One thing to take away from the Trayvon Martin case is that someone apparently wants there to be more racial tension in the United States, possibly up to a race war. It is difficult to determine who or why at this time, but that there is a pattern showing that the tensions are being increased is undeniable. The most ironic thing about this pattern is who is supposed to be fighting. A Hispanic man shoots a Black man, and now people are supposed to be angry at White racism.
The coverage started by referring to George Zimmerman as "White". Eventually it broke through the news cycle that he was actually Hispanic so the media started referring to him as "White Hispanic." Sometimes Hispanic is referred to as an ethnicity, sometimes it is referred to as a race. There are areas in the country where people would be deeply offended to be called "White" because they consider themselves otherwise.
Another item of evidence is the edited NBC recording. In the era before the internet, NBC could have probably gotten away with releasing the edited tape that has George Zimmerman saying what race Trayvon Martin is during the description of suspicion instead of after being asked to give a physical description.
Then there are the photographs that competing sides of the debate use, although it should be noted that both sets of photographs show George Zimmerman looking Hispanic. One set of photographs included a younger Trayvon Martin and a photograph of George Zimmerman that made him look fairly disreputable. The other set showed a more grown Trayvon Martin looking more "gangster" and George Zimmerman smiling and wearing a suit.
The part that is the least circumstantial in terms of evidence though is having Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson go to Florida to discuss racial matters. Following this was a rumor-story about White Supremacists who wanted to patrol streets, but failed to materialize.
Who would benefit from greater racial tension, and who would benefit if the perceived racial tension is White versus minority instead of Hispanic versus Black?
If the issue can continue to be framed as White versus Black, it may be a way of assisting President Obama during what could be a very difficult election. The continued failure of the economy to improve will be a burden, and the dislike many Americans have over Obamacare (even those that approve of travesties like Universal Health Care) will be an even bigger burden. Moreover, if the Supreme Court overturns the act that will also rob President Obama of one of his few triumphs during his time in office, leaving just the pull-out from Iraq that he opposed but went through with as his big accomplishment.
It is probably not President Obama fanning the flames of racial tension, but it may very well be supporters of President Obama.
On the other hand, if this is recast as Hispanic versus Black, that will divide the minority communities against each other when President Obama desperately needs to collect every vote he can get. The Hispanic vote is much less firmly committed to the Democratic Party than is the Black vote, and an internal schism might remind the Feminist vote of their harsh treatment during the 2008 campaign.
There are several who could benefit from heightening racial tensions in one direction, and several different who could benefit from heightening racial tensions in a different direction. So far there is nothing concrete as to who or why, but it is undeniable that it is being done.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Saturday, April 07, 2012
The Omniscience Fallacy
Austrian economics views people as rational actors when making decisions in the market, which is one of the many reasons government intervention is frowned upon. If a person wants to make one decision, and the government forces a different decision, then by definition that person is doing something they would normally consider irrational if not for the threat of government force.
Ayn Rand calls man the "rational animal" saying that reason is the tool of survival for man. She decried the use of government to intervene on the basis that since reason is the tool of survival, forcing a person to act differently is to force the person to act against their own survival.
Both of them would have that a person acting within the confines of their knowledge and desires will attempt to make the decisions that are best for themselves.
This runs into an interesting claim sometimes made by Progressives and Keynesians, that there is no way to consider a person to be a rational decision maker based on not having enough facts with which to make a decision. Supposing a person wants to buy a computer, and he compares several brands at several stores before coming to a conclusion based on cost, capability, and his needs. Well, the progressive will claim, if there is another model out there that still even more closely fits his needs then he didn't make the most rational decision.
By their unfairly high standard, it is impossible for anyone to make a rational decision. This clearly calls for the decision maker to know everything in order to make a decision. It is an attempt to deny that decisions are made rationally in the first place.
Accusing the progressive of demanding omniscience will only result in denials of that charge and a clarification that the person only need to know all the relevant information. But the problem is, that is omniscience. Suppose that same computer goes on sale the next day? Buying it that day will result in what is, from the progressive point of view, an irrational decision.
The irony here is that while creating a strawman in order to "prove" that an individual lacks sufficient facts, the progressive is undermining their own belief system. It is progressivism that believes that central planners can indeed have enough information to make plans, not only for themselves, but for others as well and for the economy as a whole.
The "rational" definition used by both Austrians and Objectivists clearly states that people are rational within the confines of their knowledge. Claims to the contrary are fallacies.
Ayn Rand calls man the "rational animal" saying that reason is the tool of survival for man. She decried the use of government to intervene on the basis that since reason is the tool of survival, forcing a person to act differently is to force the person to act against their own survival.
Both of them would have that a person acting within the confines of their knowledge and desires will attempt to make the decisions that are best for themselves.
This runs into an interesting claim sometimes made by Progressives and Keynesians, that there is no way to consider a person to be a rational decision maker based on not having enough facts with which to make a decision. Supposing a person wants to buy a computer, and he compares several brands at several stores before coming to a conclusion based on cost, capability, and his needs. Well, the progressive will claim, if there is another model out there that still even more closely fits his needs then he didn't make the most rational decision.
By their unfairly high standard, it is impossible for anyone to make a rational decision. This clearly calls for the decision maker to know everything in order to make a decision. It is an attempt to deny that decisions are made rationally in the first place.
Accusing the progressive of demanding omniscience will only result in denials of that charge and a clarification that the person only need to know all the relevant information. But the problem is, that is omniscience. Suppose that same computer goes on sale the next day? Buying it that day will result in what is, from the progressive point of view, an irrational decision.
The irony here is that while creating a strawman in order to "prove" that an individual lacks sufficient facts, the progressive is undermining their own belief system. It is progressivism that believes that central planners can indeed have enough information to make plans, not only for themselves, but for others as well and for the economy as a whole.
The "rational" definition used by both Austrians and Objectivists clearly states that people are rational within the confines of their knowledge. Claims to the contrary are fallacies.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Only Capitalism can work for Mary
This is a fable adapted from a child's storybook. It involves three people living on an island, Jack, Tom, and Mary. Jack is industrious: he likes to work hard, to be industrious, to make things, to have a nice house, and to have excess reserves stored in the case of an emergency. Tom, on the other hand, is unlucky: his ventures fail more often than they succeed, and he is also afflicted by poor health and has no money. Mary is a free spirit: while she has the skill and intelligence to earn more than Jack ever could, she prefers leisure to labor and only earns enough to sustain herself and her love of camping, hiking, and artistry. Natural resources are abundant, and they all have equal amounts of time.
This is of course a very constructed setup designed to get to weed out as many extraneous elements as possible. If there really were only three people on one island then the three would all be working hard at basic survival, and there would be no money to speak of. The question of who the medicine for Tom is purchased from is also glossed over for the sake of setting up a simplified system to analyze basic roles. Jack spends his time acquiring wealth while Mary spends her time acquiring leisure.
Most economic systems concern themselves only with the question of how to take some "excess" wealth from Jack and give it to Tom on the basis that he needs it so badly. It has to be Jack on the basis that he is the only one with wealth enough to have some transferred to other people.
This scenario, when presented to progressives, presents a riddle to them, because at first they are only concerned with the relationship between Jack and Tom. That will be their first answer, that of course some wealth must be transferred from one to the other and anything else is unfair. So it has to be pointed out that they missed the most important part - how their system deals with Mary.
At first, the answer is that progressives accuse Mary of "going Galt," that her failure to work up to her potential was some sort of political protest. Mary is accused of failing to pay taxes and leeching off the system by using the roads that taxes are supposed to pay for.
But once it is pointed out that Mary doesn't work hard because she liked leisure and not for political reasons, the answer is that she obviously must come from an upper class white background in order to be able to choose to not work. Except that was also not in the original description, which failed to list her race or class but did mention she had only enough money to get by because of her greater desire for leisure.
Once all the distractions are dispensed with, and it is very clear that Mary is nothing more and nothing less than someone who simply prefers leisure to labor in spite of a greater potential if she applied herself, a very different picture of how progressives would handle her emerged.
The more progressive a person is, the more they feel it is proper to take from Jack and give to Tom. Interestingly, they also feel it is more proper to require Mary to work hard in spite of her desire not to in order to produce enough to give to Tom. It is seen as unfair that Jack alone is made miserable, in that his pleasure is enjoying the fruits of his labor and that is taken away from him. Mary must also be made miserable in that her leisure is also taken away from her and given to Tom.
When it is pointed out that this basically makes Mary a slave, because unlike Jack she actually desires to not work, rationalizations are offered that her freedom is not restricted because "what is forced in one sense may be freed in another; what is restricted in one place may be relieved elsewhere." The argument was actually offered that she is not made a slave. "Yes Mary must work. Liberty and freedom simply shift their point of emphasis." Ironically, the person arguing Arbeit macht frei was actually arguing in favor of socialism replacing capitalism, and not arguing in favor of fascism. Jack also allegedly benefits because his "mind is freed from material pursuits."
Socialists and Communists have no problem with forcing Mary to work, as her labor choices do not belong to her but belong to the people. Fascists have no problem either, as her labor choices do not belong to her but belong to the state. Corporatists would force Mary to work through debt slavery, forcing her to labor far more than she would otherwise choose to in order to pay off an impossible debt. Keynesians and Monetarists would shrink back from using force, but would instead use fiscal or monetary policy in order to "guide" her decisions into a more "productive" direction.
Only Capitalism, the economic system which is often accused of dehumanizing people and reducing them to nothing more than commodities, can recognize that Mary’s choice is valid. Only in Capitalism is it recognized that people work to their level of satisfaction, and that people have different levels of satisfaction. Only in a free market is Mary able to work enough to get by because of her greater desire for leisure. And that is why only Capitalism is the only moral economic system.
This is of course a very constructed setup designed to get to weed out as many extraneous elements as possible. If there really were only three people on one island then the three would all be working hard at basic survival, and there would be no money to speak of. The question of who the medicine for Tom is purchased from is also glossed over for the sake of setting up a simplified system to analyze basic roles. Jack spends his time acquiring wealth while Mary spends her time acquiring leisure.
Most economic systems concern themselves only with the question of how to take some "excess" wealth from Jack and give it to Tom on the basis that he needs it so badly. It has to be Jack on the basis that he is the only one with wealth enough to have some transferred to other people.
This scenario, when presented to progressives, presents a riddle to them, because at first they are only concerned with the relationship between Jack and Tom. That will be their first answer, that of course some wealth must be transferred from one to the other and anything else is unfair. So it has to be pointed out that they missed the most important part - how their system deals with Mary.
At first, the answer is that progressives accuse Mary of "going Galt," that her failure to work up to her potential was some sort of political protest. Mary is accused of failing to pay taxes and leeching off the system by using the roads that taxes are supposed to pay for.
But once it is pointed out that Mary doesn't work hard because she liked leisure and not for political reasons, the answer is that she obviously must come from an upper class white background in order to be able to choose to not work. Except that was also not in the original description, which failed to list her race or class but did mention she had only enough money to get by because of her greater desire for leisure.
Once all the distractions are dispensed with, and it is very clear that Mary is nothing more and nothing less than someone who simply prefers leisure to labor in spite of a greater potential if she applied herself, a very different picture of how progressives would handle her emerged.
The more progressive a person is, the more they feel it is proper to take from Jack and give to Tom. Interestingly, they also feel it is more proper to require Mary to work hard in spite of her desire not to in order to produce enough to give to Tom. It is seen as unfair that Jack alone is made miserable, in that his pleasure is enjoying the fruits of his labor and that is taken away from him. Mary must also be made miserable in that her leisure is also taken away from her and given to Tom.
When it is pointed out that this basically makes Mary a slave, because unlike Jack she actually desires to not work, rationalizations are offered that her freedom is not restricted because "what is forced in one sense may be freed in another; what is restricted in one place may be relieved elsewhere." The argument was actually offered that she is not made a slave. "Yes Mary must work. Liberty and freedom simply shift their point of emphasis." Ironically, the person arguing Arbeit macht frei was actually arguing in favor of socialism replacing capitalism, and not arguing in favor of fascism. Jack also allegedly benefits because his "mind is freed from material pursuits."
Socialists and Communists have no problem with forcing Mary to work, as her labor choices do not belong to her but belong to the people. Fascists have no problem either, as her labor choices do not belong to her but belong to the state. Corporatists would force Mary to work through debt slavery, forcing her to labor far more than she would otherwise choose to in order to pay off an impossible debt. Keynesians and Monetarists would shrink back from using force, but would instead use fiscal or monetary policy in order to "guide" her decisions into a more "productive" direction.
Only Capitalism, the economic system which is often accused of dehumanizing people and reducing them to nothing more than commodities, can recognize that Mary’s choice is valid. Only in Capitalism is it recognized that people work to their level of satisfaction, and that people have different levels of satisfaction. Only in a free market is Mary able to work enough to get by because of her greater desire for leisure. And that is why only Capitalism is the only moral economic system.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Stand Your Ground Laws
The killing of Trayvon Martin is a tragedy. Also the average person does not know all of the facts of what happened in that encounter. But based on what is known one conclusion can be immediately drawn: the "Stand Your Ground" law that exists in Florida is not to blame.
People are blaming that law, and it appears that George Zimmerman may plan on using it as a defense if charges are brought against him.
A "Stand Your Ground" law only applies if the person doing the shooting does not initiate the encounter. That law only applies if the action is defensive. If someone initiates an encounter, and the confrontation escalates over the course of the encounter, there is still no interpretation that leaves defensive lethal force on the part of the person who initiated the encounter.
George Zimmerman, if the press reports are accurate, was trying to act as a neighborhood watch. At some point he confronted someone he thought was suspicious in his neighborhood. He initiated the encounter.
Those who are claiming this is the result of "Stand Your Ground" laws are deliberately obfuscating the issue. Their purpose can only be to argue against this particular aspect of self defense, so as to confine all defensive actions to those by the government on behalf of the people it allegedly protects. It is unfortunate that George Zimmerman is falling for that obfuscation as his doing so only adds fuel to those making the claim.
Vigilantism isn't the same as self defense, and "Stand Your Ground" and other related doctrines don’t apply to the vigilante. There are times when vigilantism is valid, but it should be clearly identified as such and not confused with a purely defensive action.
People are blaming that law, and it appears that George Zimmerman may plan on using it as a defense if charges are brought against him.
A "Stand Your Ground" law only applies if the person doing the shooting does not initiate the encounter. That law only applies if the action is defensive. If someone initiates an encounter, and the confrontation escalates over the course of the encounter, there is still no interpretation that leaves defensive lethal force on the part of the person who initiated the encounter.
George Zimmerman, if the press reports are accurate, was trying to act as a neighborhood watch. At some point he confronted someone he thought was suspicious in his neighborhood. He initiated the encounter.
Those who are claiming this is the result of "Stand Your Ground" laws are deliberately obfuscating the issue. Their purpose can only be to argue against this particular aspect of self defense, so as to confine all defensive actions to those by the government on behalf of the people it allegedly protects. It is unfortunate that George Zimmerman is falling for that obfuscation as his doing so only adds fuel to those making the claim.
Vigilantism isn't the same as self defense, and "Stand Your Ground" and other related doctrines don’t apply to the vigilante. There are times when vigilantism is valid, but it should be clearly identified as such and not confused with a purely defensive action.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
An Economic Bump
A tiny bump of economic good news has supporters of President Obama crowing about how this will guarantee his reelection. The conventional wisdom is that the best chance the Republican Party has of capturing the presidency is by running on the economy.
Although reports conflict on what is actually happening, the official numbers on unemployment have dipped slightly. If the CPI is to be believed, the number has actually dipped under 9% for the first time since 2008.
Running on this meager improvement in the economy would not be a good idea if the goal is to win in November. In spite of statistical improvements and a climbing stock market, these improvements are not reflected in the experience of those outside the government-financial complex. It presents the Obama administration as detached and aloof, disconnected from the concerns of the average American. Ironically that is probably the campaign attack Obama wishes to use against Romney should Romney become the Republican nominee.
The thing to watch is inflation. The inflation that Austrians have been predicting (and Keynesians have laughed because it didn’t instantly appear) is arriving. It is expressing itself most heavily in energy prices at this time, above the rises that would be expected simply from the saber rattling going on. It is also expressing itself in the stock markets, but people consider that to be good when stocks are up.
President Obama will probably win in spite of the economy, not because of the economy. Hyping up his achievements with regards to the economy seems like an odd strategy as a result.
Although reports conflict on what is actually happening, the official numbers on unemployment have dipped slightly. If the CPI is to be believed, the number has actually dipped under 9% for the first time since 2008.
Running on this meager improvement in the economy would not be a good idea if the goal is to win in November. In spite of statistical improvements and a climbing stock market, these improvements are not reflected in the experience of those outside the government-financial complex. It presents the Obama administration as detached and aloof, disconnected from the concerns of the average American. Ironically that is probably the campaign attack Obama wishes to use against Romney should Romney become the Republican nominee.
The thing to watch is inflation. The inflation that Austrians have been predicting (and Keynesians have laughed because it didn’t instantly appear) is arriving. It is expressing itself most heavily in energy prices at this time, above the rises that would be expected simply from the saber rattling going on. It is also expressing itself in the stock markets, but people consider that to be good when stocks are up.
President Obama will probably win in spite of the economy, not because of the economy. Hyping up his achievements with regards to the economy seems like an odd strategy as a result.
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
How to defeat some forms of electronic surveillance
There are more and more ways that people are under surveillance, but here are some simple ways this can be countered.
RFID is a big topic. It takes the form of small chips implanted in various forms of identification. If the identification does not have any necessary magnetic information, then simply putting it in the microwave for a few seconds will effectively and permanently disable the RFID chip.
If they are installed on a credit card, where the magnetic strip contains valuable information, then a more crude solution is necessary: put a thick piece of cloth, flannel will do, underneath and on top of the ID card, and then hit the spot with the chip with a hammer. The goal is to destroy the chip without destroying the card, and that is actually a fairly simple task.
With regards to the Backscatter X-Ray or the Millimeter Wave scanners used by the Transportation Security Agency, there are a few solutions. The simplest involves the choice of clothing that can be worn. Clothing made of lamé would scramble some of the signals, and also leather offers some resistance because the radiation theoretically does not penetrate the skin. A blogger recently found another flaw by having any metal sewn into pockets on the side of garments.
GPS tracking is actually absurdly easy to defeat, because it is a device that is easily removed from a vehicle. For maximum benefit, if a tracker is found, it should be mailed to a random address in a foreign country. The person who was tracked should claim no knowledge at all of any GPS tracking unit if following this plan. Meanwhile, since the FBI is supposed to be in charge of domestic intelligence actions and the CIA is supposed to be in charge of all international intelligence actions one can sit back and watch the turf war while the US government has to request the recipient nation kindly return the GPS unit.
The new Smart Meters being deployed by power companies also have a safe and effective way of defeating their transmission capability. All it takes is to build a Faraday cage around the meter. In order to avoid any legal hassles the ability to physically read the meter should not be impaired, so that the power company still has the same options for reading the meter as they did with the original analog meters.
Since these meters transmit their data to the power companies over what appears to be frequencies similar to cell phone frequencies a Faraday Cage will completely block those signals. It does not require the cage to touch the meter in any way at all, so there can be no questions of tampering with the meter. It is impossible to tamper with the meter if one doesn’t touch it or transmit any data to it. A visual reading doesn’t contain the hour by hour (or in some cases minute by minute) readout that is another offending feature of Smart Meters.
A Faraday Cage has one more benefit. It prevents the meter from communicating with compatible technology, most importantly the air conditioning unit. There will be no way for the meter to instruct an air conditioner to shut off.
These are only some solutions. The full number of solutions is as wide as human imagination.
RFID is a big topic. It takes the form of small chips implanted in various forms of identification. If the identification does not have any necessary magnetic information, then simply putting it in the microwave for a few seconds will effectively and permanently disable the RFID chip.
If they are installed on a credit card, where the magnetic strip contains valuable information, then a more crude solution is necessary: put a thick piece of cloth, flannel will do, underneath and on top of the ID card, and then hit the spot with the chip with a hammer. The goal is to destroy the chip without destroying the card, and that is actually a fairly simple task.
With regards to the Backscatter X-Ray or the Millimeter Wave scanners used by the Transportation Security Agency, there are a few solutions. The simplest involves the choice of clothing that can be worn. Clothing made of lamé would scramble some of the signals, and also leather offers some resistance because the radiation theoretically does not penetrate the skin. A blogger recently found another flaw by having any metal sewn into pockets on the side of garments.
GPS tracking is actually absurdly easy to defeat, because it is a device that is easily removed from a vehicle. For maximum benefit, if a tracker is found, it should be mailed to a random address in a foreign country. The person who was tracked should claim no knowledge at all of any GPS tracking unit if following this plan. Meanwhile, since the FBI is supposed to be in charge of domestic intelligence actions and the CIA is supposed to be in charge of all international intelligence actions one can sit back and watch the turf war while the US government has to request the recipient nation kindly return the GPS unit.
The new Smart Meters being deployed by power companies also have a safe and effective way of defeating their transmission capability. All it takes is to build a Faraday cage around the meter. In order to avoid any legal hassles the ability to physically read the meter should not be impaired, so that the power company still has the same options for reading the meter as they did with the original analog meters.
Since these meters transmit their data to the power companies over what appears to be frequencies similar to cell phone frequencies a Faraday Cage will completely block those signals. It does not require the cage to touch the meter in any way at all, so there can be no questions of tampering with the meter. It is impossible to tamper with the meter if one doesn’t touch it or transmit any data to it. A visual reading doesn’t contain the hour by hour (or in some cases minute by minute) readout that is another offending feature of Smart Meters.
A Faraday Cage has one more benefit. It prevents the meter from communicating with compatible technology, most importantly the air conditioning unit. There will be no way for the meter to instruct an air conditioner to shut off.
These are only some solutions. The full number of solutions is as wide as human imagination.
Saturday, March 03, 2012
The Mafia Fallacy
The question is asked: if the government were to recede wouldn't some other organization promptly take over? In earlier incarnations of this fallacy the "other organization" discussed was often the Mafia or other organized crime syndicates. It has since been updated to discuss "the corporations" taking over, and sometimes even specific corporations such as Blackwater / Xe. Since the argument started by using the Mafia, and that is the version closest to having a sensible basis to argue from, the fallacy should be named in honor of the Mafia.
With regards to corporations it is actually an absurd question. First of all, corporations as they exist today exist because of government charter. Without the government, corporations as we know them would not exist. Blackwater is even more special because it would not exist unless the government is itself imperial, as a company like Blackwater would not exist without government as a customer. It is, essentially, an adjunct of government. The powers that corporations have that are abused are powers that were granted by the government.
Corporations, with the power not abused, are there to conduct peaceful voluntary transactions with willing customers. How could they "take over" with that sort of mindset? And what exactly are the critics thinking of when they make that claim? With corporations form police forces and require people to purchase their goods?
That is why the original claim, about organized crime syndicates such as the Mafia, makes a better argument. The classic "protection money" correlates very well to paying taxes. But an analysis of organized crime reveals some flaws even in this.
The primary revenue source of organized crime is engaging in black market activities, the sale of goods or services that are illegal In the 1920s that included alcohol. When alcohol was no longer banned open competition drove organized crime out of that market. When alcohol was banned, competition took place in the form of territorial jurisdiction, while legal goods compete in terms of price and quality.
In the event of a government drawback the primary revenue source of organized crime will disappear. The primary criminal black markets - drugs, gambling, sex - will not have government restrictions. That leaves only the classic activity of protection money as a potential activity for organized crime.
Shakedowns, protection money, unauthorized taxation, that is the point which shows that the fallacy can only work when someone is ready and willing to use coercive force, and why criminal organizations may do this and why discussing corporations makes a much weaker fallacy.
The reason that organized crime is able to do shakedowns is because of their subversion of the police, how officers will look the other way at criminal activity. An individual who attempts to fight back against organized crime will find no help from the agencies that are supposed to assist.
But it has a very small economic return. Government is inherently an unprofitable activity. The shakedowns, under current criminal activities, augment the income of the crime syndicates and are not a major source of revenue. Depriving organized crime of black market revenue while allowing people to defend themselves from shakedown enforcers will make even the Mafia have a hard time instituting a new government.
It isn't impossible, but it is far more difficult than is assumed by those committing the fallacy, and it is only possible for criminal gangs and not the corporations. Not even Blackwater.
With regards to corporations it is actually an absurd question. First of all, corporations as they exist today exist because of government charter. Without the government, corporations as we know them would not exist. Blackwater is even more special because it would not exist unless the government is itself imperial, as a company like Blackwater would not exist without government as a customer. It is, essentially, an adjunct of government. The powers that corporations have that are abused are powers that were granted by the government.
Corporations, with the power not abused, are there to conduct peaceful voluntary transactions with willing customers. How could they "take over" with that sort of mindset? And what exactly are the critics thinking of when they make that claim? With corporations form police forces and require people to purchase their goods?
That is why the original claim, about organized crime syndicates such as the Mafia, makes a better argument. The classic "protection money" correlates very well to paying taxes. But an analysis of organized crime reveals some flaws even in this.
The primary revenue source of organized crime is engaging in black market activities, the sale of goods or services that are illegal In the 1920s that included alcohol. When alcohol was no longer banned open competition drove organized crime out of that market. When alcohol was banned, competition took place in the form of territorial jurisdiction, while legal goods compete in terms of price and quality.
In the event of a government drawback the primary revenue source of organized crime will disappear. The primary criminal black markets - drugs, gambling, sex - will not have government restrictions. That leaves only the classic activity of protection money as a potential activity for organized crime.
Shakedowns, protection money, unauthorized taxation, that is the point which shows that the fallacy can only work when someone is ready and willing to use coercive force, and why criminal organizations may do this and why discussing corporations makes a much weaker fallacy.
The reason that organized crime is able to do shakedowns is because of their subversion of the police, how officers will look the other way at criminal activity. An individual who attempts to fight back against organized crime will find no help from the agencies that are supposed to assist.
But it has a very small economic return. Government is inherently an unprofitable activity. The shakedowns, under current criminal activities, augment the income of the crime syndicates and are not a major source of revenue. Depriving organized crime of black market revenue while allowing people to defend themselves from shakedown enforcers will make even the Mafia have a hard time instituting a new government.
It isn't impossible, but it is far more difficult than is assumed by those committing the fallacy, and it is only possible for criminal gangs and not the corporations. Not even Blackwater.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Precision Murder
That President Obama has been just as much a hawk as President Bush, if not more so, has been for the last three years a major source of embarrassment to liberals and some progressives. He seemed like the most peaceful of the leading candidates, but to be fair that was in comparison to Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Then shortly after he was elected, on the expectation of what he was going to do instead of anything he had actually done, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
And he went on to expand the number of countries that had United States military involvement to include Yemen, Libya, and Somalia, as well as keeping up the military activity in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. He did keep his promise to withdraw from Iraq, but only after signaling that he intended to break that promise and keep the troops there indefinitely and thereby forcing the Iraqi government to force a withdrawal. Plus he continued the saber rattling against Iran.
So how is a liberal or progressive to cope with this embarrassment? Apparently the effort is to say that Obama's use of precision weapons somehow makes his interventions morally superior. The argument is that Bush carpet bombed from B-52s while Obama is very precise and surgical with his use of drone warfare.
Of course this overlooks how Obama is precise and surgical when he bombs emergency response teams from his previous bombing runs, and how Obama is precise and surgical when he bombs funeral processions that result from his previous bombing runs.
Because Obama's murder of innocent civilians is allegedly so much less indiscriminate than Bush's murder of innocent civilians, it is considered crude and unenlightened to say that the murder of innocent civilians by Obama is morally equivalent to the murder of innocent civilians by Bush.
There is one problem with that analysis: innocent civilians are still being killed either way. If a person murders an innocent, it doesn't matter if he used a chain saw or a scalpel, and it doesn't matter if he carefully selected the innocent rather than picking one at random. It also doesn’t matter if he killed two or ten. The person is still a murderer. Obama is still morally equivalent to Bush, and both are war criminals.
And he went on to expand the number of countries that had United States military involvement to include Yemen, Libya, and Somalia, as well as keeping up the military activity in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. He did keep his promise to withdraw from Iraq, but only after signaling that he intended to break that promise and keep the troops there indefinitely and thereby forcing the Iraqi government to force a withdrawal. Plus he continued the saber rattling against Iran.
So how is a liberal or progressive to cope with this embarrassment? Apparently the effort is to say that Obama's use of precision weapons somehow makes his interventions morally superior. The argument is that Bush carpet bombed from B-52s while Obama is very precise and surgical with his use of drone warfare.
Of course this overlooks how Obama is precise and surgical when he bombs emergency response teams from his previous bombing runs, and how Obama is precise and surgical when he bombs funeral processions that result from his previous bombing runs.
Because Obama's murder of innocent civilians is allegedly so much less indiscriminate than Bush's murder of innocent civilians, it is considered crude and unenlightened to say that the murder of innocent civilians by Obama is morally equivalent to the murder of innocent civilians by Bush.
There is one problem with that analysis: innocent civilians are still being killed either way. If a person murders an innocent, it doesn't matter if he used a chain saw or a scalpel, and it doesn't matter if he carefully selected the innocent rather than picking one at random. It also doesn’t matter if he killed two or ten. The person is still a murderer. Obama is still morally equivalent to Bush, and both are war criminals.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Social Security Default
In an interesting turn of events, the Congressional Budget Office has declared that Social Security will run out of money by 2020.
For years there have been two interpretations on when Social Security will actually be bankrupt. Those who believe in government also believed in the Social Security Trust fund, and therefore believed that when the Social Security Administration started disbursing more funds than it takes in that it would simply liquidate the treasury bonds and keep the program solvent for decades to come. Originally the end date was 2043, but it was moved up to 2036 due to deteriorating economic conditions.
Those who are less likely to believe the promises of politicians have long said that the due date for the bankruptcy of Social Security is 2018, the day that revenues start to exceed expenditures, and that would be a bankruptcy because the alleged trust fund does not exist. When Great Depression Two started that was moved up to 2017, and then moved up even further. Currently expenditures and revenues are nearly equal and all it will take to break the system will be a small jump in expenditures or a small drop in revenues.
But for the Congressional Budget Office to predict disaster for Social Security in the year 2020 is a startling admission. These people are paid to believe that the trust fund exists, so if they are predicting that the trust fund will be depleted that soon the situation must be pretty dire indeed.
The economy is deteriorating at an accelerating pace, but most people do not notice it at this time. This one item of news should be sending up alarm flags across the country, especially since it involves one of the most active voting blocs. This really is big news about how advanced the decay of the United States economy really is, since even the Congressional Budget Office is admitting to it and even CNN is reporting it.
For years there have been two interpretations on when Social Security will actually be bankrupt. Those who believe in government also believed in the Social Security Trust fund, and therefore believed that when the Social Security Administration started disbursing more funds than it takes in that it would simply liquidate the treasury bonds and keep the program solvent for decades to come. Originally the end date was 2043, but it was moved up to 2036 due to deteriorating economic conditions.
Those who are less likely to believe the promises of politicians have long said that the due date for the bankruptcy of Social Security is 2018, the day that revenues start to exceed expenditures, and that would be a bankruptcy because the alleged trust fund does not exist. When Great Depression Two started that was moved up to 2017, and then moved up even further. Currently expenditures and revenues are nearly equal and all it will take to break the system will be a small jump in expenditures or a small drop in revenues.
But for the Congressional Budget Office to predict disaster for Social Security in the year 2020 is a startling admission. These people are paid to believe that the trust fund exists, so if they are predicting that the trust fund will be depleted that soon the situation must be pretty dire indeed.
The economy is deteriorating at an accelerating pace, but most people do not notice it at this time. This one item of news should be sending up alarm flags across the country, especially since it involves one of the most active voting blocs. This really is big news about how advanced the decay of the United States economy really is, since even the Congressional Budget Office is admitting to it and even CNN is reporting it.
Thursday, February 09, 2012
Republicans are Jealous Lovers
After eight years of Bush it is apparent that Republicans love government. This love is on display with the candidacies of Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum. Not only do Republicans love government, when they get government alone they dim the lights, put on some Barry Manilow, and try desperately to get government's bra off.
The problem is that the government is a fickle mistress and sometimes will dally with her other suitor, the Democrats.
This drives Republicans into a jealous rage, in which they bad-mouth the object of their desire as well as the competitor who has captured her attention. If they cannot have her than nobody should, so they describe in detail how bad she really is. They desire her, or at least lust for her, so they really do not have the words to describe her faults. But they do know someone who is repulsed by her, and they listen to what Libertarians say about her and repeat it as if they mean it.
But they only say those things about her when their mistress is away. They never describe her as an immoral and loose woman when they have her to themselves.
Democrats do not like it when their mistress strays back to another dalliance with the Republicans. But unlike the Republicans they genuinely love her as well as desire her, so when she strays they do not blame her fickleness and they do not badmouth her for leaving. Instead they attack their rival suitor exclusively.
They attack the Republican rival by accusing him of not really loving mistress government, and use his bitter jealous language as proof. The Democrats say that if the Republicans really desired government so much then they wouldn't use such horrible language. It is true that when government is dallying with the Democrats the Republicans do use harsh language, but what the Democrats don’t realize is that the language is the result of a jealous rage. The Democrats then go on to say that since the jealous words prove the Republicans don’t really desire her, they should stop trying to woo her.
It's not that the Republicans don't desire her, it's that they cannot stand sharing her. They never say such horrible things when she is shacking up with them for the night and collecting her pay for doing so, and each time say that they never really meant any of it and they'll never say such horrible things if she will just remain faithful. They'd love nothing more than to spend the rest of their life with government in an exclusive relationship even though they know she doesn't care about them at all and only cares about what she can get out of the relationship.
Libertarians, married to the idea of liberty, simply shake their heads at these two competitors trying to seduce a harlot.
The problem is that the government is a fickle mistress and sometimes will dally with her other suitor, the Democrats.
This drives Republicans into a jealous rage, in which they bad-mouth the object of their desire as well as the competitor who has captured her attention. If they cannot have her than nobody should, so they describe in detail how bad she really is. They desire her, or at least lust for her, so they really do not have the words to describe her faults. But they do know someone who is repulsed by her, and they listen to what Libertarians say about her and repeat it as if they mean it.
But they only say those things about her when their mistress is away. They never describe her as an immoral and loose woman when they have her to themselves.
Democrats do not like it when their mistress strays back to another dalliance with the Republicans. But unlike the Republicans they genuinely love her as well as desire her, so when she strays they do not blame her fickleness and they do not badmouth her for leaving. Instead they attack their rival suitor exclusively.
They attack the Republican rival by accusing him of not really loving mistress government, and use his bitter jealous language as proof. The Democrats say that if the Republicans really desired government so much then they wouldn't use such horrible language. It is true that when government is dallying with the Democrats the Republicans do use harsh language, but what the Democrats don’t realize is that the language is the result of a jealous rage. The Democrats then go on to say that since the jealous words prove the Republicans don’t really desire her, they should stop trying to woo her.
It's not that the Republicans don't desire her, it's that they cannot stand sharing her. They never say such horrible things when she is shacking up with them for the night and collecting her pay for doing so, and each time say that they never really meant any of it and they'll never say such horrible things if she will just remain faithful. They'd love nothing more than to spend the rest of their life with government in an exclusive relationship even though they know she doesn't care about them at all and only cares about what she can get out of the relationship.
Libertarians, married to the idea of liberty, simply shake their heads at these two competitors trying to seduce a harlot.
Saturday, February 04, 2012
An Open Letter to Gary Johnson
Although there are those who thought it would be a bad idea, you did go ahead and switch to the Libertarian Party in an effort to continue your presidential campaign. Now that you have gone ahead and moved in to the Libertarian Party race, hopefully you will run a better campaign than you have been running so far.
There are a few problems you will have to overcome. After the 2008 campaign there are a number of active libertarians who are burned out on the "endorse someone famous" tactic, sacrificing someone who could effectively represent libertarian ideas to their fullest. The ticket of Bob Barr and Wayne Root was a mistake that the party is still trying to live down, and even though you are better than either of them you are still campaigning in their shadow.
If you want to be an effective Libertarian Party candidate, you will have to come out of their shadow and prove that you are fully libertarian, much more so than those nominated the last time the Libertarian Party sacrificed purity for electoral gain.
And that means you will have to rethink a few of your associations within the Libertarian Party. Being seen as close to Wayne Root, who is almost bragging about how he is the one who brought you over, will never get you out of the shadow of the 2008 ticket. Those who seem the most pleased by your Libertarian Party candidacy are what people in the Libertarian Party call the "Reform Caucus." They are the ones responsible for the 2008 ticket that you have to run against.
The first and foremost way to come out of the shadow of the 2008 ticket is to take the purist libertarian position on foreign policy, as that is what divides the Libertarian Party the most strongly. Wayne Root campaigned actively in 2008 about how he was the pro-war candidate until he discovered that was a losing strategy.
You currently advocate returning all United States troops and that is a good position. But you also support entangling alliances. Neither side of any conflict should have any expectation of United States support. You need to become a purist on this issue. It will alienate many of those who currently are your most ardent supporters but it is necessary if your campaign is to not be a repeat of the 2008 disaster.
The other area where you could improve is in economics. It would be refreshing, in an ironic sort of way, if the Libertarian Party were to have a candidate strong on both civil policy and foreign policy yet weak on economics, but the standard bearer should be as good as possible on all three. Your position on the Federal Reserve and the Fair Tax are not positions embraced by libertarians in general.
Perhaps you could be forgiven your economic short-comings, but you need to embrace a hard-core foreign policy on your campaign if you wish to do so. You were a great example of what a Republican could be when you ran, but as a Libertarian there is room for needed improvements. Your current associates will not appreciate those improvements either. So you need to ask what is more important - your race or the party you are running in?
There are a few problems you will have to overcome. After the 2008 campaign there are a number of active libertarians who are burned out on the "endorse someone famous" tactic, sacrificing someone who could effectively represent libertarian ideas to their fullest. The ticket of Bob Barr and Wayne Root was a mistake that the party is still trying to live down, and even though you are better than either of them you are still campaigning in their shadow.
If you want to be an effective Libertarian Party candidate, you will have to come out of their shadow and prove that you are fully libertarian, much more so than those nominated the last time the Libertarian Party sacrificed purity for electoral gain.
And that means you will have to rethink a few of your associations within the Libertarian Party. Being seen as close to Wayne Root, who is almost bragging about how he is the one who brought you over, will never get you out of the shadow of the 2008 ticket. Those who seem the most pleased by your Libertarian Party candidacy are what people in the Libertarian Party call the "Reform Caucus." They are the ones responsible for the 2008 ticket that you have to run against.
The first and foremost way to come out of the shadow of the 2008 ticket is to take the purist libertarian position on foreign policy, as that is what divides the Libertarian Party the most strongly. Wayne Root campaigned actively in 2008 about how he was the pro-war candidate until he discovered that was a losing strategy.
You currently advocate returning all United States troops and that is a good position. But you also support entangling alliances. Neither side of any conflict should have any expectation of United States support. You need to become a purist on this issue. It will alienate many of those who currently are your most ardent supporters but it is necessary if your campaign is to not be a repeat of the 2008 disaster.
The other area where you could improve is in economics. It would be refreshing, in an ironic sort of way, if the Libertarian Party were to have a candidate strong on both civil policy and foreign policy yet weak on economics, but the standard bearer should be as good as possible on all three. Your position on the Federal Reserve and the Fair Tax are not positions embraced by libertarians in general.
Perhaps you could be forgiven your economic short-comings, but you need to embrace a hard-core foreign policy on your campaign if you wish to do so. You were a great example of what a Republican could be when you ran, but as a Libertarian there is room for needed improvements. Your current associates will not appreciate those improvements either. So you need to ask what is more important - your race or the party you are running in?
Friday, January 27, 2012
Ron Paul and the Libertarian Dilemma
It does not seem that it should be the case, but the Ron Paul candidacy is actually causing more than a little dissent within libertarian circles. There are more than a few who are not only displeased, but actually oppose his candidacy.
Some, like Classically Liberal Student over at the Classically Liberal Blog do not care for Representative Paul because of an opinion that he is not libertarian enough to warrant support. Although one can disagree with his analysis, it is still a consistent and supportable position to take. And CLS backs up his opinion with very well thought out arguments. This does not mean to say that CLS is a purist, and he has said he is not, it is just that his arguments are that Representative Paul is not sufficiently libertarian on enough issues, and he has taken the time to highlight those issues to present a compelling argument.
But in general it appears that the more radical libertarians are more eager to support Representative Paul, while those in the so-called "reform caucus" seem to be the most opposed to his candidacy. The Facebook group "Stop Ron Paul 2012" which recently became famous for a proposed false flag attack involving members dressing in Klan robes, was founded by a member of the Libertarian Party.
And outside the Libertarian Party, there are others who claim allegiance to the ideas of liberty in a much less radical fashion than the Libertarian Party’s version, such as the Republican Liberty Caucus; after that caucus endorsed Ron Paul the Vice Chair Aaron Bitterman resigned in protest. The Republican Liberty Caucus had been doing nothing for years, but then Ron Paul's 2008 campaign led to an infusion of new and energetic people that revitalized the caucus in spite of the leadership. Then, of course, there is former staffer Eric Dondero who has spent years opposing Ron Paul and claims to be libertarian.
If an argument can be made that Paul isn't libertarian enough for purists, the Reform Caucus should be the most welcoming of Representative Paul. But it seems the radicals are more likely to be friendly to Paul and instead it seems that for more than a few on the reform side he causes them problems. So what about his campaign causes reformers problems? Taking them at their word, he is supposedly an opponent of Israel and isn’t eager enough to use the military to attack Iran.
He takes the most consistently libertarian position possible on foreign affairs; peaceful relations with all, entangling alliances with none. While he doesn't blame the United States for everything, he does blame the United States for the things that the United States is responsible for. He doesn't believe it is the job of the American Tax Payer to pay for the defense of other countries.
Some on the less pure side of the libertarian spectrum have convinced themselves that the job of the United States military is to force people in other countries to be free. The most well known politician with genuine libertarian leanings is, leaving aside any question on purity on other issues, taking the purist radical libertarian position on foreign affairs. He is putting to lie their arguments, exposing their own departures from libertarian thought.
Since he would not give foreign aid to any country, that means he would not give foreign aid to one country in particular. His statements are then taken out of context to show opposition to that one country in particular, and he is called an anti-Semite as a result. His refusal to help any country is portrayed as a hostility to that one country, and then reinterpreted as a support for that country’s enemies.
The arguments used are identical to the arguments these same people oppose when progressives try to accuse libertarians of racism. Exactly like how a progressive starts with "that person disagrees with me" and ends with "that person must be a racist" these anti-Paul libertarians start with "I don't like Ron Paul" and end with "he must be an anti-Semite" or "he must be a racist." The evidence simply doesn't support such a conclusion.
It is pretty obvious what causes progressives to have problems with Representative Paul. He causes them to have to evaluate what it is they really believe in, and they don't like what he reveals to them about themselves. It is also pretty obvious what causes conservatives to have problems with Representative Paul. He causes them to evaluate what it is they really believe in, and they don't like what he reveals to them about themselves. The same is true about these libertarians against Ron Paul.
Some, like Classically Liberal Student over at the Classically Liberal Blog do not care for Representative Paul because of an opinion that he is not libertarian enough to warrant support. Although one can disagree with his analysis, it is still a consistent and supportable position to take. And CLS backs up his opinion with very well thought out arguments. This does not mean to say that CLS is a purist, and he has said he is not, it is just that his arguments are that Representative Paul is not sufficiently libertarian on enough issues, and he has taken the time to highlight those issues to present a compelling argument.
But in general it appears that the more radical libertarians are more eager to support Representative Paul, while those in the so-called "reform caucus" seem to be the most opposed to his candidacy. The Facebook group "Stop Ron Paul 2012" which recently became famous for a proposed false flag attack involving members dressing in Klan robes, was founded by a member of the Libertarian Party.
And outside the Libertarian Party, there are others who claim allegiance to the ideas of liberty in a much less radical fashion than the Libertarian Party’s version, such as the Republican Liberty Caucus; after that caucus endorsed Ron Paul the Vice Chair Aaron Bitterman resigned in protest. The Republican Liberty Caucus had been doing nothing for years, but then Ron Paul's 2008 campaign led to an infusion of new and energetic people that revitalized the caucus in spite of the leadership. Then, of course, there is former staffer Eric Dondero who has spent years opposing Ron Paul and claims to be libertarian.
If an argument can be made that Paul isn't libertarian enough for purists, the Reform Caucus should be the most welcoming of Representative Paul. But it seems the radicals are more likely to be friendly to Paul and instead it seems that for more than a few on the reform side he causes them problems. So what about his campaign causes reformers problems? Taking them at their word, he is supposedly an opponent of Israel and isn’t eager enough to use the military to attack Iran.
He takes the most consistently libertarian position possible on foreign affairs; peaceful relations with all, entangling alliances with none. While he doesn't blame the United States for everything, he does blame the United States for the things that the United States is responsible for. He doesn't believe it is the job of the American Tax Payer to pay for the defense of other countries.
Some on the less pure side of the libertarian spectrum have convinced themselves that the job of the United States military is to force people in other countries to be free. The most well known politician with genuine libertarian leanings is, leaving aside any question on purity on other issues, taking the purist radical libertarian position on foreign affairs. He is putting to lie their arguments, exposing their own departures from libertarian thought.
Since he would not give foreign aid to any country, that means he would not give foreign aid to one country in particular. His statements are then taken out of context to show opposition to that one country in particular, and he is called an anti-Semite as a result. His refusal to help any country is portrayed as a hostility to that one country, and then reinterpreted as a support for that country’s enemies.
The arguments used are identical to the arguments these same people oppose when progressives try to accuse libertarians of racism. Exactly like how a progressive starts with "that person disagrees with me" and ends with "that person must be a racist" these anti-Paul libertarians start with "I don't like Ron Paul" and end with "he must be an anti-Semite" or "he must be a racist." The evidence simply doesn't support such a conclusion.
It is pretty obvious what causes progressives to have problems with Representative Paul. He causes them to have to evaluate what it is they really believe in, and they don't like what he reveals to them about themselves. It is also pretty obvious what causes conservatives to have problems with Representative Paul. He causes them to evaluate what it is they really believe in, and they don't like what he reveals to them about themselves. The same is true about these libertarians against Ron Paul.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Ron Paul and the Conservative Dilemma
If conservatives mean what they say, then Ron Paul would be the ideal candidate for them. He is the only candidate in the Republican presidential race that actually means it when he talks about reducing the reach and scope of government.
According to the Nolan Chart, it is expected that conservatives and libertarians will be divided on social issues, but in this campaign social issues are not at the forefront. The most pressing issues of the day are the ongoing wars and the Greater Depression
The war is big in the Republican Party, of course, and that will make Representative Paul stand out. But when asked about that issue at a recent debate he could have answered "I don't think I’m outside the mainstream. Sixty to seventy percent of this country is tired of these wars. The Republican Party lost control of the congress and the presidency because of support of these wars, and only regained the House because of how bad Obamacare is." It would have used his stand on the wars to good effect.
The economic issue is actually the critical issue to examine. As is demonstrated but not commonly known, conservatives are not interested in laissez faire, in spite of their reputation otherwise. From the first predecessor party, the Federalist Party of Alexander Hamilton, to today under the Republican Party, the one constant has been an economic ideology of government intervention on behalf of large businesses.
President Bush and Senator McCain both supported the bailouts, while Representative Paul opposed them. The bailouts weren't welfare programs for the poor, as is generally favored by the Democrats, they were welfare programs for the rich as has always been favored by Republicans.
This is the real reason why Republicans dislike his position on other issues, such as the foreign wars and the drug wars. Foreign wars mean lush, lucrative government contracts for munitions manufacture. The drug war means even more lush, lucrative government contracts for police enforcement activities. It isn't about winning either war, it is about the same mercantilism that started under Hamilton but carried to a degree even he would have been appalled at.
If Representative Paul were to become president, the practice of the politically connected becoming wealthy at the expense of the taxpayer would be severely curtailed.
In spite of all the “small government” rhetoric, conservatives never meant a single word of it. Representative Paul does mean it. That presents a dilemma to conservatives, similar to the one presented to progressives - he makes them confront what they really believe, and they do not like finding out what it is they really believe. They blame him for being forced to find out. If a ray of light shines on a pigsty, is it the fault of the ray of light that what we see is so bad? The guilty conscience of a conservative causes them to give the say answer of "yes" that the progressives give as well.
According to the Nolan Chart, it is expected that conservatives and libertarians will be divided on social issues, but in this campaign social issues are not at the forefront. The most pressing issues of the day are the ongoing wars and the Greater Depression
The war is big in the Republican Party, of course, and that will make Representative Paul stand out. But when asked about that issue at a recent debate he could have answered "I don't think I’m outside the mainstream. Sixty to seventy percent of this country is tired of these wars. The Republican Party lost control of the congress and the presidency because of support of these wars, and only regained the House because of how bad Obamacare is." It would have used his stand on the wars to good effect.
The economic issue is actually the critical issue to examine. As is demonstrated but not commonly known, conservatives are not interested in laissez faire, in spite of their reputation otherwise. From the first predecessor party, the Federalist Party of Alexander Hamilton, to today under the Republican Party, the one constant has been an economic ideology of government intervention on behalf of large businesses.
President Bush and Senator McCain both supported the bailouts, while Representative Paul opposed them. The bailouts weren't welfare programs for the poor, as is generally favored by the Democrats, they were welfare programs for the rich as has always been favored by Republicans.
This is the real reason why Republicans dislike his position on other issues, such as the foreign wars and the drug wars. Foreign wars mean lush, lucrative government contracts for munitions manufacture. The drug war means even more lush, lucrative government contracts for police enforcement activities. It isn't about winning either war, it is about the same mercantilism that started under Hamilton but carried to a degree even he would have been appalled at.
If Representative Paul were to become president, the practice of the politically connected becoming wealthy at the expense of the taxpayer would be severely curtailed.
In spite of all the “small government” rhetoric, conservatives never meant a single word of it. Representative Paul does mean it. That presents a dilemma to conservatives, similar to the one presented to progressives - he makes them confront what they really believe, and they do not like finding out what it is they really believe. They blame him for being forced to find out. If a ray of light shines on a pigsty, is it the fault of the ray of light that what we see is so bad? The guilty conscience of a conservative causes them to give the say answer of "yes" that the progressives give as well.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Occupy Campaign Finance Reform
For tactical reasons, the Occupy Wall Street movement is disorganized. That has made it difficult for them to come up with goals that can be agreed to by a majority of those involved in the movement. One issue, though, is gaining wide acceptance across the Occupy movement. Opposition to "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" and an advocacy of Campaign Finance Reform in general is increasingly advocated by the Occupy movement.
The ire is understandable given the focus of the Occupy movement. In the corporatist collusion between big business and big government, they focus on the business half of the partnership. The goal, as it is forming, is to prohibit all third party campaign activities. The target is Super PACs as well as corporations, and when pressed on the issue there is grudging agreement that unions are covered as well. The only form of donation that would be considered acceptable would be directly to the campaign.
Although the intent is good this will achieve the exact opposite of the desired goal, making it quite the same as every preceding campaign finance reform law. Those pushing this particular change are not well versed in economics, especially the law of unintended consequences, in spite of how the history of campaign finance law is a glaring example of it in action. Ever preceding law was put in place to reduce the importance of money in politics, and money is now more important than ever in politics. The Super PACs are the end result of a long line of those laws.
The basic campaign finance reform law is a limit on how much an individual can donate. This would prohibit the wealthy from bankrolling a candidate at the expense of the masses. What actually happens is that it shuts out competing views. Suppose there are two parties, one fifty times larger than the other. While both would benefit from a few big contributions, only one would benefit from many small contributions because it has the donor base to do so.
One might think that this would therefore encourage those who want actual change to work within the party to tap into that fundraising machine, but the party leadership controls who the party helps. The leadership will then share mailing lists and donor lists with candidates the leadership likes. This has the effect of binding candidates tightly to the party.
A way around the tight control of party leadership was developed, the PAC and then the Super PAC. And the solution to the problem of money in politics is to eliminate the only way left that actual advocates of change might use to get elected? The end result of this is something else that is also suggested often, full public financing of campaigns. When pressed on how someone would qualify for that financing, the suggestion was made of petitions, which would be recruited by the party binding the candidates even more closely to the party.
The way to eliminate the Super PACs and to reduce the influence of money in politics is to eliminate the cause. That means removing all the campaign finance laws that led up to the point where the only way outside of the tightly controlled system is by people pooling their money in PACs. People forget that a campaign donation is indeed a form of political speech, and it was political speech in particular that was supposed to be protected by the freedom of speech clause of the first amendment (the freedom of religion clause covered religious speech).
That does not mean that only the rich would have a voice, contrary to the claims of those who cannot imagine another way of doing things. Just as attempts to limit money have increased its importance, removing the limits would decrease its importance giving more people a greater voice in the political system.
The ire is understandable given the focus of the Occupy movement. In the corporatist collusion between big business and big government, they focus on the business half of the partnership. The goal, as it is forming, is to prohibit all third party campaign activities. The target is Super PACs as well as corporations, and when pressed on the issue there is grudging agreement that unions are covered as well. The only form of donation that would be considered acceptable would be directly to the campaign.
Although the intent is good this will achieve the exact opposite of the desired goal, making it quite the same as every preceding campaign finance reform law. Those pushing this particular change are not well versed in economics, especially the law of unintended consequences, in spite of how the history of campaign finance law is a glaring example of it in action. Ever preceding law was put in place to reduce the importance of money in politics, and money is now more important than ever in politics. The Super PACs are the end result of a long line of those laws.
The basic campaign finance reform law is a limit on how much an individual can donate. This would prohibit the wealthy from bankrolling a candidate at the expense of the masses. What actually happens is that it shuts out competing views. Suppose there are two parties, one fifty times larger than the other. While both would benefit from a few big contributions, only one would benefit from many small contributions because it has the donor base to do so.
One might think that this would therefore encourage those who want actual change to work within the party to tap into that fundraising machine, but the party leadership controls who the party helps. The leadership will then share mailing lists and donor lists with candidates the leadership likes. This has the effect of binding candidates tightly to the party.
A way around the tight control of party leadership was developed, the PAC and then the Super PAC. And the solution to the problem of money in politics is to eliminate the only way left that actual advocates of change might use to get elected? The end result of this is something else that is also suggested often, full public financing of campaigns. When pressed on how someone would qualify for that financing, the suggestion was made of petitions, which would be recruited by the party binding the candidates even more closely to the party.
The way to eliminate the Super PACs and to reduce the influence of money in politics is to eliminate the cause. That means removing all the campaign finance laws that led up to the point where the only way outside of the tightly controlled system is by people pooling their money in PACs. People forget that a campaign donation is indeed a form of political speech, and it was political speech in particular that was supposed to be protected by the freedom of speech clause of the first amendment (the freedom of religion clause covered religious speech).
That does not mean that only the rich would have a voice, contrary to the claims of those who cannot imagine another way of doing things. Just as attempts to limit money have increased its importance, removing the limits would decrease its importance giving more people a greater voice in the political system.
Saturday, January 07, 2012
California High Speed Rail
The California High Speed Rail project is, even by government standards, a disaster. After the rail had been approved, costs quadrupled. It appears that their ridership estimates had the entire population of some of the town riding it ever day. The first stretch of it is in the middle of nowhere instead of somewhere that might start paying dividends from the start such as a line between San Diego and Los Angeles.
Although finding wasteful government agencies is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, there’s something particularly odious about the California High Speed Rail project. One libertarian blogger compared it to buying a car, and as soon as the contract is signed the car dealer says "Oh, by the way, we’re changing the contract to quadruple the price."
In California people apparently like to approve of any and all public transit initiatives. This isn't because they imagine themselves using the public transit, but because they imagine everyone else using public transit. The reason they have to involve the government is because they don't imagine themselves using it so there actually is no true market for the service.
The original plan would involve some money from government and also some from private investors. No private investors were interested, even with government guarantees. So far there has been more money spent on advertising than anything else, although that has been scaled back because the public has been criticizing the amount spent on advertising.
It has even been noted by some that since the plans changed after the project was initially approved, the bond that the public voted for could technically be considered null and void. Meanwhile part of the alleged profit from this rail line was supposed to come from other train services, most notably Amtrak, sharking the line and paying for the rails they use. The other rail lines then replied they had no interest in using the lines.
Although this is normal for a government boondoggle project, it is a bit of an extreme example of a government boondoggle. So what is to be done by the State of California? And how can this be remedied without costing the taxpayer a fortune?
Well, there is one way, and that is to enforce the contract that the state made with the High Speed Rail Agency. That goes against the spirit of corporatist corruption that established this boondoggle in the first place, but it fits pretty well within the letter of the law. The State of California should say to the High Speed Rail Agency "You will deliver to us the rail you promised, at the price you promised, or we will jail your leadership for fraud."
It might be just the thing to scare the many other corrupt corporatist endeavors that have been bleeding California dry with their promises of many bountiful returns but instead only receive government grants. Putting a few of their directors in jail for never giving any returns might force them to actually create business plans that go farther than the next government grant.
Although finding wasteful government agencies is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, there’s something particularly odious about the California High Speed Rail project. One libertarian blogger compared it to buying a car, and as soon as the contract is signed the car dealer says "Oh, by the way, we’re changing the contract to quadruple the price."
In California people apparently like to approve of any and all public transit initiatives. This isn't because they imagine themselves using the public transit, but because they imagine everyone else using public transit. The reason they have to involve the government is because they don't imagine themselves using it so there actually is no true market for the service.
The original plan would involve some money from government and also some from private investors. No private investors were interested, even with government guarantees. So far there has been more money spent on advertising than anything else, although that has been scaled back because the public has been criticizing the amount spent on advertising.
It has even been noted by some that since the plans changed after the project was initially approved, the bond that the public voted for could technically be considered null and void. Meanwhile part of the alleged profit from this rail line was supposed to come from other train services, most notably Amtrak, sharking the line and paying for the rails they use. The other rail lines then replied they had no interest in using the lines.
Although this is normal for a government boondoggle project, it is a bit of an extreme example of a government boondoggle. So what is to be done by the State of California? And how can this be remedied without costing the taxpayer a fortune?
Well, there is one way, and that is to enforce the contract that the state made with the High Speed Rail Agency. That goes against the spirit of corporatist corruption that established this boondoggle in the first place, but it fits pretty well within the letter of the law. The State of California should say to the High Speed Rail Agency "You will deliver to us the rail you promised, at the price you promised, or we will jail your leadership for fraud."
It might be just the thing to scare the many other corrupt corporatist endeavors that have been bleeding California dry with their promises of many bountiful returns but instead only receive government grants. Putting a few of their directors in jail for never giving any returns might force them to actually create business plans that go farther than the next government grant.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Why Republicans Must Choose Ron Paul
Every single election, the Republicans make the same sales pitch to independent libertarian voters: this election is so critical, support us in this, and maybe later once the enemy is defeated we can maybe support issues that are important to you.
It is an offer that will never be reciprocated. In the odd even that a Libertarian candidate is the stronger candidate, the Republican Party has no intention of ever supporting that candidate. Although Massachusetts senate races are usually decided by a 2-1 ratio in favor of the Democrat candidate, in 2002 when there was no Republican candidate the Libertarian candidate only received 18% of the vote. There is no evidence of Republican support.
Progressives like to make rhetorical use of the alleged sympathy between libertarians and conservatives, and one of their few offered proofs is Ron Paul and his election to the House of Representatives as a Republican instead of as a Libertarian or Democrat. The treatment of Representative Paul by the Republican Party should be sufficient disproof of that point, but facts do not interfere with that rhetorical usage.
Further disproof of that sympathy is shown by the upcoming Iowa caucus. The Republican Party leadership has come out strongly against Ron Paul winning that caucus, to the point where they have threatened to strip Iowa of their "first in the nation" status if Paul wins, and have even moved the counting over alleged threats from Occupy.
If Representative Paul does win Iowa, the threats are there for the whole Republican establishment to come out and attack him. It is unknown what will happen if Representative Paul manages to pick up a majority of delegates, although it does appear they have a plan in place to discount the effect of all delegates from early states.
If the nomination is actually stolen from Representative Paul, if it is given to Mitt Romney, that would be an absolute proof that the "big tent" ceased to exist years ago and that the whole "Libertarian Republican" meme is nothing but a charade designed to fool libertarians into wasting their votes with Republicans and to give rhetorical ammunition to progressives.
If the Republicans want to keep up the sales pitch to libertarians, they have to allow Representative Paul to win. The alternative is to stop pretending there is a big tent, to stop pretending that there is anything in common between libertarianism and the Republican Party, and to lose the race by losing Ron Paul. If the Republican Party wants a future, they must choose Ron Paul.
It is an offer that will never be reciprocated. In the odd even that a Libertarian candidate is the stronger candidate, the Republican Party has no intention of ever supporting that candidate. Although Massachusetts senate races are usually decided by a 2-1 ratio in favor of the Democrat candidate, in 2002 when there was no Republican candidate the Libertarian candidate only received 18% of the vote. There is no evidence of Republican support.
Progressives like to make rhetorical use of the alleged sympathy between libertarians and conservatives, and one of their few offered proofs is Ron Paul and his election to the House of Representatives as a Republican instead of as a Libertarian or Democrat. The treatment of Representative Paul by the Republican Party should be sufficient disproof of that point, but facts do not interfere with that rhetorical usage.
Further disproof of that sympathy is shown by the upcoming Iowa caucus. The Republican Party leadership has come out strongly against Ron Paul winning that caucus, to the point where they have threatened to strip Iowa of their "first in the nation" status if Paul wins, and have even moved the counting over alleged threats from Occupy.
If Representative Paul does win Iowa, the threats are there for the whole Republican establishment to come out and attack him. It is unknown what will happen if Representative Paul manages to pick up a majority of delegates, although it does appear they have a plan in place to discount the effect of all delegates from early states.
If the nomination is actually stolen from Representative Paul, if it is given to Mitt Romney, that would be an absolute proof that the "big tent" ceased to exist years ago and that the whole "Libertarian Republican" meme is nothing but a charade designed to fool libertarians into wasting their votes with Republicans and to give rhetorical ammunition to progressives.
If the Republicans want to keep up the sales pitch to libertarians, they have to allow Representative Paul to win. The alternative is to stop pretending there is a big tent, to stop pretending that there is anything in common between libertarianism and the Republican Party, and to lose the race by losing Ron Paul. If the Republican Party wants a future, they must choose Ron Paul.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Don't do it Gary
Right now there is intense speculation (in libertarian circles) about Republican Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson and a possible move from the Republican Party to the Libertarian Party to seek the presidential nomination.
That would be a bad idea.
Yes, Governor Johnson has reason to feel slighted. The press is giving much more coverage to all the other two-term governor candidates than to Governor Johnson, and he is being snubbed from the debates in spite of having polling numbers similar to other two-term governor candidates. The second debate that he was invited to was to see if the press could get him to attack Representative Ron Paul on who is more libertarian, and when Governor Johnson refused to play that game the press lost all interest.
Governor Johnson entered the race hoping to be the "Ron Paul of 2012" but when Representative Paul entered the race the two had to compete for the same initial slice of support, donations, and votes. While followers of one would generally be content with the other, a choice had to be made factoring in both the credentials of the candidates and the likelihood of making it through the primaries. The public settled on Representative Paul as the one most likely to have an impact in the 2012 race.
But that is not a reason to quit. Representative Paul has indicated that if he does not receive the nomination in 2012 he will retire from politics. If Governor Johnson sticks through with the Republican Party he can go in four years from ignored to a prominent voice, much the way Representative Paul did from 2007 to 2011. He will have shown the determination to pick up where Representative Paul has left off and move forward from there.
However, if he leaves to join the Libertarian Party and seek the presidential nomination there are many problems associated with doing so. The first of such problems is that the Libertarian Party is NOT a dumping ground for disaffected Republicans. The Libertarian Party of Alaska was wise enough to say no to Lisa Murkowski, and the Libertarian Party of Rhode Island was wise enough to say no to Daniel Gordon.
But the Libertarian Party was not wise enough to rebuff conservative Bob Barr, with whom Governor Johnson will be repeatedly compared. This is a comparison that will not go well considering that Governor Johnson's views on war are reported to be not as pure as those of Representative Paul's views. It is true that Governor Johnson initially supported the war in Afghanistan, but does not currently do so. It is also true that Governor Johnson wants to tie United States foreign policy to another country. A foreign policy of non-intervention is core to libertarianism. Given how both the Republican Party (except for Ron Paul) and the Democratic Party are pro-war, being pro-peace is very critical for anyone who would be as much of a spokesperson as the presidential nominee.
And on the issue of peace and war, the person who appears to be doing the most to bring Governor Johnson into the Libertarian Party is pro-war soi disant libertarian spokesperson Wayne Allyn Root, Bob Barr’s former running mate on the libertarian ticket in 2008. Perhaps Governor Johnson doesn’t know just how controversial Wayne Root is within the Libertarian Party, and how much his endorsement can actually hurt Governor Johnson within the party.
Riding on Bob Barr's coattails and being associated with Wayne Root - that is not the way to make a grand entrance into Libertarian Party politics. Doing so after not gaining ground in the Republican Party does damage to the image of the Libertarian Party with all of the false associations the press creates between the two parties. It would be a bad idea, both for Governor Johnson and for the Libertarian Party, for Governor Johnson to seek the Libertarian Party nomination.
That would be a bad idea.
Yes, Governor Johnson has reason to feel slighted. The press is giving much more coverage to all the other two-term governor candidates than to Governor Johnson, and he is being snubbed from the debates in spite of having polling numbers similar to other two-term governor candidates. The second debate that he was invited to was to see if the press could get him to attack Representative Ron Paul on who is more libertarian, and when Governor Johnson refused to play that game the press lost all interest.
Governor Johnson entered the race hoping to be the "Ron Paul of 2012" but when Representative Paul entered the race the two had to compete for the same initial slice of support, donations, and votes. While followers of one would generally be content with the other, a choice had to be made factoring in both the credentials of the candidates and the likelihood of making it through the primaries. The public settled on Representative Paul as the one most likely to have an impact in the 2012 race.
But that is not a reason to quit. Representative Paul has indicated that if he does not receive the nomination in 2012 he will retire from politics. If Governor Johnson sticks through with the Republican Party he can go in four years from ignored to a prominent voice, much the way Representative Paul did from 2007 to 2011. He will have shown the determination to pick up where Representative Paul has left off and move forward from there.
However, if he leaves to join the Libertarian Party and seek the presidential nomination there are many problems associated with doing so. The first of such problems is that the Libertarian Party is NOT a dumping ground for disaffected Republicans. The Libertarian Party of Alaska was wise enough to say no to Lisa Murkowski, and the Libertarian Party of Rhode Island was wise enough to say no to Daniel Gordon.
But the Libertarian Party was not wise enough to rebuff conservative Bob Barr, with whom Governor Johnson will be repeatedly compared. This is a comparison that will not go well considering that Governor Johnson's views on war are reported to be not as pure as those of Representative Paul's views. It is true that Governor Johnson initially supported the war in Afghanistan, but does not currently do so. It is also true that Governor Johnson wants to tie United States foreign policy to another country. A foreign policy of non-intervention is core to libertarianism. Given how both the Republican Party (except for Ron Paul) and the Democratic Party are pro-war, being pro-peace is very critical for anyone who would be as much of a spokesperson as the presidential nominee.
And on the issue of peace and war, the person who appears to be doing the most to bring Governor Johnson into the Libertarian Party is pro-war soi disant libertarian spokesperson Wayne Allyn Root, Bob Barr’s former running mate on the libertarian ticket in 2008. Perhaps Governor Johnson doesn’t know just how controversial Wayne Root is within the Libertarian Party, and how much his endorsement can actually hurt Governor Johnson within the party.
Riding on Bob Barr's coattails and being associated with Wayne Root - that is not the way to make a grand entrance into Libertarian Party politics. Doing so after not gaining ground in the Republican Party does damage to the image of the Libertarian Party with all of the false associations the press creates between the two parties. It would be a bad idea, both for Governor Johnson and for the Libertarian Party, for Governor Johnson to seek the Libertarian Party nomination.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
This is not a victory for Obama
When Senator Obama ran for the presidency he promised, among other things, to end the Iraq war. Upon achieving the office, President Obama made it very clear that he had no intention of keeping that promise. It was the peace vote that formed a very solid vote in his favor, even though Candidate Obama had promised to escalate hostilities in Afghanistan. He did promise to end the occupation of Iraq, and won a Nobel Peace Prize for the achievement of being someone other than George W. Bush.
The final insult to those who vainly supported President Obama in the hope that he might, eventually, possibly keep his Iraq promise was when he declared that all "combat troops" were leaving Iraq, and that the 50,000 remaining troops were "non-combat troops." It was a clear signal that President Obama had absolutely no intention of even pretending to end the occupation of Iraq.
Since then, the Iraqi government has directed the United States government to withdraw all troops.
This puts the United States government in an awkward position. The rhetoric is that the current government of Iraq is legitimate and democratically elected. This legitimate and democratic government voted that the United States military should depart. If the United States government refuses the directive it puts to lie many of the already shallow claims about the Iraq war.
So in spite of not wanting troops to depart, in spite of all his efforts to keep troops in Iraq, President Obama has reluctantly decided to declare victory instead. He is claiming that he worked to keep his campaign promise, when the truth is that the promise was kept in spite of his best efforts otherwise.
The broader implications of this move are yet to be determined, as Iraq is a central launching ground for attacks throughout most of the Middle East and obviously a front in the evitable war with Iran.
Sadly, most of the Republican candidates will likely not only allow the lie by President Obama, but will encourage it. Their rhetoric will be that President Obama withdrew troops too early and is leaving behind a fragile Iraq, so that they may appear to be strong and determined on foreign use of the military. Only one candidate, Ron Paul, has the credentials to actually challenge President Obama on the actual facts of the Iraq withdrawal.
It is a good thing that the Iraq war is finally ending. It is unfortunate that President Obama will get credit for achieving that which he opposed simply because he happened to be in office at the right time.
The final insult to those who vainly supported President Obama in the hope that he might, eventually, possibly keep his Iraq promise was when he declared that all "combat troops" were leaving Iraq, and that the 50,000 remaining troops were "non-combat troops." It was a clear signal that President Obama had absolutely no intention of even pretending to end the occupation of Iraq.
Since then, the Iraqi government has directed the United States government to withdraw all troops.
This puts the United States government in an awkward position. The rhetoric is that the current government of Iraq is legitimate and democratically elected. This legitimate and democratic government voted that the United States military should depart. If the United States government refuses the directive it puts to lie many of the already shallow claims about the Iraq war.
So in spite of not wanting troops to depart, in spite of all his efforts to keep troops in Iraq, President Obama has reluctantly decided to declare victory instead. He is claiming that he worked to keep his campaign promise, when the truth is that the promise was kept in spite of his best efforts otherwise.
The broader implications of this move are yet to be determined, as Iraq is a central launching ground for attacks throughout most of the Middle East and obviously a front in the evitable war with Iran.
Sadly, most of the Republican candidates will likely not only allow the lie by President Obama, but will encourage it. Their rhetoric will be that President Obama withdrew troops too early and is leaving behind a fragile Iraq, so that they may appear to be strong and determined on foreign use of the military. Only one candidate, Ron Paul, has the credentials to actually challenge President Obama on the actual facts of the Iraq withdrawal.
It is a good thing that the Iraq war is finally ending. It is unfortunate that President Obama will get credit for achieving that which he opposed simply because he happened to be in office at the right time.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Economic Principles outside Economics
Although most people would deny it, economic principles apply in many areas of human life, beyond the labor market and the shopping market. Most people do not think of it in this way, but exchanges of value occur in every aspect of life. Perhaps that is why Ludwig von Mises referred to the subject as "Praxeology" instead of "Economics" because Praxeology is the study of human action. Praxeology studies what people do, in contrast to Psychology which studies what people think.
The simple act of who a person chooses as a friend to spend time with is in this sense an economic decision. When a person chooses a friend, the person says "you have sufficient value to me that I consider you worthy of the investment in time and emotion." As Ayn Rand noted, a person would not choose a friend who does not reflect the values of that person, but this can be expanded through an economic perspective.
A person would not invest with someone beneath them, and would be unlikely to achieve that investment from someone far above them. Of course value is relative, so therefore the terms "above" and "beneath" are relative as well, so that statement does not imply that there is an objective system of values that says some people are intrinsically better than others.
This is even more true in more intimate relationships. It is true that if someone were desperate enough that a sexual partner could be easily found, but there are many who would never lower themselves to the necessary level simply for some physical satisfaction. A persons body is a commodity that is not shared freely, but is instead traded with those who a person feels worthy of the trade.
Social activities outside of work and family reflect economic decisions as well. Some people are involved in religious activities, others in athletics, others in community artistic endeavors, and yet others in politics. The choice one makes are an investment of time at the expense of the opportunity cost of other activities.
This isn’t news to anyone who has studied the basics of economics, which includes all libertarians. Why therefore does it need to be stated? Because while most people have various economic beliefs other than laissez faire, they do not practice those other beliefs in their own lives. And their failure to do so, and what they actually practice, should be noted to them.
There are some ways this is done contrasting capitalism and socialism, such as various stories about students sharing grades. But that fails to capture the full range of economic ideologies, leaving out most notably Kenyesian and Welfarist economics. That leaves only the question of how one would apply those decision making theories to the decisions that take place outside of the labor market and the shopping market.
The simple act of who a person chooses as a friend to spend time with is in this sense an economic decision. When a person chooses a friend, the person says "you have sufficient value to me that I consider you worthy of the investment in time and emotion." As Ayn Rand noted, a person would not choose a friend who does not reflect the values of that person, but this can be expanded through an economic perspective.
A person would not invest with someone beneath them, and would be unlikely to achieve that investment from someone far above them. Of course value is relative, so therefore the terms "above" and "beneath" are relative as well, so that statement does not imply that there is an objective system of values that says some people are intrinsically better than others.
This is even more true in more intimate relationships. It is true that if someone were desperate enough that a sexual partner could be easily found, but there are many who would never lower themselves to the necessary level simply for some physical satisfaction. A persons body is a commodity that is not shared freely, but is instead traded with those who a person feels worthy of the trade.
Social activities outside of work and family reflect economic decisions as well. Some people are involved in religious activities, others in athletics, others in community artistic endeavors, and yet others in politics. The choice one makes are an investment of time at the expense of the opportunity cost of other activities.
This isn’t news to anyone who has studied the basics of economics, which includes all libertarians. Why therefore does it need to be stated? Because while most people have various economic beliefs other than laissez faire, they do not practice those other beliefs in their own lives. And their failure to do so, and what they actually practice, should be noted to them.
There are some ways this is done contrasting capitalism and socialism, such as various stories about students sharing grades. But that fails to capture the full range of economic ideologies, leaving out most notably Kenyesian and Welfarist economics. That leaves only the question of how one would apply those decision making theories to the decisions that take place outside of the labor market and the shopping market.
Sunday, December 04, 2011
The Progressives Did It to Themselves
It is a rather humorous take on Occupy Wall Street - the corporations control the government, so therefore we need more government to control the corporations. It would seem to indicate a flaw in progressive thinking, if the goal of progressivism was to regulate the economy for the benefit of the people.
But a look at history, when liberals and progressives were considered to be something different instead of today's misunderstanding which considers them the same, reveals a different picture of what progressives stand for and why.
When the so-called "Gilded Age" gave way to the "Progressive Era" the succession of William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft show the actual motives of the progressives, and why they actually sought to increase government power in spite of claims that it was for the good of the masses.
A significant portion of United States history can be explained by the conflict between the Rockefeller family and the Morgan family, with each family backing political candidates. The goal was to use the government to attack the interests of the other. Theodore Roosevelt was sponsored by, and acted for, the Morgan family. William McKinley and William Howard Taft were candidates of the Rockefeller family.
With all three, the appeal was made to give the government more regulatory powers, while the motive was to use those powers to attack the interests of the other family.
Libertarians and progressives both have a product to sell, and the target audience of both is liberals. Right now progressives are the more successful salesmen. They know how to frame their ideas in terms that appeal to liberals. They are able to frame the issues more successfully, because control for the sake of control isn't a liberal value.
The combination of Occupy Wall Street and Ron Paul preparing to face Barack Obama in the general election has thrown the whole issue of progressivism's true values into sharp relief. It is getting harder and harder for progressives to sell their poisoned product to liberals, and that is why progressives really are more terrified of libertarianism than ever before and so staunchly oppose the candidacy of Ron Paul.
But a look at history, when liberals and progressives were considered to be something different instead of today's misunderstanding which considers them the same, reveals a different picture of what progressives stand for and why.
When the so-called "Gilded Age" gave way to the "Progressive Era" the succession of William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft show the actual motives of the progressives, and why they actually sought to increase government power in spite of claims that it was for the good of the masses.
A significant portion of United States history can be explained by the conflict between the Rockefeller family and the Morgan family, with each family backing political candidates. The goal was to use the government to attack the interests of the other. Theodore Roosevelt was sponsored by, and acted for, the Morgan family. William McKinley and William Howard Taft were candidates of the Rockefeller family.
With all three, the appeal was made to give the government more regulatory powers, while the motive was to use those powers to attack the interests of the other family.
Libertarians and progressives both have a product to sell, and the target audience of both is liberals. Right now progressives are the more successful salesmen. They know how to frame their ideas in terms that appeal to liberals. They are able to frame the issues more successfully, because control for the sake of control isn't a liberal value.
The combination of Occupy Wall Street and Ron Paul preparing to face Barack Obama in the general election has thrown the whole issue of progressivism's true values into sharp relief. It is getting harder and harder for progressives to sell their poisoned product to liberals, and that is why progressives really are more terrified of libertarianism than ever before and so staunchly oppose the candidacy of Ron Paul.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)