number of people convinced of his innocence, but the courts did not stop the execution. Some even claim that they have a confession by the actual murderer.
Assuming those protesting this execution are correct, then what does that mean? It means that the prosecutors, police, and a few other officials are guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. But what does that mean? Tragically, that means nothing.
First, the state holds a monopoly on criminal prosecutions. It is impossible to hold anybody in the law enforcement apparatus responsible unless they agree to do so. In the case of Kelly Thomas of Fullerton, CA, the worry of many was that the District Attorney would decline to prosecute entirely. That particular case had the population so enraged that it was impossible to bury without damage to the government structure, so two of the six police were charged. That case was very much an exception. In other cases where a criminal member of the law enforcement apparatus was held accountable, Mike Nifong got a single day in jail because neither the prosecutor nor the judge could believe that a prosecutor was being held accountable.
Second, assuming there was sufficient evidence to prove that an innocent was executed there is no guarantee that in a civil court these people could be held accountable. The law enforcement apparatus have granted themselves immunity for their actions. It takes a significant effort to prove that those responsible were acting outside what is legally allowable for them, and prosecuting someone who they have reason to believe is guilty at the time and then later ignoring the case when contradicting evidence comes to light is considered allowable. Refusing to reconsider a case is not forbidden.
If Troy Davis is innocent, as many claim, that means that there are several murderers in Georgia, from the police to the prosecutors to the judges, and it also means they have gotten away with it. Meanwhile in Fullerton there are four police officers who are accomplices to murder who are getting away with it. Both cases emphasize the need to reform the whole of law enforcement by stripping prosecutors of their monopoly on criminal prosecutions and severely diminishing the nearly all-encompassing protections of official immunity. Essentially there is no accountability anymore, and that is the indicator of a police state.
Assuming those protesting this execution are correct, then what does that mean? It means that the prosecutors, police, and a few other officials are guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. But what does that mean? Tragically, that means nothing.
First, the state holds a monopoly on criminal prosecutions. It is impossible to hold anybody in the law enforcement apparatus responsible unless they agree to do so. In the case of Kelly Thomas of Fullerton, CA, the worry of many was that the District Attorney would decline to prosecute entirely. That particular case had the population so enraged that it was impossible to bury without damage to the government structure, so two of the six police were charged. That case was very much an exception. In other cases where a criminal member of the law enforcement apparatus was held accountable, Mike Nifong got a single day in jail because neither the prosecutor nor the judge could believe that a prosecutor was being held accountable.
Second, assuming there was sufficient evidence to prove that an innocent was executed there is no guarantee that in a civil court these people could be held accountable. The law enforcement apparatus have granted themselves immunity for their actions. It takes a significant effort to prove that those responsible were acting outside what is legally allowable for them, and prosecuting someone who they have reason to believe is guilty at the time and then later ignoring the case when contradicting evidence comes to light is considered allowable. Refusing to reconsider a case is not forbidden.
If Troy Davis is innocent, as many claim, that means that there are several murderers in Georgia, from the police to the prosecutors to the judges, and it also means they have gotten away with it. Meanwhile in Fullerton there are four police officers who are accomplices to murder who are getting away with it. Both cases emphasize the need to reform the whole of law enforcement by stripping prosecutors of their monopoly on criminal prosecutions and severely diminishing the nearly all-encompassing protections of official immunity. Essentially there is no accountability anymore, and that is the indicator of a police state.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Why the Government is out of Money
Recently the University of California has provided a microcosm of what is wrong with the government budget. The University system is cutting back programs and tuition is going up to pay for the budgetary shortfalls. Of course, that is not all there is to the story. Not all programs are being cut. The diversity programs are thriving.
The University of California San Diego is cutting its master's degree programs in computer and electrical engineering, showing that according to the leadership of that university it is not engineering that will lead to a productive and prosperous future but it is diversity training that is what students need most to succeed after graduation. Meanwhile prize faculty are being bid away to other schools, such as three professors from the biology department who were offered a 40% raise to teach elsewhere.
Already it is apparent that college education is the most recent bubble to start to go down in an economy composed almost entirely of bubbles. Due to unemployment and underemployment as well as due to the ever accelerating increase in costs, the lifetime earning differential of a college education is falling below the cost of that education. In general college education is becoming a bad investment.
This one example from the University of California San Diego combines many of the problems with government today. Diversity programs are emphasized at the expense of science programs in an education that costs more and delivers less. The political is emphasized at the expense of the economic to deliver high cost solutions that fail to solve anything and due to their cost interfere with actual efforts to solve society’s problems.
Not only have diversity sinecures been protected from budget cuts, their numbers are actually growing. The University of California at San Diego, for example, is creating a new full-time "vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion." This position would augment UC San Diego’s already massive diversity apparatus, which includes the Chancellor’s Diversity Office, the associate vice chancellor for faculty equity, the assistant vice chancellor for diversity, the faculty equity advisors, the graduate diversity coordinators, the staff diversity liaison, the undergraduate student diversity liaison, the graduate student diversity liaison, the chief diversity officer, the director of development for diversity initiatives, the Office of Academic Diversity and Equal Opportunity, the Committee on Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Issues, the Committee on the Status of Women, the Campus Council on Climate, Culture and Inclusion, the Diversity Council, and the directors of the Cross-Cultural Center, the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource Center, and the Women’s Center.
The University of California San Diego is cutting its master's degree programs in computer and electrical engineering, showing that according to the leadership of that university it is not engineering that will lead to a productive and prosperous future but it is diversity training that is what students need most to succeed after graduation. Meanwhile prize faculty are being bid away to other schools, such as three professors from the biology department who were offered a 40% raise to teach elsewhere.
Already it is apparent that college education is the most recent bubble to start to go down in an economy composed almost entirely of bubbles. Due to unemployment and underemployment as well as due to the ever accelerating increase in costs, the lifetime earning differential of a college education is falling below the cost of that education. In general college education is becoming a bad investment.
This one example from the University of California San Diego combines many of the problems with government today. Diversity programs are emphasized at the expense of science programs in an education that costs more and delivers less. The political is emphasized at the expense of the economic to deliver high cost solutions that fail to solve anything and due to their cost interfere with actual efforts to solve society’s problems.
Friday, April 08, 2011
Government Shutdown
It is obviously a farce to call what will happen "government shutdown" because of the many areas that will not be shut down. If the government goes in to "shutdown" that does not mean that the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and other countries will cease. Nor will any person in federal prison for victimless crimes be released. Nor will the legislators who are fighting with each other with regards to the shutdown fail to receive their pay. Nor will the DEA stop harassing medicinal marijuana clinics that are authorized under state laws. Nor will the IRS cease harassing any person who may be delinquent or deficient on their taxes.
Also, if the government goes in to "shutdown" that only impacts portions of the federal government, and not the state or local governments as their budgets, taxes, and spending are all separate from the federal budget. The schools, the police, the utilities if they are municipal, and other various local agencies will still operate.
In spite of that, there is a lot of coverage in the mainstream media of the local economic impacts that shutting down a tiny portion of the government will have. Particular attention is paid to communities that exist near the "non-essential" functions such as parks. The coverage completely overlooks the question of whether or not the government should be involved in non-essential functions in the first place.
So many places and endeavors throughout the country have become dependent on federal spending, federal projects, or federal support. For example, there are communities that exist outside of federal parks, and they would lack the spending of the tourists if the federal park itself shuts down. This only shows just how bad the situation really is. In a free economy, the impact of the federal government is negligible.
That is one of the many reasons why bringing the federal government to a balanced budget would be so difficult, bringing it to constitutional levels would be even harder, and bringing it down to libertarian levels seems to be an impossibility. Every single cut has a fiercely supportive built in constituency, those who have become dependent on the drug of government spending.
Therefore when someone suggests even a minor cut, he gets fierce criticism. And when Randall Paul suggests cuts that really are substantial but even he admits don't go nearly far enough, people think the suggestion isn't serious at proof that Senator Paul is too radical. It seems a great idea to harshly criticize anyone who suggests any cut to any program, and a great idea to reward anyone who supports a program that anyone likes. Doing so is a great way to ensure that the government does eventually become completely insolvent.
Perhaps complete insolvency is the only way out of this budget dilemma.
Also, if the government goes in to "shutdown" that only impacts portions of the federal government, and not the state or local governments as their budgets, taxes, and spending are all separate from the federal budget. The schools, the police, the utilities if they are municipal, and other various local agencies will still operate.
In spite of that, there is a lot of coverage in the mainstream media of the local economic impacts that shutting down a tiny portion of the government will have. Particular attention is paid to communities that exist near the "non-essential" functions such as parks. The coverage completely overlooks the question of whether or not the government should be involved in non-essential functions in the first place.
So many places and endeavors throughout the country have become dependent on federal spending, federal projects, or federal support. For example, there are communities that exist outside of federal parks, and they would lack the spending of the tourists if the federal park itself shuts down. This only shows just how bad the situation really is. In a free economy, the impact of the federal government is negligible.
That is one of the many reasons why bringing the federal government to a balanced budget would be so difficult, bringing it to constitutional levels would be even harder, and bringing it down to libertarian levels seems to be an impossibility. Every single cut has a fiercely supportive built in constituency, those who have become dependent on the drug of government spending.
Therefore when someone suggests even a minor cut, he gets fierce criticism. And when Randall Paul suggests cuts that really are substantial but even he admits don't go nearly far enough, people think the suggestion isn't serious at proof that Senator Paul is too radical. It seems a great idea to harshly criticize anyone who suggests any cut to any program, and a great idea to reward anyone who supports a program that anyone likes. Doing so is a great way to ensure that the government does eventually become completely insolvent.
Perhaps complete insolvency is the only way out of this budget dilemma.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Balancing the Budget
It is still possible to avoid the budgetary collapse of the federal, state, and local governments. All it would take is politicians of courage and integrity, which is why it is unavoidable that this country will experience said budgetary collapse.
Saving government budgets will require a mix of both tax increases and spending cuts, but it will have to be different from all former mixes of tax increases and spending cuts. In the past the governments would offer the people a deal, wherein taxes are raised now and three years down the road the spending cuts would kick in. Democrats would make this offer, promising to reverse course and cut spending. Republicans would make a big show about how they are reluctantly accepting the deal, because they want to vote for tax increases but want to tell their constituents that they do not want to vote for tax increases. Three years later, everything is changed and the spending cuts do not happen. Some people have forgotten the deal. Republicans act shocked that the Democrats betrayed them. Sometimes there are some minor reductions in the rate of increase.
A real effort to balance the budget would by necessity include real spending cuts. The whole dollar amount of the budget would have to be smaller than the whole dollar amount the previous year. It would not be inflation adjusted dollars, it must be nominal dollars.
A second point would be to refuse the phony deal of "taxes now and cuts later." Any effort to balance the budget based on a combination of tax increases and spending cuts must have spending cuts come first. Politicians are loathe to cut spending, and always look for an excuse not to. By putting it first, and not implementing any tax increases until spending is cut forces them to act in a responsible manner in spite of their own wishes.
A third point of difference between a real effort to balance the budget and phony past attempts at reform would be the ratio of tax increases to spending cuts. In past deals, the alleged rate would be dollar for dollar, one dollar of tax increases for one dollar of spending cuts, although the cuts never actually materialized. In order to balance the budgets now, it would require probably about twelve dollars of cuts for every dollar of increased taxes, perhaps more. A ratio of twelve-to-one is a good place to start though, considering the need to pay off the enormous accumulated debt. Government spending is currently about 30% of GDP, and taxes are currently about 18% of GDP; impelementing a twelve-to-one ratio will result in 18% for spending and 19% for taxes, a small but real surplus.
Admittedly, for those who have grown dependent on government, cuts of that magnitude would be painful. And for those who actually pay the taxes, even that much more of a tax increase would also be painful. For the former there is little cause for sympathy, but the latter will eventually see a benefit. As the debt is actually reduced the value of the dollar will increase, giving the country the relief of a much needed deflation. Unlike the phony investments by government, this would be an investment that would eventually pay off.
This would require great personal courage on the part of elected officials; they would have to make the tough choices and take responsibility for their decisions. That is why the budgets will collapse instead. It is important to offer this advice, although it will never be followed, because an accusation often hurled at libertarians is that they do nothing but criticize and never offer any suggestions. Libertarians do offer plenty of suggestions, but most libertarian suggestions are anathema to statists and thus "don't count."
Saving government budgets will require a mix of both tax increases and spending cuts, but it will have to be different from all former mixes of tax increases and spending cuts. In the past the governments would offer the people a deal, wherein taxes are raised now and three years down the road the spending cuts would kick in. Democrats would make this offer, promising to reverse course and cut spending. Republicans would make a big show about how they are reluctantly accepting the deal, because they want to vote for tax increases but want to tell their constituents that they do not want to vote for tax increases. Three years later, everything is changed and the spending cuts do not happen. Some people have forgotten the deal. Republicans act shocked that the Democrats betrayed them. Sometimes there are some minor reductions in the rate of increase.
A real effort to balance the budget would by necessity include real spending cuts. The whole dollar amount of the budget would have to be smaller than the whole dollar amount the previous year. It would not be inflation adjusted dollars, it must be nominal dollars.
A second point would be to refuse the phony deal of "taxes now and cuts later." Any effort to balance the budget based on a combination of tax increases and spending cuts must have spending cuts come first. Politicians are loathe to cut spending, and always look for an excuse not to. By putting it first, and not implementing any tax increases until spending is cut forces them to act in a responsible manner in spite of their own wishes.
A third point of difference between a real effort to balance the budget and phony past attempts at reform would be the ratio of tax increases to spending cuts. In past deals, the alleged rate would be dollar for dollar, one dollar of tax increases for one dollar of spending cuts, although the cuts never actually materialized. In order to balance the budgets now, it would require probably about twelve dollars of cuts for every dollar of increased taxes, perhaps more. A ratio of twelve-to-one is a good place to start though, considering the need to pay off the enormous accumulated debt. Government spending is currently about 30% of GDP, and taxes are currently about 18% of GDP; impelementing a twelve-to-one ratio will result in 18% for spending and 19% for taxes, a small but real surplus.
Admittedly, for those who have grown dependent on government, cuts of that magnitude would be painful. And for those who actually pay the taxes, even that much more of a tax increase would also be painful. For the former there is little cause for sympathy, but the latter will eventually see a benefit. As the debt is actually reduced the value of the dollar will increase, giving the country the relief of a much needed deflation. Unlike the phony investments by government, this would be an investment that would eventually pay off.
This would require great personal courage on the part of elected officials; they would have to make the tough choices and take responsibility for their decisions. That is why the budgets will collapse instead. It is important to offer this advice, although it will never be followed, because an accusation often hurled at libertarians is that they do nothing but criticize and never offer any suggestions. Libertarians do offer plenty of suggestions, but most libertarian suggestions are anathema to statists and thus "don't count."
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Ignorance is Strength
The recent controversy over Wikileaks has put the position of government officials on an informed population in plain view. It is obvious to everyone that the government officials do not want people to know what the government is doing, and are going to great lengths to keep people uninformed, not only by targeting Julian Assange with trumped up charges, but by keeping the conversation focused on the act of leaking instead of on the content of the leaks. But the Wikileaks controversy is just one of the many ways in which there is a demonstrated preference for an uninformed population.
In "The Fountainhead", the antagonist Ellsworth Toohey described the general terms of his plans for taming mankind by comparing it to growing a garden. Instead of spending time plucking out each weed one at a time, he described preparing the soil in such a way that certain crops are encouraged and others are discouraged. Then he described intentionally preparing the soil so that weeds strangle other plants.
Starting with the preparation of the soil, John Taylor Gatto has described government education in very severe and exacting detail, pointing out over and over how government schools not only fail to educate on the topics one traditionally thinks schools should cover, but teach many topics one would not think schools should cover.
The superficial design flaws of the public school system help mask the fundamental design flaws. In general people are so busy worrying about why the schools don't teach our kids to read that they don't notice what they ARE teaching them. Schools teach conformity above all else. Schools, in addition to teaching us to conform and obey, are very purposeless. The article Why Nerds are Unpopular shows the nature of the social structure of a school. This is the down side of the herd mentality. The up side (which is even worse) is the herd mentality itself.
The result is a population that is largely illiterate in English, Math, Science, Economics, and Philosophy. Although the empire needs educated people to administer the empire, it also needs a population that is uneducated in everything except conformity to be an empire - a crippling internal contradiction.
Next is the planting of intellectual seeds, in which the range of allowable ideas is strictly controlled through an infotainment industry encouraged by the ruling class. Much of the news is celebrity personality gossip, and what little issue-oriented debate that occurs is careful to be confined to an allowable range of ideas. This was most blatantly on display when Fox News refused to allow Ron Paul to attend a debate of Republican Presidential Candidates, as he was considered "not legitimate." Certain seeds are not planted - very few colleges or universities teach Von Mises in their economics department or Ayn Rand in the philosophy department or literature department. Usually in order for such classes to exist there has to be a special endowment from an outside source.
Once the allowable range of ideas is fully defined, everyone can have their choices carefully tailored to guarantee the correct outcome. Everyone is asked if they will choose between a Republican or a Democrat on election day. Other options simply aren't discussed. People can have a choice, but the choice is meaningless.
Finally there is the full bloom of the garden described by Ellsworth Toohey. Very few people question the official narrative of events. When George W. Bush spoke about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, it was only the non-mainstream media that questioned him. When George W. Bush and Barack Obama enacted bailouts, the only debate was on the size, and not if bailouts work in the first place as that was settled Keynesian economics. And when Julian Assange posted leaked government documents, the debate centers on whether or not he was right to do so, whether he is a journalist or an activist, what crimes the Obama justice department would charge him with, and not on the content of the documents themselves and not on the crimes committed by government officials as described by the documents.
The final harvest is an undereducated ignorant population so that those who are in the ruling class can have the power to deal with the population from a position of strength.
In "The Fountainhead", the antagonist Ellsworth Toohey described the general terms of his plans for taming mankind by comparing it to growing a garden. Instead of spending time plucking out each weed one at a time, he described preparing the soil in such a way that certain crops are encouraged and others are discouraged. Then he described intentionally preparing the soil so that weeds strangle other plants.
Starting with the preparation of the soil, John Taylor Gatto has described government education in very severe and exacting detail, pointing out over and over how government schools not only fail to educate on the topics one traditionally thinks schools should cover, but teach many topics one would not think schools should cover.
The superficial design flaws of the public school system help mask the fundamental design flaws. In general people are so busy worrying about why the schools don't teach our kids to read that they don't notice what they ARE teaching them. Schools teach conformity above all else. Schools, in addition to teaching us to conform and obey, are very purposeless. The article Why Nerds are Unpopular shows the nature of the social structure of a school. This is the down side of the herd mentality. The up side (which is even worse) is the herd mentality itself.
The result is a population that is largely illiterate in English, Math, Science, Economics, and Philosophy. Although the empire needs educated people to administer the empire, it also needs a population that is uneducated in everything except conformity to be an empire - a crippling internal contradiction.
Next is the planting of intellectual seeds, in which the range of allowable ideas is strictly controlled through an infotainment industry encouraged by the ruling class. Much of the news is celebrity personality gossip, and what little issue-oriented debate that occurs is careful to be confined to an allowable range of ideas. This was most blatantly on display when Fox News refused to allow Ron Paul to attend a debate of Republican Presidential Candidates, as he was considered "not legitimate." Certain seeds are not planted - very few colleges or universities teach Von Mises in their economics department or Ayn Rand in the philosophy department or literature department. Usually in order for such classes to exist there has to be a special endowment from an outside source.
Once the allowable range of ideas is fully defined, everyone can have their choices carefully tailored to guarantee the correct outcome. Everyone is asked if they will choose between a Republican or a Democrat on election day. Other options simply aren't discussed. People can have a choice, but the choice is meaningless.
Finally there is the full bloom of the garden described by Ellsworth Toohey. Very few people question the official narrative of events. When George W. Bush spoke about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, it was only the non-mainstream media that questioned him. When George W. Bush and Barack Obama enacted bailouts, the only debate was on the size, and not if bailouts work in the first place as that was settled Keynesian economics. And when Julian Assange posted leaked government documents, the debate centers on whether or not he was right to do so, whether he is a journalist or an activist, what crimes the Obama justice department would charge him with, and not on the content of the documents themselves and not on the crimes committed by government officials as described by the documents.
The final harvest is an undereducated ignorant population so that those who are in the ruling class can have the power to deal with the population from a position of strength.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Government Goods
One fact that makes things difficult for those who would argue against excessive interference by the state is that occasionally the state actually produces something that a sane person would actually pay for. This happens more often in first world nations, less often in the thug governments of third world countries, but it does happen.
After all, people do have a desire to get from point A to point B, and the government does produce roads. People do have a desire to educate the young, and the government does provide schools. People do have a desire for some basic security, and the government does provide some basic security with the military and the police.
The government provides these goods at twice the cost and half the quality, if one is feeling generous in the description of government provided goods, but they are produced. These good are provided in a very abusive and inept manner, but they are produced.
The fact that they are produced enables defenders of having an intrusive state to invoke the Statist Fallacy. This is an unfortunate, but deliberate, act on the part of the government, because in enables defenders of the state to accuse defenders of liberty of being against the production of those very goods.
It is, however, a sham. The point of providing those goods is to control those goods. By having the government provide education, the government controls the content of the education. By having the government provide the roads and provide security at the airports and the border, the government controls freedom of movement. By having the government guarantee the quality of medications taken through FDA approval, the politicians now have the ability to restrict the ability of the individual to choose which medications may work best for said individual.
The question then becomes; are those invoking the statist fallacy "useful fools" or are they the ones who actually aspire to control others? Or are they the final type of statist described in The Authoritarian Mindset, someone who actually desires to be a slave?
After all, people do have a desire to get from point A to point B, and the government does produce roads. People do have a desire to educate the young, and the government does provide schools. People do have a desire for some basic security, and the government does provide some basic security with the military and the police.
The government provides these goods at twice the cost and half the quality, if one is feeling generous in the description of government provided goods, but they are produced. These good are provided in a very abusive and inept manner, but they are produced.
The fact that they are produced enables defenders of having an intrusive state to invoke the Statist Fallacy. This is an unfortunate, but deliberate, act on the part of the government, because in enables defenders of the state to accuse defenders of liberty of being against the production of those very goods.
It is, however, a sham. The point of providing those goods is to control those goods. By having the government provide education, the government controls the content of the education. By having the government provide the roads and provide security at the airports and the border, the government controls freedom of movement. By having the government guarantee the quality of medications taken through FDA approval, the politicians now have the ability to restrict the ability of the individual to choose which medications may work best for said individual.
The question then becomes; are those invoking the statist fallacy "useful fools" or are they the ones who actually aspire to control others? Or are they the final type of statist described in The Authoritarian Mindset, someone who actually desires to be a slave?
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Government steals retirement funds
It is being reported that agencies with governmental power are considering mandating that people with retirement investments, either in IRAs or 401(k)s, convert part of their savings into government bonds for the purpose of making annuity payments. Allegedly this is to protect investors who have seen the value of their investments decline due to the decay of the housing bubble and the decay of the stock market.
China is unwilling to buy ever increasing amounts of government debt, and private investors are unwilling to buy debt at what amounts to a negative interest rate. The Federal Reserve cannot, at this point and for political instead of economic reasons, raise interest rates. So how will the government unload these toxic assets?
It is noted due to recent United States interactions with Switzerland, that the United States government is desperate for cash. Increased pressure on tax evaders will slightly slow but will not stop this crisis as the true cluprit is spending far in excess of what the government receives in tax reveues.
That leaves the government searching for what money is still available to be seized.
Those who are currently working are not using their retirement funds. They will not notice in the short run if those funds disappear. Eventually, when it is time to collect on the government debt that the retirement money was used to buy, it will become obvious that the funds are no longer there.
This would turn every retirement fund into Social Security, a pile of promises from the government to repay what has been taken, backed by no real value other than the potential of future taxes collected. It is well known that it is difficult for a person to live off of Social Security when retired, that a retiree must have either other savings or family that can be relied on. This move, if it happens, would eliminate the other savings.
The end result, should this pass, is to ensure that when it is time to retire, everyone who was saving will be poorer.
Sources:
Doug Casey on Lew Rockwell
Wendy McElroy
Seeking Alpha
Business Week
China is unwilling to buy ever increasing amounts of government debt, and private investors are unwilling to buy debt at what amounts to a negative interest rate. The Federal Reserve cannot, at this point and for political instead of economic reasons, raise interest rates. So how will the government unload these toxic assets?
It is noted due to recent United States interactions with Switzerland, that the United States government is desperate for cash. Increased pressure on tax evaders will slightly slow but will not stop this crisis as the true cluprit is spending far in excess of what the government receives in tax reveues.
That leaves the government searching for what money is still available to be seized.
Those who are currently working are not using their retirement funds. They will not notice in the short run if those funds disappear. Eventually, when it is time to collect on the government debt that the retirement money was used to buy, it will become obvious that the funds are no longer there.
This would turn every retirement fund into Social Security, a pile of promises from the government to repay what has been taken, backed by no real value other than the potential of future taxes collected. It is well known that it is difficult for a person to live off of Social Security when retired, that a retiree must have either other savings or family that can be relied on. This move, if it happens, would eliminate the other savings.
The end result, should this pass, is to ensure that when it is time to retire, everyone who was saving will be poorer.
Sources:
Doug Casey on Lew Rockwell
Wendy McElroy
Seeking Alpha
Business Week
Saturday, August 22, 2009
The Statist Fallacy
A common argument in favor of any new proposed law is that if someone opposes the law then the person who opposes the law is in favor of whatever the law is supposed to prevent. For instance, whenever someone suggest that laws against drugs be repealed then the argument is then made that anyone who makes that argument is therefore in favor of drug use. Or when someone suggests that prostitution be legal the argument is made that anyone who makes that argument is a proponent of prostitution.
Also when a new government program is proposed, if someone dares suggest that the government has no business providing a good or service then whoever dares make that suggestion doesn't want that service provided at all. For instance, anyone who dares suggest that the government has no role in providing health care is accused of wanting people to not be able to access health care.
These are two variations of the same fallacy. It is assumed that if the government isn't involved then the issue is unresolved, and anyone who opposes a government solution then opposes a solution at all.
It's a very nasty fallacy, as it often puts those who oppose government solutions on the defensive. They have to defend themselves against many spurious vice charges, such as indulgence in prostitution or drugs, or the vice of greed since they allegedly want to keep their money rather than solve some problem that the government would use that money to solve. Loaded questions such as whether anybody who opposes welfare ever gives to charity are thrown up to distract from the main argument of the program itself.
As any proponent of liberty knows, it is quite possible to oppose something and oppose laws against it at the same time, such as opposing racism and opposing thought crime laws. It is also possible to support something and oppose laws mandating it at the same tme, such as charity. The simple solution when faced with the statist fallacy is to call it for what it is. A more argumentative solution is to say "so you require a law for you to do what is right?"
Also when a new government program is proposed, if someone dares suggest that the government has no business providing a good or service then whoever dares make that suggestion doesn't want that service provided at all. For instance, anyone who dares suggest that the government has no role in providing health care is accused of wanting people to not be able to access health care.
These are two variations of the same fallacy. It is assumed that if the government isn't involved then the issue is unresolved, and anyone who opposes a government solution then opposes a solution at all.
It's a very nasty fallacy, as it often puts those who oppose government solutions on the defensive. They have to defend themselves against many spurious vice charges, such as indulgence in prostitution or drugs, or the vice of greed since they allegedly want to keep their money rather than solve some problem that the government would use that money to solve. Loaded questions such as whether anybody who opposes welfare ever gives to charity are thrown up to distract from the main argument of the program itself.
As any proponent of liberty knows, it is quite possible to oppose something and oppose laws against it at the same time, such as opposing racism and opposing thought crime laws. It is also possible to support something and oppose laws mandating it at the same tme, such as charity. The simple solution when faced with the statist fallacy is to call it for what it is. A more argumentative solution is to say "so you require a law for you to do what is right?"
Thursday, June 04, 2009
The Social Contract
Occasionally some social planner, either from the right or the left, will react to opposition to the proposed plan by reminding people that resisting is wrong. The planner will do this by invoking the Social Contract and asserting that by living in society the person opposing the plan agreed to whatever "society" decides to do to that person. The only option, says the planner, is to leave society.
That version of the Social Contract is full of misunderstandings and fallacies.
To start with there is the basic confusion between "society" and "government." Even in a democracy the two are not the same. In a pure democracy, the government is 51% of the public. In a democratic republic the government consists of elected officials and hired bureaucrats and officers. In neither case is it true that the entire public "is" the government.
Second, the Social Contract describes the relationship between the people and the society, not the relationship between the individual and the government. While those two perspectives overlap, the key focus is that the people created a government to protect certain rights. The government is the agent of and not a party to the social contract.
According to such a Social Contract theory it is possible for the government to be the party that violates the social contract. When that happens then according to Social Contract theory the people have every right to declare the contract null and void and overthrow the government that is violating the contract.
By making the argument that people are bound by the Social Contract, the social planner is undercutting his own case. Since the planner is invariably proposing some violation of the rights of the individual in order to implement the plan, the planner is therefore proposing that the people rise up in rebellion against the planner.
In essence, the Social contract belongs to libertarians and not to statists.
But most importantly, the Social Contract is a myth. There is no such actual contract, it is an analogy used by enlightenment philosophers to try to understand the nature of the relationship between the people and the government. While the myth describes pre-government people getting together and agreeing to set up a social system, no such meeting ever occurred.
The first governments were primitive tribal governments that are descended from the primate bands of pre-human ancestors. The pre-human bands were groups of related hominids with a few leaders and several followers. The alphas were those who had first pick of any food or mates. These formed the basis of the first tribal governments, without the intervention of any meeting to establish a social contract. The first tribal government evolved into more complex structures with kings and other sorts of rulers.
Based on that perspective it becomes obvious that kings and presidents are nothing more than self-important chimpanzees who want first pick of food and mates. That rather lowers the prestige of those offices.
***
See a very good analysis of the content of the social contract by Kent McManigal.
That version of the Social Contract is full of misunderstandings and fallacies.
To start with there is the basic confusion between "society" and "government." Even in a democracy the two are not the same. In a pure democracy, the government is 51% of the public. In a democratic republic the government consists of elected officials and hired bureaucrats and officers. In neither case is it true that the entire public "is" the government.
Second, the Social Contract describes the relationship between the people and the society, not the relationship between the individual and the government. While those two perspectives overlap, the key focus is that the people created a government to protect certain rights. The government is the agent of and not a party to the social contract.
According to such a Social Contract theory it is possible for the government to be the party that violates the social contract. When that happens then according to Social Contract theory the people have every right to declare the contract null and void and overthrow the government that is violating the contract.
By making the argument that people are bound by the Social Contract, the social planner is undercutting his own case. Since the planner is invariably proposing some violation of the rights of the individual in order to implement the plan, the planner is therefore proposing that the people rise up in rebellion against the planner.
In essence, the Social contract belongs to libertarians and not to statists.
But most importantly, the Social Contract is a myth. There is no such actual contract, it is an analogy used by enlightenment philosophers to try to understand the nature of the relationship between the people and the government. While the myth describes pre-government people getting together and agreeing to set up a social system, no such meeting ever occurred.
The first governments were primitive tribal governments that are descended from the primate bands of pre-human ancestors. The pre-human bands were groups of related hominids with a few leaders and several followers. The alphas were those who had first pick of any food or mates. These formed the basis of the first tribal governments, without the intervention of any meeting to establish a social contract. The first tribal government evolved into more complex structures with kings and other sorts of rulers.
Based on that perspective it becomes obvious that kings and presidents are nothing more than self-important chimpanzees who want first pick of food and mates. That rather lowers the prestige of those offices.
***
See a very good analysis of the content of the social contract by Kent McManigal.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Accurate Predictions
Senator Bernie Sanders wants a congressional investigation of what caused the economic meltdown. His investigation, even if it happens, will not uncover what caused the meltdown due to the intrinsic conflict of interest in a politician investigation the political causes of the meltdown.
The popping of the housing bubble, the devaluation of the mortgage backed securities, the defaults and foreclosures of the mortgages, were all predicted accurately. Given that those were predicted accurately it is fair to say that the cause of each of those is already known.
It is important to say "predicted accurately" because simply saying "predicted" will get the response of "if you predict doom and gloom often enough, eventually you will be right." The meltdown was predicted accurately on the pages of Lew Rockwell and other libertarian websites. The details were all laid out for those willing to read what would happen.
Back in 2004, it was noted that there was a housing bubble and that the bubble would pop and prices would fall dramatically. People responded with "oh no, this is a normal market condition." Later, when it was obvious that the rise in prices was unusual, people responded with "oh no, this is a new economy." Then people said "maybe the rise in prices will slow down but prices will continue to rise." Then people said "prices will level off, but they won't fall." Then they said "they'll only fall a little, not a lot." Then the prices fell, a lot.
Fancy subprime loans were identified as a problem. Not to worry, since prices will always rise, and of course the banks know what they are doing. Prices dropped and the fancy mortgages went into default. These fed into accurately predicting that mortgage backed securities would be a problem as the banks would lack sufficient assets to maintain their value. It was considered "doom and gloom" and nobody would listen.
The underlying cause, the inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve, were identified as an ultimate culprit. People proclaimed Greenspan a genius for bringing permanent prosperity. Greenspan was wise enough to leave office before the consequences of his policies caught upwith him.
At every stage, and for every factor of the recession, people saw it coming. So the causes of this are known. Those who saw it coming weren't believe then and they aren't credited now, even though the proof is available in the archives of several libertarian websites. That's why it is important to say "predicted accurately" because that accurately describes what happened.
Those who foresaw this accurately know what caused the meltdown, therefore there is no need for an official investigation. Those who wish to know what happened only need to ask those who were proven right.
So why an official investigation from a Senator? Several possible reasons present themselves.
First, the government is responsible for this, so the investigation is meant to clear the government of responsibility for its actions.
Second, very few people in government know anything about Austrian Economics, and those who actually are seeking answers are completely ignorant of how to find them.
Third, there is a strong desire for an external scapegoat, with more concern for finding someone to blame than to find someone to accurately blame. This is the most dangerous because people are already blaming the free market for actions caused by an absense of the free market.
It is very unlikely that the investigation will find those actually responsible, since very few congressmen enjoy investigating themselves
The popping of the housing bubble, the devaluation of the mortgage backed securities, the defaults and foreclosures of the mortgages, were all predicted accurately. Given that those were predicted accurately it is fair to say that the cause of each of those is already known.
It is important to say "predicted accurately" because simply saying "predicted" will get the response of "if you predict doom and gloom often enough, eventually you will be right." The meltdown was predicted accurately on the pages of Lew Rockwell and other libertarian websites. The details were all laid out for those willing to read what would happen.
Back in 2004, it was noted that there was a housing bubble and that the bubble would pop and prices would fall dramatically. People responded with "oh no, this is a normal market condition." Later, when it was obvious that the rise in prices was unusual, people responded with "oh no, this is a new economy." Then people said "maybe the rise in prices will slow down but prices will continue to rise." Then people said "prices will level off, but they won't fall." Then they said "they'll only fall a little, not a lot." Then the prices fell, a lot.
Fancy subprime loans were identified as a problem. Not to worry, since prices will always rise, and of course the banks know what they are doing. Prices dropped and the fancy mortgages went into default. These fed into accurately predicting that mortgage backed securities would be a problem as the banks would lack sufficient assets to maintain their value. It was considered "doom and gloom" and nobody would listen.
The underlying cause, the inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve, were identified as an ultimate culprit. People proclaimed Greenspan a genius for bringing permanent prosperity. Greenspan was wise enough to leave office before the consequences of his policies caught upwith him.
At every stage, and for every factor of the recession, people saw it coming. So the causes of this are known. Those who saw it coming weren't believe then and they aren't credited now, even though the proof is available in the archives of several libertarian websites. That's why it is important to say "predicted accurately" because that accurately describes what happened.
Those who foresaw this accurately know what caused the meltdown, therefore there is no need for an official investigation. Those who wish to know what happened only need to ask those who were proven right.
So why an official investigation from a Senator? Several possible reasons present themselves.
First, the government is responsible for this, so the investigation is meant to clear the government of responsibility for its actions.
Second, very few people in government know anything about Austrian Economics, and those who actually are seeking answers are completely ignorant of how to find them.
Third, there is a strong desire for an external scapegoat, with more concern for finding someone to blame than to find someone to accurately blame. This is the most dangerous because people are already blaming the free market for actions caused by an absense of the free market.
It is very unlikely that the investigation will find those actually responsible, since very few congressmen enjoy investigating themselves
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Partial Reneg of the National Debt
Although debt repudiation is slowly becoming a topic outside of libertarian circles, one could make the counter-argument that people are responsible for the debt because the government that accrued it is the government elected by the people.
One could counter argue that the politicians in power weren't the one supported, and therefore the person who voted against the politician in power isn't liable. There are two different, and contradictory, counterarguments used against that. First, by voting at all, the person agrees to the outcome. Second, by not voting, the person agrees to the outcome. It is the deadly double-bind of democratic statism used to ensnare all who dare dissent by showing that they agree.
In truth the debt is owed by the politicians, past and present, who voted for it. But as they not only will never be held accountable, and they cannot afford it, they also insist the rest of us owe the debt, let us examine taking them at their word.
For some of the following calculations, both of those are going to be assumed to be true, in spite of the fact that they contradict each other. It is a common practice to say that the debt, divided by the population, gives us the share of debt owed by each person in this country. Given that debt, the following figures are the result.
Those figures are crooked. They hold people liable for debt accrued before people could vote, or before people were even born. Whether by voting or by not voting a person gives consent, it is impossible to give or withhold consent when a person is not able to vote, whether by virtue of age or not yet existing.
A more honest figure would include the debt accrued only during that term, and dividing it up among the population in various ways. Using term debt (debt accumulated during the term of the president) instead of national debt (debt accumulated by all previous presidents) and dividing it up among the population in various ways different results emerge.
Using the assumption that both the contradictory arguments are true, that all eligible voters are responsible, then dividing up the debt of each term by the eligible voters of each term yeilds the following results.
Thus someone who only able to vote in the 2004 election is only to be held liable for the $7,360.68 of debt accumulated during that term, while someone who was able to vote for the first time in 1992 is to be held liable for $24,052.37 of the debt. Those who are not able to vote are not liable for any of it, which should come as a relief to anyone under the age of eighteen.
If that is too broad, and only those who actually registered to vote are counted a different outcome is the result.
Thus someone who was only registered to vote in the 2004 election is only to be held liable for the $9,316.94 of debt accumulated during that term, while someone who was registered to vote since 1992 is to be held liable for $31,959.29 of the debt.
Finally if you only count those who voted, there is yet another outcome.
Thus someone who first voted in the 2004 election is only to be held liable for the $13,316.99 of debt accumulated during that term, while someone who was registered to vote since 1992 is to be held liable for $45234.88 of the debt.
These all operate on the principle that there can be no taxation without representation.
While the these calculations do increase the debt per person on older voters all fo them hold younger voters to be not responsible for taxes levied without their representation. Assuming an average age of 40, enabling a person to cast their first vote in the race between Dukakis and Bush, that gives an of age debt of $32,052.48, a registered debt of $43,529.53, and a voted debt of $61,199.16.
But they also leave one third of the debt unaccountable. One third of the debt is owed by absolutely nobody.
Even further and more advanced calculation would also reveal that a good share of the older debts are not owed by anybody, because some who voted for older presidents have died and therefore so has their share. So the 232.52, 368.72, or 368.72 owed by each person who could be held accountable in the election of Kennedy isn't shifted from those who have died to those who haven't, but is instead to be written off as the debtor is deceased.
This does make an excellent argument for not voting and not registering to vote when the system itself is corrupt. It is also very sad that two thirds of the national debt occured within most peoples lifetimes, and that is true in both regular and constant dollars.
Of course the best argument is that the debt actually belongs to those who accrued it, the Senators and Representatives who voted for it and the Presidents who signed for it. Let the debt be divided up amongst the gang of 540.
One could counter argue that the politicians in power weren't the one supported, and therefore the person who voted against the politician in power isn't liable. There are two different, and contradictory, counterarguments used against that. First, by voting at all, the person agrees to the outcome. Second, by not voting, the person agrees to the outcome. It is the deadly double-bind of democratic statism used to ensnare all who dare dissent by showing that they agree.
In truth the debt is owed by the politicians, past and present, who voted for it. But as they not only will never be held accountable, and they cannot afford it, they also insist the rest of us owe the debt, let us examine taking them at their word.
For some of the following calculations, both of those are going to be assumed to be true, in spite of the fact that they contradict each other. It is a common practice to say that the debt, divided by the population, gives us the share of debt owed by each person in this country. Given that debt, the following figures are the result.
| President | Debt | Population | Share |
| Kennedy / Johnson | 311,712,899,257.30 | 180,671,158 | 1,725.31 |
| Johnson | 347,578,406,425.88 | 191,888,791 | 1,811.35 |
| Nixon | 427,260,460,940.50 | 200,706,052 | 2,128.79 |
| Nixon / Ford | 620,433,000,000.00 | 209,896,021 | 2,955.91 |
| Carter | 907,701,000,000.00 | 218,035,164 | 4,163.09 |
| Reagan Term 1 | 1,572,266,000,000.00 | 227,224,681 | 6,919.43 |
| Reagan Term 2 | 2,602,377,701,041.16 | 235,824,902 | 11,035.21 |
| Bush Sr | 4,064,620,655,521.66 | 244,498,982 | 6,624.28 |
| Clinton Term 1 | 5,224,810,939,135.73 | 254,994,517 | 20,489.90 |
| Clinton Term 2 | 5,674,178,209,886.86 | 265,189,794 | 21,396.67 |
| Bush Jr Term 1 | 7,379,052,696,330.32 | 281,421,906 | 26,220.61 |
| Bush Jr Term 2 | 9,007,653,372,262.48 | 293,655,404 | 30,674.23 |
Those figures are crooked. They hold people liable for debt accrued before people could vote, or before people were even born. Whether by voting or by not voting a person gives consent, it is impossible to give or withhold consent when a person is not able to vote, whether by virtue of age or not yet existing.
A more honest figure would include the debt accrued only during that term, and dividing it up among the population in various ways. Using term debt (debt accumulated during the term of the president) instead of national debt (debt accumulated by all previous presidents) and dividing it up among the population in various ways different results emerge.
Using the assumption that both the contradictory arguments are true, that all eligible voters are responsible, then dividing up the debt of each term by the eligible voters of each term yeilds the following results.
| President | Term Debt | Share by Voting Age |
| Kennedy / Johnson | 25,382,138,408.93 | 232.52 |
| Johnson | 35,865,507,168.58 | 314.36 |
| Nixon | 79,682,054,514.62 | 662.21 |
| Nixon / Ford | 193,172,539,059.50 | 1,372.20 |
| Carter | 287,268,000,000.00 | 1,886.08 |
| Reagan Term 1 | 664,565,000,000.00 | 4,037.53 |
| Reagan Term 2 | 1,030,111,701,041.16 | 5,904.37 |
| Bush Sr | 1,462,242,954,480.50 | 8,000.10 |
| Clinton Term 1 | 1,160,190,283,614.07 | 6,121.44 |
| Clinton Term 2 | 449,367,270,751.13 | 2,286.73 |
| Bush Jr Term 1 | 1,704,874,486,443.46 | 8,283.53 |
| Bush Jr Term 2 | 1,628,600,675,932.16 | 7,360.68 |
Thus someone who only able to vote in the 2004 election is only to be held liable for the $7,360.68 of debt accumulated during that term, while someone who was able to vote for the first time in 1992 is to be held liable for $24,052.37 of the debt. Those who are not able to vote are not liable for any of it, which should come as a relief to anyone under the age of eighteen.
If that is too broad, and only those who actually registered to vote are counted a different outcome is the result.
| President | Term Debt | By Registered |
| Kennedy / Johnson | 25,382,138,408.93 | 391.50 |
| Johnson | 35,865,507,168.58 | 486.54 |
| Nixon | 79,682,054,514.62 | 975.80 |
| Nixon / Ford | 193,172,539,059.50 | 1,984.75 |
| Carter | 287,268,000,000.00 | 2,734.90 |
| Reagan Term 1 | 664,565,000,000.00 | 5,878.83 |
| Reagan Term 2 | 1,030,111,701,041.16 | 8,297.27 |
| Bush Sr | 1,462,242,954,480.50 | 11,570.24 |
| Clinton Term 1 | 1,160,190,283,614.07 | 8,669.71 |
| Clinton Term 2 | 449,367,270,751.13 | 3,073.40 |
| Bush Jr Term 1 | 1,704,874,486,443.46 | 10,899.25 |
| Bush Jr Term 2 | 1,628,600,675,932.16 | 9,316.94 |
Thus someone who was only registered to vote in the 2004 election is only to be held liable for the $9,316.94 of debt accumulated during that term, while someone who was registered to vote since 1992 is to be held liable for $31,959.29 of the debt.
Finally if you only count those who voted, there is yet another outcome.
| President | Term Debt | By Voted |
| Kennedy / Johnson | 25,382,138,408.93 | 368.72 |
| Johnson | 35,865,507,168.58 | 507.69 |
| Nixon | 79,682,054,514.62 | 1,088.38 |
| Nixon / Ford | 193,172,539,059.50 | 2,485.54 |
| Carter | 287,268,000,000.00 | 3,522.35 |
| Reagan Term 1 | 664,565,000,000.00 | 7,681.48 |
| Reagan Term 2 | 1,030,111,701,041.16 | 11,117.99 |
| Bush Sr | 1,462,242,954,480.50 | 15,964.28 |
| Clinton Term 1 | 1,160,190,283,614.07 | 11,112.39 |
| Clinton Term 2 | 449,367,270,751.13 | 4,658.76 |
| Bush Jr Term 1 | 1,704,874,486,443.46 | 16,146.74 |
| Bush Jr Term 2 | 1,628,600,675,932.16 | 13,316.99 |
Thus someone who first voted in the 2004 election is only to be held liable for the $13,316.99 of debt accumulated during that term, while someone who was registered to vote since 1992 is to be held liable for $45234.88 of the debt.
These all operate on the principle that there can be no taxation without representation.
While the these calculations do increase the debt per person on older voters all fo them hold younger voters to be not responsible for taxes levied without their representation. Assuming an average age of 40, enabling a person to cast their first vote in the race between Dukakis and Bush, that gives an of age debt of $32,052.48, a registered debt of $43,529.53, and a voted debt of $61,199.16.
But they also leave one third of the debt unaccountable. One third of the debt is owed by absolutely nobody.
Even further and more advanced calculation would also reveal that a good share of the older debts are not owed by anybody, because some who voted for older presidents have died and therefore so has their share. So the 232.52, 368.72, or 368.72 owed by each person who could be held accountable in the election of Kennedy isn't shifted from those who have died to those who haven't, but is instead to be written off as the debtor is deceased.
This does make an excellent argument for not voting and not registering to vote when the system itself is corrupt. It is also very sad that two thirds of the national debt occured within most peoples lifetimes, and that is true in both regular and constant dollars.
Of course the best argument is that the debt actually belongs to those who accrued it, the Senators and Representatives who voted for it and the Presidents who signed for it. Let the debt be divided up amongst the gang of 540.
Friday, January 09, 2009
The Factors of Reneging on the National Debt
President-Elect Obama has recently announced that the national deficit will be in the trillions over the next several years as he proposes to spend the United States out of depression. China may stop buying United States bonds, which means the money will not be available for the trillion dollar deficits being proposed.
Worse still for the government, creditors may start demanding repayment of the debt.
There are three solutions for repayment. The first is a mix of tax hikes and spending cuts. The second is to print the repayment. The current policy appears to be a mix of the two. The third is to renege on the National Debt.
The third is the policy favored by most libertarians. Although there is ample historic precedent, most people seem not only unfamiliar with the idea, but seem to think that it is a unique idea when it is proposed. Even the United States has already engaged in the practice twice, once under F. Roosevelt and once under R. Nixon, when they refused payment in gold. Additionally many states reneged on their individual debts after the looting that took place after the War Between the States.
There are four principle arguments that need to be looked at as to whether the United States Federal Government can renege on the debt: the legal, the international, the economic, and the moral.
The legal argument asks whether or not the government has that authority. The answer is simply "yes". Whereas it is the government that makes the laws, the government can decide that the actions of the government are legal.
Then there is the international argument, specifically with relation to those foreign nations that hold the bulk of the United States debt. Usually this question comes down to the potential for hostile relations with China.
It is not a secret that the Chinese government views the United States as a rival, or perhaps even as an enemy. The purchase of debt is seen in intelligence circles as a deliberate action to gain leverage against the United States by the threat to dump that debt if the United States stands too boldly on a position that is against China's own interests. Dumping United States debt would ruin the value of that debt on international markets, crippling the ability of the United States to act in many areas.
Some outside of military or intelligence circles protest this analysis by pointing out that such an act would hurt China as well. The assumption is that the Chinese government would never take any actions that would hurt China. Based on that assumption no country ever goes to war against any other country because even the victor in a war is hurt by the war. The question is who is hurt more and some think that China would be able to take the blow but the United States would be hurt more.
In addition to hurting the United States, this move would also hurt Japan, an ancillary benefit. Historically either China or Japan is strong, making the present situation with both of them strong historically rare.
If the United States were to renege on the debt, that would nullify the threat of the Chinese held debt on a timetable more acceptable to the United States. While it would hurt the United States, a planned dumping of the debt by the United States is much more manageable while it hurts Chinese plans, if any, to use the debt as a weapon.
The third consideration is the economic one. It is said that dumping the debt would be a financial catastrophe for the United States economy. Actually it would only really hurt the credit rating of the United States government. It should be remembered that the debts of individuals, corporations, cities, and states are all not part of the national debt. A renege by the United States government would only impact the credit rating of the United States government, not the credit rating of every entity in the United States.
Some claim that the repercussions of such a renege would send the United States further into recession. Perhaps it would, but it would also remove many of the destabilizing factors of that are presently in the economy and more quickly enable the United States to climb out of recession.
Some claim that a renege would make it impossible for the United States to fund various obligations. So would a dumping of the debt.
The economy is in bad shape. Such a move, while painful, is a restorative move.
The final consideration is the moral one. Does the United States have a moral obligation to pay the debt?
In contract law, one cannot make a contract to receive stolen goods. It is not allowed, and any contract that says otherwise is considered null and void.
Another consideration is that once is not required to inherit debt. If someone dies with massive debt, nobody is required to inherit it. Many of those expected to pay this debt were not alive when the debt was initially acquired, and many of the rest were not voters when more of the debt was acquired. Given that much of this debt is in the names of people who were not able to consent to it, this debt is inherited.
Thus those who purchased the bonds should not have an expectation to receive payment, and those who are expected to pay have no obligation to do so.
The United States not only does not have an obligation to pay the debt, it has an obligation not to.
Worse still for the government, creditors may start demanding repayment of the debt.
There are three solutions for repayment. The first is a mix of tax hikes and spending cuts. The second is to print the repayment. The current policy appears to be a mix of the two. The third is to renege on the National Debt.
The third is the policy favored by most libertarians. Although there is ample historic precedent, most people seem not only unfamiliar with the idea, but seem to think that it is a unique idea when it is proposed. Even the United States has already engaged in the practice twice, once under F. Roosevelt and once under R. Nixon, when they refused payment in gold. Additionally many states reneged on their individual debts after the looting that took place after the War Between the States.
There are four principle arguments that need to be looked at as to whether the United States Federal Government can renege on the debt: the legal, the international, the economic, and the moral.
The legal argument asks whether or not the government has that authority. The answer is simply "yes". Whereas it is the government that makes the laws, the government can decide that the actions of the government are legal.
Then there is the international argument, specifically with relation to those foreign nations that hold the bulk of the United States debt. Usually this question comes down to the potential for hostile relations with China.
It is not a secret that the Chinese government views the United States as a rival, or perhaps even as an enemy. The purchase of debt is seen in intelligence circles as a deliberate action to gain leverage against the United States by the threat to dump that debt if the United States stands too boldly on a position that is against China's own interests. Dumping United States debt would ruin the value of that debt on international markets, crippling the ability of the United States to act in many areas.
Some outside of military or intelligence circles protest this analysis by pointing out that such an act would hurt China as well. The assumption is that the Chinese government would never take any actions that would hurt China. Based on that assumption no country ever goes to war against any other country because even the victor in a war is hurt by the war. The question is who is hurt more and some think that China would be able to take the blow but the United States would be hurt more.
In addition to hurting the United States, this move would also hurt Japan, an ancillary benefit. Historically either China or Japan is strong, making the present situation with both of them strong historically rare.
If the United States were to renege on the debt, that would nullify the threat of the Chinese held debt on a timetable more acceptable to the United States. While it would hurt the United States, a planned dumping of the debt by the United States is much more manageable while it hurts Chinese plans, if any, to use the debt as a weapon.
The third consideration is the economic one. It is said that dumping the debt would be a financial catastrophe for the United States economy. Actually it would only really hurt the credit rating of the United States government. It should be remembered that the debts of individuals, corporations, cities, and states are all not part of the national debt. A renege by the United States government would only impact the credit rating of the United States government, not the credit rating of every entity in the United States.
Some claim that the repercussions of such a renege would send the United States further into recession. Perhaps it would, but it would also remove many of the destabilizing factors of that are presently in the economy and more quickly enable the United States to climb out of recession.
Some claim that a renege would make it impossible for the United States to fund various obligations. So would a dumping of the debt.
The economy is in bad shape. Such a move, while painful, is a restorative move.
The final consideration is the moral one. Does the United States have a moral obligation to pay the debt?
In contract law, one cannot make a contract to receive stolen goods. It is not allowed, and any contract that says otherwise is considered null and void.
Another consideration is that once is not required to inherit debt. If someone dies with massive debt, nobody is required to inherit it. Many of those expected to pay this debt were not alive when the debt was initially acquired, and many of the rest were not voters when more of the debt was acquired. Given that much of this debt is in the names of people who were not able to consent to it, this debt is inherited.
Thus those who purchased the bonds should not have an expectation to receive payment, and those who are expected to pay have no obligation to do so.
The United States not only does not have an obligation to pay the debt, it has an obligation not to.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Issues Designed to Divide
In California there is a proposition on the ballot of very little importance. It is the one receiving the most media attention and has passions running the highest. Proposition 8 is about gay marriage.
There are two aspects to the gay marriage debate. The first is whether or not homosexual couples should have the same legal rights in their unions as heterosexual couples do in their unions. The second is whether or not these unions can be called "marriages." The first touches on libertarian issues, in an oblique way. The second is utterly irrelevant.
The libertarian take on the first question is that government should not be in the marriage business in the first place. The debate in the public arena is whether the government’s involvement should be to recognize or not recognize with government approval and government licensing the gay union. Libertarians who take a stand on this question will often come down on "if the have to be involved, they should at least treat everyone equally" which is a fair position.
There is absolutely no libertarian take on the second question. It is designed to keep the public debating a completely irrelevant point. It doesn't matter if congress just is busy incrementally voting in a police state if everyone is debating whether or not homosexual unions can be called "marriage". It doesn’t matter which direction the question is settled, the fact that everyone is debating the question is sufficient to keep people from questioning other issues.
If everyone is debating whether or not McCain looked Obama directly in the eyes during the debate, nobody is noticing that they didn't disagree on any basic issues.
If everyone is debating whether or not ACORN submitted phony voter registrations (or had infiltrators submit them) they do not see the bigger voter fraud picture of Ballot Access Laws, Campaign Finance Laws, and Safe Districts.
Distractions are the method of modern politics. Many are distracted by the tabloids. For those who actually think politics is important, there are distraction issues to deal with them.
There are two aspects to the gay marriage debate. The first is whether or not homosexual couples should have the same legal rights in their unions as heterosexual couples do in their unions. The second is whether or not these unions can be called "marriages." The first touches on libertarian issues, in an oblique way. The second is utterly irrelevant.
The libertarian take on the first question is that government should not be in the marriage business in the first place. The debate in the public arena is whether the government’s involvement should be to recognize or not recognize with government approval and government licensing the gay union. Libertarians who take a stand on this question will often come down on "if the have to be involved, they should at least treat everyone equally" which is a fair position.
There is absolutely no libertarian take on the second question. It is designed to keep the public debating a completely irrelevant point. It doesn't matter if congress just is busy incrementally voting in a police state if everyone is debating whether or not homosexual unions can be called "marriage". It doesn’t matter which direction the question is settled, the fact that everyone is debating the question is sufficient to keep people from questioning other issues.
If everyone is debating whether or not McCain looked Obama directly in the eyes during the debate, nobody is noticing that they didn't disagree on any basic issues.
If everyone is debating whether or not ACORN submitted phony voter registrations (or had infiltrators submit them) they do not see the bigger voter fraud picture of Ballot Access Laws, Campaign Finance Laws, and Safe Districts.
Distractions are the method of modern politics. Many are distracted by the tabloids. For those who actually think politics is important, there are distraction issues to deal with them.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
President Bush really is the worst spender
Bush really is the least fiscally responsible president the United States has ever had
It is often claimed that George W. Bush is the biggest spender. The numbers used to prove it are the current deficit figures, which form a very poor basis for comparison based on the fluctuating value of the dollar.
However, it is still true. Taking the National Debt figures from the United States treasury, one can calculate the deficit for each year. The deficits were then converted to 1794 constant dollars based on the value of gold for each year. The four years of each president’s term were added together to determine the overall per-term deficit or surplus.
It is necessary to consider each term separately because otherwise a two term president would default to a worse spender than a single term president given nearly equal deficits for each.
The figures for each president are as follows:
George W. Bush’s second term is not yet finished, and yet it is already in fifth place for cumulative constant dollar deficits. His numbers are comparatively reduced due to the price of gold shooting up during his term.
There is a definite correlation between how recently the president served and how large the cumulative constant value deficit is. Every president during or after the Great Depression is represented at the top of the list of deficit spenders, along with Wilson for the costs incurred during World War One. The top ten includes all recent presidents except Carter, but also includes FDR for his Word War Two spending. Both of Clinton’s terms are in the top ten, even though Clinton ran the smallest deficit in recent history during his last year in office. The other three years of deficits were enough to place the term in the top ten.
The last administration to have a cumulative surplus is the Coolidge administration. The biggest saver of all times is the Harding / Coolidge administration, ranked by historians as one of the worst presidential administrations of all time. Although not reflected in the chart, the last president to actually run a surplus was Eisenhower, but the cumulative deficits put his terms into the negative.
In the nineteenth century there was a more consistent effort to reduce the debt, excepting during wars. Presidents of both parties worked to run surpluses to that the debt may be reduced.
Counter arguments to these figures could be using federal budget figures instead of federal deficit figures, and using other means of adjusting to a constant dollar.
It is often claimed that George W. Bush is the biggest spender. The numbers used to prove it are the current deficit figures, which form a very poor basis for comparison based on the fluctuating value of the dollar.
However, it is still true. Taking the National Debt figures from the United States treasury, one can calculate the deficit for each year. The deficits were then converted to 1794 constant dollars based on the value of gold for each year. The four years of each president’s term were added together to determine the overall per-term deficit or surplus.
It is necessary to consider each term separately because otherwise a two term president would default to a worse spender than a single term president given nearly equal deficits for each.
The figures for each president are as follows:
| -99,776,642,401.45 | Bush Jr Term 1 |
| -96,408,875,337.91 | F Roosevelt Term 3 |
| -90,255,665,689.94 | Bush Sr |
| -63,508,876,217.31 | Clinton Term 1 |
| -60,226,092,484.91 | Bush Jr Term 2 |
| -55,620,058,613.77 | Reagan Term 2 |
| -37,083,571,857.12 | Nixon |
| -34,590,184,231.84 | Reagan Term 1 |
| -31,541,432,371.56 | Clinton Term 2 |
| -30,632,171,603.66 | Nixon / Ford |
| -30,513,251,062.43 | F Roosevelt / Truman |
| -25,169,881,466.50 | Carter |
| -22,277,279,516.03 | Wilson Term 2 |
| -19,947,226,430.95 | L. Johnson |
| -14,907,433,625.97 | Kennedy / Johnson |
| -9,064,312,546.96 | F Roosevelt Term 1 |
| -8,064,456,770.95 | Eisenhower Term 1 |
| -7,979,119,959.91 | Eisenhower Term 2 |
| -5,516,035,432.17 | F Roosevelt Term 2 |
| -4,087,245,363.90 | Truman |
| -2,006,485,523.53 | Hoover |
| -1,750,942,082.69 | Lincoln Term 1 |
| -845,903,480.62 | Lincoln / Johnson |
| -738,552,212.80 | Wilson Term 1 |
| -366,738,464.61 | McKinley |
| -362,676,610.68 | T Roosevelt Term 2 |
| -241,610,193.89 | Taft |
| -181,124,526.17 | Cleveland Term 2 |
| -126,862,797.32 | T Roosevelt Term 1 |
| -82,125,195.84 | Madison Term 2 |
| -32,869,749.98 | Buchanan |
| -23,583,209.73 | Polk |
| -19,154,479.48 | Taylor / Fillmore |
| -18,210,776.96 | Tyler |
| -6,534,247.41 | Washington Term 2 |
| -3,535,830.77 | VanBuren |
| -3,450,826.53 | Jefferson Term 1 |
| -1,764,448.14 | Washington Term 1 |
| 745,788.38 | Monroe Term 2 |
| 785,877.72 | John Adams |
| 19,986,580.07 | Madison Term 1 |
| 21,230,802.91 | Jefferson Term 2 |
| 22,794,733.90 | John Quincy Adams |
| 24,284,722.13 | Jackson Term 2 |
| 34,226,803.81 | Pierce |
| 36,319,367.59 | Monroe Term 1 |
| 43,152,808.69 | Jackson Term 1 |
| 59,905,475.18 | Hayes |
| 72,820,997.22 | Grant Term 2 |
| 104,415,146.68 | Harrison |
| 137,703,187.95 | Cleveland Term 1 |
| 289,746,134.16 | Garfield / Arthur |
| 408,388,139.06 | Grant Term 1 |
| 3,647,830,832.07 | Coolidge |
| 4,686,460,530.01 | Harding / Coolidge |
George W. Bush’s second term is not yet finished, and yet it is already in fifth place for cumulative constant dollar deficits. His numbers are comparatively reduced due to the price of gold shooting up during his term.
There is a definite correlation between how recently the president served and how large the cumulative constant value deficit is. Every president during or after the Great Depression is represented at the top of the list of deficit spenders, along with Wilson for the costs incurred during World War One. The top ten includes all recent presidents except Carter, but also includes FDR for his Word War Two spending. Both of Clinton’s terms are in the top ten, even though Clinton ran the smallest deficit in recent history during his last year in office. The other three years of deficits were enough to place the term in the top ten.
The last administration to have a cumulative surplus is the Coolidge administration. The biggest saver of all times is the Harding / Coolidge administration, ranked by historians as one of the worst presidential administrations of all time. Although not reflected in the chart, the last president to actually run a surplus was Eisenhower, but the cumulative deficits put his terms into the negative.
In the nineteenth century there was a more consistent effort to reduce the debt, excepting during wars. Presidents of both parties worked to run surpluses to that the debt may be reduced.
Counter arguments to these figures could be using federal budget figures instead of federal deficit figures, and using other means of adjusting to a constant dollar.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Democracy is not a Panacea
Over the course of the 20th Century and leading into the 21st Century there has been a goal in mind over much of the world to expand democracy, to spread democracy, to make the world safe for democracy.
This is done because it is imagined that if more countries were democratic, more countries would be like the Western Democracies.
The point that is being missed is that form is not function. Just because a country is a democracy does not mean that the country is a liberal democracy. Take, for example Iraq. There are three religious/ethnic groups in Iraq, the largest being the Shiites in southern Iraq. The Shiites are a majority.
It has been predicted by some that if actual democracy were instituted in Iraq, the Shiites would vote to violate the rights of the Sunni and the Kurds, because they are a majority. This would be a "sectarian democracy", and not a liberal democracy. This may not necessarily be the case, but it is a possibility founded on the basic demographics of the country in question. It is the reason why some call for a partitioning of Iraq, to guarantee each population group the ability to not be dominated by the others.
People seem to think that "democracy" automatically means "liberal democracy". They forget that "democracy" is the form, and that "liberal" is the function. It is the "liberal" in "liberal democracy" that provides the restrained government instituted to protect the rights of the people.
In terms of respecting the rights of the people, what is the effective difference between a liberal democracy and a liberal monarchy? One could argue that democracy gives people checks on the government should the government decide to move in an illiberal direction, whereas there are no checks if the king should decide so. The problem is what would be the check if the public decided to move the democratic government in an illiberal direction? Proponents of democracy do not have an answer for that.
It should be remembered that it was a democracy that martyred Socrates. The majority did not care for what he taught, and as a result he was tried, convicted, and executed. This was all done according to the proper democratic procedures.
Instead of spreading democracy, what should be spread are the liberal values that are often associated with democracy. This cannot be done at the point of a gun.
This is done because it is imagined that if more countries were democratic, more countries would be like the Western Democracies.
The point that is being missed is that form is not function. Just because a country is a democracy does not mean that the country is a liberal democracy. Take, for example Iraq. There are three religious/ethnic groups in Iraq, the largest being the Shiites in southern Iraq. The Shiites are a majority.
It has been predicted by some that if actual democracy were instituted in Iraq, the Shiites would vote to violate the rights of the Sunni and the Kurds, because they are a majority. This would be a "sectarian democracy", and not a liberal democracy. This may not necessarily be the case, but it is a possibility founded on the basic demographics of the country in question. It is the reason why some call for a partitioning of Iraq, to guarantee each population group the ability to not be dominated by the others.
People seem to think that "democracy" automatically means "liberal democracy". They forget that "democracy" is the form, and that "liberal" is the function. It is the "liberal" in "liberal democracy" that provides the restrained government instituted to protect the rights of the people.
In terms of respecting the rights of the people, what is the effective difference between a liberal democracy and a liberal monarchy? One could argue that democracy gives people checks on the government should the government decide to move in an illiberal direction, whereas there are no checks if the king should decide so. The problem is what would be the check if the public decided to move the democratic government in an illiberal direction? Proponents of democracy do not have an answer for that.
It should be remembered that it was a democracy that martyred Socrates. The majority did not care for what he taught, and as a result he was tried, convicted, and executed. This was all done according to the proper democratic procedures.
Instead of spreading democracy, what should be spread are the liberal values that are often associated with democracy. This cannot be done at the point of a gun.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Positive and Negative Liberty
Isaiah Berlin once did a valuable service to the cause of liberty. He wrote a rather muddled book that discussed the difference between positive liberty and negative liberty. People are familiar with negative liberty - it is the "leave me alone" liberty that forms the cross-axis of the Nolan Chart, stretching from Statist to Libertarian. What is less familiar to most people is positive liberty, which is the liberty of having a voice in government, be it the ability to vote, to create and implement ballot initiatives, or to run for office.
This is an important distinction because occasionally these two come into conflict. When the come into conflict, the libertarian believes that negative liberty must win while the democratic statist believes that positive liberty must win.
A common theme among those who would argue against libertarianism is that the will of the majority must be obeyed. "What if the majority is wrong?" and often ducked question, is occasionally answered with "then work within the system to change the system."
It is a commonly used argument, to obey the majority, often expressed in the fallacious argument that by refusing to obey the majority the one doing so is imposing his will on the majority. This is an accusation that disturbs libertarians because the one thing the libertarian doesn't believe in is forcing others to comply with his will, but instead wished to be left alone and to leave others alone on all matters political.
It is a fallacious argument because it ignores the difference between initiated force and responsive force. When a libertarian says "you cannot pass that law", he is not saying "you must do as I say" but "there is no just reason for me to do as you say." Others can still choose of their own free will to act as if the unpassed law applies to them, by refraining from whatever activity the law was supposed to restrict or engaging in whatever activity the law was supposed to mandate.
The difference between initiated force and responsive force is glossed over in an effort to create a moral equivalent that takes the issue outside of the question of whether force itself is justified. Having dispensed with the integral moral question, the only remaining question is whether the majority or the minority shall have dictatorial power. By that mindset, a libertarian saying "no" is imposing dictatorial power.
The proper response by the libertarian when accused of imposing his will on others is "Yes, I do impose my will on muggers when they ask for my wallet." That places the question firmly back in the realm of whether or not the resisted action is justified, the one place statists do not wish it to go. The counter arguments range far and wide to try to distinguish between different types of initiatory force.
But even those who wish to engage in initiatory force through democratic action seem to have limits to what they would consider a justified action for the government to take. Based on the principle that a government action is good because it is approved by the majority, an inevitable conclusion is that it is perfectly justified for 90% to strip the remaining 10% of all of their rights, including the right to protest such a stripping. This is an issue always avoided by democratic positivists.
If one is to be consistent, there are absolutely no limits on what a democratic positivist would place on the majority’s decision making power.
Often times the question is phrased in terms of the social contract, and that the libertarian saying "no" is somehow violating the social contract. It should be noted that the social contract is a myth, nothing more. It is a useful myth, but it is still a myth. It is useful in that it is an intellectual tool used to analyze the relationship between the individual and the society as expressed through the government.
In this myth, people had the freedom to kill each other but not the right to life, the freedom to steal, but not the right to property, et cetera. Dissatisfied with that state of affairs they banded together and agreed to certain terms, that they would respect each others rights in exchange for a respect for their own rights. In order to safeguard this arrangement government was established to protect and enforce these rights.
The problem is that now those who wish to impose their will on others through the government have co-opted the term "social contract" and use it to mean that since government has decided everyone else is obligated to obey. What they do not realize, or hope nobody else realizes, is that by using the term "social contract" they undermine their own case. The Social Contract is specifically about respecting people's rights, and under social contract theory any government that violates the contract is not a legitimate government and the people have the right to overthrow said government.
Saying "social contract" in the abused sense of it as used by statists is simply another way to say that positive rights trump negative rights.
Positive and negative liberty can be arranged into a four quadrant chart similar in appearance to the Nolan Chart or Pournelle Chart. In the quadrant where both are low the result is despotism. In the quadrant of low positive and high negative the result is a libertarian monarch. In the quadrant of high positive and low negative the result is mob rule and the martyrdom of Socrates. Finally in the quadrant where both are high the result is anarcho-capitalism or other variants on libertarianism.
The important point of all of this is to remember that democracy is simply a form, not a function, of government. Libertarianism is concerned with the function, that government maximizes the rights of the people. When politicians talk about spreading democracy, they express their own ignorance of the difference between function and form. What should be spread isn’t democracy, but liberty.
This is an important distinction because occasionally these two come into conflict. When the come into conflict, the libertarian believes that negative liberty must win while the democratic statist believes that positive liberty must win.
A common theme among those who would argue against libertarianism is that the will of the majority must be obeyed. "What if the majority is wrong?" and often ducked question, is occasionally answered with "then work within the system to change the system."
It is a commonly used argument, to obey the majority, often expressed in the fallacious argument that by refusing to obey the majority the one doing so is imposing his will on the majority. This is an accusation that disturbs libertarians because the one thing the libertarian doesn't believe in is forcing others to comply with his will, but instead wished to be left alone and to leave others alone on all matters political.
It is a fallacious argument because it ignores the difference between initiated force and responsive force. When a libertarian says "you cannot pass that law", he is not saying "you must do as I say" but "there is no just reason for me to do as you say." Others can still choose of their own free will to act as if the unpassed law applies to them, by refraining from whatever activity the law was supposed to restrict or engaging in whatever activity the law was supposed to mandate.
The difference between initiated force and responsive force is glossed over in an effort to create a moral equivalent that takes the issue outside of the question of whether force itself is justified. Having dispensed with the integral moral question, the only remaining question is whether the majority or the minority shall have dictatorial power. By that mindset, a libertarian saying "no" is imposing dictatorial power.
The proper response by the libertarian when accused of imposing his will on others is "Yes, I do impose my will on muggers when they ask for my wallet." That places the question firmly back in the realm of whether or not the resisted action is justified, the one place statists do not wish it to go. The counter arguments range far and wide to try to distinguish between different types of initiatory force.
But even those who wish to engage in initiatory force through democratic action seem to have limits to what they would consider a justified action for the government to take. Based on the principle that a government action is good because it is approved by the majority, an inevitable conclusion is that it is perfectly justified for 90% to strip the remaining 10% of all of their rights, including the right to protest such a stripping. This is an issue always avoided by democratic positivists.
If one is to be consistent, there are absolutely no limits on what a democratic positivist would place on the majority’s decision making power.
Often times the question is phrased in terms of the social contract, and that the libertarian saying "no" is somehow violating the social contract. It should be noted that the social contract is a myth, nothing more. It is a useful myth, but it is still a myth. It is useful in that it is an intellectual tool used to analyze the relationship between the individual and the society as expressed through the government.
In this myth, people had the freedom to kill each other but not the right to life, the freedom to steal, but not the right to property, et cetera. Dissatisfied with that state of affairs they banded together and agreed to certain terms, that they would respect each others rights in exchange for a respect for their own rights. In order to safeguard this arrangement government was established to protect and enforce these rights.
The problem is that now those who wish to impose their will on others through the government have co-opted the term "social contract" and use it to mean that since government has decided everyone else is obligated to obey. What they do not realize, or hope nobody else realizes, is that by using the term "social contract" they undermine their own case. The Social Contract is specifically about respecting people's rights, and under social contract theory any government that violates the contract is not a legitimate government and the people have the right to overthrow said government.
Saying "social contract" in the abused sense of it as used by statists is simply another way to say that positive rights trump negative rights.
Positive and negative liberty can be arranged into a four quadrant chart similar in appearance to the Nolan Chart or Pournelle Chart. In the quadrant where both are low the result is despotism. In the quadrant of low positive and high negative the result is a libertarian monarch. In the quadrant of high positive and low negative the result is mob rule and the martyrdom of Socrates. Finally in the quadrant where both are high the result is anarcho-capitalism or other variants on libertarianism.
The important point of all of this is to remember that democracy is simply a form, not a function, of government. Libertarianism is concerned with the function, that government maximizes the rights of the people. When politicians talk about spreading democracy, they express their own ignorance of the difference between function and form. What should be spread isn’t democracy, but liberty.
Friday, August 08, 2008
The Prevalence of Police Abuse
There are certainly more stories of police abuse hitting the news outlets, at an accelerating pace. This is resulting in greater awareness in the general public of the police abusing their powers. Whether it is tasering a driver on the highways of Utah, tackling a kid in Baltimore because he is riding a skateboard, strip searching the victim of an assault, or the many examples of SWAT team raids of wrong houses often resulting in the death of either the occupants or even police, these stories are circulating with an ever increasing frequency.
There are two theories about why this is so. One is that the rise of inexpensive digital cameras and video cameras has made it easier to capture police misconduct, and the rise of YouTube has made it easier to spread the stories captured. In the past these issues were investigated only if the news were to make an issue of it. As video cameras became more popular it was still up to the news, but it was harder for news outlets to ignore police abuse. As a result of private footage of Rodney King being aired on television the police involved were eventually held accountable.
The television networks can choose whether or not to air any privately recorded footage, and as a result it is possible that many recorded incidents never were shown to the public. The internet enables people to bypass the major media and as a result those incidents are available to be viewed by anyone with an internet connection. Being viewed, it then becomes possible for the public to pressure the media into covering the story in ways never before possible.
Another theory is that these incidents are indeed becoming more common. The erosion of civil liberties that has taken place over the last seven years of the war on terror, coupled with the almost forty years of waging the drug war, has created a climate where government enforcement officials are not only given greater authority, but given more incentive to act against those who question their authority. Failure to show respect, or even obeisance, is considered a direct challenge to the authority of the officers and it must be punished.
This is abetted by the taser, which is considered a non-lethal instrument (except for the times when it is lethal). This leads to it being used as a method of “pain compliance”. This is in violation of the entire Anglo system of law because pain compliance is a euphemism for “punishment” and that can only be decided in a court of law by a judge and a jury, not by a law enforcement official. Any officer who uses a taser for the purpose of disciplining someone who is not a threat but guilty of not obeying an officer is guilty of assault and battery – and that is before the question of whether an officer can give a "lawful order" in the first place that must be obeyed.
It is clear that many police feel that they are above the law that they are sworn to enforce. This is shown in so many ways, most recently by Jimmy Justice as he films the police breaking even simple laws and their irate reactions as he calls them on their activities. Sometimes catching police breaking the law can lead to legal trouble for the person with the camera, which is why Jimmy Justice acts pseudonymously.
Sometimes filming of law enforcement officials leads to their discipline, although not as often as it should. This trend is only going to accelerate. Some jurisdictions are fighting back with laws that prevent us from videotaping the police or even taking still photos as they perform their duties, calling these activities spying or obstruction respectively. The question remains how well ordinances and charges of this nature will hold up in court against what is left of our civil liberties.
Given the abusive nature of police today, it is a good idea to have a camera handy even if local ordinances forbid it. When accused of resisting arrest and disorderly conduct – a charge used when there is no specific law being broken but the officer simply doesn’t like what is being done – a camera recording the incident may be the best defense as it was in the case of a bicyclist assaulted by the NYPD. It can be used as evidence against the charges, and may even be useful if the department actually decides to discipline the officer.
There are two theories about why this is so. One is that the rise of inexpensive digital cameras and video cameras has made it easier to capture police misconduct, and the rise of YouTube has made it easier to spread the stories captured. In the past these issues were investigated only if the news were to make an issue of it. As video cameras became more popular it was still up to the news, but it was harder for news outlets to ignore police abuse. As a result of private footage of Rodney King being aired on television the police involved were eventually held accountable.
The television networks can choose whether or not to air any privately recorded footage, and as a result it is possible that many recorded incidents never were shown to the public. The internet enables people to bypass the major media and as a result those incidents are available to be viewed by anyone with an internet connection. Being viewed, it then becomes possible for the public to pressure the media into covering the story in ways never before possible.
Another theory is that these incidents are indeed becoming more common. The erosion of civil liberties that has taken place over the last seven years of the war on terror, coupled with the almost forty years of waging the drug war, has created a climate where government enforcement officials are not only given greater authority, but given more incentive to act against those who question their authority. Failure to show respect, or even obeisance, is considered a direct challenge to the authority of the officers and it must be punished.
This is abetted by the taser, which is considered a non-lethal instrument (except for the times when it is lethal). This leads to it being used as a method of “pain compliance”. This is in violation of the entire Anglo system of law because pain compliance is a euphemism for “punishment” and that can only be decided in a court of law by a judge and a jury, not by a law enforcement official. Any officer who uses a taser for the purpose of disciplining someone who is not a threat but guilty of not obeying an officer is guilty of assault and battery – and that is before the question of whether an officer can give a "lawful order" in the first place that must be obeyed.
It is clear that many police feel that they are above the law that they are sworn to enforce. This is shown in so many ways, most recently by Jimmy Justice as he films the police breaking even simple laws and their irate reactions as he calls them on their activities. Sometimes catching police breaking the law can lead to legal trouble for the person with the camera, which is why Jimmy Justice acts pseudonymously.
Sometimes filming of law enforcement officials leads to their discipline, although not as often as it should. This trend is only going to accelerate. Some jurisdictions are fighting back with laws that prevent us from videotaping the police or even taking still photos as they perform their duties, calling these activities spying or obstruction respectively. The question remains how well ordinances and charges of this nature will hold up in court against what is left of our civil liberties.
Given the abusive nature of police today, it is a good idea to have a camera handy even if local ordinances forbid it. When accused of resisting arrest and disorderly conduct – a charge used when there is no specific law being broken but the officer simply doesn’t like what is being done – a camera recording the incident may be the best defense as it was in the case of a bicyclist assaulted by the NYPD. It can be used as evidence against the charges, and may even be useful if the department actually decides to discipline the officer.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Proper Standing
Accountability really is the biggest problem with any government. Some may say that in a despotic government other problems are bigger, but it is the lack of accountability that enables a government to grow to the levels necessary to become abusive.
The original design of the federal system of the United States had several checks put in place to assist in keeping the government accountable. In theory the branches of the government compete with each other, and the individual states jealously guard their power. In practice the various levels of government have learned game theory and have solved the prisoner’s dilemma and all branches play cooperate more often than they play defect.
In The police state cannot happen without the police the tendency of the police to fail to adequately police themselves was noted. In A Proposed Solution it was suggested that those outside the government be given authority to file criminal charges against government officials.
If breaking the civil-criminal wall were implemented, there are still several defenses the state has.
One major problem with this is the problem of standing. One can only file a lawsuit in any given case if one has been an injured party. An outside observer, witnessing a crime, cannot file charges against the criminal. The victim, directly involved in the crime, can file civil charges against the criminal. The government is the only third party actor with standing to file any charges. The government, not directly involved in the crime, can file criminal charges against the criminal.
Another problem is the Nuremberg Defense. While that defense is not allowed by agents of a conquered government in courts of the conquering government, it has been shown to be effective when the court trying the case is of the same government as the defendant.
But the standing issue really is not only a big hurdle, it’s a big opportunity if the law can be adjusted to allow for it. In addition to holding police accountable, an adjustment to the principles of standing can hold the entire government accountable. Currently the only way an individual can challenge the constitutionality of any given law that individual must be on trial for breaking said law or as a victim of said law.
This is the reason why the ACLU has had such a hard time suing over wiretapping performed by the U.S. Government in the name of the “War On Terror.” The ACLU needs to find an actual victim to represent, someone who was actually spied upon unconstitutionally or illegally. That person would have standing and therefore the ACLU could represent them. The problem is the U.S. Government won’t intentionally release the names of who they have been secretly spying on, and therefore the ACLU cannot act. Fortunately for the ACLU they were saved by government incompetence and a partial list of names was released and therefore there were identifiable victims.
If one is not accused of breaking the law in question, or if one is not a victim of the law in question, one does not have standing to question the validity of the law. That needs to be remedied, and would be another check on the power of the government. Given the bromide that “we are the government” then theoretically everyone should be considered to have standing to challenge any law
If anyone could, at any time, file a case (at their own expense) to challenge the validity of the law it would be a legal nightmare. Therefore there will need to be guidelines and restrictions put in place to winnow out the more spurious cases. The guidelines already in place would serve as a good starting point, although they are more restrictive than they need to be. The only modification to the guidelines advocated is to remove the need for proper standing with regards to challenging legislation. This would also have the advantage of cutting through the government solution to the prisoners dilemma.
The original design of the federal system of the United States had several checks put in place to assist in keeping the government accountable. In theory the branches of the government compete with each other, and the individual states jealously guard their power. In practice the various levels of government have learned game theory and have solved the prisoner’s dilemma and all branches play cooperate more often than they play defect.
In The police state cannot happen without the police the tendency of the police to fail to adequately police themselves was noted. In A Proposed Solution it was suggested that those outside the government be given authority to file criminal charges against government officials.
If breaking the civil-criminal wall were implemented, there are still several defenses the state has.
One major problem with this is the problem of standing. One can only file a lawsuit in any given case if one has been an injured party. An outside observer, witnessing a crime, cannot file charges against the criminal. The victim, directly involved in the crime, can file civil charges against the criminal. The government is the only third party actor with standing to file any charges. The government, not directly involved in the crime, can file criminal charges against the criminal.
Another problem is the Nuremberg Defense. While that defense is not allowed by agents of a conquered government in courts of the conquering government, it has been shown to be effective when the court trying the case is of the same government as the defendant.
But the standing issue really is not only a big hurdle, it’s a big opportunity if the law can be adjusted to allow for it. In addition to holding police accountable, an adjustment to the principles of standing can hold the entire government accountable. Currently the only way an individual can challenge the constitutionality of any given law that individual must be on trial for breaking said law or as a victim of said law.
This is the reason why the ACLU has had such a hard time suing over wiretapping performed by the U.S. Government in the name of the “War On Terror.” The ACLU needs to find an actual victim to represent, someone who was actually spied upon unconstitutionally or illegally. That person would have standing and therefore the ACLU could represent them. The problem is the U.S. Government won’t intentionally release the names of who they have been secretly spying on, and therefore the ACLU cannot act. Fortunately for the ACLU they were saved by government incompetence and a partial list of names was released and therefore there were identifiable victims.
If one is not accused of breaking the law in question, or if one is not a victim of the law in question, one does not have standing to question the validity of the law. That needs to be remedied, and would be another check on the power of the government. Given the bromide that “we are the government” then theoretically everyone should be considered to have standing to challenge any law
If anyone could, at any time, file a case (at their own expense) to challenge the validity of the law it would be a legal nightmare. Therefore there will need to be guidelines and restrictions put in place to winnow out the more spurious cases. The guidelines already in place would serve as a good starting point, although they are more restrictive than they need to be. The only modification to the guidelines advocated is to remove the need for proper standing with regards to challenging legislation. This would also have the advantage of cutting through the government solution to the prisoners dilemma.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)