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.
Friday, April 08, 2011
Friday, April 01, 2011
Double Dip is a Lie
The failure of the economy to recover after the collapse in 2007 has become so evident that nobody can deny it any longer. This creates an interesting dilemma for Keynesians who have spent the whole time since Obama was sworn in predicting an imminent recovery.
It is true that, due to a quirk of accounting, technically the recession ended already. Government spending shot up in response to the downturn. Unfortunately government spending is included in the GDP, so therefore the GDP went up as a result of government spending increasing faster than the rest of the economy was declining. Since "recession" is defined as consecutive quarters of economic decline, any increase in GDP is considered to be the end of a recession.
Unlike "recession," the term "depression" has no exact definition and is usually considered to be enduring high unemployment. This has enabled mainstream economists to deny that the economy of the United States is in such a state due to the ways unemployment is disguised by government employment.
But using the government to artificially inflate the economy is highly unsustainable. At best it is temporary; at worst it makes the economy far worse due to the attempt. The current situation is not “at best” and the economy is rapidly deteriorating.
Since the economic signals are so bad that it is becoming impossible to ignore. That is why all economists dedicated to the mainstream are calling it a “double dip”. Those on the right side of the Keynesian spectrum are blaming Obama, while those on the left side of the Keynesian spectrum are blaming Bush.
Libertarians know that it is not a whole new recession. They know that it is a continuance and a worsening of the current plight facing the United States economy. For tactical reasons it is important to correct everyone who says that this is a whole new economic downturn.
It is true that, due to a quirk of accounting, technically the recession ended already. Government spending shot up in response to the downturn. Unfortunately government spending is included in the GDP, so therefore the GDP went up as a result of government spending increasing faster than the rest of the economy was declining. Since "recession" is defined as consecutive quarters of economic decline, any increase in GDP is considered to be the end of a recession.
Unlike "recession," the term "depression" has no exact definition and is usually considered to be enduring high unemployment. This has enabled mainstream economists to deny that the economy of the United States is in such a state due to the ways unemployment is disguised by government employment.
But using the government to artificially inflate the economy is highly unsustainable. At best it is temporary; at worst it makes the economy far worse due to the attempt. The current situation is not “at best” and the economy is rapidly deteriorating.
Since the economic signals are so bad that it is becoming impossible to ignore. That is why all economists dedicated to the mainstream are calling it a “double dip”. Those on the right side of the Keynesian spectrum are blaming Obama, while those on the left side of the Keynesian spectrum are blaming Bush.
Libertarians know that it is not a whole new recession. They know that it is a continuance and a worsening of the current plight facing the United States economy. For tactical reasons it is important to correct everyone who says that this is a whole new economic downturn.
Friday, March 25, 2011
A Union Argument
Although it is abundantly clear that libertarians are not anti-union, and actually have no problem with unions in general, there still exists the belief that libertarians are against unions. It is because libertarians do not support special favors for unions that libertarians are accused of being anti-union. In order to prove this point, a peculiar argument is made.
There are problems with that argument. The first of them is that union members have been known to use violence against scabs. While that is not an argument for or against special legislation, when an argument used in favor of a proposition can also be used against it that is a pretty good sign that the argument is not very sound.
The major flaw is that libertarians are against the violent crime of battery. If violence is used by employers against union members, that means violence is being used against individuals. Any libertarian that recognizes a purpose for government would insist that government use its power to defend the rights of individuals, especially the right to life and the sanctity of the body of the individual.
In such a minarchist system, a businessman who hires people to assault union workers, and any thugs who are employed by that businessman for that purpose, are all criminals. The government should therefore enforce the laws that already exist, and laws already exist to protect striking union members from being assaulted by the hired thugs.
If the laws are not being enforced in the first place, there seems a strange futility in calling for more laws to do what existing laws already cover. That is why it also seems strange that libertarians, who do not believe in assaulting union workers when they go on strike, are considered to be anti-union.
In the past, there have been incidents of violence by the employers against striking union members. As a result Union leadership has sought special protection by the government against businesses that would commit such acts of violence. Libertarians oppose any special legislation for or against unions, so therefore libertarians oppose this special legislation as well, so therefore libertarians support when businessmen inflict violence against union members.
There are problems with that argument. The first of them is that union members have been known to use violence against scabs. While that is not an argument for or against special legislation, when an argument used in favor of a proposition can also be used against it that is a pretty good sign that the argument is not very sound.
The major flaw is that libertarians are against the violent crime of battery. If violence is used by employers against union members, that means violence is being used against individuals. Any libertarian that recognizes a purpose for government would insist that government use its power to defend the rights of individuals, especially the right to life and the sanctity of the body of the individual.
In such a minarchist system, a businessman who hires people to assault union workers, and any thugs who are employed by that businessman for that purpose, are all criminals. The government should therefore enforce the laws that already exist, and laws already exist to protect striking union members from being assaulted by the hired thugs.
If the laws are not being enforced in the first place, there seems a strange futility in calling for more laws to do what existing laws already cover. That is why it also seems strange that libertarians, who do not believe in assaulting union workers when they go on strike, are considered to be anti-union.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Libya
In the past ten years many people have learned a very hard lesson about military entanglements in the Middle East. An increasing number of people want to end the wars there, and for a variety of reasons. Some are opposed to the financial cost, some are swayed by Just War theory, some because the two major wars (as well as the minor ones) have had too great a cost in human life, some because the war was never actually declared, and some for a combination of reasons. Some people who were initially in favor of invading Afghanistan and Iraq have even turned against those wars.
On the other hand, since January 19, 2009, some who had taken an opposition position on the war turned out to be in favor, provided that the right people were in charge.
For the political leadership of the United States, nothing has been learned in the 10 years that the United States has been in an undeclared war against various countries that just happen to be key countries in the oil and gas industry. They still believe that a simple invasion to support some side will quickly achieve favorable results.
Of course there are some differences from the earlier wars of a decade ago. Obama, unlike Bush, is careful to get as many approvals from as many different international bodies as he can, in order to give proper window dressing to yet another intervention in another country that just happens to be an oil producing country. But like Bush, Obama failed to get the one approval mandated by the constitution.
True, Libya produces far less than Saudi Arabia or Iraq, as defenders of this conflict will point out, but as all economists know all activity takes place on the margin and any change in Libya’s output impacts prices throughout the entire oil market.
At this point, in proper Democratic Party militarism form, the initial intervention will be in the form of No-Fly zones, air patrols. It was the same pattern for Clinton in both Iraq and in the former Yugoslavia. Eventually ground troops were sent in to both, with Clinton sending troops in to Bosnia and Bush sending troops in to Iraq.
If Obama holds true to the pattern of other pro-war Democrats, ground troops are only a matter of time. Then the US will be embroiled in yet another war of occupation. In ten years the people have learned, but the political class that claims to represent them haven’t.
On the other hand, since January 19, 2009, some who had taken an opposition position on the war turned out to be in favor, provided that the right people were in charge.
For the political leadership of the United States, nothing has been learned in the 10 years that the United States has been in an undeclared war against various countries that just happen to be key countries in the oil and gas industry. They still believe that a simple invasion to support some side will quickly achieve favorable results.
Of course there are some differences from the earlier wars of a decade ago. Obama, unlike Bush, is careful to get as many approvals from as many different international bodies as he can, in order to give proper window dressing to yet another intervention in another country that just happens to be an oil producing country. But like Bush, Obama failed to get the one approval mandated by the constitution.
True, Libya produces far less than Saudi Arabia or Iraq, as defenders of this conflict will point out, but as all economists know all activity takes place on the margin and any change in Libya’s output impacts prices throughout the entire oil market.
At this point, in proper Democratic Party militarism form, the initial intervention will be in the form of No-Fly zones, air patrols. It was the same pattern for Clinton in both Iraq and in the former Yugoslavia. Eventually ground troops were sent in to both, with Clinton sending troops in to Bosnia and Bush sending troops in to Iraq.
If Obama holds true to the pattern of other pro-war Democrats, ground troops are only a matter of time. Then the US will be embroiled in yet another war of occupation. In ten years the people have learned, but the political class that claims to represent them haven’t.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Wayne Root and Julian Assange
Although Wayne Root has a multitude of media appearances, and has his own blog, and publishes articles through the Libertarian Party Website, he appears reluctant to respond to feedback.
The only place where negative comments are allowed is when Independent Political Report reposts one of his articles.
He deserves credit for replying to some comments on IPR when they are directed at him, but some questions are rather consistently ducked.
Perhaps it is because he markets himself with the rather contradictory title "Reagan Libertarian" and had positioned himself as the most pro-war of libertarian presidential candidates until he discovered that libertarians are anti-war. But given that he is attempting to become the Libertarian Party presidential candidate for 2012, perhaps he should consider answering the really hard questions.
Such as "What is your position on Wikileaks, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, et al?"
For libertarians it would be easy to answer to the point where there is no point in asking the question. Support for Bradley Manning is unequivocal. Support for Julian Assange and Wikileaks is very strong. No libertarian would have anything negative to say about the posting of the Collateral Damage video.
Why then is Wayne Root not giving his opinion on this issue?
If he treats reporters the way he treats Libertarians when they start asking the difficult questions they will be far less forgiving, and while he will still get more press than any other Libertarian it will not be the press he desires since not all press is good press.
The only place where negative comments are allowed is when Independent Political Report reposts one of his articles.
He deserves credit for replying to some comments on IPR when they are directed at him, but some questions are rather consistently ducked.
Perhaps it is because he markets himself with the rather contradictory title "Reagan Libertarian" and had positioned himself as the most pro-war of libertarian presidential candidates until he discovered that libertarians are anti-war. But given that he is attempting to become the Libertarian Party presidential candidate for 2012, perhaps he should consider answering the really hard questions.
Such as "What is your position on Wikileaks, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, et al?"
For libertarians it would be easy to answer to the point where there is no point in asking the question. Support for Bradley Manning is unequivocal. Support for Julian Assange and Wikileaks is very strong. No libertarian would have anything negative to say about the posting of the Collateral Damage video.
Why then is Wayne Root not giving his opinion on this issue?
If he treats reporters the way he treats Libertarians when they start asking the difficult questions they will be far less forgiving, and while he will still get more press than any other Libertarian it will not be the press he desires since not all press is good press.
Friday, March 04, 2011
Economic Power
In Behavior Psychology, there are four options available for modifying behavior: apply reward, withhold reward, apply punishment, and withhold punishment. To promote desired behaviors, one can either reward the behavior or punish the lack. To deter undesired behaviors, one can either punish the behavior or fail to punish the lack.
These are understood in analogy with the "carrot and stick" analogy, wherein one can get a donkey to pull a cart either by offering a carrot or beating it with a stick. One is considered a positive motivator while the other is a negative motivator. The driver can either offer or withhold a carrot, and can either apply or withhold the stick.
Although both reward and punishment can be used to bring out a desired behavior, and both reward and punishment can be used to suppress an undesired behavior, the difference between them is crucial.
Since people insist on equivocating between public employee unions and real unions, the protests in Wisconsin have people discussing the power of corporations and why this country needs unions to protect the workers from corporations. This always accompanies an argument about the dangers of economic power. Then there is an appeal for the government to protect the people from corporations.
But what exactly is economic power and how is it different from political power? Economic power is entirely the power of reward, the "carrot." A multi-billionaire, no matter how much economic power he has, cannot force anyone to do anything. All he can do is keep offering more money, more incentive, until people agree to do what it is the multi-billionaire wants.
This stands in stark contrast to political power which is entirely the power of punishment, the "stick." When a political official wants something done, the form it takes is a command with the threat of punishment to back it up. It is true that sometimes the government offers subsidies, which appear like gifts or bribes, but the only time the government has "carrots" to offer is when it has taken "carrots" from others first.
This is illustrated best by Rockefeller Center and by Phizer Corporation in New London, Connecticut. When Rockefeller wanted to build his center, he purchased the property to do so. This was done in 1930, which although after the "gilded age" was still before the modern regulatory state and according to modern conventional wisdom there was nothing to restrain the wealthy from doing whatever they wanted.
There were two holdouts. One property owner wanted far more than John Rockefeller was willing to pay, and the other simply didn't want to sell. For all his wealth he was not able to force the two property owners to sell him for the price he offered.
In the modern age, where the government acts to protect people from the rapacious rich, Pfizer simply bribed the city council of New London to seize the property of the homeowners and deliver it to Pfizer. It is true that modern corporations do have some stick power, but only because some sticks are given to them by the government.
The abuses of modern corporations are a direct result, instead of a cause of, government intervention. Anyone who is arguing that government intervention is needed to protect the people from the power of the corporations is either equivocating economic and political power, or is reversing cause and effect.
These are understood in analogy with the "carrot and stick" analogy, wherein one can get a donkey to pull a cart either by offering a carrot or beating it with a stick. One is considered a positive motivator while the other is a negative motivator. The driver can either offer or withhold a carrot, and can either apply or withhold the stick.
Although both reward and punishment can be used to bring out a desired behavior, and both reward and punishment can be used to suppress an undesired behavior, the difference between them is crucial.
Since people insist on equivocating between public employee unions and real unions, the protests in Wisconsin have people discussing the power of corporations and why this country needs unions to protect the workers from corporations. This always accompanies an argument about the dangers of economic power. Then there is an appeal for the government to protect the people from corporations.
But what exactly is economic power and how is it different from political power? Economic power is entirely the power of reward, the "carrot." A multi-billionaire, no matter how much economic power he has, cannot force anyone to do anything. All he can do is keep offering more money, more incentive, until people agree to do what it is the multi-billionaire wants.
This stands in stark contrast to political power which is entirely the power of punishment, the "stick." When a political official wants something done, the form it takes is a command with the threat of punishment to back it up. It is true that sometimes the government offers subsidies, which appear like gifts or bribes, but the only time the government has "carrots" to offer is when it has taken "carrots" from others first.
This is illustrated best by Rockefeller Center and by Phizer Corporation in New London, Connecticut. When Rockefeller wanted to build his center, he purchased the property to do so. This was done in 1930, which although after the "gilded age" was still before the modern regulatory state and according to modern conventional wisdom there was nothing to restrain the wealthy from doing whatever they wanted.
There were two holdouts. One property owner wanted far more than John Rockefeller was willing to pay, and the other simply didn't want to sell. For all his wealth he was not able to force the two property owners to sell him for the price he offered.
In the modern age, where the government acts to protect people from the rapacious rich, Pfizer simply bribed the city council of New London to seize the property of the homeowners and deliver it to Pfizer. It is true that modern corporations do have some stick power, but only because some sticks are given to them by the government.
The abuses of modern corporations are a direct result, instead of a cause of, government intervention. Anyone who is arguing that government intervention is needed to protect the people from the power of the corporations is either equivocating economic and political power, or is reversing cause and effect.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Anti-Obamacare Constitutional Amendment
So far twenty seven states have joined in the lawsuit against Obamacare. That is more than a majority, and most of the distance towards the thirty seven states that would be required to pass a constitutional amendment.
The last time a constitutional amendment was almost passed by a convention of the states was the repeal of prohibition. In order to maintain the precedent of constitutional amendments being passed first in congress, the congress acted quickly to pass the amendment before the states would.
Their concern is understandable, if base. The worry was that if the states were to pass the amendment it would be in effect a partial reversal of the trend towards the federalization of political power. This would embolden the states to constitutionally act against the federal government in other ways. Given that President Herbert Hoover was being very activist at the time to fight the Great Depression, sponsoring the programs that eventually were called the New Deal by President Franklin Roosevelt, any measure that emboldened the states against the federal government would be a disaster for federal power. Moreover a constitutional convention could easily go beyond whatever issues initially chartered it.
Given the polarized nature of the congress today, especially given that the Senate is controlled by the same party that passed Obamacare in the first place, it is unlikely that they would defensively pass any constitutional amendment that would weaken that measure. The constitution, meanwhile, forbids tampering with the amendment process.
Twenty seven states is still shy of the thirty seven states needed to call a constitutional amendment. Each additional state is that much harder to recruit. But if that number is reached by states joining the lawsuit then suddenly it becomes easy to call a constitutional convention.
The final problem is what would be the wording of the theoretical amendment. It is far too easy for this to go wrong, just as the congress that passed the twenty first amendment. The best possible outcome is for it to restore proper dimension to the Interstate Commerce Clause. Although Obamacare is a major expansion of the interpretation of that clause, it is a major expansion in the same direction as the previous major extension during the New Deal.
The best wording would be to restore the interpretation as understood by those who wrote it.
1. The federal government does not have the ability to regulate any commerce that takes place entirely in one state, no matter the effect that the intrastate commerce would have on interstate commerce.
2. The federal government does not have the authority to demand or forbid the manufacture, purchase, or sale of any good or service.
It may not be a perfect wording, but it is definitely a great place to start.
The last time a constitutional amendment was almost passed by a convention of the states was the repeal of prohibition. In order to maintain the precedent of constitutional amendments being passed first in congress, the congress acted quickly to pass the amendment before the states would.
Their concern is understandable, if base. The worry was that if the states were to pass the amendment it would be in effect a partial reversal of the trend towards the federalization of political power. This would embolden the states to constitutionally act against the federal government in other ways. Given that President Herbert Hoover was being very activist at the time to fight the Great Depression, sponsoring the programs that eventually were called the New Deal by President Franklin Roosevelt, any measure that emboldened the states against the federal government would be a disaster for federal power. Moreover a constitutional convention could easily go beyond whatever issues initially chartered it.
Given the polarized nature of the congress today, especially given that the Senate is controlled by the same party that passed Obamacare in the first place, it is unlikely that they would defensively pass any constitutional amendment that would weaken that measure. The constitution, meanwhile, forbids tampering with the amendment process.
Twenty seven states is still shy of the thirty seven states needed to call a constitutional amendment. Each additional state is that much harder to recruit. But if that number is reached by states joining the lawsuit then suddenly it becomes easy to call a constitutional convention.
The final problem is what would be the wording of the theoretical amendment. It is far too easy for this to go wrong, just as the congress that passed the twenty first amendment. The best possible outcome is for it to restore proper dimension to the Interstate Commerce Clause. Although Obamacare is a major expansion of the interpretation of that clause, it is a major expansion in the same direction as the previous major extension during the New Deal.
The best wording would be to restore the interpretation as understood by those who wrote it.
1. The federal government does not have the ability to regulate any commerce that takes place entirely in one state, no matter the effect that the intrastate commerce would have on interstate commerce.
2. The federal government does not have the authority to demand or forbid the manufacture, purchase, or sale of any good or service.
It may not be a perfect wording, but it is definitely a great place to start.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Why Rand Paul?
The libertarian opinion of Randall Paul can be stated pretty simply.
Libertarians could be wrong about him; he could actually be more radical than his father, or he could fail to demonstrate the promise he has shown so far. His vote against renewing the USAPATRIOT Act and his proposed $500 billion budget cuts that included the entire Iraq War and the entire Afghanistan War are not anything that libertarians would complain about.
So why then does there appear to be a more extreme reaction to Randall Paul among the liberal punditry? Even Rational Wiki expresses greater skepticism towards Randall Paul than to Ron Paul as evidenced by the tone of their articles.
Part of it could be that Randall Paul has a stronger Tea Party affiliation. While the Tea Party movement was started by Ron Paul, he is no longer a part of it while Randall Paul was elected as a part of that movement. That would give liberals two criticisms against him, libertarianism AND the Tea Party.
But that is not sufficient to explain the hysteria over Randall Paul. The reason they are so hysterical is because he really is a greater threat.
Even though Ron Paul's ideas are rapidly becoming mainstream, he still suffers from the stigma of being considered a kook for so many years by those who tell the public what to think. Randall Paul is too new to have been stigmatized. Moreover, since the Republicans are trying to absorb the Tea Party movement, the Republicans cannot criticize the star candidate of that movement. Since Republicans have to be silent, lest they lose on their effort with regards to the Tea Party, that leaves Democrats to have to bear the entire burden of telling everyone how they should feel about Randall Paul.
Ron Paul is also near the end of his political career. If he does run for president, his age would be a great liability. Randall Paul does not have that problem. He is not only a lot younger, he has already achieved much higher office than his father did. Even if he is more moderate than his father, he's in a position to achieve much more, and to go even father than he has already gone.
Democrats have to do this on their own without Republican help. The ideas of the Pauls are more mainstream than ever. Randall is a Senator poised to go much farther and do much more. Even though he might be more moderate than his father, he is poised to do far more for liberty than his father did. No wonder the left is hysterical.
"So far he appears to be not as good as his father, but still shows lots of promise and is poised to be the best person in the Senate. So far he appears to not be as libertarian as Ron Paul, but is still demonstrating that he has some good solid leanings in that direction for as little time as he has been in the spotlight."
Libertarians could be wrong about him; he could actually be more radical than his father, or he could fail to demonstrate the promise he has shown so far. His vote against renewing the USAPATRIOT Act and his proposed $500 billion budget cuts that included the entire Iraq War and the entire Afghanistan War are not anything that libertarians would complain about.
So why then does there appear to be a more extreme reaction to Randall Paul among the liberal punditry? Even Rational Wiki expresses greater skepticism towards Randall Paul than to Ron Paul as evidenced by the tone of their articles.
Part of it could be that Randall Paul has a stronger Tea Party affiliation. While the Tea Party movement was started by Ron Paul, he is no longer a part of it while Randall Paul was elected as a part of that movement. That would give liberals two criticisms against him, libertarianism AND the Tea Party.
But that is not sufficient to explain the hysteria over Randall Paul. The reason they are so hysterical is because he really is a greater threat.
Even though Ron Paul's ideas are rapidly becoming mainstream, he still suffers from the stigma of being considered a kook for so many years by those who tell the public what to think. Randall Paul is too new to have been stigmatized. Moreover, since the Republicans are trying to absorb the Tea Party movement, the Republicans cannot criticize the star candidate of that movement. Since Republicans have to be silent, lest they lose on their effort with regards to the Tea Party, that leaves Democrats to have to bear the entire burden of telling everyone how they should feel about Randall Paul.
Ron Paul is also near the end of his political career. If he does run for president, his age would be a great liability. Randall Paul does not have that problem. He is not only a lot younger, he has already achieved much higher office than his father did. Even if he is more moderate than his father, he's in a position to achieve much more, and to go even father than he has already gone.
Democrats have to do this on their own without Republican help. The ideas of the Pauls are more mainstream than ever. Randall is a Senator poised to go much farther and do much more. Even though he might be more moderate than his father, he is poised to do far more for liberty than his father did. No wonder the left is hysterical.
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
The Supreme Court Jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes once stated "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." It is a quote often repeated by statists towards libertarians in order to “prove” that libertarians are against having a civilized society. Plus there is the hope that any libertarian who would disagree with that statement would be cowed by the impressive credentials of the originator of the quote. The problem with the quote is that Justice Holmes was technically correct, but was lying by omission.
The full expression should be "Taxes are the price we pay for government, and government is the price we pay for a civilized society." It is very important to include the middle term. Including the middle term shows both what taxes actually pay for and where taxes actually go to. Including the middle term also portrays the government as a burden, a price that must be paid, instead of a blessing.
Breaking the syllogism down into its component parts makes it much easier to argue. "Taxes are the price we pay for government" defuses any argument that a statist might make about how libertarians, by opposing taxes, therefore oppose civilization. It expresses clearly that taxes are nothing more than the paycheck of the government, and that there is no direct link between taxes and civilized society
"Government is the price we pay for civilized society" is very arguable. Minarchists may agree; anarchists certainly don’t. It also makes a stronger case that the government can be the agent of disorder. If taxes are paid so that the government will provide stability and security, and the government not only fails to do so but causes the opposite, the expanded expression including the middle term shows that taxes should be withheld from the misbehaving government.
The shortened version popularized by Justice Holmes, while partially true, is dishonest in the extreme by what it leaves out. When shortened it is a pro-government argument, but when expanded it can be used by libertarians.
The full expression should be "Taxes are the price we pay for government, and government is the price we pay for a civilized society." It is very important to include the middle term. Including the middle term shows both what taxes actually pay for and where taxes actually go to. Including the middle term also portrays the government as a burden, a price that must be paid, instead of a blessing.
Breaking the syllogism down into its component parts makes it much easier to argue. "Taxes are the price we pay for government" defuses any argument that a statist might make about how libertarians, by opposing taxes, therefore oppose civilization. It expresses clearly that taxes are nothing more than the paycheck of the government, and that there is no direct link between taxes and civilized society
"Government is the price we pay for civilized society" is very arguable. Minarchists may agree; anarchists certainly don’t. It also makes a stronger case that the government can be the agent of disorder. If taxes are paid so that the government will provide stability and security, and the government not only fails to do so but causes the opposite, the expanded expression including the middle term shows that taxes should be withheld from the misbehaving government.
The shortened version popularized by Justice Holmes, while partially true, is dishonest in the extreme by what it leaves out. When shortened it is a pro-government argument, but when expanded it can be used by libertarians.
Thursday, February 03, 2011
The Tea Party Response
One week ago, President Obama delivered a rather uninspiring state of the union address. That was followed by an uninspiring Republican Party response. Then, rather curiously, there was a "Tea Party" response delivered by Representative Michele Bachmann.
Although the Democrats made appropriate noises about how this amounted to two Republican responses, because Representative Bachmann is a Republican, the choice of Representative Bachmann as the representative of the Tea Party was a curious one.
In the House of Representatives is the Representative Ron Paul, the god-father of the Tea Party, although he declined to join the "Tea Party Caucus" that Representative Bachmann formed. The biggest electoral victory of the Tea Party movement was the election of Senator Randall Paul. Either one would be a better representative of the founding of the Tea Party, although neither exactly represents what they are today. The last thing leaders of either the Democratic or Republican Parties want is giving Ron Paul a national platform through a response to President Obama.
By choosing Representative Bachmann, that makes her the face of the Tea Party, an arrangement that suits both the Republicans and the Democrats. The anti-war platform of the original Tea Party is replaced by Bachmann's refusal to take the nuclear option off the table when dealing with Iran. She brings the desire to have schools teach Intelligent Design to a movement that had never included it before.
The placement of Bachmann actually weakens the Tea Party movement as an independent movement and increases its role as an adjunct of the Republican Party. This weakens the threat the Tea Party poses to Republican Party leadership who were facing a grass roots rebellion. This brings the votes and energy of the Tea Party safely back in to the Republican fold, a great benefit to the Republican Party.
It is also a great benefit to the Democratic Party. Since Bachmann is considered to be less credible of an official, it enables Democrats to paint the whole movement with her lack of credibility. Moreover since the Tea Party movement was too uncompromising, unlike the standard Republican leadership for whom there are few actual ideological differences.
The choice of Bachmann benefits the Republicans and the Democrats at the expense of what independence is left in the Tea Party movement.
Although the Democrats made appropriate noises about how this amounted to two Republican responses, because Representative Bachmann is a Republican, the choice of Representative Bachmann as the representative of the Tea Party was a curious one.
In the House of Representatives is the Representative Ron Paul, the god-father of the Tea Party, although he declined to join the "Tea Party Caucus" that Representative Bachmann formed. The biggest electoral victory of the Tea Party movement was the election of Senator Randall Paul. Either one would be a better representative of the founding of the Tea Party, although neither exactly represents what they are today. The last thing leaders of either the Democratic or Republican Parties want is giving Ron Paul a national platform through a response to President Obama.
By choosing Representative Bachmann, that makes her the face of the Tea Party, an arrangement that suits both the Republicans and the Democrats. The anti-war platform of the original Tea Party is replaced by Bachmann's refusal to take the nuclear option off the table when dealing with Iran. She brings the desire to have schools teach Intelligent Design to a movement that had never included it before.
The placement of Bachmann actually weakens the Tea Party movement as an independent movement and increases its role as an adjunct of the Republican Party. This weakens the threat the Tea Party poses to Republican Party leadership who were facing a grass roots rebellion. This brings the votes and energy of the Tea Party safely back in to the Republican fold, a great benefit to the Republican Party.
It is also a great benefit to the Democratic Party. Since Bachmann is considered to be less credible of an official, it enables Democrats to paint the whole movement with her lack of credibility. Moreover since the Tea Party movement was too uncompromising, unlike the standard Republican leadership for whom there are few actual ideological differences.
The choice of Bachmann benefits the Republicans and the Democrats at the expense of what independence is left in the Tea Party movement.
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, January 19, 2011
Bush Never Cut Taxes
Recently there was much discussion on the extension of the Bush tax cuts. Republicans and Democrats were both giving President Bush credit for cutting taxes when president, and Republicans were accusing the Democrats and President Obama of trying to raise taxes.
Leaving aside the fact that the tax cuts were actually the result of hundreds of congressmen in addition to President Bush and giving him credit, and leaving aside the debate over whether the expiration of the tax cuts constitute a tax increase there is still one big problem with the whole debate. Under President Bush taxes never went down. President Bush never cut taxes.
That is because as any Austrian economist can tell you, Total Taxes are always equal to Total Spending. It is true that some taxes were cut under President Bush, but that only means that other taxes went up even more.
What confuses the average person is that Total Taxes is the sum of Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes. Deficit spending is therefore considered a tax. It can be paid by higher interest rates as the government crowds out other borrowers, or it can be paid by inflation as the government taxes away the wealth of those who hold cash. In both cases value is being transferred from the private sector to the public sector, and that is a tax.
Taxes shot up under President Bush, which is why the Tea Party Movement started in late 2007. The Tea Party movement has always had government spending as a major focus.
Now the debate is coming up as to whether or not the debt ceiling will be raised. A portion of the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives was based on Tea Party support. If the Republicans raise the debt ceiling, that will be an increase in taxes, which will be a repudiation of the support that got them elected.
Leaving aside the fact that the tax cuts were actually the result of hundreds of congressmen in addition to President Bush and giving him credit, and leaving aside the debate over whether the expiration of the tax cuts constitute a tax increase there is still one big problem with the whole debate. Under President Bush taxes never went down. President Bush never cut taxes.
That is because as any Austrian economist can tell you, Total Taxes are always equal to Total Spending. It is true that some taxes were cut under President Bush, but that only means that other taxes went up even more.
What confuses the average person is that Total Taxes is the sum of Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes. Deficit spending is therefore considered a tax. It can be paid by higher interest rates as the government crowds out other borrowers, or it can be paid by inflation as the government taxes away the wealth of those who hold cash. In both cases value is being transferred from the private sector to the public sector, and that is a tax.
Taxes shot up under President Bush, which is why the Tea Party Movement started in late 2007. The Tea Party movement has always had government spending as a major focus.
Now the debate is coming up as to whether or not the debt ceiling will be raised. A portion of the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives was based on Tea Party support. If the Republicans raise the debt ceiling, that will be an increase in taxes, which will be a repudiation of the support that got them elected.
Friday, January 14, 2011
A Failed False Flag?
Many people across the blogosphere have commented that they had been expecting an attack similar to the one that recently took place in Arizona. The expected attack is, of course, against a prominent Democrat.
It was so expected that after the attack on Congresswoman Giffords, and before any facts were made available, progressives were blaming the Tea Party, Republicans, Libertarians, and other associated ideologies whose common theme is that they aren’t Progressive. But others who were expecting an attack were only expecting that those parties would be blamed, not that they would be responsible.
Some were expecting a false flag attack, when someone would either set up or fail to impede an attack on a Democrat specifically in order to blame it on their opposition.
The problem with a false flag attack is that in the current information age, false flag attacks of this nature are a lot harder to pull off. It is a lot easier for anyone to do their own journalism and try to investigate the back-story of any event. It is a lot easier for those who have relevant information to spread it.
Within hours of the shooter being identified, it was revealed via Twitter that Loughner was considered politically left-liberal by those who knew him, a supporter of Obama and Palin.
Another reason to suspect a false flag operation is who the target was. Congresswoman Giffords was one of nineteen Democrats who voted against Pelosi. She had a history of bucking her party in other ways, such as not being against the Arizona immigration law or being better than many of her peers on the topic of gun control.
If this were a false flag, she would be an ideal target because not only would it be an attack against a Democrat, it would have the side benefit of removing a Democrat who isn't following the party line.
If this were a false flag, one would expect there to be a recent history of comments that appear to be "right wing," such as an incoherent rant about how money should be backed by gold or silver. The rant would sound exactly as one would expect if the person making the rant knew nothing about the topic and was trying to make a point he didn’t believe in. It would sound much like Loughner’s Youtube rant about sound currency.
Of course, there is no evidence that this is a false flag operation.
It was so expected that after the attack on Congresswoman Giffords, and before any facts were made available, progressives were blaming the Tea Party, Republicans, Libertarians, and other associated ideologies whose common theme is that they aren’t Progressive. But others who were expecting an attack were only expecting that those parties would be blamed, not that they would be responsible.
Some were expecting a false flag attack, when someone would either set up or fail to impede an attack on a Democrat specifically in order to blame it on their opposition.
The problem with a false flag attack is that in the current information age, false flag attacks of this nature are a lot harder to pull off. It is a lot easier for anyone to do their own journalism and try to investigate the back-story of any event. It is a lot easier for those who have relevant information to spread it.
Within hours of the shooter being identified, it was revealed via Twitter that Loughner was considered politically left-liberal by those who knew him, a supporter of Obama and Palin.
Another reason to suspect a false flag operation is who the target was. Congresswoman Giffords was one of nineteen Democrats who voted against Pelosi. She had a history of bucking her party in other ways, such as not being against the Arizona immigration law or being better than many of her peers on the topic of gun control.
If this were a false flag, she would be an ideal target because not only would it be an attack against a Democrat, it would have the side benefit of removing a Democrat who isn't following the party line.
If this were a false flag, one would expect there to be a recent history of comments that appear to be "right wing," such as an incoherent rant about how money should be backed by gold or silver. The rant would sound exactly as one would expect if the person making the rant knew nothing about the topic and was trying to make a point he didn’t believe in. It would sound much like Loughner’s Youtube rant about sound currency.
Of course, there is no evidence that this is a false flag operation.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
People are inherenlty people
Libertarians are often accused of seeing people as inherently noble, far more virtuous than they really are, and as a result of this overly generous view of humanity it is said that libertarians come to the unrealistic conclusion about how little government is needed. Or, if the topic is gun control, libertarians are accused of seeing people as monsters, inherently dangerous, which is why libertarians allegedly need to be so heavily armed in order to feel safe in a world where everybody is a threat.
And, unfortunately all too often, the same person will make both of those arguments. And given that contradiction, it is easy to deduce that the person making those arguments is not interested in what the real view is that libertarians have.
Libertarians view people as, essentially, people. Given that almost every libertarian is versed in the basics of economics that means that libertarians believe that people respond to incentives. Give people an incentive to be good and that will increase the odds that people will be good, and give people an incentive to be corrupt and that will increase the odds that people will be corrupt.
That is why libertarians are such staunch advocates of the free market. It is a system of incentives that bring out the best in people. That is also why libertarians are such staunch opponents of government, as it is a system of incentives that bring out the worst in people.
It doesn’t involve thinking that people are inherently good and therefore the free market works, and it doesn’t involve thinking that people are inherently bad and therefore the government doesn’t work. It involves thinking that people are inherently people.
And, unfortunately all too often, the same person will make both of those arguments. And given that contradiction, it is easy to deduce that the person making those arguments is not interested in what the real view is that libertarians have.
Libertarians view people as, essentially, people. Given that almost every libertarian is versed in the basics of economics that means that libertarians believe that people respond to incentives. Give people an incentive to be good and that will increase the odds that people will be good, and give people an incentive to be corrupt and that will increase the odds that people will be corrupt.
That is why libertarians are such staunch advocates of the free market. It is a system of incentives that bring out the best in people. That is also why libertarians are such staunch opponents of government, as it is a system of incentives that bring out the worst in people.
It doesn’t involve thinking that people are inherently good and therefore the free market works, and it doesn’t involve thinking that people are inherently bad and therefore the government doesn’t work. It involves thinking that people are inherently people.
Friday, December 31, 2010
The Day Social Security Fails
Austrian Economists, and anybody capable of doing simple arithmetic, have all said that Social Security is in near danger of bankruptcy. For many years the date to watch was 2018, and recently due to Great Depression Two it has moved up to 2016.
The date is based on when Social Security starts paying out more than it receives in revenue. The predictions, based on extensions of existing trends, is that the surplus revenue would slowly diminish until finally the fund breaks even, and then as the trend reverses would cause annual deficits in the Social Security budget.
That leads to two possible interpretations of what will happen next.
Those who fervently believe in government, in spite of all the evidence, are convinced that there will not be a problem until 2038 (previously 2042) because the Treasury Bonds that comprise the Trust Fund will be cashed in.
Everyone else considers 2016 to be the day the program goes bankrupt.
To cash in the treasury bonds will require that the federal budget be running a surplus.
Even though the Social Security budget is running lean, barely breaking even, this problem could be dealt with even now by politicians with courage and intelligence to tackle the hard problems. Based on that this problem will not be dealt with until the last moment, at which time it will be too late.
But none of this is new. Why mention it now? It was previously noted that there was a potential for the United States government to attempt to shore up the losses by seizing private retirement funds.
It is already happening in Europe.
Planning for the future is the responsible thing to do - depending on the government to provide is both irresponsible and unethical. But planning for the future is also something that the government may be making it more difficult to do and punish people for doing.
The date is based on when Social Security starts paying out more than it receives in revenue. The predictions, based on extensions of existing trends, is that the surplus revenue would slowly diminish until finally the fund breaks even, and then as the trend reverses would cause annual deficits in the Social Security budget.
That leads to two possible interpretations of what will happen next.
Those who fervently believe in government, in spite of all the evidence, are convinced that there will not be a problem until 2038 (previously 2042) because the Treasury Bonds that comprise the Trust Fund will be cashed in.
Everyone else considers 2016 to be the day the program goes bankrupt.
To cash in the treasury bonds will require that the federal budget be running a surplus.
Even though the Social Security budget is running lean, barely breaking even, this problem could be dealt with even now by politicians with courage and intelligence to tackle the hard problems. Based on that this problem will not be dealt with until the last moment, at which time it will be too late.
But none of this is new. Why mention it now? It was previously noted that there was a potential for the United States government to attempt to shore up the losses by seizing private retirement funds.
It is already happening in Europe.
Planning for the future is the responsible thing to do - depending on the government to provide is both irresponsible and unethical. But planning for the future is also something that the government may be making it more difficult to do and punish people for doing.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Freedom is Slavery
The United States is, of course, a free country.
There is evidence that the law serves the government instead of serving the people, that those who irritate authority will be punished without regards to law, and that when police misconduct becomes so blatant that it cannot be ignored the offenders will not be punished. But the United States is still a free country.
We have freedom of movement in this country. True, the screening standards by the TSA are secret so those who travel cannot make an informed decision before entering the airport about whether or not they wish to submit to the intensive physical search. The intensive search, compared often to molestation or rape, is the alternative for those who do not wish to submit to a nude screening. Those who, upon finding out what the search entails decide to not be searched, instead of merely being denied entry to their flight, are threatened with a fine of approximately $10,000 and sometimes arrested. When someone is giving the choice of submitting to sexual advances or being hurt for failing to do so, it is considered sexual assault. But the United States is still a free country.
Of course, there are choices other than flying. One can avoid the TSA by taking the bus, or one can drive. Soon all methods of transportation will be under TSA control and all citizens will need TSA permission to go anywhere. But the United States is still a free country.
Originally the Interstate Commerce Clause was interpreted to only apply to actual interstate commerce. In the 1930s the Supreme Court found an interpretation whereby any activity that impacts interstate commerce can be regulated under that clause. Any item grown for personal consumption is something that would otherwise be purchased, and if purchased might possibly be purchased from someone out of state. That is one of the alleged constitutional supports for the drug war. Now, with the healthcare reform passed by President Obama, even even inactivity is considered activity with regards to the commerce clause. The government has the power to dictate both what we purchase AND what we do not purchase. But the United States is still a free country.
Since the United States is a capitalist country, people are still free to engage in many business opportunities in spite of the restrictions of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Of course there are many licensing requirements that prevent people from entering many fields that would allow people to rise out of poverty. There are still more fields than can ever be covered by piecemeal regulations, so sweeping legislation has been enacted to cover all fields and limit or prevent the ability of the people to conduct business. But the United States is still a free country.
The Third Amendment to the Constitution was written to secure people from being compelled to act as agents of the government. When it was written there were few ways in which that could happen, the most common was forcing people to quarter troops. Today there are many more ways in which a person can be forced to act on behalf of the government. There is no proof that Joseph Nacchio of Qwest was indicted for refusing to be a government spy. Anyone who thinks so is a conspiracy theorist. And there is no proof that the women who accused Julian Assange had political motivations. It is true that due to the proliferation of laws, anyone can be accused at any time for unknown and obscure crimes, and that the government could use that power to punish those whose actions are otherwise untouchable. But the United States is still a free country.
When those issues are brought up, people insist that they are all necessary to maintain freedom in the United States, because otherwise there would be anarchy. Someone, somewhere, will describe each of those intrusions as a necessary price to pay for freedom. People are required to submit because of the social contract which is the price people pay for living in society. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote "None are more enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." With all these freedoms, because the United States is still a free country, it certainly is true that Freedom is Slavery.
There is evidence that the law serves the government instead of serving the people, that those who irritate authority will be punished without regards to law, and that when police misconduct becomes so blatant that it cannot be ignored the offenders will not be punished. But the United States is still a free country.
We have freedom of movement in this country. True, the screening standards by the TSA are secret so those who travel cannot make an informed decision before entering the airport about whether or not they wish to submit to the intensive physical search. The intensive search, compared often to molestation or rape, is the alternative for those who do not wish to submit to a nude screening. Those who, upon finding out what the search entails decide to not be searched, instead of merely being denied entry to their flight, are threatened with a fine of approximately $10,000 and sometimes arrested. When someone is giving the choice of submitting to sexual advances or being hurt for failing to do so, it is considered sexual assault. But the United States is still a free country.
Of course, there are choices other than flying. One can avoid the TSA by taking the bus, or one can drive. Soon all methods of transportation will be under TSA control and all citizens will need TSA permission to go anywhere. But the United States is still a free country.
Originally the Interstate Commerce Clause was interpreted to only apply to actual interstate commerce. In the 1930s the Supreme Court found an interpretation whereby any activity that impacts interstate commerce can be regulated under that clause. Any item grown for personal consumption is something that would otherwise be purchased, and if purchased might possibly be purchased from someone out of state. That is one of the alleged constitutional supports for the drug war. Now, with the healthcare reform passed by President Obama, even even inactivity is considered activity with regards to the commerce clause. The government has the power to dictate both what we purchase AND what we do not purchase. But the United States is still a free country.
Since the United States is a capitalist country, people are still free to engage in many business opportunities in spite of the restrictions of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Of course there are many licensing requirements that prevent people from entering many fields that would allow people to rise out of poverty. There are still more fields than can ever be covered by piecemeal regulations, so sweeping legislation has been enacted to cover all fields and limit or prevent the ability of the people to conduct business. But the United States is still a free country.
The Third Amendment to the Constitution was written to secure people from being compelled to act as agents of the government. When it was written there were few ways in which that could happen, the most common was forcing people to quarter troops. Today there are many more ways in which a person can be forced to act on behalf of the government. There is no proof that Joseph Nacchio of Qwest was indicted for refusing to be a government spy. Anyone who thinks so is a conspiracy theorist. And there is no proof that the women who accused Julian Assange had political motivations. It is true that due to the proliferation of laws, anyone can be accused at any time for unknown and obscure crimes, and that the government could use that power to punish those whose actions are otherwise untouchable. But the United States is still a free country.
When those issues are brought up, people insist that they are all necessary to maintain freedom in the United States, because otherwise there would be anarchy. Someone, somewhere, will describe each of those intrusions as a necessary price to pay for freedom. People are required to submit because of the social contract which is the price people pay for living in society. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote "None are more enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." With all these freedoms, because the United States is still a free country, it certainly is true that Freedom is Slavery.
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.
Thursday, December 09, 2010
War is Peace
One of the effects of the Wikileaks document dump has been to undermine the case for the war on terror by showing how many of the supposed reasons were fabrications, as well as the opinions of the allies of the US with regards to the war on terror.
Of course, apologists for war point out the necessity of each involvement. But examining the root of each argument finds that the arguments themselves are unsupported. Each intervention is necessary because of the prior intervention, but what was the basis for the prior intervention? The War on Terror is a result of the interventions during the Cold War, the Cold War was a result of interventions during World War Two, and World War Two was a result of interventions during World War One, but what was the basis for intervening in World War One?
It is an elaborate interdependent structure, each piece connecting to every other piece, every facet supported by some other facet, and the whole structure supported by absolutely nothing.
That is important. The whole structure is supported by nothing.
That is what Wikileaks has shown us. There is no support for this whole structure. The US has a military presence in so many countries around the world because the US has a military presence in so many countries around the world. It is not in actual defense of anything, unless you count bases in one foreign country defending bases in another foreign country.
Of course, noticing this will get a person labeled "Isolationist" by those who refuse to tell the difference between "isolationist" and "noninterventionist." Yes, all isolationists are by default noninterventionists, but not all noninterventionists are isolationists, with some preferring to have peaceful relations with all and entangling alliances with none.
So the reason there are bases all around the world waging war in distant lands? It is to keep the peace, because if the US were not waging war on everyone there might be war, even war against the US. Instead the US is waging "peace" in Afghanistan, waging "peace" in Iraq, and threatening to wage "peace" against Iran as a way to prevent the US from having to wage war.
It’s nothing more than a circular argument suspended in midair. Wikileaks has committed the crime of pointing that out.
Of course, apologists for war point out the necessity of each involvement. But examining the root of each argument finds that the arguments themselves are unsupported. Each intervention is necessary because of the prior intervention, but what was the basis for the prior intervention? The War on Terror is a result of the interventions during the Cold War, the Cold War was a result of interventions during World War Two, and World War Two was a result of interventions during World War One, but what was the basis for intervening in World War One?
It is an elaborate interdependent structure, each piece connecting to every other piece, every facet supported by some other facet, and the whole structure supported by absolutely nothing.
That is important. The whole structure is supported by nothing.
That is what Wikileaks has shown us. There is no support for this whole structure. The US has a military presence in so many countries around the world because the US has a military presence in so many countries around the world. It is not in actual defense of anything, unless you count bases in one foreign country defending bases in another foreign country.
Of course, noticing this will get a person labeled "Isolationist" by those who refuse to tell the difference between "isolationist" and "noninterventionist." Yes, all isolationists are by default noninterventionists, but not all noninterventionists are isolationists, with some preferring to have peaceful relations with all and entangling alliances with none.
So the reason there are bases all around the world waging war in distant lands? It is to keep the peace, because if the US were not waging war on everyone there might be war, even war against the US. Instead the US is waging "peace" in Afghanistan, waging "peace" in Iraq, and threatening to wage "peace" against Iran as a way to prevent the US from having to wage war.
It’s nothing more than a circular argument suspended in midair. Wikileaks has committed the crime of pointing that out.
Thursday, December 02, 2010
More on Unions
In order to prove that libertarians are hostile to unions in general, and not merely hostile to them receiving special favors or benefits from the government, a staunch progressive referenced an article by Professor William Hutt: Trade Unions: The Private Use of Coercive Power. In it, Professor Hutt makes the argument that the strike or threat of a strike is a coercive act.
That article is actually little better than a diatribe against the economic ignorance of unions, their members, and their leadership. While it is clear that Professor Hutt stops short of forbidding unions the right to act, and thus the article does fit in within the realm of libertarian thought, it is also clear that the article is quite far off base when it describes a strike as coercion.
Only at the very end of the article does Professor Hutt actually get to one of the legitimate critique of unions expressed by libertarians, and that is their political activities to get them special favors or special benefits from the government.
But by calling a strike "coercion" he opens the door for asking for government intervention, the step he stops short of. If there must be a government, acting against coercion, acting against the use of force or the threat of force, is one of the few areas where it should act.
If there is a right to conduct business, there is also a right to not conduct business. It cannot be coercion to refuse to conduct business. There cannot be one without the other. That is what a strike is. And unions themselves are a right of free association.
The other factor is that he describes how unions hurt their own cause. Take any issue libertarians stand for, and it is obvious that libertarians have absolutely no interest in stopping people from hurting themselves. This is evident in every single moral issue on which libertarians and conservatives disagree.
The only redeeming factor in the essay is that Professor Hutt did stop short of advocating legal restrictions on unions. But he is truly straying beyond libertarian thought when he goes so far as to call striking or threatening to strike by the term "coercion."
That article is actually little better than a diatribe against the economic ignorance of unions, their members, and their leadership. While it is clear that Professor Hutt stops short of forbidding unions the right to act, and thus the article does fit in within the realm of libertarian thought, it is also clear that the article is quite far off base when it describes a strike as coercion.
Only at the very end of the article does Professor Hutt actually get to one of the legitimate critique of unions expressed by libertarians, and that is their political activities to get them special favors or special benefits from the government.
But by calling a strike "coercion" he opens the door for asking for government intervention, the step he stops short of. If there must be a government, acting against coercion, acting against the use of force or the threat of force, is one of the few areas where it should act.
If there is a right to conduct business, there is also a right to not conduct business. It cannot be coercion to refuse to conduct business. There cannot be one without the other. That is what a strike is. And unions themselves are a right of free association.
The other factor is that he describes how unions hurt their own cause. Take any issue libertarians stand for, and it is obvious that libertarians have absolutely no interest in stopping people from hurting themselves. This is evident in every single moral issue on which libertarians and conservatives disagree.
The only redeeming factor in the essay is that Professor Hutt did stop short of advocating legal restrictions on unions. But he is truly straying beyond libertarian thought when he goes so far as to call striking or threatening to strike by the term "coercion."
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Monadnock Valley
One thing that a political party does not want is to be the party in charge during a disaster, especially one that the public considers preventable. An economic downturn is a prime example of this sort of event, where both parties try to take credit for any economic upswing and blame the other for any economic decline.
As bad as the current economic decline has been, something much worse is on the horizon, something that is preventable assuming even a little bit of political courage. Of course, needing a little bit of political courage is exactly why nothing will be done about the bust of Social Security in 2016. So rather than do anything about it, Obama may be playing to lose.
Now it appears that the Republicans may have caught on to that strategy. The Tea Party may have given the Republicans an unexpected victory, which would add yet one more reason for the mainstream Republican Party to dislike the Tea Party movement. But interestingly enough, before the 2010 victory, Republicans were not talking about Sarah Palin as a viable presidential candidate.
This could be an example of "Play to lose will you? Well then, take this: Candidate Palin."
Of course finding political connections between Palin and Soros adds an interesting twist.
But there is one more outcome if the Republicans have also decided to play to lose in 2012. They could pull a Monadnock Valley.
In "The Fountainhead," a con-man hires Howard Roark to build the Monadnock Valley vacation resort. Nobody can figure out what is wrong with the project until it is completed and starts turning a profit. It turned out that the con-man expected to fail and double sold the stock. If the project had failed he would keep the money from the excess stock sail, but since it succeeded he had to pay $2 in dividends for every $1 in profit.
The con-man chose Howard Roark because conventional wisdom said he was the worst architect, but it turned out that conventional wisdom was wrong he was actually the best architect.
The Republicans may wind up picking a “Monadnock candidate" in the 2012 elections. They may pick a candidate who they expect to lose, but will not only win but be able to handle the economic woes afflicting the nation. They wouldn’t handle then in a way that keeps the elite in their privileged positions, but the problems would be taken care of.
Who would be a "Monadnock candidate" if the Republicans did this? It would have to be someone that conventional wisdom considers to be a poor candidate but has the potential to deliver far more than conventional wisdom could ever anticipate. The list is not large, but it includes Representative Ron Paul, Senator Rand Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, and Governor Gary Johnson. Of course, the Democrats probably have their own "Monadnock candidates" but they will probably not run as Obama will likely be the Democrat candidate in 2012.
As bad as the current economic decline has been, something much worse is on the horizon, something that is preventable assuming even a little bit of political courage. Of course, needing a little bit of political courage is exactly why nothing will be done about the bust of Social Security in 2016. So rather than do anything about it, Obama may be playing to lose.
Now it appears that the Republicans may have caught on to that strategy. The Tea Party may have given the Republicans an unexpected victory, which would add yet one more reason for the mainstream Republican Party to dislike the Tea Party movement. But interestingly enough, before the 2010 victory, Republicans were not talking about Sarah Palin as a viable presidential candidate.
This could be an example of "Play to lose will you? Well then, take this: Candidate Palin."
Of course finding political connections between Palin and Soros adds an interesting twist.
But there is one more outcome if the Republicans have also decided to play to lose in 2012. They could pull a Monadnock Valley.
In "The Fountainhead," a con-man hires Howard Roark to build the Monadnock Valley vacation resort. Nobody can figure out what is wrong with the project until it is completed and starts turning a profit. It turned out that the con-man expected to fail and double sold the stock. If the project had failed he would keep the money from the excess stock sail, but since it succeeded he had to pay $2 in dividends for every $1 in profit.
The con-man chose Howard Roark because conventional wisdom said he was the worst architect, but it turned out that conventional wisdom was wrong he was actually the best architect.
The Republicans may wind up picking a “Monadnock candidate" in the 2012 elections. They may pick a candidate who they expect to lose, but will not only win but be able to handle the economic woes afflicting the nation. They wouldn’t handle then in a way that keeps the elite in their privileged positions, but the problems would be taken care of.
Who would be a "Monadnock candidate" if the Republicans did this? It would have to be someone that conventional wisdom considers to be a poor candidate but has the potential to deliver far more than conventional wisdom could ever anticipate. The list is not large, but it includes Representative Ron Paul, Senator Rand Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, and Governor Gary Johnson. Of course, the Democrats probably have their own "Monadnock candidates" but they will probably not run as Obama will likely be the Democrat candidate in 2012.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
National Opt Out Day
In response to the TSA giving passengers a choice between either being electronically strip searched or an overly aggressive pat-down, and threatening to fine those who upon discovering the choice decide to leave the airport, there is an event, National Opt Out Day. Those who have been protesting the TSA for years welcome everyone else to the protest, and are heartened to find out that there really is a limit to how much the American people will endure.
An “opt out” is when a passenger chooses to not undergo a virtual strip search, and instead endures the punitive pat-down instead. National Opt Out Day is a day when as many people as possible are encouraged to opt for the punitive pat-down instead of the virtual strip search. The participants are also supposed to insist on the optional private pat-down room.
The effects of a sufficiently large number of passengers doing this will be chaos. Checkpoints have a very limited number of private pat-down rooms, and a limited number of screeners to perform all of these examinations. Given that the standard operating procedure of the TSA is to put people into the virtual strip search machine whenever it is available, even if there are passengers waiting for the pat-down, this will create tremendous delays and tie up large amounts of TSA resources.
One possible outcome is that those who opt-out will simply have to wait until they receive their pat-down, even if that means they miss their flight. Another possible outcome is that the TSA will anticipate this by adding many additional screeners for that day and setting up impromptu private screening rooms. Another possible outcome is that the TSA will simply not operate the virtual strip search machines, although there is evidence that they absolutely will not back down at all.
For those who wish for an entertaining way to opt-out, there is an entertaining way to do so.
It has been determined that the technology does not penetrate skin very deeply, and as a result has a very difficult time scanning through leather. So in order to opt-out without actually saying "opt-out", the solution is to wear nothing but leather. This involves leather shirt, pants, and underwear.
A leather jacket is insufficient because the TSA requires passengers to remove jackets and sweaters. But if a sweater is worn as a shirt, the TSA will allow the passenger to leave it on. So the shirt and pants must both be leather without a jacket. As an additional layer of protection leather underwear will guarantee privacy protection. Being thick, when the TSA attempts to grope the passenger, leather provides a layer of additional protection by virtue of the thickness, giving protection from all but the most determined groping. All these items can be easily purchased on Amazon as a way to celebrate National Opt Out Day.
An “opt out” is when a passenger chooses to not undergo a virtual strip search, and instead endures the punitive pat-down instead. National Opt Out Day is a day when as many people as possible are encouraged to opt for the punitive pat-down instead of the virtual strip search. The participants are also supposed to insist on the optional private pat-down room.
The effects of a sufficiently large number of passengers doing this will be chaos. Checkpoints have a very limited number of private pat-down rooms, and a limited number of screeners to perform all of these examinations. Given that the standard operating procedure of the TSA is to put people into the virtual strip search machine whenever it is available, even if there are passengers waiting for the pat-down, this will create tremendous delays and tie up large amounts of TSA resources.
One possible outcome is that those who opt-out will simply have to wait until they receive their pat-down, even if that means they miss their flight. Another possible outcome is that the TSA will anticipate this by adding many additional screeners for that day and setting up impromptu private screening rooms. Another possible outcome is that the TSA will simply not operate the virtual strip search machines, although there is evidence that they absolutely will not back down at all.
For those who wish for an entertaining way to opt-out, there is an entertaining way to do so.
It has been determined that the technology does not penetrate skin very deeply, and as a result has a very difficult time scanning through leather. So in order to opt-out without actually saying "opt-out", the solution is to wear nothing but leather. This involves leather shirt, pants, and underwear.
A leather jacket is insufficient because the TSA requires passengers to remove jackets and sweaters. But if a sweater is worn as a shirt, the TSA will allow the passenger to leave it on. So the shirt and pants must both be leather without a jacket. As an additional layer of protection leather underwear will guarantee privacy protection. Being thick, when the TSA attempts to grope the passenger, leather provides a layer of additional protection by virtue of the thickness, giving protection from all but the most determined groping. All these items can be easily purchased on Amazon as a way to celebrate National Opt Out Day.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Southern Strategy?
Whenever the Republicans lose an election, they blame it on "RINOs", since no person would actually cast an informed vote against a Republican. Whenever the Democrats lose an election, they blame it on the stupidity of the voting public, since no person would actually cast an informed vote against a Democrat. It's a very old pattern that found expression during the Bush election with the famous "Jesusland" map, as well as maps comparing the red versus blue states to the maps of the War Between the States. Since the current electoral results show Democrats losing, it is worthwhile to rebut one of the claims of how they unfairly lost.
The most insidious explanation for Democrat losses is "the Southern Strategy", which is a severe insult against all Southerners as ignorant racists. It is one of the most hyped theories around, but it is not a given that it even exists. It traces to the musings of one Republican who was a racist, but doesn't trace to any actual proof that any actual strategy even exists in the first place. All evidence for it is circumstantial - that since the late 60s the Solid South stopped voting Solid Democrat and started voting Republican a lot more often.
The Southern Strategy is allegedly based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the fact that it was signed by a Democrat president, even though it was put on his desk because Congressional Republicans pushed it through. Key votes are examined such as when Goldwater voted for every Civil Rights Act before the 1964 one, and key votes are ignored such as when Goldwater's opponents voted against every Civil Rights Act before the 1964 one.
The theory states that because a Democrat president signed the Civil Rights Act, the ignorant and racist South turned Republican. The facts do not support that assertion.
Democrat Jimmy Carter's won victories in every Southern state except for Virginia and Oklahoma in the 1976 Presidential election, years after the alleged emergence of the Southern Strategy.
Democrat Bill Clinton was able to win five southern states twice (Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia) and two states once (Georgia in 1992 and Florida in 1996). Virginia, Texas and North Carolina were won by the Republican candidates by significantly smaller margins than usual.
The first Southern state to give the GOP control of both its governorship and its legislature was Florida. It did not do this until 1998. Florida has an atypical population for a Southern state, with a large retiree population from northern states and also a large Cuban population that leans Republican due to a shared opposition to Fidel Castro.
Georgia did not elect its first post-Reconstruction GOP governor until 2002. Until 2005, Louisiana had been represented since Reconstruction only by Democratic Senators. Arkansas has two Democratic Senators, a Democratic governor, three out of four of their U.S. representatives are Democrats, every statewide office is held by a Democrat, and their state legislature is Democratic. Tennessee and North Carolina have a majority Democratic delegation in the U.S. House of representatives. Mississippi has a house delegation that is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.
It seems that the "Southern Strategy" which is quoted so often is more the musings of one particular racist Republican and not a Republican Party policy. Nixon is supposed to be the epitome of the evil American politician, but he is still just one person.
What caused the South to shift from Solid Democrat to mixed?
In the 1970s the Moral Majority was actually a factor. Its leaders endorsed the Republican Party, and it morphed into the modern phenomenon of the Religious Right. The South, being the home of Southern Baptist fundamentalism (a whole different creature from Puritan fundamentalism), was wooed into the Republican Party that way.
Another factor is Air Conditioning. One of the reasons heavy development didn't occur in the South is the fact that it gets hotter there in the summer than it does in the Rust Belt. It's easy to heat a building; it's harder to cool it. Couple the widespread use of Air Conditioning with the fact of overly-strong pro-union legislation in Northern States, and the result is that many businesses become willing to relocate to the South, and people moving there along with the businesses. The South has experienced population growth above and beyond that of other areas in the country - and that is not due to a birth rate but immigration from other states.
Plus the Republican Party has done a better job of appealing to the "common man." The Democrats appeal to the lower classes is more to the "down and out". The "common man" works for a living, the Democrats campaign towards those who live off of government handouts. When Reagan played "Born in the USA" at the 1984 Republican Convention, it was a strategic coup, because it identified the GOP with those who work hard all day then kick back with a beer to relax while watching a game on television. The Democrats, when not identified with the lowest class, identify with New England wine drinking elitists.
New England is one more reason that the Solid South fractured. The elitism of New England has never gone away, and the disdain New England feels for the South is matched only by the resentment the South feels for New England. One side still resents the abuses of reconstruction. The other side still resents that an entire region of the country dared question the doctrine of central authority. When the Democrats embraced New England, they sundered themselves from the South. Even as late as 1996 Georgians were worried that during the Olympics that the liberal elitist journalists would come down from the North, look for the absolute worst and most backwards parts of Georgia, and send back images saying "This is Georgia today." It's like going to a mansion and only photographing the angst-ridden teenager's bedroom.
Puritan Fundamentalism no longer exists in the form it did back then. It still exists, but in a secularized way. Instead of trying to create God's Kingdom on Earth, ruled over by pious Elites, the modern Democrats try to create a Socialist Utopia on Earth, ruled over by Elites. One look at the Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign shows this tendency. There wasn't a single position that she took in her entire campaign that wasn't "I know best about everything in your life and if you give me absolute power I will create a secular God's Kingdom on Earth."
Religion, industry, air conditioning, elitism, the difference between the common man and the downtrodden masses, many things went into the fracturing of the Solid South. Blaming it all on the words of one racist Republican is terminally short sighted to a degree that it can only make sense if someone desperately wants it to be true, but not in any actual analysis. What that really proves is that the south is not solid in either direction. Any remarks about how the Civil Rights Act did this are little more than sour grapes, saying "how dare those ignorant racist southern rednecks not deliver the vote for us like they should."
The most insidious explanation for Democrat losses is "the Southern Strategy", which is a severe insult against all Southerners as ignorant racists. It is one of the most hyped theories around, but it is not a given that it even exists. It traces to the musings of one Republican who was a racist, but doesn't trace to any actual proof that any actual strategy even exists in the first place. All evidence for it is circumstantial - that since the late 60s the Solid South stopped voting Solid Democrat and started voting Republican a lot more often.
The Southern Strategy is allegedly based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the fact that it was signed by a Democrat president, even though it was put on his desk because Congressional Republicans pushed it through. Key votes are examined such as when Goldwater voted for every Civil Rights Act before the 1964 one, and key votes are ignored such as when Goldwater's opponents voted against every Civil Rights Act before the 1964 one.
The theory states that because a Democrat president signed the Civil Rights Act, the ignorant and racist South turned Republican. The facts do not support that assertion.
Democrat Jimmy Carter's won victories in every Southern state except for Virginia and Oklahoma in the 1976 Presidential election, years after the alleged emergence of the Southern Strategy.
Democrat Bill Clinton was able to win five southern states twice (Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia) and two states once (Georgia in 1992 and Florida in 1996). Virginia, Texas and North Carolina were won by the Republican candidates by significantly smaller margins than usual.
The first Southern state to give the GOP control of both its governorship and its legislature was Florida. It did not do this until 1998. Florida has an atypical population for a Southern state, with a large retiree population from northern states and also a large Cuban population that leans Republican due to a shared opposition to Fidel Castro.
Georgia did not elect its first post-Reconstruction GOP governor until 2002. Until 2005, Louisiana had been represented since Reconstruction only by Democratic Senators. Arkansas has two Democratic Senators, a Democratic governor, three out of four of their U.S. representatives are Democrats, every statewide office is held by a Democrat, and their state legislature is Democratic. Tennessee and North Carolina have a majority Democratic delegation in the U.S. House of representatives. Mississippi has a house delegation that is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.
It seems that the "Southern Strategy" which is quoted so often is more the musings of one particular racist Republican and not a Republican Party policy. Nixon is supposed to be the epitome of the evil American politician, but he is still just one person.
What caused the South to shift from Solid Democrat to mixed?
In the 1970s the Moral Majority was actually a factor. Its leaders endorsed the Republican Party, and it morphed into the modern phenomenon of the Religious Right. The South, being the home of Southern Baptist fundamentalism (a whole different creature from Puritan fundamentalism), was wooed into the Republican Party that way.
Another factor is Air Conditioning. One of the reasons heavy development didn't occur in the South is the fact that it gets hotter there in the summer than it does in the Rust Belt. It's easy to heat a building; it's harder to cool it. Couple the widespread use of Air Conditioning with the fact of overly-strong pro-union legislation in Northern States, and the result is that many businesses become willing to relocate to the South, and people moving there along with the businesses. The South has experienced population growth above and beyond that of other areas in the country - and that is not due to a birth rate but immigration from other states.
Plus the Republican Party has done a better job of appealing to the "common man." The Democrats appeal to the lower classes is more to the "down and out". The "common man" works for a living, the Democrats campaign towards those who live off of government handouts. When Reagan played "Born in the USA" at the 1984 Republican Convention, it was a strategic coup, because it identified the GOP with those who work hard all day then kick back with a beer to relax while watching a game on television. The Democrats, when not identified with the lowest class, identify with New England wine drinking elitists.
New England is one more reason that the Solid South fractured. The elitism of New England has never gone away, and the disdain New England feels for the South is matched only by the resentment the South feels for New England. One side still resents the abuses of reconstruction. The other side still resents that an entire region of the country dared question the doctrine of central authority. When the Democrats embraced New England, they sundered themselves from the South. Even as late as 1996 Georgians were worried that during the Olympics that the liberal elitist journalists would come down from the North, look for the absolute worst and most backwards parts of Georgia, and send back images saying "This is Georgia today." It's like going to a mansion and only photographing the angst-ridden teenager's bedroom.
Puritan Fundamentalism no longer exists in the form it did back then. It still exists, but in a secularized way. Instead of trying to create God's Kingdom on Earth, ruled over by pious Elites, the modern Democrats try to create a Socialist Utopia on Earth, ruled over by Elites. One look at the Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign shows this tendency. There wasn't a single position that she took in her entire campaign that wasn't "I know best about everything in your life and if you give me absolute power I will create a secular God's Kingdom on Earth."
Religion, industry, air conditioning, elitism, the difference between the common man and the downtrodden masses, many things went into the fracturing of the Solid South. Blaming it all on the words of one racist Republican is terminally short sighted to a degree that it can only make sense if someone desperately wants it to be true, but not in any actual analysis. What that really proves is that the south is not solid in either direction. Any remarks about how the Civil Rights Act did this are little more than sour grapes, saying "how dare those ignorant racist southern rednecks not deliver the vote for us like they should."
Thursday, November 04, 2010
Did Obama Play to Lose?
The election put Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives and weakened the Democratic majority in the Senate. Commentators, both right and left, are wondering if the influence of the Tea Party was more of a help or a hindrance, given that in the Nevada and Delaware Senate races, the people elected Democrats over Republicans supported by the Tea Party, but overall it was a gain for the Republicans.
But of greater influence was Obama himself. Even the influence of the Tea Party is a derivative of his own influence. And President Obama has been quite a different person from Candidate Obama. When he was a candidate, he played the "Hope and Change" mantra to the fullest, inspiring audiences with the possibilities of what he would accomplish. In many ways he was a blank slate on which people would draw whatever they wanted to see in a presidential candidate.
Upon assuming office, much of the glamor quickly faded. He got mired in the details, and failed to lead his own party in pushing issues favored by his party’s base. Those who are more observant knew that Obama wasn’t a peace candidate, that he only appeared that way because he was running against Hillary Clinton and later John McCain, and those two were so militaristic that anyone would appear peaceful compared to them. The genuine peace candidates in the Democratic Party primary washed out quickly, one of them transferring to the Libertarian Party.
Since he assumed office, he has alienated two of the traditional bases of the Democratic Party; feminists, and those who support gay rights.
On the issue of gay rights, it was a Republican appointed judge who overturned California Proposition 8, and it was a Republican plaintiff who launched the most successful attack on Don't Ask Don't Tell. Obama has refused to do anything about Don't Ask Don't Tell, allowing Harry Reid to stick it in a bill in such a way to guarantee its failure, and he has refused to move on marriage equality.
On the issue of feminism, it was reported that a woman who was an actual DNC delegate in 2008 reported that she could barely stomach voting for Democrats in the comment section of a New York Times opinion piece. Unable to link to the comment, this paraphrase will have to do to express her complaints:
*misogynistic tactics used against Clinton in the 2008 campaign (which apparently still lurks unhappily in some women's memories)
*freely slung accusations of racism to anyone who does not support Obama past or present
*democratic/liberal assertions that Islam is religion of peace, while, to any western woman's perspective, it is polluted by the subjugation and abuse of women
*reproductive rights no longer hold the sway over female voters that they once did, either because they believe them to be ironclad or they have developed pro-life leanings to whatever modest degree
*Democrats have done little more for women than have Republicans in the past 30+ years
Obama's proudest achievement is a version of Healthcare Reform so watered down and compromised that most progressives are unable to actually claim it as an achievement without holding their nose. As a candidate, he was in favor of Universal Health Care. As president, he was in favor of Single Payer. The bill he signed contained nothing but countless new regulations and a mandate to buy insurance or be fined.
While some analysts are suggesting that the Republican victory in 2010 will result in an Obama reelection in 2012, perhaps that is not Obama’s plan.
The winner of the 2012 election will be in a very bad situation. The economy will have made little improvement at best, and according to current projections the breakeven year for Social Security is 2016. That means whoever wins the 2012 election will have to deal with the fiscal mess of the collapse of Social Security, an unenviable position.
Had Hillary Clinton won the Democratic Primary in 2008, it would have guaranteed a Republican victory in the general election. Continued economic woes as started under President Bush would continue, and the Republicans would have nobody to blame and the public would not blame anyone else, resulting in a Democratic victory in 2012 and leaving them with the "hot potato" as a result.
Instead Obama entered the race to beat Hillary, and then went on to use popular dissatisfaction with the status quo and Republican leadership to win the presidential race in 2008. By then failing to achieve anything, and giving the country laughable examples of attempts to fix the economy, by alienating his own base by failing to lead, he may be working to ensure a Republican victory in 2012 and thus leave them with the upcoming financial catastrophe.
One does not succeed in politics by only thinking in the short term. The leadership of both parties know this, and have to think beyond the next election even if those who are in office seldom think that far ahead.
But of greater influence was Obama himself. Even the influence of the Tea Party is a derivative of his own influence. And President Obama has been quite a different person from Candidate Obama. When he was a candidate, he played the "Hope and Change" mantra to the fullest, inspiring audiences with the possibilities of what he would accomplish. In many ways he was a blank slate on which people would draw whatever they wanted to see in a presidential candidate.
Upon assuming office, much of the glamor quickly faded. He got mired in the details, and failed to lead his own party in pushing issues favored by his party’s base. Those who are more observant knew that Obama wasn’t a peace candidate, that he only appeared that way because he was running against Hillary Clinton and later John McCain, and those two were so militaristic that anyone would appear peaceful compared to them. The genuine peace candidates in the Democratic Party primary washed out quickly, one of them transferring to the Libertarian Party.
Since he assumed office, he has alienated two of the traditional bases of the Democratic Party; feminists, and those who support gay rights.
On the issue of gay rights, it was a Republican appointed judge who overturned California Proposition 8, and it was a Republican plaintiff who launched the most successful attack on Don't Ask Don't Tell. Obama has refused to do anything about Don't Ask Don't Tell, allowing Harry Reid to stick it in a bill in such a way to guarantee its failure, and he has refused to move on marriage equality.
On the issue of feminism, it was reported that a woman who was an actual DNC delegate in 2008 reported that she could barely stomach voting for Democrats in the comment section of a New York Times opinion piece. Unable to link to the comment, this paraphrase will have to do to express her complaints:
*misogynistic tactics used against Clinton in the 2008 campaign (which apparently still lurks unhappily in some women's memories)
*freely slung accusations of racism to anyone who does not support Obama past or present
*democratic/liberal assertions that Islam is religion of peace, while, to any western woman's perspective, it is polluted by the subjugation and abuse of women
*reproductive rights no longer hold the sway over female voters that they once did, either because they believe them to be ironclad or they have developed pro-life leanings to whatever modest degree
*Democrats have done little more for women than have Republicans in the past 30+ years
Obama's proudest achievement is a version of Healthcare Reform so watered down and compromised that most progressives are unable to actually claim it as an achievement without holding their nose. As a candidate, he was in favor of Universal Health Care. As president, he was in favor of Single Payer. The bill he signed contained nothing but countless new regulations and a mandate to buy insurance or be fined.
While some analysts are suggesting that the Republican victory in 2010 will result in an Obama reelection in 2012, perhaps that is not Obama’s plan.
The winner of the 2012 election will be in a very bad situation. The economy will have made little improvement at best, and according to current projections the breakeven year for Social Security is 2016. That means whoever wins the 2012 election will have to deal with the fiscal mess of the collapse of Social Security, an unenviable position.
Had Hillary Clinton won the Democratic Primary in 2008, it would have guaranteed a Republican victory in the general election. Continued economic woes as started under President Bush would continue, and the Republicans would have nobody to blame and the public would not blame anyone else, resulting in a Democratic victory in 2012 and leaving them with the "hot potato" as a result.
Instead Obama entered the race to beat Hillary, and then went on to use popular dissatisfaction with the status quo and Republican leadership to win the presidential race in 2008. By then failing to achieve anything, and giving the country laughable examples of attempts to fix the economy, by alienating his own base by failing to lead, he may be working to ensure a Republican victory in 2012 and thus leave them with the upcoming financial catastrophe.
One does not succeed in politics by only thinking in the short term. The leadership of both parties know this, and have to think beyond the next election even if those who are in office seldom think that far ahead.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
The TSA goes even farther
The leadership of the TSA is quite aware of the complaints people have against their Advanced Imaging Technology, formerly Whole Body Imaging. Both the Millimeter Wave and the Backscatter X-Ray devices are virtual strip searches, and at best are on very shaky constitutional ground, and the Backscatter X-Ray technology favored by the TSA also produces deadly ionizing radiation. The TSA is also determined to perform these virtual strip searches on minors.
To quell public discontent, the TSA implemented an opt-out program where someone can go through a Walk-Through Metal Detector and be frisked. If an airport does not have an electronic strip search, or a passenger is not selected for it, the metal detector without a frisking is sufficient to clear a person - but if a person actively does not want to be strip searched suddenly the metal detector is not sufficient to clear a person. This has led to accusations that the frisking is retaliatory for those who do not want to be strip searched.
In spite of public opposition, the electronic strip searches are being implemented at more airports. Assurances by the TSA that the searches are completely safe, that the images cannot be stored, and that they aren’t as revealing as feared, have been shown to be false.
People were still opting out of the electronic strip search; some for safety reason, some for constitutional reasons, and some because they did not want their children to be imaged nude. So the TSA has instituted a much more aggressive frisking for anyone who exercises their right to opt out of being strip searched.
There is new information. Although it is only in the rumor stage, apparently it may soon be the case where opt-out is more difficult, to the point where they are as optional as the "optional" showing of ID to the Travel Document Checker, and some rumors that light pat-downs may become mandatory for everyone. There have not yet been any official announcements, but reports from travelers who heard this from TSOs indicates that the TSA is going even farther is violating the rights of all people guilty of wanting to get from one location to another quickly. The frisking of passengers is to get even more intimate than the already recognized "enhanced pat down". There are even reports of the hands of TSOs going inside the clothing of travelers.
It seemed impossible, but the TSA has made flying even worse, even more uncomfortable, for the public. There is, however, a way to deal with this.
Travelers should always opt out of being strip-searched. When the TSO orders the pat-down, the traveler should be sure to demand that a Law Enforcement Official and a video camera both be present at the time so that sexual assault charges can be filed immediately. Above all, the traveler should always be as polite as possible because any rudeness is all the excuse government goons need to say that the traveler was the cause of any disruption and to have the traveler arrested instead of the TSO.
If the TSO forbids an opt-out, which they should not do but enforcement on the front lines is erratic and up to the unpredictable whims of the front line agents, and the traveler has any minor children also traveling, the TSOs at that location should be reported for child pornography.
It is time to take the war back to the TSA. It is well known that the mindset of the TSA is that every traveler is a potential criminal and should be treated like a suspected criminal. It is time for the TSA to have their employees treated like the criminals they are and report them to law enforcement at every opportunity.
UPDATE: Ironically, the next attack appears to be through parcels shipped by air and not on a person but the response by the TSA is to be more aggressive searches of passengers. Although there is no connection between the premise and the conclusion that is standard operating procedure for the TSA.
To quell public discontent, the TSA implemented an opt-out program where someone can go through a Walk-Through Metal Detector and be frisked. If an airport does not have an electronic strip search, or a passenger is not selected for it, the metal detector without a frisking is sufficient to clear a person - but if a person actively does not want to be strip searched suddenly the metal detector is not sufficient to clear a person. This has led to accusations that the frisking is retaliatory for those who do not want to be strip searched.
In spite of public opposition, the electronic strip searches are being implemented at more airports. Assurances by the TSA that the searches are completely safe, that the images cannot be stored, and that they aren’t as revealing as feared, have been shown to be false.
People were still opting out of the electronic strip search; some for safety reason, some for constitutional reasons, and some because they did not want their children to be imaged nude. So the TSA has instituted a much more aggressive frisking for anyone who exercises their right to opt out of being strip searched.
There is new information. Although it is only in the rumor stage, apparently it may soon be the case where opt-out is more difficult, to the point where they are as optional as the "optional" showing of ID to the Travel Document Checker, and some rumors that light pat-downs may become mandatory for everyone. There have not yet been any official announcements, but reports from travelers who heard this from TSOs indicates that the TSA is going even farther is violating the rights of all people guilty of wanting to get from one location to another quickly. The frisking of passengers is to get even more intimate than the already recognized "enhanced pat down". There are even reports of the hands of TSOs going inside the clothing of travelers.
It seemed impossible, but the TSA has made flying even worse, even more uncomfortable, for the public. There is, however, a way to deal with this.
Travelers should always opt out of being strip-searched. When the TSO orders the pat-down, the traveler should be sure to demand that a Law Enforcement Official and a video camera both be present at the time so that sexual assault charges can be filed immediately. Above all, the traveler should always be as polite as possible because any rudeness is all the excuse government goons need to say that the traveler was the cause of any disruption and to have the traveler arrested instead of the TSO.
If the TSO forbids an opt-out, which they should not do but enforcement on the front lines is erratic and up to the unpredictable whims of the front line agents, and the traveler has any minor children also traveling, the TSOs at that location should be reported for child pornography.
It is time to take the war back to the TSA. It is well known that the mindset of the TSA is that every traveler is a potential criminal and should be treated like a suspected criminal. It is time for the TSA to have their employees treated like the criminals they are and report them to law enforcement at every opportunity.
UPDATE: Ironically, the next attack appears to be through parcels shipped by air and not on a person but the response by the TSA is to be more aggressive searches of passengers. Although there is no connection between the premise and the conclusion that is standard operating procedure for the TSA.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Debt to GDP
Government debt as a percentage of GDP is a popular measurement to determine if a government is spending too much, with various "thresholds" given for when the debt gets too excessive. Unfortunately it is not a good measure in itself.
The first problem is with the items being measured. GDP is measured with the formula "Y = C + I + G + ( X - M )", or GDP is equal to consumption plus investment plus government spending plus exports minus imports. Although there are many criticisms of GDP the worst is that it includes government spending as a positive component.
Government spending is, at best, a transfer instead of an actual investment or consumption. A measure of the GDP that leaves that out would be "Y = C + I + X - M". But given that there’s inefficiency in the process, every government dollar spent is actually a drain on the economy. They Keynesian "multiplier effect" is a myth unsubstantiated by actual results. To measure the full effect of GDP would be to subtract government spending, giving "Y = C + I + X - M - G".
The other part of the ratio, the debt, is also a problem. The government debt is not a stationary target, but is moving, which means to get an effective measurement includes the deficits. That means government spending is on both sides of the ratio. Increasing government spending will increase both GDP and Debt, making all ratio measurements unreliable.
The second problem is that debt to GDP is used to measure a government's ability to repay the government debt. That implies that the government has a claim on the GDP of a country, which implies that the government has a claim on the whole of the wealth of a country. Any attempt to claim that wealth in an effort to pay off the debt would destroy the economy and deplete the wealth of the country.
Third, given that both parts are moving targets, an 'improving' ratio doesn't necessarily show any greater or lesser responsibility on the part of politicians. If the debt increases slower than the GDP climbs, or if the debt decreases but the GDP decreases by a smaller amount, the result is the appearance of improvement. Reverse the ratios and it gives the appearance of economic degradation. In the first half of each example, debt increased. In the second half of each example, the GDP declined. None of those are good, but two of them give the appearance of a better economy.
Fourth, the measures can be manipulated. Take a country with a debt to GDP ratio far in excess of 100%, such as 130% or higher. That country's government can use the central bank to monetize the debt and borrow money a thousand times more than owed before, such as a country that owes trillions can create quadrillions. The government can then spend the money. That would surely alter the GDP equation, with G increasing by an exponential amount while C, I, X, and M trend towards zero, leaving Y increasing while basically equaling G. Debt would also be basically equal to the newly created money, leading to a debt to GDP ratio of approximately 100%. By those who favor debt to GDP as a measure, that leads to the conclusion that the economy of that country has improved, while any objective measure would show hyperinflation and the collapse of the economy.
There really is little use in debt as a percentage of GDP. It doesn't measure what it is supposed to measure, it is very prone to manipulation, and its components aren't very as reliable as one would desire in an economic measure.
The first problem is with the items being measured. GDP is measured with the formula "Y = C + I + G + ( X - M )", or GDP is equal to consumption plus investment plus government spending plus exports minus imports. Although there are many criticisms of GDP the worst is that it includes government spending as a positive component.
Government spending is, at best, a transfer instead of an actual investment or consumption. A measure of the GDP that leaves that out would be "Y = C + I + X - M". But given that there’s inefficiency in the process, every government dollar spent is actually a drain on the economy. They Keynesian "multiplier effect" is a myth unsubstantiated by actual results. To measure the full effect of GDP would be to subtract government spending, giving "Y = C + I + X - M - G".
The other part of the ratio, the debt, is also a problem. The government debt is not a stationary target, but is moving, which means to get an effective measurement includes the deficits. That means government spending is on both sides of the ratio. Increasing government spending will increase both GDP and Debt, making all ratio measurements unreliable.
The second problem is that debt to GDP is used to measure a government's ability to repay the government debt. That implies that the government has a claim on the GDP of a country, which implies that the government has a claim on the whole of the wealth of a country. Any attempt to claim that wealth in an effort to pay off the debt would destroy the economy and deplete the wealth of the country.
Third, given that both parts are moving targets, an 'improving' ratio doesn't necessarily show any greater or lesser responsibility on the part of politicians. If the debt increases slower than the GDP climbs, or if the debt decreases but the GDP decreases by a smaller amount, the result is the appearance of improvement. Reverse the ratios and it gives the appearance of economic degradation. In the first half of each example, debt increased. In the second half of each example, the GDP declined. None of those are good, but two of them give the appearance of a better economy.
Fourth, the measures can be manipulated. Take a country with a debt to GDP ratio far in excess of 100%, such as 130% or higher. That country's government can use the central bank to monetize the debt and borrow money a thousand times more than owed before, such as a country that owes trillions can create quadrillions. The government can then spend the money. That would surely alter the GDP equation, with G increasing by an exponential amount while C, I, X, and M trend towards zero, leaving Y increasing while basically equaling G. Debt would also be basically equal to the newly created money, leading to a debt to GDP ratio of approximately 100%. By those who favor debt to GDP as a measure, that leads to the conclusion that the economy of that country has improved, while any objective measure would show hyperinflation and the collapse of the economy.
There really is little use in debt as a percentage of GDP. It doesn't measure what it is supposed to measure, it is very prone to manipulation, and its components aren't very as reliable as one would desire in an economic measure.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
How to win in Afghanistan
There is a way the United States can win in Afghanistan. There actually is a way. The solution is to refer to Afghanis as "Sioux" and refer to one of our generals as "Sherman." This would be a bad thing to do.
It is always risky to give ideas to statists. No matter how absurd or sarcastic the idea, there is a danger they will take it seriously and try to implement it as policy. For instance, every time the subject of raising the minimum wage comes up, someone suggests raising minimum wage an absurd amount. After all, if the current minimum wage isn’t considered a "livable wage," raising it by 50¢ per hour will not transform the minimum wage into a "livable wage."
In 2001, the city of Santa Monica took the suggestion seriously and tried to set the minimum wage for that city at more than double the national minimum wage and 68% higher than the state minimum wage.
The most successful invasion of Afghanistan was by Genghis Khan. He slaughtered all warriors, sent all artisans out of country back to Mongola, massacred the population, and the young women and children were given to his soldiers as slaves.
There is a reason that kind of war will not be waged. In spite of the subservience of the mainstream media in not reporting atrocities, waging a war of extermination on that scale would be too hard to hide. The United States, under Bush and Obama, already has a horrible international reputation, and it could not endure the international condemnation that would be the result of such an activity. Waging war on that scale would finally mobilize the world to stop the United States, and finally end the United State Empire.
For the United States, this would be a very bad idea. It would destroy any remaining illusion about what the United States have become. But it could be done because the United States do have experience waging this kind of war. Just ask General Sherman or the Sioux.
It is always risky to give ideas to statists. No matter how absurd or sarcastic the idea, there is a danger they will take it seriously and try to implement it as policy. For instance, every time the subject of raising the minimum wage comes up, someone suggests raising minimum wage an absurd amount. After all, if the current minimum wage isn’t considered a "livable wage," raising it by 50¢ per hour will not transform the minimum wage into a "livable wage."
In 2001, the city of Santa Monica took the suggestion seriously and tried to set the minimum wage for that city at more than double the national minimum wage and 68% higher than the state minimum wage.
The most successful invasion of Afghanistan was by Genghis Khan. He slaughtered all warriors, sent all artisans out of country back to Mongola, massacred the population, and the young women and children were given to his soldiers as slaves.
There is a reason that kind of war will not be waged. In spite of the subservience of the mainstream media in not reporting atrocities, waging a war of extermination on that scale would be too hard to hide. The United States, under Bush and Obama, already has a horrible international reputation, and it could not endure the international condemnation that would be the result of such an activity. Waging war on that scale would finally mobilize the world to stop the United States, and finally end the United State Empire.
For the United States, this would be a very bad idea. It would destroy any remaining illusion about what the United States have become. But it could be done because the United States do have experience waging this kind of war. Just ask General Sherman or the Sioux.
Thursday, October 07, 2010
California Proposition 19
When discussing voting, the point was made that there is a good side and a bad side to every ballot proposition. That is actually an exaggeration, as some ballot propositions are procedural and have no impact on individual liberty. Examples of this are California's 2010 propositions 20 and 27 which address redistricting, which the Libertarian Party of California has taken no position on.
Then there are complex measures, which have positive features and negative features. Those require more careful analysis, to determine whether the overall effect of the proposition is more beneficial than harmful. An example of that is Proposition 19, which has caused debate in libertarian circles.
Of course the purist argument is that "legalize it and tax it" contains three unnecessary words, that all that should be needed is "legalize it." In a perfect world a simple "legalize it" would be on the ballot, but the absence of a perfect proposition shouldn’t deter people from analyzing whether Proposition 19 is worth voting for.
So is Proposition 19 more beneficial than baleful?
According to Ballotpedia if Proposition 19 passes then the laws are greatly loosened. Persons over the age of 21 will be able to grow and possess small amounts of marijuana.
It does not address federal activities, and it is theoretically possible that local police could ignore this law by working with federal law enforcement. An unnoticed criticism of Proposition 19 is that, like 10th Amendment resolutions, it lacks teeth. Many police and district attorneys are against Proposition 19, and while they will be unable to directly act against small marijuana users they can always encourage cooperation with the DEA.
Overall though it is a step in the right direction. Not a full step, not a perfect step, but definitely in the right direction. Given how few steps there are in any good direction, this is definitely worth supporting.
Then there are complex measures, which have positive features and negative features. Those require more careful analysis, to determine whether the overall effect of the proposition is more beneficial than harmful. An example of that is Proposition 19, which has caused debate in libertarian circles.
Of course the purist argument is that "legalize it and tax it" contains three unnecessary words, that all that should be needed is "legalize it." In a perfect world a simple "legalize it" would be on the ballot, but the absence of a perfect proposition shouldn’t deter people from analyzing whether Proposition 19 is worth voting for.
So is Proposition 19 more beneficial than baleful?
According to Ballotpedia if Proposition 19 passes then the laws are greatly loosened. Persons over the age of 21 will be able to grow and possess small amounts of marijuana.
It does not address federal activities, and it is theoretically possible that local police could ignore this law by working with federal law enforcement. An unnoticed criticism of Proposition 19 is that, like 10th Amendment resolutions, it lacks teeth. Many police and district attorneys are against Proposition 19, and while they will be unable to directly act against small marijuana users they can always encourage cooperation with the DEA.
Overall though it is a step in the right direction. Not a full step, not a perfect step, but definitely in the right direction. Given how few steps there are in any good direction, this is definitely worth supporting.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
This Troop Doesn't Want Your Support
I wrote this essay back in 2005. I was still in the military then, and quite disgusted with the "support" I received with regards to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2007 I left the military after ten years of service and have never looked back. This message is meant for those who "support the troops", and if you support bringing them home then you are not one of the people I accuse with this article. By posting it here I'm probably "preaching to the choir" but after finding it recently when going through old papers I really felt strongly about publishing it.
Every time I go out, I see magnetic ribbons in yellow, or red white and blue, or worst of all desert camouflage, bearing the logo "support our troops", with the proceeds for the purchase of that ribbon going to a factory in China. Sometimes the ribbon also includes the image of a cross, incorporating the Christian message of peace into the ribbon's message of war.
As one of the troops that you are supporting with that ribbon, I have to say I do not want and I do not need your support. I know what your support means, and your support is unwelcome. It is possible that your support means that you want to keep me out of harm’s way, that I can stay with my family. I very much want to stay at home with my wife, to watch my infant son grow up, and I do not want to die in a pointless conflict started by politicians. I joined the military to defend the constitution, and if I must fight I would prefer that be the reason.
Yes, it is possible I would fight for that reason, but that is not what your support means. Your support means that I have to go fight for political causes. The more you support me, the more likely it is that I am going to be sent to Iraq to be shot and killed by those who do not want me there. Your support means that I am more likely to die.
Because you support me, it means that I may spend at least six months, possibly several years, apart from my wife. I will not see my son grow up because you support me. I will not be there to see his first steps or hear his first words because you support me. Because you support them, my fellow troops who have completed their contractual obligations cannot be released from their service contracts, and because you support me that might happen to me too.
Because you support me, I am more likely to get killed.
Because you support me my son would grow up without a father.
Because you support me my wife could become an untimely young widow.
Because you support me I may be sent over there to be killed.
Because you supported others and they were sent over and killed. You say you do not want the deaths from your support to be in vain. You want to honor their deaths by supporting the yet more deaths.
If your support kills me, you will honor me by supporting other troops while they are sent over there to die, so that my death would not be considered vain. You will support me by creating more widows and more orphans.
If your support kills me, which is what you ask for when you say you support me, then the way I want my death honored is by ensuring there are no more deaths to honor my death.
That is what your support means. That is why I do not want any of your so-called support.
There is only one way to truly support me. You can make sure my wife does not become a widow. You can make sure my son does not become an orphan. You can support me only by keeping me out of harm’s way. If you want to support the mission, you can still show support for the troops by taking the place of the troop. Until then, you can keep your support.
Every time I go out, I see magnetic ribbons in yellow, or red white and blue, or worst of all desert camouflage, bearing the logo "support our troops", with the proceeds for the purchase of that ribbon going to a factory in China. Sometimes the ribbon also includes the image of a cross, incorporating the Christian message of peace into the ribbon's message of war.
As one of the troops that you are supporting with that ribbon, I have to say I do not want and I do not need your support. I know what your support means, and your support is unwelcome. It is possible that your support means that you want to keep me out of harm’s way, that I can stay with my family. I very much want to stay at home with my wife, to watch my infant son grow up, and I do not want to die in a pointless conflict started by politicians. I joined the military to defend the constitution, and if I must fight I would prefer that be the reason.
Yes, it is possible I would fight for that reason, but that is not what your support means. Your support means that I have to go fight for political causes. The more you support me, the more likely it is that I am going to be sent to Iraq to be shot and killed by those who do not want me there. Your support means that I am more likely to die.
Because you support me, it means that I may spend at least six months, possibly several years, apart from my wife. I will not see my son grow up because you support me. I will not be there to see his first steps or hear his first words because you support me. Because you support them, my fellow troops who have completed their contractual obligations cannot be released from their service contracts, and because you support me that might happen to me too.
Because you support me, I am more likely to get killed.
Because you support me my son would grow up without a father.
Because you support me my wife could become an untimely young widow.
Because you support me I may be sent over there to be killed.
Because you supported others and they were sent over and killed. You say you do not want the deaths from your support to be in vain. You want to honor their deaths by supporting the yet more deaths.
If your support kills me, you will honor me by supporting other troops while they are sent over there to die, so that my death would not be considered vain. You will support me by creating more widows and more orphans.
If your support kills me, which is what you ask for when you say you support me, then the way I want my death honored is by ensuring there are no more deaths to honor my death.
That is what your support means. That is why I do not want any of your so-called support.
There is only one way to truly support me. You can make sure my wife does not become a widow. You can make sure my son does not become an orphan. You can support me only by keeping me out of harm’s way. If you want to support the mission, you can still show support for the troops by taking the place of the troop. Until then, you can keep your support.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Do Authoritarians understand Libertairans?
Sometimes, after hearing anti-authoritarian arguments, a question comes up: do those who are against libertarian ideas even know what they are arguing against? It seems that some are confused when someone takes a principled stand against government wrongdoing in the abstract.
Take the case when someone argues against police abuse invariably suggest that the only reason someone could take a stand against police activity is due to personal animosity due to a personal bad experience. Very shortly in the conversation the topic will turn to what individual personal experiences one has had that could cause someone to actually have a bad opinion.
If someone takes a stand about taxation, especially taxation in whole as a concept, the assumption is always that the person taking that stand is doing so because he simply wants his own taxes lowered. Often it is simply assumed that the actual argument is nothing more than a cover, in order to create the illusion that there is theory behind the anti-tax argument.
It is the same with arguments about drug use, in which advocating legalization is assumed to be because it is a cover for personal use of drugs. And the Tea Party protests are assumed to be angry because a particular party is out of office and not because of the policies of the party that is in office. Arguments against business licensing reduce to wanting to got to unscrupulous or unqualified vendors, or wanting to be an unscrupulous or unqualified vendor.
Over and over the one thing missing is any recognition that someone is actually making a principled pro-liberty argument. Authoritarians seem incapable of believing that a pro-liberty argument is being made.
Are libertarians capable of understanding authoritarians? In general later societal stages can understand earlier ones. If they try barbarians can understand tribesmen and citizens can understand barbarians. Libertarians can understand that authoritarians believe people need to be taken care of. Do authoritarians understand that libertarians believe people don’t need to be taken care of?
Take the case when someone argues against police abuse invariably suggest that the only reason someone could take a stand against police activity is due to personal animosity due to a personal bad experience. Very shortly in the conversation the topic will turn to what individual personal experiences one has had that could cause someone to actually have a bad opinion.
If someone takes a stand about taxation, especially taxation in whole as a concept, the assumption is always that the person taking that stand is doing so because he simply wants his own taxes lowered. Often it is simply assumed that the actual argument is nothing more than a cover, in order to create the illusion that there is theory behind the anti-tax argument.
It is the same with arguments about drug use, in which advocating legalization is assumed to be because it is a cover for personal use of drugs. And the Tea Party protests are assumed to be angry because a particular party is out of office and not because of the policies of the party that is in office. Arguments against business licensing reduce to wanting to got to unscrupulous or unqualified vendors, or wanting to be an unscrupulous or unqualified vendor.
Over and over the one thing missing is any recognition that someone is actually making a principled pro-liberty argument. Authoritarians seem incapable of believing that a pro-liberty argument is being made.
Are libertarians capable of understanding authoritarians? In general later societal stages can understand earlier ones. If they try barbarians can understand tribesmen and citizens can understand barbarians. Libertarians can understand that authoritarians believe people need to be taken care of. Do authoritarians understand that libertarians believe people don’t need to be taken care of?
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Third Party Distractions
In 1992, both of the major parties had fielded uninspiring candidates for president. It seemed to be a promising year for a solid third party candidate. Instead Ross Perot entered the race, left the race, and then entered the race again. The result was that any genuinely independent movement had its energy taken over by a solidly establishment third party candidate.
In 2000, both of the major parties had fielded uninspiring candidates for president. It seemed to be a promising year for a solid third party candidate. Instead Ralph Nader and Patrick Buchanan balanced each other out with Buchanan destroying what was left of the Reform Party and Nader giving Democrats solid reason to reverse their prior opinion of third party “interlopers.”
In 2010, in California, both of the major parties are fielding uninspiring candidates for governor. It would be a promising year for a solid third party candidate, so all of the third party energy is being focused instead of Chelene Nightingale as a way to vote for someone other than Meg Whitman (R) or Jerry Brown (D).
There really is only one truly solid and independent third party, only one that can honestly claim to be equally distant from both of the major parties. Although “wasted vote” is a fallacy, almost all of the third and minor parties can be considered more closely aligned to one of the two major parties. The Libertarian Party is exceptional in that regard in that it honestly is not closer to either party.
Although neither will mention the subject, both the major parties are cognizant of the special status of the libertarian party. That may be why, whenever there is a third party threat, it appears than an effort is made to find a third party contender that is not a member of the Libertarian Party.
A third party candidate who is more closely aligned to one of the major parties can be more easily accused of stealing votes. A third party candidate who is more closely aligned to one of the major parties can have the constituency more easily reabsorbed. A third party candidate who is more closely aligned to one of the major parties does not challenge the status quo as a whole. And if the third party candidate is eccentric, all the better.
That may be why, whenever both the major parties field weak candidates at the same time, the press is even less eager to cover libertarians. Andre Marrou was more serious than Ross Perot. Harry Brown was more serious than Patrick Buchanan and Ralph Nader. That’s why Ross Perot, Patrick Buchanan, and Ralph Nader got all the press.
In 2000, both of the major parties had fielded uninspiring candidates for president. It seemed to be a promising year for a solid third party candidate. Instead Ralph Nader and Patrick Buchanan balanced each other out with Buchanan destroying what was left of the Reform Party and Nader giving Democrats solid reason to reverse their prior opinion of third party “interlopers.”
In 2010, in California, both of the major parties are fielding uninspiring candidates for governor. It would be a promising year for a solid third party candidate, so all of the third party energy is being focused instead of Chelene Nightingale as a way to vote for someone other than Meg Whitman (R) or Jerry Brown (D).
There really is only one truly solid and independent third party, only one that can honestly claim to be equally distant from both of the major parties. Although “wasted vote” is a fallacy, almost all of the third and minor parties can be considered more closely aligned to one of the two major parties. The Libertarian Party is exceptional in that regard in that it honestly is not closer to either party.
Although neither will mention the subject, both the major parties are cognizant of the special status of the libertarian party. That may be why, whenever there is a third party threat, it appears than an effort is made to find a third party contender that is not a member of the Libertarian Party.
A third party candidate who is more closely aligned to one of the major parties can be more easily accused of stealing votes. A third party candidate who is more closely aligned to one of the major parties can have the constituency more easily reabsorbed. A third party candidate who is more closely aligned to one of the major parties does not challenge the status quo as a whole. And if the third party candidate is eccentric, all the better.
That may be why, whenever both the major parties field weak candidates at the same time, the press is even less eager to cover libertarians. Andre Marrou was more serious than Ross Perot. Harry Brown was more serious than Patrick Buchanan and Ralph Nader. That’s why Ross Perot, Patrick Buchanan, and Ralph Nader got all the press.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Near-miss Libertarian
Although the world is full of unpleasant examples of socialism, apparently not a single country that embraced central planning has ever counted as an example in any discussion of the subject. In each and every case the country in question wasn’t “real” socialism. It is a giant international game of "No True Scotsman" with regards to socialism. Every country in the Warsaw Pact, as well as China, Cuba, and North Korea are not examples of real socialism.
It may be necessary to deny all the examples of the failures of central planning are examples of socialism. After all, if one were to admit them as evidence, it would be necessary to conclude that socialism as an economic system does not work.
This stands in stark contrast to classical liberalism, where imperfect examples are embraced, with the caveat that they are imperfect examples and there are aspects of those examples that are illibertarian.
One of the first examples is the United States, usually prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve but often prior to the New Deal. Libertarians will grant that the setup had the flaws, most notably slavery. Other examples include many other western countries during the time between the final defeat of Napoleon and the outbreak of World War One, in spite of their colonialism. Or further back in history, there is Medieval Iceland, which lasted three hundred hears before becoming a territory of Norway.
Although each example had flaws, libertarians embrace them as examples because they show that the closer a country has gotten to the classic liberal ideal the better off that country has been.
Statists have counter-arguments to the trend the examples show. The first counter-argument is The Temporal Fallacy wherein they argue that, due to technological advancements since then, that today’s situation is clearly better in every respect. The truth is that technologically today’s situation is improved, and the rest does not follow.
A second argument is to deliberately confuse the flaw with the example. If a libertarians says "although this example had the glaring flaw of slavery…" the statist will respond as if the libertarian had said “this example has the virtue of slavery” and accuse the libertarian of being a defender of the flaw instead of condemning the flaw. The statist will then feel free to ignore the point of the example.
Either of those arguments is easily countered. The principle stands as a shining one – the closer a country has gotten to liberty the better off that country has been. This includes many countries that count as examples, and even a few that are decidedly not libertarian countries but have become more free in various areas, such as when communist China decontrolled various parts of the economy creating an economic powerhouse. The principle is clear to anyone willing to see.
It may be necessary to deny all the examples of the failures of central planning are examples of socialism. After all, if one were to admit them as evidence, it would be necessary to conclude that socialism as an economic system does not work.
This stands in stark contrast to classical liberalism, where imperfect examples are embraced, with the caveat that they are imperfect examples and there are aspects of those examples that are illibertarian.
One of the first examples is the United States, usually prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve but often prior to the New Deal. Libertarians will grant that the setup had the flaws, most notably slavery. Other examples include many other western countries during the time between the final defeat of Napoleon and the outbreak of World War One, in spite of their colonialism. Or further back in history, there is Medieval Iceland, which lasted three hundred hears before becoming a territory of Norway.
Although each example had flaws, libertarians embrace them as examples because they show that the closer a country has gotten to the classic liberal ideal the better off that country has been.
Statists have counter-arguments to the trend the examples show. The first counter-argument is The Temporal Fallacy wherein they argue that, due to technological advancements since then, that today’s situation is clearly better in every respect. The truth is that technologically today’s situation is improved, and the rest does not follow.
A second argument is to deliberately confuse the flaw with the example. If a libertarians says "although this example had the glaring flaw of slavery…" the statist will respond as if the libertarian had said “this example has the virtue of slavery” and accuse the libertarian of being a defender of the flaw instead of condemning the flaw. The statist will then feel free to ignore the point of the example.
Either of those arguments is easily countered. The principle stands as a shining one – the closer a country has gotten to liberty the better off that country has been. This includes many countries that count as examples, and even a few that are decidedly not libertarian countries but have become more free in various areas, such as when communist China decontrolled various parts of the economy creating an economic powerhouse. The principle is clear to anyone willing to see.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Libertarian, Liberal, Progressive
Most of the debate between different political ideologies (as opposed to “our guy is better than your guy” debates) occurs between liberals and libertarians. The ideological debates that pit conservatives versus liberals or libertarians come in a weak second.
Why is it that the fiercest debates occur between liberals and libertarians? It is not out of any leanings towards conservatives that these debates occur. Conservatives allege they share economics with libertarians but a closer examination proves otherwise. Conservatives are quick to steal libertarian rhetoric but fail to follow through on it. The real reason there is so little debate is because there is so little to conservatism. Mercantilism isn’t a school of economics as much as it is a way for people to use the government to line their own pockets and the rest of what is commonly called “conservatism” is a morality platform based loosely on religious concepts. That is why Jerry Pournelle listed conservatism as irrationalist, while he listed both liberalism and libertarianism as rationalist.
Liberalism and libertarianism spring from the same root, classical liberalism. One side emphasizes liberty, and the other equality. Both see the other as essentially missing the point, which is somewhat ironic given that essentially the two are trying to achieve the same thing but by entirely different methods. The programs suggested, the laws sponsored, are opposed to each other to achieve what is ultimately the same goal. Liberals and libertarians both have their root in the enlightenment and try, in different ways, to seek justice. One seeks it through equality, the other through egalitarianism.
That is why there is plenty of room for debate. But that is not a full analysis of why there is such fierce debate between liberalism and libertarianism. Another reason is that many who would be called liberal are instead progressive. Libertarians and liberals pursue opposite policies for identical goals. Liberals and progressives pursue identical policies for opposite goals. Progressivism doesn’t share the Classic Liberal root of both libertarianism and liberalism, but instead uses the tools of liberals for their own ends. Since they advocate the same policies they seem to be the same.
There is no common ground between progressives and libertarians, other than also both being listed as "rationalist" by Jerry Pournelle. One seeks justice through liberty. The other seeks control through dependence on the government. The programs advocated by liberals are precisely the tools progressives can use because the argument can be easily made that the programs are there to help the recipient. And in being helped, they become dependent until the progressive achieves his goal: everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.
One argument is a civil war. The other is oil and water. In both cases, unlike the conservative, there actually is substance though. And the progressives do worry every time the phrase "liberaltarian" comes up or liberals and libertarians find common ground, because if the two children of classical liberalism were to ever rejoin the progressives would be through.
Why is it that the fiercest debates occur between liberals and libertarians? It is not out of any leanings towards conservatives that these debates occur. Conservatives allege they share economics with libertarians but a closer examination proves otherwise. Conservatives are quick to steal libertarian rhetoric but fail to follow through on it. The real reason there is so little debate is because there is so little to conservatism. Mercantilism isn’t a school of economics as much as it is a way for people to use the government to line their own pockets and the rest of what is commonly called “conservatism” is a morality platform based loosely on religious concepts. That is why Jerry Pournelle listed conservatism as irrationalist, while he listed both liberalism and libertarianism as rationalist.
Liberalism and libertarianism spring from the same root, classical liberalism. One side emphasizes liberty, and the other equality. Both see the other as essentially missing the point, which is somewhat ironic given that essentially the two are trying to achieve the same thing but by entirely different methods. The programs suggested, the laws sponsored, are opposed to each other to achieve what is ultimately the same goal. Liberals and libertarians both have their root in the enlightenment and try, in different ways, to seek justice. One seeks it through equality, the other through egalitarianism.
That is why there is plenty of room for debate. But that is not a full analysis of why there is such fierce debate between liberalism and libertarianism. Another reason is that many who would be called liberal are instead progressive. Libertarians and liberals pursue opposite policies for identical goals. Liberals and progressives pursue identical policies for opposite goals. Progressivism doesn’t share the Classic Liberal root of both libertarianism and liberalism, but instead uses the tools of liberals for their own ends. Since they advocate the same policies they seem to be the same.
There is no common ground between progressives and libertarians, other than also both being listed as "rationalist" by Jerry Pournelle. One seeks justice through liberty. The other seeks control through dependence on the government. The programs advocated by liberals are precisely the tools progressives can use because the argument can be easily made that the programs are there to help the recipient. And in being helped, they become dependent until the progressive achieves his goal: everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.
One argument is a civil war. The other is oil and water. In both cases, unlike the conservative, there actually is substance though. And the progressives do worry every time the phrase "liberaltarian" comes up or liberals and libertarians find common ground, because if the two children of classical liberalism were to ever rejoin the progressives would be through.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)