Greece, Twinkies, and the Fiscal Cliff

By now Hostess, as a company, no longer exists. The upper management of that company ran it into the ground and drove it into bankruptcy. A bankruptcy judge created a plan that would make Hostess sustainable for the near term, and it involved cutting the pay of the workers. One of the two unions balked at that, and Hostess, unable to continue operating, has closed down.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but once the impartial bankruptcy judge made his decision the union really had a Hobson’s choice, a "take it or leave it." And they decided to leave it. They decided it is better to not receive a bigger paycheck than it is to actually receive a smaller one, and they got exactly what they asked for.

Meanwhile, in the bankrupt country of Greece, every time there is an attempt to balance the national budget, or at least make it less unbalanced, the result is riots in the streets and a change in the national government. The fact that the money simply isn’t there does not deter the Greek people from demanding that they receive the benefits promised to them.

This demand for entitlement has reached a peculiar stage. It doesn't matter if the money isn't there, those making demands still want their checks anyway. Where the money comes from isn't a concern, that the money isn't there in the first place isn't a concern, that the checks are written against an account that does not exist isn't a concern. Explaining the math to those making the demands does not work. Apologists for the Bakers Union are left saying that it is the responsibility of Hostess to provide a job whether it can be afforded or not.

It is a situation analogous to the later parts of Atlas Shrugged. Hank Rearden had just been introduced to the Steal Unification plan, and when he points out that the plan cannot work, the response from everyone in the room is that he can make it work somehow. They do not know how, and they do not care to hear his explanations of how it cannot work.

The United States is heading down that road. So many people have their tiny portion of the Federal Budget as their subsidy, and they do not want it cut. They each have allies that do not want their own parts cut, and they work together to protect the whole. The politicians know that something needs to be done to avoid national bankruptcy (either by default or by inflation) but cannot work together to solve the problem.

There is little reason to worry about the Fiscal Cliff. If one still believes in government, those currently in office are too afraid of the cliff to happen. They will find the way to kick the can down the road for a few more months until it finally becomes impossible to do so any farther. Then those who scream every time there is a threat of cuts will discover that the money really isn’t there, and their choice to not receive a larger check instead of actually receiving a smaller check will be granted. If one doesn't believe in government then it is apparent that it is nothing more than a minor adjustment that won't have any real effect except to kick the can down the road for a few more months.

And eventually, like Greece and like Hostess, those screaming "all or nothing" will find out just how much "nothing" really is. Austerity doesn't come because it is chosen, it comes because the money is no longer there.

An Upside to Obama's Victory?

Now that the least important election in the past century is finished, the big question is what does this mean to the liberty movement. Clearly President Obama is no friend to individual liberty, and has no intention on helping the movement in any way. Democrats theoretically support civil liberties, but President Obama has only ever been decent in this area when forced to by his own party.

But given that there was no substantive differences between the two leading candidates, then who won that election scarcely matters to liberty. The only things that matter then are peripheral matters connected to who won and who lost.

According to Austrian Economics, the next four years are going to be rough for the United States. In exactly what way it will be rough is difficult to determine, but that it will be, and that it will be within the next four years.

So what matters is the implications of who will be in office when the collapse occurs. As it turns out this matter is rather critical.

Had Mitt Romney been elected then he would be the one blamed when the collapse occurs. Had he been in office then, because he is a Republican, his free market beliefs would have gotten the blame. That he doesn’t have any free market beliefs won’t matter, Republicans get credit for having free market beliefs even though they don’t. It would be quite parallel to how Herbert Hoover’s non-existent free market beliefs received the blame for the crash of 1929 and George W. Bush’s non-existent free market beliefs received the blame for the crash of 2008.

Because Barack Obama was elected, his free market beliefs will not be blamed. He is perceived as more socialist, even though he is nothing more than a left Keynesian. The mainstream view is that Barack Obama is at best hostile to the free market.

Also given that the Ryan Plan, which was unrealistic at best, was criticized for having deep cuts when all it did was have is smaller increases, would mean that the budget slashing that would allegedly go on under Republicans would get the blame. Never mind that there would be no budget slashing no matter which one won, the Republican budget slashing would get the blame.

Given that free market beliefs and slashing the budget are two positions that libertarians strongly support, and that Republicans say they support when they do not, the last thing that libertarians would want is those to positions getting the blame for a problem they did not create. Given all of that, as bad as Barack Obama winning is, perhaps there is a silver lining that there would not be had Mitt Romney won.

The two choices when you vote

As Thomas Knapp correctly pointed out, "This is not only not the most momentous presidential election in US history, it's not even the most momentous presidential election of the last two." And he is right. For all the attempts to hype of the differences between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, the biggest difference has actually been which one like Big Bird more.

Partisans of the one party, in a desperate attempt to build up sufficient fear are trotting out the old chestnut about how the two candidates of the one party would appoint radically different judges. Even that falls flat considering the surprise swing vote that upheld Obamacare was a Chief Justice John Roberts, and Mitt Romney said that he would appoint judges like John Roberts. If the claim that the judges Mitt Romney would appoint are so critical that people should turn out and vote, then the situation is rather paradoxical in that it means Republicans must turn out to support judges that would support Obamacare and Democrats must turn out to support judges that would oppose Obamacare.

Given that the candidates are so similar, and that most people are not in swing states and most swing states don’t even have a tiny margin like Florida in 2000, that leaves only two ways to vote. A person can either register satisfaction with the status quo by voting for a major party candidate, or register dissatisfaction with the status quo by voting for a third party candidate.

Those really are the only two choices if someone decides to take the time to vote. Not only do the numbers show that voting third party has a greater impact, the premise of giving a vote is "the one I am giving my vote to has earned it, the one I am not giving my vote to has not earned it."

Those who are satisfied with the direction of the United States can vote for Mitt Romney or Barack Obama. The vote says that the country is in great shape from the point of view of the person casting the vote. If war, deficits, debt, and economic depression are good things, then go ahead and vote for a major party candidate. If a person doesn’t approve of war, deficit, debt, and economic depression the only way to signal that is by going beyond the two approved choices.

California Proposition 37

Within libertarian circles no proposition is more controversial that California Proposition 37. The purpose of this measure is to force producers to add a label to food products if those products contain any Genetically Modified foods.

The libertarian argument against is very simple. This is an additional regulation. If people genuinely did not want GMO in their food then the free market would solve this problem. All other things being equal that is itself a good argument, and the libertarian instinct to be suspicious of every new law is a good instinct to have. But those who support Proposition 37 would be glad to say that all other things are not equal, which is why they support Proposition 37.

The reason so many libertarians support Proposition 37 is because of a perception that the free market is unable to function in this instance - not because there is no market for GMO free products, but because the federal government restricts that form of advertising. The label is not outright forbidden, but as is the case with modern American fascism, its use is restricted to the point where it is essentially unusable.

Consumers are not able to get the knowledge necessary for the free market to work. Those who have products that are GMO free are not able to advertise such, and those who have products that are not GMO free are not willing to advertise such. Therefore, to undo the mess created by the federal government at the behest of agribusiness, this ballot initiative seeks to force the opposite condition. Since "GMO free" is forbidden, therefore those protected by that ban must label their foods as containing GMOs.

It is not a perfect measure, it does indeed have exceptions. The big targets of wheat, corn, and soy are covered though. One of the major examples of the discrepancies in Proposition 37, that milk is not covered but soy milk is, is explained by the proposition covering the big three. Soy milk is made of soy while real milk is not made of soy. Restaurants are not covered, so if one buys a prepared meal there is no label. To buy the raw materials at a supermarket and to prepare that meal at home, those raw materials are covered.

Even with those exceptions, this proposition amounts to the State of California giving consumers the knowledge they need for the free market to work, knowledge that is being forcibly withheld by the federal government. This is not the case of the liberal fantasy of law being used to correct a flaw in the market, but is instead a case of law being used to correct law.

California Propositions 30 and 38

From a libertarian point of view, California Proposition 30 and California Proposition 38 are both bad ideas. They both are tax increases in what is already one of the most heavily taxed states in the country, a state that suffers more than others from Great Depression II. They both claim to do the same thing and for the same goal. But even though they are both bad ideas, one of them is clearly more of a bad idea than the other.

The supporters of Proposition 30 advertise it as a tax increase on the rich. It is true that it does increase income taxes on higher income earners, but it also increases the sales tax. The sales tax is a regressive tax that impacts everyone. The supporters of Proposition 38 advertise it as an income tax increase, which it is. Only the income tax is raised, but it is raised on everyone.

Both of these measures are supposed to be for education, to fund the schools. The monies that might be raised by Proposition 30 go into the general fund and are not dedicated to the schools. The reason school funding is impacted by Proposition 30 is because the legislature and the governor put a trigger in the budget to cut school funding if Proposition 30 is not passed. Proposition 38 dedicates all of the revenue that might be raised to the schools bypassing the general fund.

Given these differences, if someone is inclined to agree with the arguments used to sell these propositions, it makes sense that Proposition 38 would be the preferred ballot measure. While the California PTA prefers Proposition 38, the California teachers unions have come out strongly for Proposition 30.

The unions join the rest of the political classes in favor of supporting Proposition 30. Across the state, the more strongly tied to the unions or the Democratic Party a group is, the more likely it is to support Proposition 30 over 38. The arguments in favor of Proposition 30 are very disingenuous.

Both of these propositions are bad ideas, but it is quite clear that Proposition 30 is a far worse idea than Proposition 38.

Going Back, in Theory

It may seem hard to believe, but there are Democrats trying to argue that raising taxes would be a good idea, even though the United States is still in the middle of an economic depression. Democrats have not been so bold about raising taxes since Walter Mondale's 1984 presidential campaign. To support this argument, the economic conditions under Bill Clinton and John Kennedy are brought up. Taxes were somewhat higher under Bill Clinton, and they were a lot higher under John Kennedy. If that were all that were different, there would be an argument in favor of that point of view.

As all libertarians know, total taxation is always equal to total spending. Based on that bit of economic knowledge, taxes were definitely higher under George Bush Jr. than they were under Bill Clinton. The only difference is that Bill Clinton favored direct taxes while George W. Bush favored indirect taxes.

While income taxes were higher under John Kennedy, those same taxes were reduced under John Kennedy. When he assumed office he lowered the top marginal rate from 90% to 70%, making that an argument in favor of cutting taxes. That would seem to be an argument in favor of significantly cutting taxes.

The most important flaw is that the argument is nothing more than a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. To demonstrate this is actually very easy. If everything was so much better under John Kennedy and Bill Clinton, then the United States should go back to that in full. The regulatory state has advanced greatly since then, as has the security state and the welfare state.

Those who insist that those eras were better with those higher tax rates should also insist those eras were better with less regulation. The return to the taxes of that era should be accompanied by the repeal of all laws passed since that era. If, for some reason, the Democrat making that pro-tax argument doesn't agree, their own position of how conditions were better in that era can be used against him.

The Next Marriage Battle

Libertarians already know it. Progressives hope libertarians won't show up when they are arguing with conservatives, because progressives don't want to admit that libertarians already know it. What’s the point of being at the forefront - by definition - if other people are already farther ahead on the issues?

What the libertarians already know and the progressives hope to forget is the history of the battle for marriage equality. The history that progressives hope people forget is why marriage licenses were instituted in the first place, because they were instituted specifically in order to deny them to people whom others did not want to be allowed to get married. In the era of Jim Crow that meant forbidding interracial marriages, and when those laws were initially passed progressives were quite in favor of them. The early libertarians, still called liberals in those days, were not because it was seen as a government intrusion into a private contract.

Eventually the civil rights movement started in the 1950s, not the 1960s as is commonly believed. One of the many struggles of that era was to end racial segregation in marriage. The battle took many years to complete, but eventually it was won and people of different races were allowed to marry. The libertarians had always been there fighting to end marriage discrimination. The progressives arrived late in the game, proclaimed themselves to be at the forefront, and claimed all the credit when marriage equality in race was finally achieved. Then they turned and proclaimed that libertarians are right wing conservatives in spite of being on the same side of that issue.

Those who were opposed to ending racial marriage discrimination would sarcastically ask what would be next, trying to invoke a slippery slope argument that ended with two people of the same gender getting married. Progressives, at the forefront by definition, laughed at it insisting that their current position was the goal and anything else was absurd. Libertarians, on the other hand, were quite willing to embrace same sex marriage even back then. Progressives didn’t want to talk to libertarians about it.

A generation later, and the progressives finally arrived at the position held by libertarians and proclaimed themselves to be at the forefront of the battle to grant marriage equality to same sex couples. Libertarians had always been there fighting to end marriage discrimination. The battle there is slowly being won, and the progressives are claiming all the credit for it happening. They are also proclaiming that libertarians are right wing conservatives in spite of being on the same side of that issue.

Those who are opposed to ending marriage discrimination based on gender sarcastically ask what is next, trying to invoke a slippery slope argument that ends with polyamorous relationships. Progressives, at the forefront by definition, laugh at it insisting that their goal current position is the goal and anything else is absurd. Libertarians, on the other hand, are quite willing to embrace polyamorous marriages. Progressives don’t want to talk to libertarians about it.

One could argue that the reason for the dissent is because the methods of ending inequality are so very different. Libertarians correctly point out that eliminating marriage licenses back in the days when the hot issue was racial marriage equality would have prevent the whole same sex marriage discussion and in the near future would have the same benefit on the polyamorous marriage discussion. Progressives do not want to be behind anyone else on any issue so insist that there is no future polyamorous discussion. Also they do not want to give up on marriage licenses, because even though the goal is to grant them to anyone it is still asking the state for permission to marry. It is very important to progressives that the state get the authority and respect it deserves.

So when the polyamorous discussion finally arrives, progressives will discover that they are suddenly at the forefront again, refusing to acknowledge anyone who was there before they were. And libertarians will correctly point out that if libertarians had been listened to back when the issue was race or gender then there would be no need for a polyamorous discussion.

Downside of Paul 2012

There were many who were challenged by the 2012 campaign by Representative Ron Paul’s 2012 campaign for president. There were unique challenges for both liberals and conservatives as they were forced to confront what they really believe. Now that the campaign is over there is a whole new challenge for libertarians based on the campaign.

His campaign has given new life to the old lie about how libertarians and conservatives have some sort of closeness that excludes liberals and progressives. Because Representative Paul ran in the Republican Party instead of the Libertarian Party, he somehow demonstrated that libertarians have a home there.

It doesn't matter how poorly Ron Paul was treated through the primary, and how reprehensibly his supporters were treated at the Republican convention. It doesn't matter that Governor Mitt Romney and Representative Paul have nothing in common ideologically, or how much Governor Romney and President Obama do have in common. It doesn't matter how Ron Paul's ideas were kept out of discussion through the whole process from first debate to convention close.

None of that matters. All that matters is that Ron Paul has an "R" after his name. The fact that he ran in the Republican Party instead of the Libertarian Party is proof of that closeness. Never mind that in order to have a reasonable chance at victory he had to run in some major party - that he ran in a major party proves that there is some special affinity for the major party he ran in.

Since the argument being made is not a logical argument, there is no logical counter-argument. One could point out how much Ron Paul was at odds with his own party. One could point out how he wasn't even given a speaking spot at the convention. One could point out how he had to fight for speaking time at the debates. One could even point out how Romney cheated Paul of his delegates even though Romney didn't need to because his victory was already assured.

This isn't an argument meant to appeal to the intellect. It is an argument meant to appeal to the emotions. There is no counter-argument to be made as a result. Although one can say many good things about the Ron Paul 2012 effort, it also gave new life to the big lie.

Hyperinflation or Default?

The big debate in libertarian circles regarding the economic future of the United States government managed economy is whether the future contains hyperinflation or if it contains default. The answer is really quite simple; the question cannot be answered. An economist cannot predict the actions of politicians, but can instead only tell what will be the result of decisions made by politicians. What path exactly the United States will follow when conditions worsen is a question that can be answered only by politicians.

The biggest question can only be answered by the Federal Reserve, which has a hybrid nature that is partly political and partly private. If the "Audit the Fed" bill passes, then the resulting audit will surely reveal facts that will not please the political class. Given that the only advocate of a sound currency is retiring from the congress, the result of an audit will instead result in tighter governmental controls over the Federal Reserve, which could ultimately end up in nationalization of the Federal Reserve.

This would be the solution favored by the other great opponents of the Federal Reserve, the Greenbackers. If the Federal Reserve is brought under greater governmental control it will result in a Federal Reserve that has no choice but to continue purchasing worthless government bonds and in that event the flood of worthless currency will indeed result in hyperinflation.

On the other hand, the Federal Reserve as it is currently structured is ultimately owned by the private banks that do not desire hyperinflation. If the Federal Reserve remains mostly independent of the government, the private banks could order the Federal Reserve to purchase no more bonds that it can sell on the market. As the federal budget remains unbalanced, with almost half of the revenue the result of borrowing that will result in the Federal Reserve refusing to purchase any more bonds from the government. That ends with a government default as the money to pay for more than can be sustained simply isn’t there anymore.

Both cases hinge on the decisions made in the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. Congress and the President are in full control of that decision, and thus no economist can actually predict what will happen.

In either case, though, there will be upheaval and social unrest. Again, there are many options but no economist can predict which will happen. Economists can only outline the different options and describe the resulting conditions of each.

In one scenario the unrest results in riots. There may be riots due to the banks being unable to process any more payments as an emergency measure. If the electronic payment network breaks down, most people do not have enough currency on hand to purchase more than a few trinkets or a few snacks. Currency riots would lead to food riots.

In another scenario, politicians actually act before the riots start by declaring martial law before the riots instead of after them. Strict controls barely contain the chaos, with political control breaking down farther away from the armed encampments of the cities.

In a third scenario the infrastructure grid in the country cannot sustain the delicate balance and this ultimately results in food shortages, which will result in even more desperate riots throughout the country as people flee the cities to find food.

Of course, in order to preempt those outcomes, the political class may decide that a war against an external enemy is necessary to distract the population. This would most likely result in a war against Iran If that happens, there will be both high inflation but not necessarily hyperinflation, as well as shortages and other hardships. There will be much more direct management of the economy, with people receiving their basic sustenance from the government.

That is also an unsustainable solution, but the additional bloodshed abroad may forestall the inevitable result of either hyperinflation or default for a short time. But as any economist can predict, the government cannot ignore reality forever.

Why did they find him?

Recently an absurdity of a film called "Innocence of Muslims" has been making the rounds in the news. Although all the evidence indicates that the attacks on the embassies and consulates had been planned long in advance, the film is being blamed for the attacks.

Although it is understandable that some people are curious about who produced this teaser for a movie that doesn’t even actually exist, and therefore various news media organizations have been trying to find out who it is so that they can satisfy the demand, there is a very disturbing element to the quest for the identity of the producer.

Why is the United States government involved in trying to figure out his identity? Has the producer of this teaser actually broken any laws of the United States or of the fifty states? What law could he have broken that would spur such an investigation? And if he were put on trial, say for incitement, would he not have a solid first amendment defense under freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion?

Having the Associated Press try to find his identity is one thing. If a person thrusts himself into the public eye, then the public has every right to try to find out more. But having the government do the same without any identifiable cause is itself cause for concern.

Yes, people can say things that impede the foreign policy of government officials. People can say things that embarrass government officials to, although far less so than in the past.

This following so closely on the heels of having Brandon Raub committed to a psychiatric hospital for the “crime” of criticizing the government, while having the British "ally" threaten Ecuadorean sovereignty to claim Julian Assange shows that the line has been crossed a long time ago with regards to the lawlessness of the United States regime.

Government by Blackmail

There is a tax initiative on the California ballot for November; Proposition 30, Sales and Tax Increase (2012), otherwise known as Jerry Brown's Tax Increase. All of the public unions support it, of course, because it backfills the pension programs for state employees. But it has other groups supporting it as well.

There is a lot of support coming from the film companies in Hollywood. At first glance that would make sense, given how strongly most people in that industry support the Democratic Party. But even so, the studios are trying to fight against films being shot in more business friendly environments. More and more films are being shot out of state and out of country. So why is there such support for a measure that would only accelerate the trend?

There are special tax exemptions for filming in California, to support the local film industry. And unlike many parts of the tax code, these exemptions are renewed annually instead of being a normal (until a new bill is passed) part of the tax code. The threat is implicit, that if the studios do not support measures supported by the permanent Democratic Party majority in the legislature, those exemptions could easily and quickly disappear simply by failing to renew them. That would not even need the 2/3 vote required by Proposition 13, passed many years ago in order to combat ever increasing taxes.

The American Beverage Association is also backing this measure, in spite of how easily it can harm their operations in California. Shortly before gaining the support of the American Beverage Association, there was much discussion among prominent Democrat politicians about how the state needs to combat obesity by putting punitive taxes on sugary drinks as is happening in other areas of the country. This discussion died down quickly after the American Beverage Association gave its backing to Proposition 30. They even donated $250,000 towards the passage of Proposition 30.

Although there is no explicit threat, at least not one where there is a written demand that could be used as proof, this is pretty clearly a case where various organizations are being threatened to support a measure that they otherwise would not, in exchange for not being harmed more directly. It is the highway man saying "your money or your life" to these groups.

Paul Ryan is no Objectivist

As soon as Paul Ryan was chosen to be Mitt Romney’s vice presidential candidate, there was dialogue in both parties about how he was supposedly quite libertarian, to the point where he was inspired by Ayn Rand. If Paul Ryan was inspired by Ayn Rand, it is likely that upon finishing the reading of Atlas Shrugged he said "I want to grow up to be just like Wesley Mouch."

The weaker version of this argument comes from Republicans. They act as if simply mentioning that Paul Ryan has read Atlas Shrugged is sufficient to convince Ron Paul voters to abandon all principle and support the Romney/Ryan ticket, even though it is far from sufficient and Ron Paul supporters are not buying it. Then there are those who should know better. The Ayn Rand institute has an article on various statements made by Paul Ryan that would indicate that he leans that way, ignoring the rich history of conservatives saying one thing and doing another. Objectivism does not advocate ignoring reality, and the reality of Paul Ryan's voting record is something that should not be ignored.

There is a slightly stronger version of this argument from Democrats. Many of them also act as if simply mentioning that Paul Ryan has read Atlas Shrugged is sufficient to tar him as libertarian. But there are a few who are making a very interesting argument to try to support that accusation.

Their argument is based on the principle of rational self interest. They argue that, even though Paul Ryan’s voting record is antithetical to Objectivist principles, that same voting record is exactly the series of choices a person would make if he had the goal to rise through the ranks of his party.

It is true that, given a particular goal certain choices become inevitable if one actually wishes to achieve that goal. But there is a problem with that interpretation. Objectivism does not allow for seeking power over others as a rationally chosen goal. Nor would it advocate any goal that would lead to the choice to violate the rights of others as a means to achieve that goal.

Assuming the best about Paul Ryan, an assumption he does not deserve, the character then to compare him to would be Doctor Robert Stadler. In the novel, Dr. Stadler decided that the use of ignoble means was appropriate to achieve noble ends; specifically, to use politics to advance the quest for knowledge. It was that contradiction that eventually led to Dr. Stadler's downfall. But since Paul Ryan isn't up to the level of a Dr. Stadler, he has more in common with the Eugene Lawson, Chick Morrison, Wesley Mouch, and Mr. Thompson characters. One could say that Wesley Mouch made all the choices one would rationally choose if the desire is to become "economic dictator of the economy." But becoming "economic dictator of the economy" is not a rational choice.

Also, by that same logic, one could argue that Barack Obama made all the choices one would rationally choose if the desire is to rise through the ranks of a political party. He made all the right choices given his situation for one desiring to become president. But yet the argument is not made that Barack Obama is an Objectivist for that reason, and is in fact refused. The fact that the argument does not work both ways is proof that there is no genuine substance behind it, and that it is only a rationalization instead of a proof.

Russia Confronts Britain regarding Assange

Russia's Foreign Ministry has issued a statement today warning Britain against attacking the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, saying it was unthinkable for a nation to violate "the spirit and the letter" of the Vienna Convention, which makes diplomatic premises inviolable - Antiwar.com. This really is a fascinating situation on many levels, given the threat by members of the British government to use force to extricate Julian Assange from the Ecuadorean Embassy.

The first thing to notice is the role reversal involved given the cold war history between Great Britain and the United States on one side and Russia on the other in its former guise as the Soviet Union. It was the United States and allies that were considered the guardians of human rights and the protectors of international law. The western powers were those most involved in protecting the sanctity of the embassy against more despotic regimes. Granted, Russia is not the Soviet Union, but this is a situation that would cause uncomfortable feelings were politicians in Great Britain and the United States capable of feeling irony.

But there is more to this situation than this. The premise that the Russian officials are operating from is that they are actually warning their British counterparts against setting a precedent with undesirable results. Great Britain currently has residents that are claiming asylum, and a significant number of them are from Russia. The Russian government has asked for these people to be extradited, and the British government has refused.

If the British government breaches the sanctity of the Ecuadorian embassy, then the precedent set is that it is perfectly acceptable to use force to gain extradition of wanted fugitives from foreign lands. The Russian officials are saying "The British are saying it is acceptable to send troops in to foreign territory to apprehend people claiming asylum. The British has people claiming asylum in their territory. We have troops we can send to apprehend them."

What would the members of Parliament say if the Russians were willing to follow through on that threat to the final conclusion? Would they protest that this is somehow different? Actually, that does seem somewhat likely, as it appears the mindset of the United States Imperium is that international law is there to protect the Imperium and to punish those who resist.

If a third world war does break out, Britain and Russia would be on opposite sides making this a very dangerous game of brinkmanship. It will also encourage more countries from Latin America and South America to side against the United States Imperium. Venezuela is already opposed, and the residents of Columbia are being heavily punished for supplying a product that people in the United States are eager to purchase.

The only way this can end well is if the British government backs down. It would be an embarrassment to the United States, and the emperor has an image that needs to be maintained. This is a no-win situation for the western powers, unless one is willing to say that victory comes from being willing to descend to any level to get what one wants. Or perhaps the Russian officials, in making these veiled threats, are not intending to follow through.

Would India Fight Against Russia?

In response to Worst Case War Scenario the comment was made that a portion of the scenario was off because India would not fight against Russia.

It is true that, for a while during the Cold War, India and Russia were close to each other. This was a balance to closeness between Pakistan and the United States, which was part of an encircling attempt around Iran. This does not mean that India wouldn’t fight on the side of the United States in a worst case war scenario.

A key point in the scenario is that China and Russia are allies against the United States. However, there was a time during the Cold War, when China and the Soviet Union were very close to going to war against each other. That was part of the strategy behind President Nixon visiting China, as part of the plan to eventually pull out of Vietnam. By visiting China, President Nixon caused concern in the Soviet government that the United States and Chine might coordinate against the Soviet Union.

But as bitter enemies the United States and the Soviet Union were during the Cold War, they were allies during World War Two. The Cold War blossomed under President Truman as a way to justify intervening in Greece, turning a former ally into an enemy.

In World War Two, Germany and Japan were the main enemies of the United States. Today both are considered friendly countries. Germany in particular is now the anchor to the European Union with many former enemies.

Political alliances shift constantly. It is part of the nature of the game. Just because two governments were enemies doesn’t mean that they cannot shift to allies, and just because two governments were allies doesn’t mean that they cannot shift to enemies. George Orwell noticed this, which is why he included it in "1984" when he had Oceana constantly shift between alliance with Euraisa and alliance with Eastasia.

So, why would India side with the United States against Russia?

There exists tension between India on the one hand, and both Pakistan and China on the other. There has been concern at times that if nuclear war were to break out it would be in the Himalayan Mountain range, either between India and Pakistan or India and China. There is still disputed territory at the intersection of those countries, and religious conflict is particularly strong between the people of India and Pakistan. Plus, relations are souring between Pakistan and the United States while relations are improving between Pakistan and China.

If India were to intervene on the side of the United States, going against Russia would be incidental instead of purposeful. Just as Finland, by being an enemy of the Soviet Union, was an enemy of chance against Great Britain and the other allied powers, India would be fighting primarily against Pakistan and China and not primarily against Russia.

Pakistan and China would both be against the United States in that scenario. That would mean, even if India doesn’t intervene, that India would be closer to the side of the United States and therefore farther from the side of Russia. If India doesn’t intervene, that would make that country a silent ally instead of active ally of the United States, similar to the role played by Spain to Germany in World War Two.

Of all the parts of the scenario, that is the one with the lowest probability. Just because India would be favoring the United States and experiencing poor relations with both Pakistan and China doesn’t mean that intervention has to happen. The government of India has the least cause of all the countries mentioned in the scenario. That could mean that some sense would break out, the government of India could choose to sit out the war, and therefore emerge as very dominant in the area after China, Russia, and the United States finish tearing each other apart. But if it were to intervene, it would not be on the same side as China and Pakistan, and therefore on the opposite side of Russia.

Worst Case War Scenario

It is becoming increasingly likely that eventually either the government of the United States or the government of Israel will launch an attack against Iran. The current support for the Syrian rebels by President Obama is to undermine a mutual defense treaty between the governments of Syria and Iran that if either is attacked by the United States the other would respond. If the rebels take control of Syria, that isolates Iran from one more ally.

But if either the United States or Israel attacks Iran, not only will the other country be brought into the conflict, many other countries are poised to be brought into the conflict as well. The support that the government of the United States shows for the government of Israel has been a source of discontent in many other Middle Eastern countries.

If Israel attacks Iran, it would be with the understanding that the United States will support Israel against a counter-attack, thus proving the dangers of entangling alliances once again. As the Iranian military launches what counter-attacks they are capable of, the government of Israel will be calling upon the United States to save Israel from destruction.

If the United States launches an attack against Iran, Israel will likely be drawn in by popular sentiment among the peoples and government of the other countries in the area. Popular support no longer exists for the United States in most countries, and the various "Arab Spring" revolutions have not brought to power governments friendly to the United States. It would not be hard to imagine these new post-revolution countries retaliating against Israel for an attack by the United States against Iran.

A general war against many Middle-East countries is not the worst scenario though. The whole situation can get very bad very quickly if the governments of Russia and China get tired of provocations by the United States and come to the aid of Iran. The government of Iran has been carefully cultivating ties with both of those countries, and China in particular is very interested in more sources of petroleum.

It could start like Vietnam, with the armies of various countries supporting one side and armies of various countries supporting the other side. It would be a terrible war for the Persian people, with United States troops fighting Russian and Chinese troops on Persian soil, but there is no need to believe that the war would be maintained there.

With the United States so heavily engaged in Iran, the government of Pakistan would finally see an opportunity to act against the United States in retaliation from drone bombings. Working with the people of Afghanistan, the Pakistani military would also come to the support of Iran. China and Pakistan have been cultivating closer ties in an effort to put pressure on a mutual rival of India.

A general Muslim uprising coupled with Russian and Chinese support would force the call-up of the NATO allies. Britain would already be heavily involved because the United States is involved, but this would mobilize the militaries of several other countries, especially former Warsaw Pact members. In 2008 the government of Georgia tried to pull the United States into a conflict with Russia over the Georgian province of South Ossetia. The government of Russia saw the admittance of former Warsaw Pact and former Soviet Socialist Republics into NATO as a provocational encroachment.

Although the war would not be directly between NATO and Russia, the war would be directly between Europe and the Middle East. Many European countries are already experiencing difficulty assimilating immigrants, although it is politically incorrect to discuss the subject. These people would be easily made into scapegoats for the problems in various European countries, from Algerians in France to Pakistanis in England to Turks in Germany. A similar conflict might also occur in Australia.

The country with the most to lose at this point is Turkey. Straddling the border of Europe and the Middle East as it does, being a predominantly Muslim country with a secular government, already a NATO member and trying to gain entry into the European Union, a war between Europe and the Middle East spells disaster for Turkey no matter which side is chosen. Relations between Turkey and Israel have cooled significantly over the Gaza flotilla issue. While Turkey wouldn’t mind a weakened Iran, giving Turkey more influence in the Middle East, it is questionable if the population would support Turkey siding with Europe. Siding with the Middle East, on the other hand, would be in violation of both treaties and political objectives.

Finally, in the worst case scenario, tension between Pakistan and China on one side and India on the other brings India into the conflict on the side of the United States. Although that would be a great relief to the United States considering the population of India rivals that of China, it would in the long run only make the war worse for everyone. Plus North Korea might try to take advantage of the confusion to attack South Korea, although that would not work very well for North Korea. It could draw the United States into another front, fighting North Koreans and Chinese on the east side of Asia.

With the United States, Israel, India, and NATO on one side, and China, Iran, Russia, and the Middle East on the other, this would be a devastating war. So devastating, in fact, that it is surprising that politicians in office today are still calling for action against Iran. This is not the only possible outcome, and might not even be the most likely outcome, but World War One was started by a complicated series of entangling alliances as well.

An Uninspired Campaign

The strongest argument that the Republican Party can make in favor of candidate Mitt Romney is that he isn't Barack Obama. He most certainly was not the candidate favored by the Tea Party or many other more conservative Republicans, in spite of efforts to paint him as such. The nomination of Mitt Romney was a fairly decisive defeat of the Tea Party's influence within the Republican Party and a victory for the central leadership over the base.

The strongest argument that the Democratic Party can make in favor of candidate Barack Obama is that he isn't Mitt Romney. He fails to inspire the base, even with his alleged achievements. The strongest argument in favor of Barack Obama is potential judicial appointments, as Mitt Romney would appoint people like John Roberts who voted to uphold Obamacare. "Hope and change" makes a good mantra when a candidate is fresh, but not after failing to deliver either for four years.

Small wonder that partisans react so angrily to having it pointed out how little difference there is in this campaign. The standard comparison of "not a dimes worth of difference" is even stronger given just how similar the two candidates really are. Mitt Romney wrote the rough draft of Obamacare, and Barack Obama has shown greater militarism than even George W. Bush.

The cries of "this is the most important election ever" are even louder than before, and yet those cries fail to inspire the base of either party. These cries are meant to convince the reluctant base to come out and vote in spite of, not because of, the candidates that the party is running. They are also a vain attempt to convince third party voters to cross party lines, which sometimes does happen if a candidate is appealing enough. In the 2012 electoral race, it would be hard to describe either candidate as "appealing enough."

It will be interesting to see how a campaign between two unappealing candidates develops. Negative campaigning, trying to appeal to fear in order to bring out the base, will be the only option for both candidates, but ultimately that will reinforce the basic problem that neither candidate is good. It will also be interesting to see how the two parties arrange to negate the opportunity being given to third parties this time around.

Bain Capital

People within the Obama campaign are making comments about Mitt Romney’s involvement with Bain Capital. It is possible that Mitt Romney is much more heavily involved in his company than previously claimed, and that there may be legal grounds to prosecute Mitt Romney for such. Some even comment that the charges may rise to the level of felony.

The question is, if the Obama campaign is confident enough to make these allegations, why is the Obama administration not confident enough to press charges? If there exists sufficient grounds to suspect illegal activity, then there should be sufficient grounds to open an actual investigation into those potential activities.

Of course one could claim that opening up an investigation at this time would be clearly politically motivated. A stronger claim could be made that doing so after the convention, once Mitt Romney is officially the nominee, is politically motivated because to do so then would hamstring the Republican campaign. If an investigation is opened before the primary the Republican Party would have time to recover and potentially select a new candidate.

Another possible interpretation is that those making the claims against Mitt Romney know that sufficient grounds for an investigation do not actually exist, but that the public might become sufficiently convinced that the eventual vote in November can be swayed against him to a degree sufficient that Barack Obama is reelected.

Finally there is a lesser but real chance that there is substance to the accusations, but an actual investigation would not be launched unless it appears that Mitt Romney actually poses a threat to the Obama reelection campaign. Barack Obama won his first office primarily by having his opponents removed from the ballot on technicalities, so this would be in character.

A best case scenario would be if an investigation is launched before the Republican convention, tainting Mitt Romney sufficiently that a new candidate has to be found at the last minute. A sufficiently large number of delegates are either open or stealth supporters of Ron Paul, which would mean he has a very realistic shot at the nomination in that event. Since the Obama campaign is gearing up for a fight with Mitt Romney, this scenario would result in chaos all around. Still, it would be a chaos with a chance of producing a desirable outcome.

We Need More Fear

According to the Department of Homeland Security, warned that hackers are attacking software that controls medical devices, elevators, video cameras, security systems and a wide array of other sensitive operations. Except that is not included in the details of the report.

In the details of the report, a software vulnerability was found. There was no indication of any planned or attempted attacks by hackers into those systems. It was revealed that hackers could access through the discovered vulnerabilities, but not that this weakness had been exploited.

The internet has been a major problem for government officials. News reporting and political commentary are no longer confined to the major media outlets anymore. Not only does it disseminate news stories that said officials would rather keep buried, and not only does it enables large scale organization to oppose controversial decisions, through the actions of people like Julian Assange the users of the internet can now rip the mask off of the government and enable people to see just how ugly it really is.

In "Atlas Shrugged," the character Francisco Danconia compared the San Sebastian Mines to ripping the cover off of hell and letting people see it, saying that he had outdone Nero. Wikileaks has done the same thing outside the realm of fiction.

It is no surprise that congress was recently debating SOPA and PIPA. Small wonder as well that net neutrality is so heavily discussed. Government officials are afraid, and want more power to deal with what they fear. To get more power, they need to make a significant portion of the population afraid as well.

Threats need to be exaggerated. Just as when the neocons warned about the Iraqi threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and just as they warn about Iran's nuclear capabilities, in both cases exaggerations, the threat of the hackers has to be magnified to a degree sufficient to terrify people.

If remote control medical devices are hacked and disabled by hackers, that would be terrible. If an elevator was to suddenly plummet due to the actions of a hacker, that would also be terrible. There is no indication that this is happening, and those who issued the press release know this. The vulnerability was all they needed to hype it into a threat though. They needed more fear, and that is why they reported this the way they did. Only with enough fear can they try to take on the internet.

Child Labor

A fourteen year old boy goes to the grocery store to ask for a job. He is turned away, told that hiring him is against the law. He’s not seeking full time employment; he’s seeking to bag groceries for a few hours on the weekend. He is not allowed to because the law, which knows better, tells him he is not yet ready to work for income. The only income allowable to people his age comes from chores, or sometimes lawn mowing or babysitting.

Mention allowing that child to get a job, and the response is horror stories about factories and coal mines. It is a temporal fallacy because while that was once the case it is not the case today. Allowing people under the age of sixteen to seek employment will not result in children being taken out of schools and locked in dangerous factories.

It is not as if there are no exceptions to child labor laws. Minors are employable on family businesses and in artistic pursuits. Allegedly these are different because of parental involvement, which would mean that those in favor of child labor laws believe that parents would abuse their children if given any other labor option for their children.

There are jobs today that are just as safe for a person of fourteen years as they are for a person of sixteen years. Those jobs involve asking "paper or plastic" or "would you like fries with that." Those jobs are there as entry level positions that enable a person to learn how to hold down a job. Some people even go so far as to suggest that those jobs are created specifically for teenagers to soak up some surplus labor.

Given that conditions have changed much since the days of the coal mines and the locked factories, it is clearly time to stop thinking of those times as a basis for restricting child labor, and allowing those who wish to succeed a chance to do so.

Apologies

Due to some personal problems, including my motorcycle getting stolen, I am unable to post a blog entry this week.