The Economically Pivotal Presidency

When looking over the statistics on which president was the most irresponsible spender, an interesting feature of the data became apparent. The first time the data was presented, the most obvious thing to note was that George W. Bush was the worst spender. Further analysis presents another interesting fact – the pivotal role in history of Herbert Hoover. Every president before Hoover had smaller deficits than Hoover. Every president after Hoover had larger deficits than Hoover.

-99,776,642,401.45	Bush Jr Term 1
-96,408,875,337.91	F Roosevelt Term 3
-90,255,665,689.94	Bush Sr
-63,508,876,217.31	Clinton Term 1
-60,226,092,484.91	Bush Jr Term 2
-55,620,058,613.77	Reagan Term 2
-37,083,571,857.12	Nixon
-34,590,184,231.84	Reagan Term 1
-31,541,432,371.56	Clinton Term 2
-30,632,171,603.66	Nixon / Ford
-30,513,251,062.43	F Roosevelt / Truman
-25,169,881,466.50	Carter
-22,277,279,516.03	Wilson Term 2
-19,947,226,430.95	L. Johnson
-14,907,433,625.97	Kennedy / Johnson
-9,064,312,546.96	F Roosevelt Term 1
-8,064,456,770.95	Eisenhower Term 1
-7,979,119,959.91	Eisenhower Term 2
-5,516,035,432.17	F Roosevelt Term 2
-4,087,245,363.90	Truman
-2,006,485,523.53	Hoover
-1,750,942,082.69	Lincoln Term 1
-845,903,480.62	Lincoln / Johnson
-738,552,212.80	Wilson Term 1
-366,738,464.61	McKinley
-362,676,610.68	T Roosevelt Term 2
-241,610,193.89	Taft
-181,124,526.17	Cleveland Term 2
-126,862,797.32	T Roosevelt Term 1
-82,125,195.84	Madison Term 2
-32,869,749.98	Buchanan
-23,583,209.73	Polk
-19,154,479.48	Taylor / Fillmore
-18,210,776.96	Tyler
-6,534,247.41	Washington Term 2
-3,535,830.77	VanBuren
-3,450,826.53	Jefferson Term 1
-1,764,448.14	Washington Term 1
745,788.38	Monroe Term 2
785,877.72	John Adams
19,986,580.07	Madison Term 1
21,230,802.91	Jefferson Term 2
22,794,733.90	John Quincy Adams
24,284,722.13	Jackson Term 2
34,226,803.81	Pierce
36,319,367.59	Monroe Term 1
43,152,808.69	Jackson Term 1
59,905,475.18	Hayes
72,820,997.22	Grant Term 2
104,415,146.68	Harrison
137,703,187.95	Cleveland Term 1
289,746,134.16	Garfield / Arthur
408,388,139.06	Grant Term 1
3,647,830,832.07	Coolidge
4,686,460,530.01	Harding / Coolidge

It was Herbert Hoover who created the programs that Franklin Roosevelt eventually collected in to the New Deal, and it was the New Deal, more than any other political-economic event that permanently cemented the government’s role in the economy.

Although other presidents can be credited with laying the necessary ground work for the New Deal, it was Hoover who took the final step and make it happen. F. Roosevelt’s only contribution was to make it permanent, an important step but not nearly as creative as what Hoover did. Economically speaking, Herbert Hoover was the pivotal president in American History.

Government Shutdown

It is obviously a farce to call what will happen "government shutdown" because of the many areas that will not be shut down. If the government goes in to "shutdown" that does not mean that the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and other countries will cease. Nor will any person in federal prison for victimless crimes be released. Nor will the legislators who are fighting with each other with regards to the shutdown fail to receive their pay. Nor will the DEA stop harassing medicinal marijuana clinics that are authorized under state laws. Nor will the IRS cease harassing any person who may be delinquent or deficient on their taxes.

Also, if the government goes in to "shutdown" that only impacts portions of the federal government, and not the state or local governments as their budgets, taxes, and spending are all separate from the federal budget. The schools, the police, the utilities if they are municipal, and other various local agencies will still operate.

In spite of that, there is a lot of coverage in the mainstream media of the local economic impacts that shutting down a tiny portion of the government will have. Particular attention is paid to communities that exist near the "non-essential" functions such as parks. The coverage completely overlooks the question of whether or not the government should be involved in non-essential functions in the first place.

So many places and endeavors throughout the country have become dependent on federal spending, federal projects, or federal support. For example, there are communities that exist outside of federal parks, and they would lack the spending of the tourists if the federal park itself shuts down. This only shows just how bad the situation really is. In a free economy, the impact of the federal government is negligible.

That is one of the many reasons why bringing the federal government to a balanced budget would be so difficult, bringing it to constitutional levels would be even harder, and bringing it down to libertarian levels seems to be an impossibility. Every single cut has a fiercely supportive built in constituency, those who have become dependent on the drug of government spending.

Therefore when someone suggests even a minor cut, he gets fierce criticism. And when Randall Paul suggests cuts that really are substantial but even he admits don't go nearly far enough, people think the suggestion isn't serious at proof that Senator Paul is too radical. It seems a great idea to harshly criticize anyone who suggests any cut to any program, and a great idea to reward anyone who supports a program that anyone likes. Doing so is a great way to ensure that the government does eventually become completely insolvent.

Perhaps complete insolvency is the only way out of this budget dilemma.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why Rand Paul?

The libertarian opinion of Randall Paul can be stated pretty simply.

"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.

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 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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."