The official position of the Libertarian Party is to say "No" to raising the debt limit. It is a perfectly sensible position, because the alternative is the destruction of the dollar through inflation, and then hyper-inflation. The federal government is going to have to adopt austerity measures someday, whether by choice or by circumstance inflicted on the country. Of all the major party presidential candidates, only Ron Paul and Gary Johnson have spoken about the need to bring the finances of the government under control, and have spoken about how if the hard choices aren’t made now they will be made for the country later.
The problem is, the sane voices won't be heard. The Keynesians and Monetarists who control fiscal and monetary policy in the government will never accept that anything should actually be cut, other than a few token items of window-dressing. Their plan is to keep raising the debt limit every time it is reached. The entire show is Kabuki Theater because the Congress and the President know that the voters are actually watching this time and actually demanding that something be dome about the excessive spending.
But they do not believe in restraint. So perhaps the opposite approach should be taken on the debt ceiling issue. Give them exactly what they want, but give them more of what they want than what they are asking for. Eliminate the debt ceiling. Pass the necessary legislation to tie all government debt issuances to the budget, so that the Department of the Treasury can automatically sell debt as needed when needed without any restraint other than the budget passed by congress.
As crazy as that idea sounds, it has some advantages. The first is that, since sane voices are not able to engineer austerity measures directly, this would be a way to engineer them sooner rather than later, perhaps avoiding the final stage of hyperinflation. Although the Keynesians and Monetarists will never understand it, eliminating the limit entirely will signal to lenders that the United States government has no intention of getting spending under control and therefore is not a good risk for lending. This will cause the austerity measures to start sooner rather then after hyperinflation ruins the country.
Another benefit is that it ends what is a side-show, albeit a side-show that is much closer to the real issue than those in charge would like. Even after two congressmen in a row have resigned over sexual misconduct issues the attention of the public is still on excessive spending. Since the public is actually watching the government instead of the tabloids the debt limit is what is being debated instead of the actual imbalance. A "ten year plan," reminiscent of Soviet five year plans, is introduced with back-loaded spending cuts, and the public isn't buying it. Tax increases, which will eventually be necessary, are proposed without actual cuts, and the public isn't buying it. So everyone in Washington is debating the debt limit, and how the government will shut down without an increase to the debt limit. Eliminating the debt limit will force discussion on the budget instead of on an artificial self-imposed limit.
Although it would be disaster, there is a disaster coming anyway. So perhaps the best thing is to be intentionally wrong so that when the San Sebastian Mines are seized, the truth about them is laid bare for the world to see.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Why the Government is out of Money
Recently the University of California has provided a microcosm of what is wrong with the government budget. The University system is cutting back programs and tuition is going up to pay for the budgetary shortfalls. Of course, that is not all there is to the story. Not all programs are being cut. The diversity programs are thriving.
The University of California San Diego is cutting its master's degree programs in computer and electrical engineering, showing that according to the leadership of that university it is not engineering that will lead to a productive and prosperous future but it is diversity training that is what students need most to succeed after graduation. Meanwhile prize faculty are being bid away to other schools, such as three professors from the biology department who were offered a 40% raise to teach elsewhere.
Already it is apparent that college education is the most recent bubble to start to go down in an economy composed almost entirely of bubbles. Due to unemployment and underemployment as well as due to the ever accelerating increase in costs, the lifetime earning differential of a college education is falling below the cost of that education. In general college education is becoming a bad investment.
This one example from the University of California San Diego combines many of the problems with government today. Diversity programs are emphasized at the expense of science programs in an education that costs more and delivers less. The political is emphasized at the expense of the economic to deliver high cost solutions that fail to solve anything and due to their cost interfere with actual efforts to solve society’s problems.
Not only have diversity sinecures been protected from budget cuts, their numbers are actually growing. The University of California at San Diego, for example, is creating a new full-time "vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion." This position would augment UC San Diego’s already massive diversity apparatus, which includes the Chancellor’s Diversity Office, the associate vice chancellor for faculty equity, the assistant vice chancellor for diversity, the faculty equity advisors, the graduate diversity coordinators, the staff diversity liaison, the undergraduate student diversity liaison, the graduate student diversity liaison, the chief diversity officer, the director of development for diversity initiatives, the Office of Academic Diversity and Equal Opportunity, the Committee on Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Issues, the Committee on the Status of Women, the Campus Council on Climate, Culture and Inclusion, the Diversity Council, and the directors of the Cross-Cultural Center, the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource Center, and the Women’s Center.
The University of California San Diego is cutting its master's degree programs in computer and electrical engineering, showing that according to the leadership of that university it is not engineering that will lead to a productive and prosperous future but it is diversity training that is what students need most to succeed after graduation. Meanwhile prize faculty are being bid away to other schools, such as three professors from the biology department who were offered a 40% raise to teach elsewhere.
Already it is apparent that college education is the most recent bubble to start to go down in an economy composed almost entirely of bubbles. Due to unemployment and underemployment as well as due to the ever accelerating increase in costs, the lifetime earning differential of a college education is falling below the cost of that education. In general college education is becoming a bad investment.
This one example from the University of California San Diego combines many of the problems with government today. Diversity programs are emphasized at the expense of science programs in an education that costs more and delivers less. The political is emphasized at the expense of the economic to deliver high cost solutions that fail to solve anything and due to their cost interfere with actual efforts to solve society’s problems.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
What does "Environmentalist" mean?
One of the greatest challenges in political discussion is undefined terms. Not all terms are undefined, but those that are generally are deliberately undefined. Being deliberately undefined, it enables the speaker to shift between definitions whenever it is advantageous to do so. One such term is "environmentalist."
The term can mean anything from "someone who wants a clean environment" to a specific ideology. But if a critic uses the latter definition, those criticized default back to the former definition in an effort to use the government fallacy to prove the critic desires a dirty environment.
But if one tries to start by defining the term ahead of time, those who use the term "environmentalist" as a self-descriptor complain bitterly about how the critic is defining terms in a negative way.
The best approach seems to be in the way of Socratic reasoning to narrow down the show the distinction between hyphenated environmentalists (such as libertarian-environmentalists) and those who use the term without any modification.
The first thing to do is to ask what is an environmentalist, pointing out that by the basic meaning of the word it would indicate someone who wants a clean environment. Then point out the problem with that definition: it includes people who want one but not badly enough to do anything about it, and it includes people who want one but consider pollution the price to pay for progress.
That will get the unhyphenated environmentalist to agree that definition is too broad, and that it should be narrowed to "someone who wants a clean environment badly enough to do something about it."
This is where it gets tricky, and the critic of the unhyphenated environmentalist must stay on the offensive. The thing to do is to point out that according to most who use the term "environmentalist" as a self descriptor, libertarians are not considered to be environmentalists. Then challenge the statist environmentalist to deny that point.
If the statist environmentalist does deny that point, then the critic can call himself an environmentalist without fear of contradiction, and then put forward free market solutions to environmental problems as environmentalism.
More likely the statist environmentalist will not deny that point, meaning that the critic can now say "therefore the definition includes 'and advocates certain solutions' to environmental problems." That turns the definition into a political definition instead of concern about the environment itself. That is the definition that would be hotly denied without the Socratic lead in, and in order to prevent referring to free market environmentalists as environmentalists the statist environmentalist will have to agree.
A clear and concise definition is exactly what is needed to argue with statist environmentalists. The Socratic elimination is one of the most effective ways to achieve that definition.
The term can mean anything from "someone who wants a clean environment" to a specific ideology. But if a critic uses the latter definition, those criticized default back to the former definition in an effort to use the government fallacy to prove the critic desires a dirty environment.
But if one tries to start by defining the term ahead of time, those who use the term "environmentalist" as a self-descriptor complain bitterly about how the critic is defining terms in a negative way.
The best approach seems to be in the way of Socratic reasoning to narrow down the show the distinction between hyphenated environmentalists (such as libertarian-environmentalists) and those who use the term without any modification.
The first thing to do is to ask what is an environmentalist, pointing out that by the basic meaning of the word it would indicate someone who wants a clean environment. Then point out the problem with that definition: it includes people who want one but not badly enough to do anything about it, and it includes people who want one but consider pollution the price to pay for progress.
That will get the unhyphenated environmentalist to agree that definition is too broad, and that it should be narrowed to "someone who wants a clean environment badly enough to do something about it."
This is where it gets tricky, and the critic of the unhyphenated environmentalist must stay on the offensive. The thing to do is to point out that according to most who use the term "environmentalist" as a self descriptor, libertarians are not considered to be environmentalists. Then challenge the statist environmentalist to deny that point.
If the statist environmentalist does deny that point, then the critic can call himself an environmentalist without fear of contradiction, and then put forward free market solutions to environmental problems as environmentalism.
More likely the statist environmentalist will not deny that point, meaning that the critic can now say "therefore the definition includes 'and advocates certain solutions' to environmental problems." That turns the definition into a political definition instead of concern about the environment itself. That is the definition that would be hotly denied without the Socratic lead in, and in order to prevent referring to free market environmentalists as environmentalists the statist environmentalist will have to agree.
A clear and concise definition is exactly what is needed to argue with statist environmentalists. The Socratic elimination is one of the most effective ways to achieve that definition.
Friday, July 08, 2011
California Shoots Self in Foot
Because California legislators are unable to control their urge to spend, especially their urge to spend on public employee pensions and salaries, they are always looking for new sources of revenue. There was one major stream of business not taxed, so the inevitable occurred. The government of the state of California decided to force businesses that do business over the internet to collect sales tax.
It is already law that residents of the state are supposed to pay the sales tax for all internet purchases. There is a line on the state income tax forms for that purpose - a line ignored by Californians. Frustrated by their inability to force Californians to pay yet another tax in one of the highest taxed states in the country, the idea was to “close a loophole” and force internet businesses to do the same tax collection that stores physically located in the state collect - a service they provide “free” to the state.
Already Amazon.com and Overstock.com are reacting to this new law. They are not collecting the sale taxes, though. They are pulling out of the state.
Both businesses have affiliate programs whereby people can sell their products through these major corporations. Both partners in the affiliate programs profit. The major corporations profit by getting a portion of the proceeds, and the small affiliates profit by having their products listed through major outlets where they can reach larger audiences.
These affiliate programs are all ended. The business connections have been severed. Amazon alone had 10,000 affiliates in California, and has ceased to do business with them unless they leave the state.
This law, instead of raising revenue, has created a revenue loss. Instead of increased sales tax, it has resulted in decreased income tax. It may have even resulted in increased unemployment compensation.
One would hope that the legislators and the governor would see the results and admit that a mistake has been made. One would hope that they would see the decreased revenue and the increased unemployment. Of course one would also hope that politicians are honest, capable, and intelligent, but the evidence indicates otherwise.
It is already law that residents of the state are supposed to pay the sales tax for all internet purchases. There is a line on the state income tax forms for that purpose - a line ignored by Californians. Frustrated by their inability to force Californians to pay yet another tax in one of the highest taxed states in the country, the idea was to “close a loophole” and force internet businesses to do the same tax collection that stores physically located in the state collect - a service they provide “free” to the state.
Already Amazon.com and Overstock.com are reacting to this new law. They are not collecting the sale taxes, though. They are pulling out of the state.
Both businesses have affiliate programs whereby people can sell their products through these major corporations. Both partners in the affiliate programs profit. The major corporations profit by getting a portion of the proceeds, and the small affiliates profit by having their products listed through major outlets where they can reach larger audiences.
These affiliate programs are all ended. The business connections have been severed. Amazon alone had 10,000 affiliates in California, and has ceased to do business with them unless they leave the state.
This law, instead of raising revenue, has created a revenue loss. Instead of increased sales tax, it has resulted in decreased income tax. It may have even resulted in increased unemployment compensation.
One would hope that the legislators and the governor would see the results and admit that a mistake has been made. One would hope that they would see the decreased revenue and the increased unemployment. Of course one would also hope that politicians are honest, capable, and intelligent, but the evidence indicates otherwise.
Friday, July 01, 2011
Judicial Reform in Defense
Since we have a government court system, one thing to do until liberty is achieved is try to make it function in a way that promotes actual justice. There are many ways in which the court system could be improved, some of them simple and some of them radical. One proposal is to hold judges accountable. Another would be allowing private citizens to file criminal charges. But there is one change that can be implemented right now, without any structural changes to the system. All it would require is a willingness to do the right thing. The part to change is the Public Defender's Office.
Currently, the Public Defender only defends the truly indigent. If someone cannot afford an attorney without going deeply into debt, but has an income above poverty, that person does not qualify for a public defender. Unlike civil suits where loser pays, a malicious prosecutor can financially break someone simply by filing spurious charges against them. The only reason that the Duke Rape Case turned out as well as it did was because the accused students came from wealthy families who were able to gather the resources to fight the charges.
The role of the Public Defender needs to be greatly expanded. Anyone accused of any crime should be entitled to representation by a Public Defender. A person still would have the right to hire additional representation, and would have the right to refuse a Public Defender, but the offer must be made. The problem with that is that the Public Defender’s office is already overwhelmed. Even with only defending the poor they have more cases than they can actually handle, and cannot devote enough time to mount a real defense of those they already represent.
The office itself should therefore be expanded. The Defender's office should have a budget equal to that of the District Attorney's office, and staffing levels of each office should vary by, at most, one person. Just as District Attorneys are promoted based on successful prosecutions, Public Defenders should be promoted based on successful defenses. Give full and equal resources and power to the two offices, to make one a real and actual check on the other.
If the average person is not equipped to face the full might of the government, unable to match the "unlimited" resources of the government, then the response should be to offer those same resources to the average person in defense as well as in prosecution.
The best part of this particular reform is it requires absolutely no structural changes to the justice system. It would not require any fundamental changes; it would not require amending any constitutions and it would barely require any changes to the law. All it would really take is the will to include it in the budget.
Currently, the Public Defender only defends the truly indigent. If someone cannot afford an attorney without going deeply into debt, but has an income above poverty, that person does not qualify for a public defender. Unlike civil suits where loser pays, a malicious prosecutor can financially break someone simply by filing spurious charges against them. The only reason that the Duke Rape Case turned out as well as it did was because the accused students came from wealthy families who were able to gather the resources to fight the charges.
The role of the Public Defender needs to be greatly expanded. Anyone accused of any crime should be entitled to representation by a Public Defender. A person still would have the right to hire additional representation, and would have the right to refuse a Public Defender, but the offer must be made. The problem with that is that the Public Defender’s office is already overwhelmed. Even with only defending the poor they have more cases than they can actually handle, and cannot devote enough time to mount a real defense of those they already represent.
The office itself should therefore be expanded. The Defender's office should have a budget equal to that of the District Attorney's office, and staffing levels of each office should vary by, at most, one person. Just as District Attorneys are promoted based on successful prosecutions, Public Defenders should be promoted based on successful defenses. Give full and equal resources and power to the two offices, to make one a real and actual check on the other.
If the average person is not equipped to face the full might of the government, unable to match the "unlimited" resources of the government, then the response should be to offer those same resources to the average person in defense as well as in prosecution.
The best part of this particular reform is it requires absolutely no structural changes to the justice system. It would not require any fundamental changes; it would not require amending any constitutions and it would barely require any changes to the law. All it would really take is the will to include it in the budget.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Hail Caesar
From a constitutional point of view, every single war waged by the United States after World War Two was unconstitutional and therefore illegal. None of them had a proper declaration of war, passed by congress.
The federal government has given itself some cover by issuing various declarations and authorizations that fall short of an actual declaration of war. Additionally the War Powers Act, also unconstitutional, gave the President the authority to wage war without congressional approval if the war was under sixty days in duration.
None of these legalistic covers actually follow the constitution, but at least they have provided a method by which elected officials can assure the public that everything is being done properly.
Even when President Bush lied the country into war with Iraq, he used an Authorization for the Use of Force as his authority to send troops in. But that principle has escaped President Obama.
Obama has added a war with Libya to the long list of wars the United States is involved in. He claimed authority under the unconstitutional War Powers Act to initiate hostilities. And then the sixty day limitation passed, and the war did not end. President Obama still does not seek congressional approval.
And what was the reaction of congress? The House of Representatives passed a resolution rebuking the President, but it failed to halt funding for the Libya War. The one meaningful power the congress retained for itself - funding - is the one power that congress lacks the will to use.
The only thing left is for President Obama to appoint a horse to the Senate. "Hail Caesar" was the cry that brought down the Roman Republic. Will we hear a similar cry with regards to Obama?
The federal government has given itself some cover by issuing various declarations and authorizations that fall short of an actual declaration of war. Additionally the War Powers Act, also unconstitutional, gave the President the authority to wage war without congressional approval if the war was under sixty days in duration.
None of these legalistic covers actually follow the constitution, but at least they have provided a method by which elected officials can assure the public that everything is being done properly.
Even when President Bush lied the country into war with Iraq, he used an Authorization for the Use of Force as his authority to send troops in. But that principle has escaped President Obama.
Obama has added a war with Libya to the long list of wars the United States is involved in. He claimed authority under the unconstitutional War Powers Act to initiate hostilities. And then the sixty day limitation passed, and the war did not end. President Obama still does not seek congressional approval.
And what was the reaction of congress? The House of Representatives passed a resolution rebuking the President, but it failed to halt funding for the Libya War. The one meaningful power the congress retained for itself - funding - is the one power that congress lacks the will to use.
The only thing left is for President Obama to appoint a horse to the Senate. "Hail Caesar" was the cry that brought down the Roman Republic. Will we hear a similar cry with regards to Obama?
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Analysis of the June 13th Republican Debate
Sorry this is so late, the outside world is rather hectic right now.
Romney's performance was adequate enough to establish that he's still the front runner. He neither gained nor lost ground, and that technically counts as a victory for him.
The debate organizers left out Johnson. He is a former two term governor, like Pawlenty. They included a former two term governor, a former two term senator, and a congresswoman who has just started her third term and hadn't even officially declared yet - she declared AT the debate. Gary Johnson’s inclusion would have provided a nice counterpoint to Ron Paul as happened in the previous debate, with one arguing theory and the other arguing practicality for the same points.
Gingrich did little to advance himself; he won't last long given that his whole staff just quit. He gave some muddled answers about whether he likes or dislikes the Ryan plan. He's the most hawkish candidate, but that's not a huge achievement since the GOP has mellowed just a little on wars.
Cain is starting to give disturbing answers. He really is in favor of having no Muslims on his cabinet unless he knows for sure they are loyal, but insisted he was misquoted on loyalty tests. Then he said he would restructure Social Security they way it was done in Chile. That's a position many libertarians will not appreciate, since free market libertarians are always given broad-brush blame for what monetarists (not libertarians) did there in cooperation with dictator Pinochet. If he continues that answer will come to haunt him..
Bachmann was a surprise. Given what is commonly said of her by political commentators, a viewer could be excused for expecting guttural grunts as her means of communication. Instead she not only used complete sentences, she seems smarter than Palin with whom she is commonly compared.
On gay rights issues there were two big questions.
First, would the candidate interfere if a state passed a law allowing gay marriage, would the candidate support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. Some said they would interfere and would support such an amendment. Ron Paul of course said he wouldn't interfere and went even further and said get the government out of marriage.
Second, DADT is going away. Would the candidate overturn the repeal or would the candidate leave it as is. There were several who said they would overturn it. Ron Paul is good with DADT being gone. Two for two, he is better on gay rights than Obama, and that is certain to annoy a few progressives. Bachmann and Pawlenty both came out strongly anti-gay.
Most of the candidates, except Newt and Santorum, have mellowed on the war, making hat tips to Ron Paul on that that. There were also a few hat tips on economic matters such as the bailouts. He is very much the second place candidate against Romney.
Romney's performance was adequate enough to establish that he's still the front runner. He neither gained nor lost ground, and that technically counts as a victory for him.
The debate organizers left out Johnson. He is a former two term governor, like Pawlenty. They included a former two term governor, a former two term senator, and a congresswoman who has just started her third term and hadn't even officially declared yet - she declared AT the debate. Gary Johnson’s inclusion would have provided a nice counterpoint to Ron Paul as happened in the previous debate, with one arguing theory and the other arguing practicality for the same points.
Gingrich did little to advance himself; he won't last long given that his whole staff just quit. He gave some muddled answers about whether he likes or dislikes the Ryan plan. He's the most hawkish candidate, but that's not a huge achievement since the GOP has mellowed just a little on wars.
Cain is starting to give disturbing answers. He really is in favor of having no Muslims on his cabinet unless he knows for sure they are loyal, but insisted he was misquoted on loyalty tests. Then he said he would restructure Social Security they way it was done in Chile. That's a position many libertarians will not appreciate, since free market libertarians are always given broad-brush blame for what monetarists (not libertarians) did there in cooperation with dictator Pinochet. If he continues that answer will come to haunt him..
Bachmann was a surprise. Given what is commonly said of her by political commentators, a viewer could be excused for expecting guttural grunts as her means of communication. Instead she not only used complete sentences, she seems smarter than Palin with whom she is commonly compared.
On gay rights issues there were two big questions.
First, would the candidate interfere if a state passed a law allowing gay marriage, would the candidate support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. Some said they would interfere and would support such an amendment. Ron Paul of course said he wouldn't interfere and went even further and said get the government out of marriage.
Second, DADT is going away. Would the candidate overturn the repeal or would the candidate leave it as is. There were several who said they would overturn it. Ron Paul is good with DADT being gone. Two for two, he is better on gay rights than Obama, and that is certain to annoy a few progressives. Bachmann and Pawlenty both came out strongly anti-gay.
Most of the candidates, except Newt and Santorum, have mellowed on the war, making hat tips to Ron Paul on that that. There were also a few hat tips on economic matters such as the bailouts. He is very much the second place candidate against Romney.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Extremists Only
Wendy McElroy had a comment rejected from an NPR article when she made a comment critical of the science behind Anthropogenic Global Warming. Szandor Blestman at Fr33 Agents had someone accuse him of being a creationist when he expressed skepticism towards the extreme claims of Al Gore regarding the environment.
The latter is an example of the "package deal" where unrelated positions are lumped together under the two party label, wherein someone is supposedly forced to choose between civil liberty and economic oppression on the Democrat side, or economic liberty and civil oppression on the Republican side. The Republican side also combines skepticism of AGW with faith in creationism. The Democrat side also combines skepticism of creationism with faith in AGW. That is all part of the package deal where one is supposed to accept both the good and bad points of a position.
But there is more at play than a mere package deal, and that is why Wendy McElroy was censored.
There is a political tactic that, when there is a divisive issue, to pick the most extreme member of the other side and to treat that person as if he was representative of the other side. Take the person who wants taxes the highest and treat him as if he speaks for all who want to raise taxes. Take the person who wishes a violent overthrow of the government and treat him as if he speaks for all who would want to restrain government.
So what happens if a reasonable comment slips through? In the case of Szandor Blestman the reaction is to try to cast someone as more extreme than he really is. Insist that he must be a creationist because of the package deal. It is similiar to when someone objects to government spending, respond by saying discussing how much Bush's wars cost and how he did the bailouts.
When that fails, just ignore the comments, pretend they don't exist, and when possible, censor the comments as what happened to Wendy McElroy. The comment was "held for moderation" and her posting access was for a time suspended. She posted a scientific critique of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Allowing her comment will prevent NPR from pretending only the extremists disagree.
The latter is an example of the "package deal" where unrelated positions are lumped together under the two party label, wherein someone is supposedly forced to choose between civil liberty and economic oppression on the Democrat side, or economic liberty and civil oppression on the Republican side. The Republican side also combines skepticism of AGW with faith in creationism. The Democrat side also combines skepticism of creationism with faith in AGW. That is all part of the package deal where one is supposed to accept both the good and bad points of a position.
But there is more at play than a mere package deal, and that is why Wendy McElroy was censored.
There is a political tactic that, when there is a divisive issue, to pick the most extreme member of the other side and to treat that person as if he was representative of the other side. Take the person who wants taxes the highest and treat him as if he speaks for all who want to raise taxes. Take the person who wishes a violent overthrow of the government and treat him as if he speaks for all who would want to restrain government.
So what happens if a reasonable comment slips through? In the case of Szandor Blestman the reaction is to try to cast someone as more extreme than he really is. Insist that he must be a creationist because of the package deal. It is similiar to when someone objects to government spending, respond by saying discussing how much Bush's wars cost and how he did the bailouts.
When that fails, just ignore the comments, pretend they don't exist, and when possible, censor the comments as what happened to Wendy McElroy. The comment was "held for moderation" and her posting access was for a time suspended. She posted a scientific critique of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Allowing her comment will prevent NPR from pretending only the extremists disagree.
Friday, June 03, 2011
Progressive Feudalists
In Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty, Murray Rothbard makes a good case about how Socialists are actually the middle ground between monarchists and libertarians. He does so by tracing the evolution of the political ideologies from the original French Assembly spectrum (wrongly considered to be the definitive political spectrum) to modern times where the different ideologies are thrown together basically at random until the original leftists are now considered to be on the right with their original opponents and the middle ground between the two is considered to be on the left.
He also neatly ties in progressives and fascists in with the feudalists, demonstrating how they are all superficial variations on each other, through a combination of direct ownership of the means of production, government and corporate mergers, and the regulatory state.
Progressivism has finally reached its final conclusion and become indistinguishable from the more extreme members of its family. Under President Bush and President Obama it has come to mean absolute power in the government and endless war, both for the sake of the ruling class. The rhetoric about having an omnipotent government for the sake of the people is rapidly fading away. First President Bush dropped any pretense about how "conservatives" favor any lessened role for the government in the lives of the people through the creation of the Transportation Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security, and the passage of the USAPATRIOT Act, No Child Left Behind, S-CHIP, Prescriptions Drug Coverage for Seniors, and capping it off with the first round of Bailouts and Stimulus. Then President Obama dropped any pretense of how "progressives" favor any sort of civil liberty or commonality with the common man by continuing the bailout of Wall Street, expanding the War on Terror to include directed assassinations without a court order, expanding the War on Terror to include congress having no role at all, and passing a version of healthcare reform that as none of the goals that Democrats have clamored for years over such as Single Payer or other versions of socialized medicine, while also failing to move on any gay rights issues and expanding the Drug War.
Based on all of that, it is clear that Progressive now means an absolute authoritarian state with no concern for the people governed. It can still be debated if the US is a free country or a dictatorship, but there is no debate left that the leadership certainly has no regard for freedom and only has concern for their own power, and a willingness to shed as much of other peoples blood may be necessary to hold and increase that power. They have returned to their original root, described by Rothbard, as feudalists, the original enemy of libertarians.
It is time for liberals to abandon their “progressive” brothers if they want to reclaim what is left of their original identity as holding their ideology for the sake of improving the world and not just themselves. It is time for liberals to decide which way they want to go, it is time to choose between government and freedom, they cannot have both and they can no longer pretend that they can have both. It is also time for liberals to stop consider the term "liberal" and the term "progressive" to be interchangeable.
He also neatly ties in progressives and fascists in with the feudalists, demonstrating how they are all superficial variations on each other, through a combination of direct ownership of the means of production, government and corporate mergers, and the regulatory state.
Progressivism has finally reached its final conclusion and become indistinguishable from the more extreme members of its family. Under President Bush and President Obama it has come to mean absolute power in the government and endless war, both for the sake of the ruling class. The rhetoric about having an omnipotent government for the sake of the people is rapidly fading away. First President Bush dropped any pretense about how "conservatives" favor any lessened role for the government in the lives of the people through the creation of the Transportation Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security, and the passage of the USAPATRIOT Act, No Child Left Behind, S-CHIP, Prescriptions Drug Coverage for Seniors, and capping it off with the first round of Bailouts and Stimulus. Then President Obama dropped any pretense of how "progressives" favor any sort of civil liberty or commonality with the common man by continuing the bailout of Wall Street, expanding the War on Terror to include directed assassinations without a court order, expanding the War on Terror to include congress having no role at all, and passing a version of healthcare reform that as none of the goals that Democrats have clamored for years over such as Single Payer or other versions of socialized medicine, while also failing to move on any gay rights issues and expanding the Drug War.
Based on all of that, it is clear that Progressive now means an absolute authoritarian state with no concern for the people governed. It can still be debated if the US is a free country or a dictatorship, but there is no debate left that the leadership certainly has no regard for freedom and only has concern for their own power, and a willingness to shed as much of other peoples blood may be necessary to hold and increase that power. They have returned to their original root, described by Rothbard, as feudalists, the original enemy of libertarians.
It is time for liberals to abandon their “progressive” brothers if they want to reclaim what is left of their original identity as holding their ideology for the sake of improving the world and not just themselves. It is time for liberals to decide which way they want to go, it is time to choose between government and freedom, they cannot have both and they can no longer pretend that they can have both. It is also time for liberals to stop consider the term "liberal" and the term "progressive" to be interchangeable.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Indirect Subsidies
Sometimes the activities of the government can be truly mystifying when trying to understand. The whole subject of tobacco is one where nothing done makes sense. The product is both subsidized and taxed, subsidized so that the producers can make profits, and taxed to discourage people from the activity. The states simultaneously encourage people to quit smoking but depend on the tax monies generate from people smoking.
Moreover, in the 1990's, when lawsuits against tobacco companies by the states were popular as a way of recouping healthcare expenditures by the states, there were even more inexplicable complications. One company, subject to a lawsuit for the crime of selling a legal product to the citizens of a state, offered to stop selling the product in the state at all. The state responded by filing an injunction to force the company to conduct business while simultaneously suing them for conducting business.
The combination of supports to the activity and restrictions on the activity may seem puzzling, especially given the combination of subsidies and taxes. From an accounting point of view alone, removing both the subsidies and the taxes will result in savings through efficiency. The lack of subsidies will raise the price of tobacco to somewhere near the taxed price, but since the government isn't doling out money with one hand and collecting it with the other then there will be no transaction costs.
The reason this is not true though is because the layer of government that subsidizes the activity is not the same layer that taxes the activity.
In the federal system of the United States is that the states do not receive their income from the federal government but are instead responsible for their own budgets, their own revenue, and their own expenditures. Like any principle in modern government it is full out countless exceptions, most often in the form of directed funds for special projects, such as giving money for the construction of a community center. But unless there is a bailout of a state by the federal government, federal expenditures are not directed into the general fund of state revenues.
But if the federal government artificially lowers the price through subsidies, and the state government artificially raises the price through taxes, then the final effect is of the money being funneled through intermediaries to be received by the states. The consumer pays basically the same price, approximately, but a portion of that money is going to the states instead of to the farmer, and the federal government is paying the farmer so that the states can receive the money. So yes, the federal government does supply funds to the general revenue of the states, yet another way to prevent the states from gaining any ideas that they have any independence to stand up to the federal government when the federal government acts in an unconstitutional manner.
Moreover, in the 1990's, when lawsuits against tobacco companies by the states were popular as a way of recouping healthcare expenditures by the states, there were even more inexplicable complications. One company, subject to a lawsuit for the crime of selling a legal product to the citizens of a state, offered to stop selling the product in the state at all. The state responded by filing an injunction to force the company to conduct business while simultaneously suing them for conducting business.
The combination of supports to the activity and restrictions on the activity may seem puzzling, especially given the combination of subsidies and taxes. From an accounting point of view alone, removing both the subsidies and the taxes will result in savings through efficiency. The lack of subsidies will raise the price of tobacco to somewhere near the taxed price, but since the government isn't doling out money with one hand and collecting it with the other then there will be no transaction costs.
The reason this is not true though is because the layer of government that subsidizes the activity is not the same layer that taxes the activity.
In the federal system of the United States is that the states do not receive their income from the federal government but are instead responsible for their own budgets, their own revenue, and their own expenditures. Like any principle in modern government it is full out countless exceptions, most often in the form of directed funds for special projects, such as giving money for the construction of a community center. But unless there is a bailout of a state by the federal government, federal expenditures are not directed into the general fund of state revenues.
But if the federal government artificially lowers the price through subsidies, and the state government artificially raises the price through taxes, then the final effect is of the money being funneled through intermediaries to be received by the states. The consumer pays basically the same price, approximately, but a portion of that money is going to the states instead of to the farmer, and the federal government is paying the farmer so that the states can receive the money. So yes, the federal government does supply funds to the general revenue of the states, yet another way to prevent the states from gaining any ideas that they have any independence to stand up to the federal government when the federal government acts in an unconstitutional manner.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Backdoor Forbiddance
One of the ways to know if a government is tyrannical is when the law places demands on the people to not own various goods. Many of these regimes will declare various items to be contraband or forbidden, such as subversive literature or the means of self defense.
There is actually very little in the way of economic interactions in the United States that are actively forbidden for purchase. The list is actually limited to various illegal drugs and, in most states, prostitution. Technically everything else is available for public ownership.
But that is not the whole of the interference in private transactions. There exists a whole second class of goods that can only be acquired with special permits, such as firearms and prescription medication. In order to own any of those goods it is necessary to get special permission from various authorities.
By manipulation of permission various levels of the government have been able to turn de jure legality into de facto forbiddance, such as with the Chicago handgun bans. Anyone in Chicago can own a gun if they have a permit, but nobody can get a permit. It was due to the technicality that guns were not actually forbidden that Chicago tried to defend their ban at the Supreme Court.
The most insidious method by which the United States government says that the people may not own various goods is not through saying that the people may not purchase or own goods, but by forbidding instead the sale or manufacture of those goods.
When the incandescent bulb ban goes into effect, it will be perfectly legal for anyone to own any bulbs already purchased. It will even be legal to buy those bulbs if a store actually has them to sell. What won’t be legal is for the store to sell them. The same is the situation with raw foods, especially raw milk. Anyone can own raw milk, and there are no laws against purchasing raw milk. But nobody can get permission to sell raw milk, and those who do are subject to harsh government action for peaceful, voluntary transactions.
It is even true selling rabbits, or when kids set up lemonade stands, or when people sell rides, flower arrangements, hair care, or interior design services. While it is legal for some people to sell these products, it is not legal for anyone to sell these completely legal products.
It is actually quite clever on the part of the United States government to ban only the production or sale and not the acquisition or ownership. Although the effect is the same in terms of what the people can own, it is not the people who are being restricted and thus the people are not aware of the laws limiting what they can own.
There is actually very little in the way of economic interactions in the United States that are actively forbidden for purchase. The list is actually limited to various illegal drugs and, in most states, prostitution. Technically everything else is available for public ownership.
But that is not the whole of the interference in private transactions. There exists a whole second class of goods that can only be acquired with special permits, such as firearms and prescription medication. In order to own any of those goods it is necessary to get special permission from various authorities.
By manipulation of permission various levels of the government have been able to turn de jure legality into de facto forbiddance, such as with the Chicago handgun bans. Anyone in Chicago can own a gun if they have a permit, but nobody can get a permit. It was due to the technicality that guns were not actually forbidden that Chicago tried to defend their ban at the Supreme Court.
The most insidious method by which the United States government says that the people may not own various goods is not through saying that the people may not purchase or own goods, but by forbidding instead the sale or manufacture of those goods.
When the incandescent bulb ban goes into effect, it will be perfectly legal for anyone to own any bulbs already purchased. It will even be legal to buy those bulbs if a store actually has them to sell. What won’t be legal is for the store to sell them. The same is the situation with raw foods, especially raw milk. Anyone can own raw milk, and there are no laws against purchasing raw milk. But nobody can get permission to sell raw milk, and those who do are subject to harsh government action for peaceful, voluntary transactions.
It is even true selling rabbits, or when kids set up lemonade stands, or when people sell rides, flower arrangements, hair care, or interior design services. While it is legal for some people to sell these products, it is not legal for anyone to sell these completely legal products.
It is actually quite clever on the part of the United States government to ban only the production or sale and not the acquisition or ownership. Although the effect is the same in terms of what the people can own, it is not the people who are being restricted and thus the people are not aware of the laws limiting what they can own.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Rules for thee, not for me
It seems that many of the same organizations that supported the passage of Obamacare are also the organizations that have been
granted waivers to not be subjected to that legislation. It seems rather ironic, because if the people involved in those organizations really believed in the program then they would have no reason to ask for a waiver.
On the other hand, those groups that were not favorable to Obamacare are not being granted any waivers.
In a previous experiment in discussing healthcare reform it was shown that the point of healthcare reform was to force people in to it who didn’t want to be in it. The offer was made that those who oppose healthcare reform would be willing to fund it in exchange for not being part of it. The socialists argue that everyone needs to pay in to it in order for the program to work, so that was given to them. The socialists argue that government healthcare is better, so that was given to them. The price was that those who want a private system get a fully private system, private in every way. The offer was treated with horror.
The previous experiment proved that the whole point of healthcare reform was to force objectors in to a government run system. The current waivers show that the rule is intended only for those who do not want to be in it.
Such blatant hypocrisy can only be the result of a a truly authoritarian mindset where the rules are intended only and completely for political opponents. People are required to either support the ruler and get exemptions or suffer the consequences. By that standard, Obamacare is far more fascist than initially realized.
granted waivers to not be subjected to that legislation. It seems rather ironic, because if the people involved in those organizations really believed in the program then they would have no reason to ask for a waiver.
On the other hand, those groups that were not favorable to Obamacare are not being granted any waivers.
In a previous experiment in discussing healthcare reform it was shown that the point of healthcare reform was to force people in to it who didn’t want to be in it. The offer was made that those who oppose healthcare reform would be willing to fund it in exchange for not being part of it. The socialists argue that everyone needs to pay in to it in order for the program to work, so that was given to them. The socialists argue that government healthcare is better, so that was given to them. The price was that those who want a private system get a fully private system, private in every way. The offer was treated with horror.
The previous experiment proved that the whole point of healthcare reform was to force objectors in to a government run system. The current waivers show that the rule is intended only for those who do not want to be in it.
Such blatant hypocrisy can only be the result of a a truly authoritarian mindset where the rules are intended only and completely for political opponents. People are required to either support the ruler and get exemptions or suffer the consequences. By that standard, Obamacare is far more fascist than initially realized.
Saturday, May 07, 2011
Keynesian Economics and Regulation
It may seem rather odd to say this, but it is actually true that Keynesian Economists are not automatically advocates of the regulatory state. By definition, Keynesian economics is concerned with fiscal policy, using federal budgetary policy to moderate the economy. There is nothing about that which would indicate that a Keynesian must embrace regulation - it is theoretically possible to encounter a Keynesian who is only concerned about fiscal policy.
The reason it appears that Keynesians must be in favor of regulation and the attendant bureaucracy is because all Keynesians are. There is no economic activity they are content to leave alone.
The right-Keynesians and the left-Keynesians differ on who should be the beneficiary of the demand pushing government spending. Right-Keynesians would prefer to benefit the upper classes, leading to supply side economics as the outgrowth. Left-Keynesians prefer to benefit the lower classes, leading to demand side economics as the outgrowth.
The unnecessary (from a textbook point of view) embrace of the regulatory state has a similar division. Right-Keynesians prefer regulations that benefit the upper classes, leading to Mercantilism or Corporatism as the outgrowth. Left-Keynesians prefer to benefit the lower classes, leading to Progressivism as the outgrowth.
When cornered in a debate, it does happen occasionally that Keynesians will admit that regulation is not part of Keynes’ General Theory. Perhaps it would be more interesting to corner the Keynesian on that and try to force an admission about how far from Keynes’ writing they have gone in their embrace of regulation.
The reason it appears that Keynesians must be in favor of regulation and the attendant bureaucracy is because all Keynesians are. There is no economic activity they are content to leave alone.
The right-Keynesians and the left-Keynesians differ on who should be the beneficiary of the demand pushing government spending. Right-Keynesians would prefer to benefit the upper classes, leading to supply side economics as the outgrowth. Left-Keynesians prefer to benefit the lower classes, leading to demand side economics as the outgrowth.
The unnecessary (from a textbook point of view) embrace of the regulatory state has a similar division. Right-Keynesians prefer regulations that benefit the upper classes, leading to Mercantilism or Corporatism as the outgrowth. Left-Keynesians prefer to benefit the lower classes, leading to Progressivism as the outgrowth.
When cornered in a debate, it does happen occasionally that Keynesians will admit that regulation is not part of Keynes’ General Theory. Perhaps it would be more interesting to corner the Keynesian on that and try to force an admission about how far from Keynes’ writing they have gone in their embrace of regulation.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Local tyranny is also the most blatant
If a person is unlucky enough to rent an apartment in the cities of Lancaster, California or Palmdale, California, that person no longer has any fourth amendment protections against searches. It is written in to the law of both cities. The setup is convoluted, but the end result is that no renter has rights.
It starts with code enforcement, as do many of the evils of local government. In order to ensure that apartment complex managers and owners are not mistreating the tenants, code enforcement officials are authorized to enter any rental unit without the permission of or a warrant against the people dwelling there.
So in order to ensure that, for example a fire detector has the batteries installed, agents of the government are allowed in with only the requirement that the property owner, not the renter, be notified. And this only applies to rental properties; homeowners are not subject to these inspections.
The problem is that anything that the renter might be doing is reportable to the police, and the word of the safety code inspector is all the police need to get a warrant. That means that apartment renters are subject to criminal searches under building and safety codes.
Given the vast number of laws that people are subjected to, and nobody knows all the laws that a person must obey, this means that the one guarantee people have to protect them from malicious prosecution – the fourth amendment prohibition against warrantless searches – is null and void for anyone who rents an apartment in Lancaster or Palmdale.
The theory behind the reportability is that since the government agent already has permission to enter the home, anything found is legally reportable. But the search is technically on the property of the lessor, not the dwelling of the lessee. It is a difference without a difference as far as the city governments are concerned.
One could make an argument that this is a coincidental byproduct, an unintended consequence. That would be understandable, except for the wording of the ordinances. Lancaster has the more severe wording.
The second paragraph is a key point. Given that the description of how substandard construction drains resources is already in the first paragraph, the second paragraph as a stand-alone describes apartment dwellers alone as being more prone to uncivil behavior.
On the national level, the TSA already has completely dispensed with the fourth amendment, but at least they do so on the refuted claim that they are trying to keep people safe from terrorists. In the case of Lancaster and Palmdale they lack even that much of a justification for eliminating the rights that should belong to every American.
It starts with code enforcement, as do many of the evils of local government. In order to ensure that apartment complex managers and owners are not mistreating the tenants, code enforcement officials are authorized to enter any rental unit without the permission of or a warrant against the people dwelling there.
So in order to ensure that, for example a fire detector has the batteries installed, agents of the government are allowed in with only the requirement that the property owner, not the renter, be notified. And this only applies to rental properties; homeowners are not subject to these inspections.
The problem is that anything that the renter might be doing is reportable to the police, and the word of the safety code inspector is all the police need to get a warrant. That means that apartment renters are subject to criminal searches under building and safety codes.
Given the vast number of laws that people are subjected to, and nobody knows all the laws that a person must obey, this means that the one guarantee people have to protect them from malicious prosecution – the fourth amendment prohibition against warrantless searches – is null and void for anyone who rents an apartment in Lancaster or Palmdale.
The theory behind the reportability is that since the government agent already has permission to enter the home, anything found is legally reportable. But the search is technically on the property of the lessor, not the dwelling of the lessee. It is a difference without a difference as far as the city governments are concerned.
One could make an argument that this is a coincidental byproduct, an unintended consequence. That would be understandable, except for the wording of the ordinances. Lancaster has the more severe wording.
5.40.020 Purpose
The existence of substandard and unsanitary residential rental properties and residential rental units, the physical conditions and characteristics of which violate applicable state housing, county and local codes and render them unfit or unsafe for human occupancy and habitation, threatens the physical, social, and economic stability of sound residential buildings and areas, and their supporting neighborhood facilities and institutions; necessitates disproportionate expenditures of public funds for remedial action; impairs the efficient and economical exercise of governmental power and functions; and destroys the amenity of residential areas and neighborhoods and the community as a whole. It has been statistically demonstrated that areas with rental housing facilities are responsible for a disproportionate share of police calls for service.
The disproportionate demand upon police services necessitates a disproportionate expenditure of public funds for such properties and impairs the property value of these properties and the surrounding neighborhoods as well as community as a whole.
It is the purpose of this chapter to implement a crime free rental housing program ("LANCAP") to provide a stable, more satisfied tenant base; increase demand for rental units with a reputation for active management; lower maintenance and repair costs; increase property values, and improve the personal safety for tenants, landlords, and managers.
It is also the purpose of this chapter to identify the existence of substandard and unsanitary residential rental properties and rental units and to cause the owner thereof to cure such defects.
For these reasons, it is in the public interest for the protection of the health and safety of the people of Lancaster to protect and promote the existence of sound and wholesome residential rental properties and residential rental units by the adoption of regulations for participants in LANCAP training and the periodic inspection of such structures.
The second paragraph is a key point. Given that the description of how substandard construction drains resources is already in the first paragraph, the second paragraph as a stand-alone describes apartment dwellers alone as being more prone to uncivil behavior.
On the national level, the TSA already has completely dispensed with the fourth amendment, but at least they do so on the refuted claim that they are trying to keep people safe from terrorists. In the case of Lancaster and Palmdale they lack even that much of a justification for eliminating the rights that should belong to every American.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Local tyranny is also the most intense
Local zoning laws, local code enforcement, and local property rights issues are the areas where the government’s tyranny is both the most petty and most oppressive. Petty neighbors will unleash the power of government against those with whom they have a personal dislike.
Such is the case with a man from Littlerock, CA. In a case of selective enforcement, where many properties are undoubtedly in some code violation, the county has chosen to ignore neighbors with those violations and concentrate only on him.
He has the County of Los Angeles threatening him with criminal charges for two reasons. The first is that he collects classic cars. Many of them do not operate, and apparently it is against county code to maintain inoperable vehicles on ones property. It is not a matter of whether or not these cars are properly registered, it is only a matter of these cars being inoperable.
The second is a public service he has been performing for the desert communities in the eastern side of northern Los Angeles County. He collected trash that people dump in the along the sides of the road and sorts through it to separate the recyclables from the trash. There is nothing in county code against doing that, so he thought it was allowed. According to representatives from the county, there is nothing in county code allowing that, so they say it is forbidden.
One would think that cleaning up the illegal dumping would be a valuable public service in the eyes of the county. To add further insult, he has been cited with violation of existing code provisions for home based occupations (022.070.035, which permits home based occupations).
When he first aroused the wrath of the county they merely suggested he put up a privacy fence so that his collection would not be an eyesore. He did that, and thought his ordeal was over. But merely following the advice of county code enforcement was not enough, and they determined that he was engaged in an illegal use of his property.
In a negotiation with representatives of the county, he was given 45 days to remove all inoperable vehicles. His lawyer protested that he would need 90 days. The county threatened him with criminal charges unless he agreed with the 45 day time frame. If he does not complete the removal in 45 days the county will likely press forward with the criminal charges.
Moreover he was threatened with being declared incompetent or a "hoarder," and threatened with having a "receiver" assigned to him at his own expense. This receiver would have the county come in with a crew of workers and trucks to clean everything off the property. To pay for this a special tax would be assessed against him that would try to pay this bill off in three years, and if he is unable to pay the expense then the county would place a lien against his property for unpaid taxes that would authorize the county to sell his property at auction.
There seems to be a definite trend with the county harassing elderly property owners with sanctions that ultimately result in seizing their land. They seek those who have the least resources to fight back and harasses them to the point where they are unable to resist any further, breaking them physically, mentally, and financially.
This fight has drained the meager resources of this man from Littlerock, and he has discovered that there is precious little separation of powers in Los Angeles County. There is little in the way of accountability or appeal. This is local tyranny at its finest and worst.
Such is the case with a man from Littlerock, CA. In a case of selective enforcement, where many properties are undoubtedly in some code violation, the county has chosen to ignore neighbors with those violations and concentrate only on him.
He has the County of Los Angeles threatening him with criminal charges for two reasons. The first is that he collects classic cars. Many of them do not operate, and apparently it is against county code to maintain inoperable vehicles on ones property. It is not a matter of whether or not these cars are properly registered, it is only a matter of these cars being inoperable.
The second is a public service he has been performing for the desert communities in the eastern side of northern Los Angeles County. He collected trash that people dump in the along the sides of the road and sorts through it to separate the recyclables from the trash. There is nothing in county code against doing that, so he thought it was allowed. According to representatives from the county, there is nothing in county code allowing that, so they say it is forbidden.
One would think that cleaning up the illegal dumping would be a valuable public service in the eyes of the county. To add further insult, he has been cited with violation of existing code provisions for home based occupations (022.070.035, which permits home based occupations).
When he first aroused the wrath of the county they merely suggested he put up a privacy fence so that his collection would not be an eyesore. He did that, and thought his ordeal was over. But merely following the advice of county code enforcement was not enough, and they determined that he was engaged in an illegal use of his property.
In a negotiation with representatives of the county, he was given 45 days to remove all inoperable vehicles. His lawyer protested that he would need 90 days. The county threatened him with criminal charges unless he agreed with the 45 day time frame. If he does not complete the removal in 45 days the county will likely press forward with the criminal charges.
Moreover he was threatened with being declared incompetent or a "hoarder," and threatened with having a "receiver" assigned to him at his own expense. This receiver would have the county come in with a crew of workers and trucks to clean everything off the property. To pay for this a special tax would be assessed against him that would try to pay this bill off in three years, and if he is unable to pay the expense then the county would place a lien against his property for unpaid taxes that would authorize the county to sell his property at auction.
There seems to be a definite trend with the county harassing elderly property owners with sanctions that ultimately result in seizing their land. They seek those who have the least resources to fight back and harasses them to the point where they are unable to resist any further, breaking them physically, mentally, and financially.
This fight has drained the meager resources of this man from Littlerock, and he has discovered that there is precious little separation of powers in Los Angeles County. There is little in the way of accountability or appeal. This is local tyranny at its finest and worst.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
The Economically Pivotal Presidency
When looking over the statistics on which president was the most irresponsible spender, an interesting feature of the data became apparent. The first time the data was presented, the most obvious thing to note was that George W. Bush was the worst spender. Further analysis presents another interesting fact – the pivotal role in history of Herbert Hoover. Every president before Hoover had smaller deficits than Hoover. Every president after Hoover had larger deficits than Hoover.
It was Herbert Hoover who created the programs that Franklin Roosevelt eventually collected in to the New Deal, and it was the New Deal, more than any other political-economic event that permanently cemented the government’s role in the economy.
Although other presidents can be credited with laying the necessary ground work for the New Deal, it was Hoover who took the final step and make it happen. F. Roosevelt’s only contribution was to make it permanent, an important step but not nearly as creative as what Hoover did. Economically speaking, Herbert Hoover was the pivotal president in American History.
| -99,776,642,401.45 | Bush Jr Term 1 |
| -96,408,875,337.91 | F Roosevelt Term 3 |
| -90,255,665,689.94 | Bush Sr |
| -63,508,876,217.31 | Clinton Term 1 |
| -60,226,092,484.91 | Bush Jr Term 2 |
| -55,620,058,613.77 | Reagan Term 2 |
| -37,083,571,857.12 | Nixon |
| -34,590,184,231.84 | Reagan Term 1 |
| -31,541,432,371.56 | Clinton Term 2 |
| -30,632,171,603.66 | Nixon / Ford |
| -30,513,251,062.43 | F Roosevelt / Truman |
| -25,169,881,466.50 | Carter |
| -22,277,279,516.03 | Wilson Term 2 |
| -19,947,226,430.95 | L. Johnson |
| -14,907,433,625.97 | Kennedy / Johnson |
| -9,064,312,546.96 | F Roosevelt Term 1 |
| -8,064,456,770.95 | Eisenhower Term 1 |
| -7,979,119,959.91 | Eisenhower Term 2 |
| -5,516,035,432.17 | F Roosevelt Term 2 |
| -4,087,245,363.90 | Truman |
| -2,006,485,523.53 | Hoover |
| -1,750,942,082.69 | Lincoln Term 1 |
| -845,903,480.62 | Lincoln / Johnson |
| -738,552,212.80 | Wilson Term 1 |
| -366,738,464.61 | McKinley |
| -362,676,610.68 | T Roosevelt Term 2 |
| -241,610,193.89 | Taft |
| -181,124,526.17 | Cleveland Term 2 |
| -126,862,797.32 | T Roosevelt Term 1 |
| -82,125,195.84 | Madison Term 2 |
| -32,869,749.98 | Buchanan |
| -23,583,209.73 | Polk |
| -19,154,479.48 | Taylor / Fillmore |
| -18,210,776.96 | Tyler |
| -6,534,247.41 | Washington Term 2 |
| -3,535,830.77 | VanBuren |
| -3,450,826.53 | Jefferson Term 1 |
| -1,764,448.14 | Washington Term 1 |
| 745,788.38 | Monroe Term 2 |
| 785,877.72 | John Adams |
| 19,986,580.07 | Madison Term 1 |
| 21,230,802.91 | Jefferson Term 2 |
| 22,794,733.90 | John Quincy Adams |
| 24,284,722.13 | Jackson Term 2 |
| 34,226,803.81 | Pierce |
| 36,319,367.59 | Monroe Term 1 |
| 43,152,808.69 | Jackson Term 1 |
| 59,905,475.18 | Hayes |
| 72,820,997.22 | Grant Term 2 |
| 104,415,146.68 | Harrison |
| 137,703,187.95 | Cleveland Term 1 |
| 289,746,134.16 | Garfield / Arthur |
| 408,388,139.06 | Grant Term 1 |
| 3,647,830,832.07 | Coolidge |
| 4,686,460,530.01 | Harding / Coolidge |
It was Herbert Hoover who created the programs that Franklin Roosevelt eventually collected in to the New Deal, and it was the New Deal, more than any other political-economic event that permanently cemented the government’s role in the economy.
Although other presidents can be credited with laying the necessary ground work for the New Deal, it was Hoover who took the final step and make it happen. F. Roosevelt’s only contribution was to make it permanent, an important step but not nearly as creative as what Hoover did. Economically speaking, Herbert Hoover was the pivotal president in American History.
Friday, April 08, 2011
Government Shutdown
It is obviously a farce to call what will happen "government shutdown" because of the many areas that will not be shut down. If the government goes in to "shutdown" that does not mean that the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and other countries will cease. Nor will any person in federal prison for victimless crimes be released. Nor will the legislators who are fighting with each other with regards to the shutdown fail to receive their pay. Nor will the DEA stop harassing medicinal marijuana clinics that are authorized under state laws. Nor will the IRS cease harassing any person who may be delinquent or deficient on their taxes.
Also, if the government goes in to "shutdown" that only impacts portions of the federal government, and not the state or local governments as their budgets, taxes, and spending are all separate from the federal budget. The schools, the police, the utilities if they are municipal, and other various local agencies will still operate.
In spite of that, there is a lot of coverage in the mainstream media of the local economic impacts that shutting down a tiny portion of the government will have. Particular attention is paid to communities that exist near the "non-essential" functions such as parks. The coverage completely overlooks the question of whether or not the government should be involved in non-essential functions in the first place.
So many places and endeavors throughout the country have become dependent on federal spending, federal projects, or federal support. For example, there are communities that exist outside of federal parks, and they would lack the spending of the tourists if the federal park itself shuts down. This only shows just how bad the situation really is. In a free economy, the impact of the federal government is negligible.
That is one of the many reasons why bringing the federal government to a balanced budget would be so difficult, bringing it to constitutional levels would be even harder, and bringing it down to libertarian levels seems to be an impossibility. Every single cut has a fiercely supportive built in constituency, those who have become dependent on the drug of government spending.
Therefore when someone suggests even a minor cut, he gets fierce criticism. And when Randall Paul suggests cuts that really are substantial but even he admits don't go nearly far enough, people think the suggestion isn't serious at proof that Senator Paul is too radical. It seems a great idea to harshly criticize anyone who suggests any cut to any program, and a great idea to reward anyone who supports a program that anyone likes. Doing so is a great way to ensure that the government does eventually become completely insolvent.
Perhaps complete insolvency is the only way out of this budget dilemma.
Also, if the government goes in to "shutdown" that only impacts portions of the federal government, and not the state or local governments as their budgets, taxes, and spending are all separate from the federal budget. The schools, the police, the utilities if they are municipal, and other various local agencies will still operate.
In spite of that, there is a lot of coverage in the mainstream media of the local economic impacts that shutting down a tiny portion of the government will have. Particular attention is paid to communities that exist near the "non-essential" functions such as parks. The coverage completely overlooks the question of whether or not the government should be involved in non-essential functions in the first place.
So many places and endeavors throughout the country have become dependent on federal spending, federal projects, or federal support. For example, there are communities that exist outside of federal parks, and they would lack the spending of the tourists if the federal park itself shuts down. This only shows just how bad the situation really is. In a free economy, the impact of the federal government is negligible.
That is one of the many reasons why bringing the federal government to a balanced budget would be so difficult, bringing it to constitutional levels would be even harder, and bringing it down to libertarian levels seems to be an impossibility. Every single cut has a fiercely supportive built in constituency, those who have become dependent on the drug of government spending.
Therefore when someone suggests even a minor cut, he gets fierce criticism. And when Randall Paul suggests cuts that really are substantial but even he admits don't go nearly far enough, people think the suggestion isn't serious at proof that Senator Paul is too radical. It seems a great idea to harshly criticize anyone who suggests any cut to any program, and a great idea to reward anyone who supports a program that anyone likes. Doing so is a great way to ensure that the government does eventually become completely insolvent.
Perhaps complete insolvency is the only way out of this budget dilemma.
Friday, April 01, 2011
Double Dip is a Lie
The failure of the economy to recover after the collapse in 2007 has become so evident that nobody can deny it any longer. This creates an interesting dilemma for Keynesians who have spent the whole time since Obama was sworn in predicting an imminent recovery.
It is true that, due to a quirk of accounting, technically the recession ended already. Government spending shot up in response to the downturn. Unfortunately government spending is included in the GDP, so therefore the GDP went up as a result of government spending increasing faster than the rest of the economy was declining. Since "recession" is defined as consecutive quarters of economic decline, any increase in GDP is considered to be the end of a recession.
Unlike "recession," the term "depression" has no exact definition and is usually considered to be enduring high unemployment. This has enabled mainstream economists to deny that the economy of the United States is in such a state due to the ways unemployment is disguised by government employment.
But using the government to artificially inflate the economy is highly unsustainable. At best it is temporary; at worst it makes the economy far worse due to the attempt. The current situation is not “at best” and the economy is rapidly deteriorating.
Since the economic signals are so bad that it is becoming impossible to ignore. That is why all economists dedicated to the mainstream are calling it a “double dip”. Those on the right side of the Keynesian spectrum are blaming Obama, while those on the left side of the Keynesian spectrum are blaming Bush.
Libertarians know that it is not a whole new recession. They know that it is a continuance and a worsening of the current plight facing the United States economy. For tactical reasons it is important to correct everyone who says that this is a whole new economic downturn.
It is true that, due to a quirk of accounting, technically the recession ended already. Government spending shot up in response to the downturn. Unfortunately government spending is included in the GDP, so therefore the GDP went up as a result of government spending increasing faster than the rest of the economy was declining. Since "recession" is defined as consecutive quarters of economic decline, any increase in GDP is considered to be the end of a recession.
Unlike "recession," the term "depression" has no exact definition and is usually considered to be enduring high unemployment. This has enabled mainstream economists to deny that the economy of the United States is in such a state due to the ways unemployment is disguised by government employment.
But using the government to artificially inflate the economy is highly unsustainable. At best it is temporary; at worst it makes the economy far worse due to the attempt. The current situation is not “at best” and the economy is rapidly deteriorating.
Since the economic signals are so bad that it is becoming impossible to ignore. That is why all economists dedicated to the mainstream are calling it a “double dip”. Those on the right side of the Keynesian spectrum are blaming Obama, while those on the left side of the Keynesian spectrum are blaming Bush.
Libertarians know that it is not a whole new recession. They know that it is a continuance and a worsening of the current plight facing the United States economy. For tactical reasons it is important to correct everyone who says that this is a whole new economic downturn.
Friday, March 25, 2011
A Union Argument
Although it is abundantly clear that libertarians are not anti-union, and actually have no problem with unions in general, there still exists the belief that libertarians are against unions. It is because libertarians do not support special favors for unions that libertarians are accused of being anti-union. In order to prove this point, a peculiar argument is made.
There are problems with that argument. The first of them is that union members have been known to use violence against scabs. While that is not an argument for or against special legislation, when an argument used in favor of a proposition can also be used against it that is a pretty good sign that the argument is not very sound.
The major flaw is that libertarians are against the violent crime of battery. If violence is used by employers against union members, that means violence is being used against individuals. Any libertarian that recognizes a purpose for government would insist that government use its power to defend the rights of individuals, especially the right to life and the sanctity of the body of the individual.
In such a minarchist system, a businessman who hires people to assault union workers, and any thugs who are employed by that businessman for that purpose, are all criminals. The government should therefore enforce the laws that already exist, and laws already exist to protect striking union members from being assaulted by the hired thugs.
If the laws are not being enforced in the first place, there seems a strange futility in calling for more laws to do what existing laws already cover. That is why it also seems strange that libertarians, who do not believe in assaulting union workers when they go on strike, are considered to be anti-union.
In the past, there have been incidents of violence by the employers against striking union members. As a result Union leadership has sought special protection by the government against businesses that would commit such acts of violence. Libertarians oppose any special legislation for or against unions, so therefore libertarians oppose this special legislation as well, so therefore libertarians support when businessmen inflict violence against union members.
There are problems with that argument. The first of them is that union members have been known to use violence against scabs. While that is not an argument for or against special legislation, when an argument used in favor of a proposition can also be used against it that is a pretty good sign that the argument is not very sound.
The major flaw is that libertarians are against the violent crime of battery. If violence is used by employers against union members, that means violence is being used against individuals. Any libertarian that recognizes a purpose for government would insist that government use its power to defend the rights of individuals, especially the right to life and the sanctity of the body of the individual.
In such a minarchist system, a businessman who hires people to assault union workers, and any thugs who are employed by that businessman for that purpose, are all criminals. The government should therefore enforce the laws that already exist, and laws already exist to protect striking union members from being assaulted by the hired thugs.
If the laws are not being enforced in the first place, there seems a strange futility in calling for more laws to do what existing laws already cover. That is why it also seems strange that libertarians, who do not believe in assaulting union workers when they go on strike, are considered to be anti-union.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Libya
In the past ten years many people have learned a very hard lesson about military entanglements in the Middle East. An increasing number of people want to end the wars there, and for a variety of reasons. Some are opposed to the financial cost, some are swayed by Just War theory, some because the two major wars (as well as the minor ones) have had too great a cost in human life, some because the war was never actually declared, and some for a combination of reasons. Some people who were initially in favor of invading Afghanistan and Iraq have even turned against those wars.
On the other hand, since January 19, 2009, some who had taken an opposition position on the war turned out to be in favor, provided that the right people were in charge.
For the political leadership of the United States, nothing has been learned in the 10 years that the United States has been in an undeclared war against various countries that just happen to be key countries in the oil and gas industry. They still believe that a simple invasion to support some side will quickly achieve favorable results.
Of course there are some differences from the earlier wars of a decade ago. Obama, unlike Bush, is careful to get as many approvals from as many different international bodies as he can, in order to give proper window dressing to yet another intervention in another country that just happens to be an oil producing country. But like Bush, Obama failed to get the one approval mandated by the constitution.
True, Libya produces far less than Saudi Arabia or Iraq, as defenders of this conflict will point out, but as all economists know all activity takes place on the margin and any change in Libya’s output impacts prices throughout the entire oil market.
At this point, in proper Democratic Party militarism form, the initial intervention will be in the form of No-Fly zones, air patrols. It was the same pattern for Clinton in both Iraq and in the former Yugoslavia. Eventually ground troops were sent in to both, with Clinton sending troops in to Bosnia and Bush sending troops in to Iraq.
If Obama holds true to the pattern of other pro-war Democrats, ground troops are only a matter of time. Then the US will be embroiled in yet another war of occupation. In ten years the people have learned, but the political class that claims to represent them haven’t.
On the other hand, since January 19, 2009, some who had taken an opposition position on the war turned out to be in favor, provided that the right people were in charge.
For the political leadership of the United States, nothing has been learned in the 10 years that the United States has been in an undeclared war against various countries that just happen to be key countries in the oil and gas industry. They still believe that a simple invasion to support some side will quickly achieve favorable results.
Of course there are some differences from the earlier wars of a decade ago. Obama, unlike Bush, is careful to get as many approvals from as many different international bodies as he can, in order to give proper window dressing to yet another intervention in another country that just happens to be an oil producing country. But like Bush, Obama failed to get the one approval mandated by the constitution.
True, Libya produces far less than Saudi Arabia or Iraq, as defenders of this conflict will point out, but as all economists know all activity takes place on the margin and any change in Libya’s output impacts prices throughout the entire oil market.
At this point, in proper Democratic Party militarism form, the initial intervention will be in the form of No-Fly zones, air patrols. It was the same pattern for Clinton in both Iraq and in the former Yugoslavia. Eventually ground troops were sent in to both, with Clinton sending troops in to Bosnia and Bush sending troops in to Iraq.
If Obama holds true to the pattern of other pro-war Democrats, ground troops are only a matter of time. Then the US will be embroiled in yet another war of occupation. In ten years the people have learned, but the political class that claims to represent them haven’t.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)