There are many reasons why someone being tens of thousands of dollars in debt for a degree in Women's Studies is symptomatic of the problems with higher education, or indeed all of education, in the United States. This goes beyond the problem of trying to steal the cause by emulating the effect and is actually a problem with education itself.
The biggest problem with higher education is that it is trying to achieve conflicting purposes. Some say that higher education is for enrichment and enlightenment, to teach people how to think and to create a broadened perspective. If that is true, then a higher education is a luxury item, and not one that a person should go into debt for at all. The more expensive the luxury item, the more people who cannot afford expensive luxury items should not purchase education. It is horribly politically incorrect to think of education as a luxury for the rich though.
On the other hand, if education is supposed to train one for a career, then again there is no reason why a person should go tens of thousands of dollars into debt for a Women’s Studies degree. If the purpose is to train for a career, then there is something horribly wrong with the educational priorities demonstrated in the United States today. Many people talk about the need for STEM, but the discussion on campus is typically about strengthening the position of the multi-cultural departments.
Even on a typical campus not overrun by multi-culturalism, when the curriculum is being developed each department lobbies to increase their share of the core requirements. It takes a firm hand by the college administration to hold down the core requirements to that they do not overwhelm the course load required by the student of the college. Each of these additions to the required courses hearkens back to the purpose of college being enlightenment instead of applicable to a career. Assuming the purpose is to apply to a career, the enlightenment purpose tends to seep back in over time, increasing the cost.
Assuming again that the purpose is to train for a career, the many people taking the enlightenment and enrichment courses are competing for class space and allocated funds, taking funds away from career oriented courses of study and raising the price for those who would directly benefit from being in college. Both the philosophy major and the engineering major have to take Freshman English, and there are only so many seats in the class. That raises the price of college for the engineering major who is a perfect example of the second potential purpose of education.
One does not need to major in science to have a directly applicable career coming out of college. A typical junior college includes many departments not offered in a typical four year college that train in many trades. At a four year college there are departments that include various aspects of finance, education, or interpreting, as examples of immediately applicable majors.
Then, as John Taylor Gatto has pointed out, there is a third purpose to education as it is set up today, also conflicting. It is to train people to accept the governmental system that exists today and to make obedient workers. That has potential to overlap with the purpose of training for a career but conflicts grossly with the purpose of enlightenment.
Combine all of these with the progressive effort to capture the cause by emulating the effect, a cargo-cult mentality with what makes one successful, and the cost of education can only climb absurdly so that even those who do manage to cut through the nonsense and are sensible enough to major in something that can be applied, even they can no longer afford college. The cargo-cult mentality, hoping to make everyone successful, will result in nobody being successful.
Friday, March 28, 2014
Saturday, March 15, 2014
College Scam
This image has become popular recently among conservatives, and while the authenticity is not verified it is sufficiently likely that one can assume that if this exact picture is not real then there are others in the described situation. While there are several other problems in the 99% statement being held, the most glaring one is the problem of student debt and underemployment.
Other libertarian writers have described just how bad of an investment college generally is. This picture sums up the case as well. Unless a person majors in a field that is likely to have jobs available, a college education can indeed be a losing proposition.
Popular advice is to major in "STEM", Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. The problem is only three of those are actually good advice - mathematics even can be considered too general a field, too unspecialized, to be easily applicable to the job market.
On the other hand, there are people who major in fields that have no immediately recognizable applications to such a degree that even the generalized field of mathematics seems like a good alternative. The woman in the picture apparently has a Masters Degree in Women’s Studies. Before going into debt the question should have been asked what was the intended career path of someone with that degree.
Given the soaring costs of college, and the reduced payout even in immediately applicable degrees, it would also be advisable to consider technical schools and trade schools. Many community colleges offer courses in auto repair, plumbing, sheet metal, etc. The point is that each of these, much like STEM, are jobs that can be applied quickly and easily.
The age of liberal arts majors are waning. There was a time when college was a luxury only the rich could afford, or that the very intelligent could attain with scholarships. Confusing cause and effect, it was determined that since the rich went to college, then going to college would make people wealthy, and therefore more and more people should be encouraged to go to college. But instead of producing an entire society of those who were able to afford the status symbol of college, the value of the degree has been weakened while the cost has gone up.
One cannot impose the effects of a better life in order to create the substance. The substance is what creates the effects. College once was, and is becoming again, an effect or feature of wealth, and no longer a guarantee of wealth. And colleges that emphasize useless majors over anything related to science are a symptom of the decline.
Friday, March 07, 2014
Jim Crow was Law, yes, Law
Whenever civil rights legislation is discussed, especially any threat to the existing civil rights legislation, there are always people read to defend the legislation by stating that without it this country could return to the "days of Jim Crow" because people would not be restrained from bigotry. It is a very spurious argument.
Yes, some people are bigots and would gladly indulge in their bigotry without the current civil rights legislation, but that does not equal a return to the "days of Jim Crow" because the most salient feature of Jim Crow is that it was law. It was passed by the various city, county, and state governments and enforced by the police. Those who violated Jim Crow laws were subject to legal sanctions.
It is important to remember, laws are passed to either to prevent someone from doing what they are already doing, or to compel someone to do what they are not doing. That statement is without value judgment, it is fact. But that implies that there were people willingly not complying with any racist culture that gave rise to the passing of the Jim Crow laws.
Some will object at this point by pointing out that the fact that the laws passed is proof of the racist culture and that the people would not have served minorities anyway. Even if the majority of the culture was racist, that does not mean all were. Laws are passed to stop people from doing what they are doing, even if that means ignoring any racist culture surrounding those allegedly minority businesses that operated without regards to race.
Also, assuming the dominant culture is an example of the Democratic Fallacy, that the actions of a government in a representative voting system automatically represent the will of the people who vote. It happens many times that there is a severe disconnect between the electorate and the elected, with countless examples available.
Still, there are those who will never be satisfied with knowing that Jim Crow was law, and try to insist that it was culture until another law superseded it. If it was cultural, then there exist the problem of explaining away the Montgomery Bus Strike, in which a majority of the people were in favor of a peaceful resolution of the strike. The strike only went on as long as it did because the government found ways to fight against its own people, the people that it allegedly represents and follows the will of.
The problem with civil rights legislation is that it is most often the case of one law combating another law. It is a case of conflicting levels of government passing laws to combat what the other levels of government are mandating or forbidding. That makes a poor case for arguing the necessity of new legislation, when the real case is repealing the old legislation that is creating the problem in the first place.
Yes, some people are bigots and would gladly indulge in their bigotry without the current civil rights legislation, but that does not equal a return to the "days of Jim Crow" because the most salient feature of Jim Crow is that it was law. It was passed by the various city, county, and state governments and enforced by the police. Those who violated Jim Crow laws were subject to legal sanctions.
It is important to remember, laws are passed to either to prevent someone from doing what they are already doing, or to compel someone to do what they are not doing. That statement is without value judgment, it is fact. But that implies that there were people willingly not complying with any racist culture that gave rise to the passing of the Jim Crow laws.
Some will object at this point by pointing out that the fact that the laws passed is proof of the racist culture and that the people would not have served minorities anyway. Even if the majority of the culture was racist, that does not mean all were. Laws are passed to stop people from doing what they are doing, even if that means ignoring any racist culture surrounding those allegedly minority businesses that operated without regards to race.
Also, assuming the dominant culture is an example of the Democratic Fallacy, that the actions of a government in a representative voting system automatically represent the will of the people who vote. It happens many times that there is a severe disconnect between the electorate and the elected, with countless examples available.
Still, there are those who will never be satisfied with knowing that Jim Crow was law, and try to insist that it was culture until another law superseded it. If it was cultural, then there exist the problem of explaining away the Montgomery Bus Strike, in which a majority of the people were in favor of a peaceful resolution of the strike. The strike only went on as long as it did because the government found ways to fight against its own people, the people that it allegedly represents and follows the will of.
The problem with civil rights legislation is that it is most often the case of one law combating another law. It is a case of conflicting levels of government passing laws to combat what the other levels of government are mandating or forbidding. That makes a poor case for arguing the necessity of new legislation, when the real case is repealing the old legislation that is creating the problem in the first place.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Economics as Medicine
It is interesting the way people react to various economic proposals on what should be done about the current economic malaise. The two most divergent proposals are those of the Keynesians and the Austrians, with most other proposals being somewhere on a spectrum between the two.
It is interesting because of the disaster that Keynesian economists predict were Austrian proposals to be implemented. If an analogy were to be made between economics and medicine, with the economy being a sick patient, it highlights the absurdity of some of the Keynesian predictions of doom.
Imagine a patient is brought to a hospital with a broken leg. The patient is in pain and unable to walk. Doctor Keynes wishes to give large doses of pain killers, while Doctor Hayek wishes to set the bone before applying a cast. Hearing what Dr. Hayek plans, Dr. Keynes interjects with "There will be a lot of pain while you set the bone. I am interested in treating the patient's pain, your proposals only cause more pain."
Or if a patient is brought in with operable cancer, Dr. Hayek would suggest surgery and a few weeks of recovery. Dr. Keynes would point out that there will be harm caused by the scalpel going in, harm caused to the skin and muscle covering the tumor, and great difficulty for the patient in recovering from the tumor.
These comparisons are absurd, because if the subject were medicine there would be no argument about setting a bone or operating to remove a tumor. But the comparison is also valid.
The Austrian method of ending a recession or a depression is to allow malinvestments to liquidate and to remove barriers to growth. The Keynesian method of ending a recession is to stimulate aggregate demand through fiscal policy, as well as by any other interventionist method since no Keynesian in practice is confined to fiscal policy. Therefore failing industries would be subsidized until theoretically they are no longer failing, and prices that need to fall would be propped up through loose fiscal and monetary policy to prevent the specter of deflation.
Every Keynesian proposal treats a symptom. But what of the actual cause of the ailment? It is the well known "animal spirits", which are not a rational explanation of the cause. Austrian economics, on the other hand, tries to do a diagnosis.
Yes, transition to sound currency and balanced budgets would cause economic turmoil during the transition, and yes some people - especially those who depend on unbalanced budgets and fiat currency - would be hurt. In the long term the short term pain would lead to long term health, like setting a bone.
It is interesting because of the disaster that Keynesian economists predict were Austrian proposals to be implemented. If an analogy were to be made between economics and medicine, with the economy being a sick patient, it highlights the absurdity of some of the Keynesian predictions of doom.
Imagine a patient is brought to a hospital with a broken leg. The patient is in pain and unable to walk. Doctor Keynes wishes to give large doses of pain killers, while Doctor Hayek wishes to set the bone before applying a cast. Hearing what Dr. Hayek plans, Dr. Keynes interjects with "There will be a lot of pain while you set the bone. I am interested in treating the patient's pain, your proposals only cause more pain."
Or if a patient is brought in with operable cancer, Dr. Hayek would suggest surgery and a few weeks of recovery. Dr. Keynes would point out that there will be harm caused by the scalpel going in, harm caused to the skin and muscle covering the tumor, and great difficulty for the patient in recovering from the tumor.
These comparisons are absurd, because if the subject were medicine there would be no argument about setting a bone or operating to remove a tumor. But the comparison is also valid.
The Austrian method of ending a recession or a depression is to allow malinvestments to liquidate and to remove barriers to growth. The Keynesian method of ending a recession is to stimulate aggregate demand through fiscal policy, as well as by any other interventionist method since no Keynesian in practice is confined to fiscal policy. Therefore failing industries would be subsidized until theoretically they are no longer failing, and prices that need to fall would be propped up through loose fiscal and monetary policy to prevent the specter of deflation.
Every Keynesian proposal treats a symptom. But what of the actual cause of the ailment? It is the well known "animal spirits", which are not a rational explanation of the cause. Austrian economics, on the other hand, tries to do a diagnosis.
Yes, transition to sound currency and balanced budgets would cause economic turmoil during the transition, and yes some people - especially those who depend on unbalanced budgets and fiat currency - would be hurt. In the long term the short term pain would lead to long term health, like setting a bone.
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Sorry, Republicans, the illusion is gone
Usually the accusation comes from liberals or progressives, that somehow in some undefinable way libertarians are at least allied to conservatives, and at worst are merely a minor variant of the same basic ideology. Even then, it is only the less experienced and less informed liberals and progressives who make that accusation, the rest having found out otherwise and relying on the very lame joke that a libertarian is a conservative that wants to smoke pot.
As a side note, why is it never "a democrat that likes money"?
There are still those who try to compare the two, but after the 2012 Republican National Convention there should be no doubt left of the distance between the two. The way the mainstream Republican Party treated Ron Paul and his delegates showed clearly and effectively that Republicans want nothing to do with those of the libertarian ideology.
Some will protest at this point saying that an unjustified equivocation is being made here between conservatives and Republicans. The problem is, if a large majority of people who self-identify as conservative also self-identify as Republican, and if a large majority of people who self-identify as Republican also self-identify as conservative, then the equivocation is not at this end.
So conservatives, as represented by the Republican Party, do not want the company of libertarians. This has been true for many years, but the 2012 convention established it beyond any doubt. Moreover, it was at that convention where it was announced formally that Representative Paul Ryan would be the Vice Presidential candidate, in a move that was supposed to mollify supporter of Ron Paul. Here are the positions of supposedly libertarian-leaning Paul Ryan:
He voted Yes on TARP.
He voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140
He voted YES on $15billion bailout for GM and Chrysler
He voted YES on $192billion additional anti-recession stimulus spending
He voted YES on federalizing rules for drivers licenses to hinder terrorists
He voted YES on making the USAPATRIOT Act permanent
He voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant
He voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq
He voted YES on emergency $78Billion for war in Iraq and Afghanistan
He voted YES on declaring Iraq part of the War on Terror with no exit date
He voted NO on reducing US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days
He voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients
He voted YES on providing $70million on Section 8 Housing vouchers
He voted YES on extending unemployment benefits to 59 weeks
He voted YES on No Child Left Behind
He voted YES on Head Start Act
So then why is this unexpected attack coming from the other direction? Justin Amash, who should know better, is saying the two ideologies are the same. Not just similar, not just allied, but actually the same. Although Justin Amash is better than the average Republican, he should know better than to make this basic mistake.
It is because, after so thoroughly alienating libertarians, the argument that libertarians should line up behind whatever statist candidate the Republicans are offering has become little more than a bad joke. People aren’t buying that argument. Even progressives are having a tough time explaining what mysterious appeal the current Republican Party should have to libertarians. On top of that, Senator Rand Paul is making things harder for the Republican Party to attract libertarians by endorsing Senator Mitch McConnell over a primary candidate endorsed by the Kentucky Republican Liberty Caucus. Every so often Rand Paul realizes he’s alienated too many libertarians and makes a token gesture to say “don’t worry, I’m still with you.” Then he alienates them again.
The gulf between conservatives and libertarians has become starkly visible. It is visible because the Republican Party has made it visible. So if there is going to be any way to pull the wool over the public’s eyes, it has to come from the Republican Party as well. That is where the recent remarks by Justin Amash come in. Perhaps he actually believes what he said, making him a distinct minority within the Republican Party if so. Otherwise he is trying to recreate a shattered illusion.
Even progressives are having a problem pretending that libertarianism is a strain of conservatism. This is creating a real problem for both the major parties. As long as the Republican Party keeps shunning, insulting, and suppressing libertarian views, supporters of the Democratic Party cannot say that libertarian views belong in the Republican Party. The illusion, shared by both, is shattered.
So Justin Amash is saying the two are the same in spite of them not being the same.
Not only are libertarians consistently against war, not just against it when the wrong person is in office...
Not only are libertarians against the drug war...
Not only were libertarians in favor of gay marriage before the progressives were...
Not only were libertarians in favor of interracial marriage before the progressives were...
Not only do libertarians want to legalize prostitution...
Not only are libertarians even stronger in defense of the 1st Amendment...
Not only do libertarians oppose every single instance of police abuse that libertarians become aware of (which in this day and age can lead to outrage fatigue because these instances are far too common)...
Not only do libertarians want to slash the military budget...
Not only are a super-majority of libertarians pro-choice...
Not only are libertarians opposed to business subsidies...
Not only are libertarians opposed to business bailouts...
Not only are libertarians opposed to corporate welfare...
The real gripe that conservatives and progressives have with libertarians is that libertarians won't admit that libertarians are conservatives.
As a side note, why is it never "a democrat that likes money"?
There are still those who try to compare the two, but after the 2012 Republican National Convention there should be no doubt left of the distance between the two. The way the mainstream Republican Party treated Ron Paul and his delegates showed clearly and effectively that Republicans want nothing to do with those of the libertarian ideology.
Some will protest at this point saying that an unjustified equivocation is being made here between conservatives and Republicans. The problem is, if a large majority of people who self-identify as conservative also self-identify as Republican, and if a large majority of people who self-identify as Republican also self-identify as conservative, then the equivocation is not at this end.
So conservatives, as represented by the Republican Party, do not want the company of libertarians. This has been true for many years, but the 2012 convention established it beyond any doubt. Moreover, it was at that convention where it was announced formally that Representative Paul Ryan would be the Vice Presidential candidate, in a move that was supposed to mollify supporter of Ron Paul. Here are the positions of supposedly libertarian-leaning Paul Ryan:
He voted Yes on TARP.
He voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140
He voted YES on $15billion bailout for GM and Chrysler
He voted YES on $192billion additional anti-recession stimulus spending
He voted YES on federalizing rules for drivers licenses to hinder terrorists
He voted YES on making the USAPATRIOT Act permanent
He voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant
He voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq
He voted YES on emergency $78Billion for war in Iraq and Afghanistan
He voted YES on declaring Iraq part of the War on Terror with no exit date
He voted NO on reducing US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days
He voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients
He voted YES on providing $70million on Section 8 Housing vouchers
He voted YES on extending unemployment benefits to 59 weeks
He voted YES on No Child Left Behind
He voted YES on Head Start Act
So then why is this unexpected attack coming from the other direction? Justin Amash, who should know better, is saying the two ideologies are the same. Not just similar, not just allied, but actually the same. Although Justin Amash is better than the average Republican, he should know better than to make this basic mistake.
It is because, after so thoroughly alienating libertarians, the argument that libertarians should line up behind whatever statist candidate the Republicans are offering has become little more than a bad joke. People aren’t buying that argument. Even progressives are having a tough time explaining what mysterious appeal the current Republican Party should have to libertarians. On top of that, Senator Rand Paul is making things harder for the Republican Party to attract libertarians by endorsing Senator Mitch McConnell over a primary candidate endorsed by the Kentucky Republican Liberty Caucus. Every so often Rand Paul realizes he’s alienated too many libertarians and makes a token gesture to say “don’t worry, I’m still with you.” Then he alienates them again.
The gulf between conservatives and libertarians has become starkly visible. It is visible because the Republican Party has made it visible. So if there is going to be any way to pull the wool over the public’s eyes, it has to come from the Republican Party as well. That is where the recent remarks by Justin Amash come in. Perhaps he actually believes what he said, making him a distinct minority within the Republican Party if so. Otherwise he is trying to recreate a shattered illusion.
Even progressives are having a problem pretending that libertarianism is a strain of conservatism. This is creating a real problem for both the major parties. As long as the Republican Party keeps shunning, insulting, and suppressing libertarian views, supporters of the Democratic Party cannot say that libertarian views belong in the Republican Party. The illusion, shared by both, is shattered.
So Justin Amash is saying the two are the same in spite of them not being the same.
Not only are libertarians consistently against war, not just against it when the wrong person is in office...
Not only are libertarians against the drug war...
Not only were libertarians in favor of gay marriage before the progressives were...
Not only were libertarians in favor of interracial marriage before the progressives were...
Not only do libertarians want to legalize prostitution...
Not only are libertarians even stronger in defense of the 1st Amendment...
Not only do libertarians oppose every single instance of police abuse that libertarians become aware of (which in this day and age can lead to outrage fatigue because these instances are far too common)...
Not only do libertarians want to slash the military budget...
Not only are a super-majority of libertarians pro-choice...
Not only are libertarians opposed to business subsidies...
Not only are libertarians opposed to business bailouts...
Not only are libertarians opposed to corporate welfare...
The real gripe that conservatives and progressives have with libertarians is that libertarians won't admit that libertarians are conservatives.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Recession or Depression
Even though economic difficulties continue, supporters of President Obama insist that the Great Recession is over. The problem is, technically they are correct. A recession has a technical definition of consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. A single quarter of miniscule GDP growth and the recession is considered to be over, so that even if there is negative GDP growth in the quarter after that it is not the same recession anymore.
Of course one could access Shadowstats to argue that there have been continued quarters of negative GDP growth but that only leads to an argument over which set of numbers is more accurate with most conservatives and all liberals trusting government numbers. The real problem is that even though the definition of "depression" isn't as firmly settled as is the definition of "recession", it is clear that the two are not the same.
This is important when discussing the dismal economic situation with supporters of whoever is in office, of whatever party. Supporters of whoever is in office will argue that the recession is over, and that the recession ended during the term of their own person in office. Even though technically the recession ended a long time ago.
The best way to illustrate to supporters of the current administration is with a concept from trigonometry, a simple Sine wave.
There are four distinct parts to the wave that can be used when discussing economics. The first is when the value and the slope are both positive, the second is when the value is positive and the slope is negative, the third is when the value and the slope are both negative, and the fourth is when the value is negative and the slope is positive.
Recession would then be when the slope is negative, and growth would be when the slope is positive. Prosperity would be when the value is positive and depression would be when the value is negative.
Understanding it from this point of view can explain why the Great Recession (as it is commonly known) can actually be over, while the negative effects of the Great Recession aren't over, that the United States is still in Great Depression II. It still won't convince any supporter of a current administration, but it might be enough to educate the neutral observer and make the supporter seem foolish in denying reality.
Of course one could access Shadowstats to argue that there have been continued quarters of negative GDP growth but that only leads to an argument over which set of numbers is more accurate with most conservatives and all liberals trusting government numbers. The real problem is that even though the definition of "depression" isn't as firmly settled as is the definition of "recession", it is clear that the two are not the same.
This is important when discussing the dismal economic situation with supporters of whoever is in office, of whatever party. Supporters of whoever is in office will argue that the recession is over, and that the recession ended during the term of their own person in office. Even though technically the recession ended a long time ago.
The best way to illustrate to supporters of the current administration is with a concept from trigonometry, a simple Sine wave.
There are four distinct parts to the wave that can be used when discussing economics. The first is when the value and the slope are both positive, the second is when the value is positive and the slope is negative, the third is when the value and the slope are both negative, and the fourth is when the value is negative and the slope is positive.
Recession would then be when the slope is negative, and growth would be when the slope is positive. Prosperity would be when the value is positive and depression would be when the value is negative.
Understanding it from this point of view can explain why the Great Recession (as it is commonly known) can actually be over, while the negative effects of the Great Recession aren't over, that the United States is still in Great Depression II. It still won't convince any supporter of a current administration, but it might be enough to educate the neutral observer and make the supporter seem foolish in denying reality.
Tuesday, February 04, 2014
Corporatism really isn’t Capitalism
Every so often, on websites like In These Times, arguments are made that appear to be against Capitalism. The problem is, ever time, the detail of the argument isn’t against Capitalism but is instead against Corporatism. The difference between the two should be immediately evident. Yet no matter how often it is explained, those making the argument insist on conflating the two.It should be easy to differentiate between the two. Although what follows are not the textbook definitions of various economic systems, they serve as a good way to differentiate the various economic systems.Capitalism – no government interference in the economyMonetarism – government interference in the economy through manipulation of the money supplyKeynesianism – government interference in the economy through manipulation of fiscal budgetary policyCorporatism – government interference in the economy through benefits to the wealthyWelfarism – government interference in the economy through benefits to the poorSupply Side – government interference in the economy through stimulating aggregate supplyDemand Side – government interference in the economy through stimulating aggregate demandOf the seven economic systems listed, one of the stands out as starkly different from the rest. Yet it is often inexplicably lumped with various others, most often Corporatism. There is an actual relationship between Corporatism and Capitalism. It is akin to the relationship between a parasite and a host. A host does not need a parasite, and Capitalism does not need Corporatism. But those making the argument are trying to insist that the host and the parasite are the same thing.There is an attempt to justify such a conflation by saying that one is the natural outcome of the other, that Capitalism eventually evolves into Corporatism. But that does not justify the attack.Interestingly, those making that argument seldom argue against freedom in other areas. If their argument on Capitalism is to be believed and extended, then tyranny is late stage liberty. Those making the argument are keen to support other areas of liberty, but to reject it in the case of economics. They could be consistent and say that since they believe liberty to be hopeless they do not support it in any area. Instead they support it in all other areas except economics, and say that since liberty is hopeless in economics they choose a tyranny different from Corporatism to replace the liberty of Capitalism.Rejecting Capitalism on the grounds that it eventually becomes Corporatism should lead the person making that argument to reject free speech on the grounds that it eventually becomes censorship, reject freedom of religion on the grounds that it eventually becomes a state church, reject the fourth amendment on the grounds that it eventually becomes warrantless searches, reject the sixth amendment on the grounds that it eventually becomes secret courts, etc.The argument is horribly inconsistent. And, after all these years of people pointing out the difference between Corporatism and Capitalism, there is no excuse for making the argument in the first place.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Justice for Kelly Thomas
Many people were surprised when some of the officers involved in the beating death of Kelly Thomas were actually put on trial. It was a departure from the normal procedure of the pretense of an internal investigation that the public cannot find out anything about. The trial is public. Yes, it was only three of the six officers, but still it was far more than people were expecting.
Yet the surprise turned into cynicism when Officer Manuel Ramos, Corporal Jay Cicinelli, and Officer Joseph Wolfe were found not guilty. It seems that even going to an official court trial is not enough when an officer is a criminal. Protests erupted as a result of the verdicts. Protests took place at the police station and at the site of the beating. Police responded by ordering the dispersal of the protestors after some of the people at the protest claiming to be protestors turned violent.
These protests are well intentioned, but unfortunately are unlikely to achieve any practical result. They are demanding that the criminal officers be placed in prison, which is very unlikely without violating double jeopardy or violating habeas corpus. This does not mean that protests cannot achieve a positive result. These protests need to be directed in a new direction, though to achieve that result.
When a dangerous sex offender is released from prison, the community that receives the criminal often erupts with protest at the site of the offender’s residence. Flyers are printed up and distributed all over the surrounding neighborhood announcing that a sex offender is moving in. These flyers include the name, address, and picture of the offender so that the offender can be easily identified.
If protests were to take place at the homes of the officers, then and only then would the criminal officers actually feel some pressure for the crimes they committed. These protests would alert neighborhoods that they are living next to dangerous and violent criminals. And the officers would know that their neighbors know they are violent and dangerous. Flyers posted on street lamps, a common practice, will lead to neighborhood shunning.
This leads to neighborhood shunning, especially if these flyers made it to the stores the officers shop at. Neighborhood shunning is the desired goal since there won’t be any official punishment. Officer Ramos feels so entitled that he’s actually trying to get his old job back. Protests in front of his house, flyers in his neighborhood and at his favorite stores, children signing rhymes about how there is a bad person living at his house, all of those will put pressure on him to realize that no matter how innocent he thinks he is others do not think a badge absolves bad behavior.
Yet the surprise turned into cynicism when Officer Manuel Ramos, Corporal Jay Cicinelli, and Officer Joseph Wolfe were found not guilty. It seems that even going to an official court trial is not enough when an officer is a criminal. Protests erupted as a result of the verdicts. Protests took place at the police station and at the site of the beating. Police responded by ordering the dispersal of the protestors after some of the people at the protest claiming to be protestors turned violent.
These protests are well intentioned, but unfortunately are unlikely to achieve any practical result. They are demanding that the criminal officers be placed in prison, which is very unlikely without violating double jeopardy or violating habeas corpus. This does not mean that protests cannot achieve a positive result. These protests need to be directed in a new direction, though to achieve that result.
When a dangerous sex offender is released from prison, the community that receives the criminal often erupts with protest at the site of the offender’s residence. Flyers are printed up and distributed all over the surrounding neighborhood announcing that a sex offender is moving in. These flyers include the name, address, and picture of the offender so that the offender can be easily identified.
If protests were to take place at the homes of the officers, then and only then would the criminal officers actually feel some pressure for the crimes they committed. These protests would alert neighborhoods that they are living next to dangerous and violent criminals. And the officers would know that their neighbors know they are violent and dangerous. Flyers posted on street lamps, a common practice, will lead to neighborhood shunning.
This leads to neighborhood shunning, especially if these flyers made it to the stores the officers shop at. Neighborhood shunning is the desired goal since there won’t be any official punishment. Officer Ramos feels so entitled that he’s actually trying to get his old job back. Protests in front of his house, flyers in his neighborhood and at his favorite stores, children signing rhymes about how there is a bad person living at his house, all of those will put pressure on him to realize that no matter how innocent he thinks he is others do not think a badge absolves bad behavior.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
3-D Printed Handguns
It is clear, and has been for some time, that 3-D printers are going to destroy the entire “gun control” effort to disarm people. In order to assuage the fears of gun owners, gun prohibitionists have ensured that their laws only forbid the sale, purchase, gift, or inheritance of firearms, but not the ownership itself. How one is supposed to own a firearm without the ability to receive it is a mystery that is self-explanatory.
The 3-D printers therefore find the large loophole in the entire gun prohibitionist effort. People with a 3-D printer do not need to purchase or inherit a firearm. They can make the weapons themselves, and these firearms do not contain any traceable serial numbers that would enable the government to determine who had purchased firearms in the past.
While this is leaving most progressive hoplophobes confused, some are taking an interesting line to attack the 3-D printed firearms. They are deriding these firearms on the grounds that these firearms are fragile and of very low quality. If used seriously they would not last long.
This is a fascinating attack. It is analogous to saying that since Gutenberg’s press could only print twelve lines per page there is no way it would ever evolve into the modern newspaper and book publishing industry. Babbage’s difference engine is much too slow to handle millions of calculations per second.
The printing press and the difference engine did indeed improve after they were first invented by Gutenberg and Baggabe, which is why there is now the internet in which people can access phenomenal amounts of information instantly.
The same is true of the 3-D printer. It is in its earliest stages of development, which means that the current printer is much like a twenty line printing press. Those who deride the quality of the 3-D printed firearms are effectively saying that it is no use to develop the technology any farther much like it was not useful to develop the movable type printer.
Yes, the current printed firearm is not as of high quality as a manufactured firearm. That does not mean it will always be not as of high quality.
The 3-D printers therefore find the large loophole in the entire gun prohibitionist effort. People with a 3-D printer do not need to purchase or inherit a firearm. They can make the weapons themselves, and these firearms do not contain any traceable serial numbers that would enable the government to determine who had purchased firearms in the past.
While this is leaving most progressive hoplophobes confused, some are taking an interesting line to attack the 3-D printed firearms. They are deriding these firearms on the grounds that these firearms are fragile and of very low quality. If used seriously they would not last long.
This is a fascinating attack. It is analogous to saying that since Gutenberg’s press could only print twelve lines per page there is no way it would ever evolve into the modern newspaper and book publishing industry. Babbage’s difference engine is much too slow to handle millions of calculations per second.
The printing press and the difference engine did indeed improve after they were first invented by Gutenberg and Baggabe, which is why there is now the internet in which people can access phenomenal amounts of information instantly.
The same is true of the 3-D printer. It is in its earliest stages of development, which means that the current printer is much like a twenty line printing press. Those who deride the quality of the 3-D printed firearms are effectively saying that it is no use to develop the technology any farther much like it was not useful to develop the movable type printer.
Yes, the current printed firearm is not as of high quality as a manufactured firearm. That does not mean it will always be not as of high quality.
Sunday, September 01, 2013
Monsanto and the Bees
It has been a story recently, that there was a beekeeper doing research into breeding honey bees capable of resisting Monsanto’s pesticide Roundup. It is believed by many that Roundup is a contributing factor to the honey bee deaths that have been plaguing the United States, so of course there would be people interested in researching this matter.
The biggest obstacle to those seeking to research the negative effects of Monsanto products has been Monsanto itself and the ties of that company to the United States government. The tests required by the United States government, after sufficient input from Monsanto lobbyists, reveal nothing about the long term effects of Monsanto pesticides or of the GMO crops designed to resist them.
Some smaller independent research has been done. The case of the Illinois bee keeper is just such an example where by selective breeding of bees he was able to breed a honey bee that is resistant to the detrimental effects of Monsanto products in the long term.
The Illinois Department of Agriculture then seized the bees, and even promptly lost them according to most reports, while others have reported that the queens have been destroyed.
Of course this would be the case that a government in the United States would do that, given that the official position of the United States government is that Monsanto products are completely harmless. Said products have been deemed so completely harmless that aspersions are cast upon those who might doubt their safety.
The alleged reason was a disease called “foulbrood” but the owner of the bees, Terrence Ingram, insists that his bees did not have foulbrood.
The most obvious explanation is that the State of Illinois was acting at the behest of Monsanto to eliminate research that would embarrass Monsanto. A more sinister explanation is that the executives of Monsanto do not actually want there to be any Monsanto pesticide resistant bees.
The most sinister explanation of them all is that Monsanto does indeed want there to be bees resistant to Monsanto pesticides, bees that are patented by Monsanto and therefore any bee keeper that has bees with patented genes owes a royalty to Monsanto. And perhaps the bees weren’t actually destroyed the way the article reports, but were taken into Monsanto custody and reported destroyed as a step towards this goal.
Although it is only speculation, it is indeed possible given Monsanto’s record on all other GMO related matters.
The biggest obstacle to those seeking to research the negative effects of Monsanto products has been Monsanto itself and the ties of that company to the United States government. The tests required by the United States government, after sufficient input from Monsanto lobbyists, reveal nothing about the long term effects of Monsanto pesticides or of the GMO crops designed to resist them.
Some smaller independent research has been done. The case of the Illinois bee keeper is just such an example where by selective breeding of bees he was able to breed a honey bee that is resistant to the detrimental effects of Monsanto products in the long term.
The Illinois Department of Agriculture then seized the bees, and even promptly lost them according to most reports, while others have reported that the queens have been destroyed.
Of course this would be the case that a government in the United States would do that, given that the official position of the United States government is that Monsanto products are completely harmless. Said products have been deemed so completely harmless that aspersions are cast upon those who might doubt their safety.
The alleged reason was a disease called “foulbrood” but the owner of the bees, Terrence Ingram, insists that his bees did not have foulbrood.
The most obvious explanation is that the State of Illinois was acting at the behest of Monsanto to eliminate research that would embarrass Monsanto. A more sinister explanation is that the executives of Monsanto do not actually want there to be any Monsanto pesticide resistant bees.
The most sinister explanation of them all is that Monsanto does indeed want there to be bees resistant to Monsanto pesticides, bees that are patented by Monsanto and therefore any bee keeper that has bees with patented genes owes a royalty to Monsanto. And perhaps the bees weren’t actually destroyed the way the article reports, but were taken into Monsanto custody and reported destroyed as a step towards this goal.
Although it is only speculation, it is indeed possible given Monsanto’s record on all other GMO related matters.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Sanjay Gupta and Medicinal Marijuana
First Dr. Sanjay Gupta went public on CNN endorsing medicinal marijuana, claiming that the research shows that he was wrong to trust the reports of the DEA. Then prominent media outlets ran stories about a father in New Jersey who claims that medicinal marijuana is vital for his daughter and her severe form of epilepsy, and also discussed a medicinal marijuana bill on Governor Christi’s desk.
This indicates that the tide is definitely turning on the issue. Public support for medicinal marijuana or just marijuana in general has been rising to the point where it is difficult for the ruling class to ignore.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta, the medical mouthpiece of the establishment, would never have come out in favor of medicinal marijuana without knowledge that it would be safe for him to do so. Were the political establishment still firmly against marijuana in any form, Dr. Gupta would have been quickly discredited.
Instead of discrediting Dr. Gupta, a story was covered that supports medicinal marijuana. Several outlets covered the father and his attempt to get an answer out of Governor Christi, and Governor Christi’s non-committal answer.
There is still dissent, with Republicans generally on the side of leaving matters the way they are, but increasing Democratic support for the issue is revealed by the way the media is leading this issue. Like gay marriage, an issue that previously only libertarians were bold enough to take, eventually progressives and liberals caught up and are starting to fight on the same side as well.
This indicates that the tide is definitely turning on the issue. Public support for medicinal marijuana or just marijuana in general has been rising to the point where it is difficult for the ruling class to ignore.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta, the medical mouthpiece of the establishment, would never have come out in favor of medicinal marijuana without knowledge that it would be safe for him to do so. Were the political establishment still firmly against marijuana in any form, Dr. Gupta would have been quickly discredited.
Instead of discrediting Dr. Gupta, a story was covered that supports medicinal marijuana. Several outlets covered the father and his attempt to get an answer out of Governor Christi, and Governor Christi’s non-committal answer.
There is still dissent, with Republicans generally on the side of leaving matters the way they are, but increasing Democratic support for the issue is revealed by the way the media is leading this issue. Like gay marriage, an issue that previously only libertarians were bold enough to take, eventually progressives and liberals caught up and are starting to fight on the same side as well.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
The Militarily Pivotal Presidency
Simple raw calculations are all that is needed to determine which president was the economically pivotal presidency. Finding out that Herbert Hoover was economically pivotal comes as little surprise to those that never fell for his false reputation as a do nothing president.
Trying to figure out which president is the most pivotal in terms of use of the military and foreign affairs is more complicated. Each particular war could, in theory, be considered the turning point in United States foreign relations. But there is one war in particular and also one president in particular that stands out.
Reading "Recarving Rushmore" by the Ivan Eland of the Independent Institute gives an interesting perspective to a usually overlooked president, William McKinley. It is commonly assumed that he wished to avoid war with Spain, but research by Ivan Eland shows otherwise. William McKinley played a very coy game of pretending to oppose the war while encouraging it behind the scenes.
While previous wars had some sort of arguable pretext, even though in the Mexican-American war the actual course of the war went far beyond the pretext, there at least was a case to be made for military action by the United States. There wasn’t always a good case, but there was some case.
The case for the Spanish-American war was imperialism, nothing less and nothing more. The sinking of the Maine served as an incident, but didn't serve as a cause. More than any other military action, it set the course for future United States military involvement around the world, setting the state for the many crimes of Woodrow Wilson.
The reason why William McKinley doesn't get the recognition he deserves is because while preparing for war, advocating war, and later waging war, his public statements were to the effect of opposing war. Why he spoke out against a war that he wanted is a very curious subject to examine, which can be read about in "Recarving Rushmore."
Trying to figure out which president is the most pivotal in terms of use of the military and foreign affairs is more complicated. Each particular war could, in theory, be considered the turning point in United States foreign relations. But there is one war in particular and also one president in particular that stands out.
Reading "Recarving Rushmore" by the Ivan Eland of the Independent Institute gives an interesting perspective to a usually overlooked president, William McKinley. It is commonly assumed that he wished to avoid war with Spain, but research by Ivan Eland shows otherwise. William McKinley played a very coy game of pretending to oppose the war while encouraging it behind the scenes.
While previous wars had some sort of arguable pretext, even though in the Mexican-American war the actual course of the war went far beyond the pretext, there at least was a case to be made for military action by the United States. There wasn’t always a good case, but there was some case.
The case for the Spanish-American war was imperialism, nothing less and nothing more. The sinking of the Maine served as an incident, but didn't serve as a cause. More than any other military action, it set the course for future United States military involvement around the world, setting the state for the many crimes of Woodrow Wilson.
The reason why William McKinley doesn't get the recognition he deserves is because while preparing for war, advocating war, and later waging war, his public statements were to the effect of opposing war. Why he spoke out against a war that he wanted is a very curious subject to examine, which can be read about in "Recarving Rushmore."
Sunday, April 07, 2013
The problem with Feminism
In a rather interesting conversation to observe, a skeptic confronted a feminist on what the word "feminist" means. The person claiming to be a feminist said that it was a person who supported gender equality. The skeptic replied in a rather interesting manner.
This response was apparently not welcomed because the skeptic was then compared to a misogynist trying to put women back in the kitchen.
The problem is, the skeptic was right. If feminism simply meant someone who supports gender equality there would be very little controversy except for a few very backwards people. There is, however, much controversy, and that supplies evidence that there is much more to feminism than simply seeking equality. This is the reason there are people who say "because I support equality, I am not a feminist."
The problem is that feminism, and feminists in general, refuse to own the radicals in their own movement.
Take the case of Westboro Baptist Church, famous for picketing funerals with anti-gay propaganda. Many Christians are quick to say that the members of that church aren’t "true Christians," a response that has caused Antony Flew to describe the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. A fallacy or not, it does show that the speaker believes that the members of the Westboro Baptist Church are not demonstrating the way a Christian should behave.
With feminism, there is a different response, and it is not even up to the level of a No True Scotsman fallacy. This response is so common it has even been given an acronym – NAFALT. When confronted with something radical said in the name of feminism, apologists will say "Not All Feminists Are Like That."
Take the case of Youtube Vlogger Femitheist, who made a video that appears to advocate androcide, reducing the male population to 10% of its current numbers. Rather than say "yes, that is a position taken by feminists" or "no, that is not a position taken by feminists" the speaker seeks to simultaneously embrace and reject the radical position.
It is this refusal to own the issue, by either acceptance or rejection, that confounds those who would wish to be allies if feminism was what advocates claimed it to be, because the positions taken by the radicals are clearly not positions that advocate equality. If the "mainstream feminists" were to take a position, for or against, the radical positions then those who do not consider themselves to be feminists and consider themselves to be supporters of equality can finally come down one way or the other with regards to feminism.
If that were all there was to feminism, there would be no controversy. There is a lot of controversy.
P -> Q
~Q
:: ~P
This response was apparently not welcomed because the skeptic was then compared to a misogynist trying to put women back in the kitchen.
The problem is, the skeptic was right. If feminism simply meant someone who supports gender equality there would be very little controversy except for a few very backwards people. There is, however, much controversy, and that supplies evidence that there is much more to feminism than simply seeking equality. This is the reason there are people who say "because I support equality, I am not a feminist."
The problem is that feminism, and feminists in general, refuse to own the radicals in their own movement.
Take the case of Westboro Baptist Church, famous for picketing funerals with anti-gay propaganda. Many Christians are quick to say that the members of that church aren’t "true Christians," a response that has caused Antony Flew to describe the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. A fallacy or not, it does show that the speaker believes that the members of the Westboro Baptist Church are not demonstrating the way a Christian should behave.
With feminism, there is a different response, and it is not even up to the level of a No True Scotsman fallacy. This response is so common it has even been given an acronym – NAFALT. When confronted with something radical said in the name of feminism, apologists will say "Not All Feminists Are Like That."
Take the case of Youtube Vlogger Femitheist, who made a video that appears to advocate androcide, reducing the male population to 10% of its current numbers. Rather than say "yes, that is a position taken by feminists" or "no, that is not a position taken by feminists" the speaker seeks to simultaneously embrace and reject the radical position.
It is this refusal to own the issue, by either acceptance or rejection, that confounds those who would wish to be allies if feminism was what advocates claimed it to be, because the positions taken by the radicals are clearly not positions that advocate equality. If the "mainstream feminists" were to take a position, for or against, the radical positions then those who do not consider themselves to be feminists and consider themselves to be supporters of equality can finally come down one way or the other with regards to feminism.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Even More Dangerous DHS
The most dangerous thing, politically speaking, is an unaccountable center of political power. Allegedly the United States government is set up to prevent such a thing from happening. Congress has the power of impeachment of both the President and of Supreme Court justices. The Supreme Court has the power to nullify laws that were passed. The President has both enforcement power and veto power.
It is a nice theory, but does not work so well in practice. As it stands now, the congress has ceded almost all of its power to the other branches. What should be accomplished through legislation is instead accomplished by executive order or by judicial fiat. The only power that still remains with congress is that to pass a budget (or even a continuing resolution) and even that was attacked recently with the idea to mint a high denomination platinum coin.
The Department of Homeland Security, perhaps one of the most dangerous departments in the federal government, no longer submits to any sort of checks of authority. According to Infowars, Janet Napolitano is ignoring requests by members of congress to explain the large ammunition purchases by the Department of Homeland Security.
This follows but a few months after John Pistole, director of the TSA, declined to show at a congressional hearing. And this is not the first time that the leadership of the TSA has declined to show, setting rules for their participation that include not allowing critics of the TSA at the hearings.
There is very little accountability in the United States government. But blatant disregard of this magnitude is startlingly new. Only the quasi-independent Federal Reserve has ever been able to disregard the checks and balances up until this point. Moreover, the TSA has even retaliated against elected officials that dared to criticize the TSA. It is clear that in addition to controlling all entry and exit to the country, the DHA is setting itself far above the law.
It is a nice theory, but does not work so well in practice. As it stands now, the congress has ceded almost all of its power to the other branches. What should be accomplished through legislation is instead accomplished by executive order or by judicial fiat. The only power that still remains with congress is that to pass a budget (or even a continuing resolution) and even that was attacked recently with the idea to mint a high denomination platinum coin.
The Department of Homeland Security, perhaps one of the most dangerous departments in the federal government, no longer submits to any sort of checks of authority. According to Infowars, Janet Napolitano is ignoring requests by members of congress to explain the large ammunition purchases by the Department of Homeland Security.
This follows but a few months after John Pistole, director of the TSA, declined to show at a congressional hearing. And this is not the first time that the leadership of the TSA has declined to show, setting rules for their participation that include not allowing critics of the TSA at the hearings.
There is very little accountability in the United States government. But blatant disregard of this magnitude is startlingly new. Only the quasi-independent Federal Reserve has ever been able to disregard the checks and balances up until this point. Moreover, the TSA has even retaliated against elected officials that dared to criticize the TSA. It is clear that in addition to controlling all entry and exit to the country, the DHA is setting itself far above the law.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
The Dangerous Department of Homeland Security
Libertarian websites, and other concerned allies on this issue, have noticed that the officials at the Department of Homeland Security have purchased an unjustifiably large amount of munitions. Janet Napolitano claims it is for training purposes, but training rounds are the cheapest rounds anyone purchases and hollow point rounds are not used for training.
The obvious conclusion is that the Department of Homeland Security is preparing for domestic unrest. But there is another aspect to the Department of Homeland Security that is also of great cause for alarm. It is which sub-agencies form the Department of Homeland Security.
The first departments to note are U. S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. These departments are there allegedly to prevent terrorists from entering the United States. What they do is to monitor the goods entering or leaving the United States. This ensures that all tariffs are paid, that drugs are not smuggled in, and that intellectual property is not smuggled out.
The next agency of note is the United States Border Patrol, a sub-agency of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This agency monitors all people entering the United States by land. The U. S. Customs and Border Protection monitors all people leaving the United States.
The Transportation Security Agency, officially charged with protecting the airlines from those who might seek to conduct terrorist activities while in the air. Actually what they do is to track all people who fly, and to forbid certain people who have their names on the often denied "no fly list." Anyone who might seek to leave the United States by air must pass through the Transportation Security Agency. The Transportation Security Agency only monitors those leaving, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement monitors those entering the United States by air.
Then there is the U. S. Coast Guard. Originally it was part of the Department of Transportation that occasionally worked as part of the Department of the Navy. It was moved from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security. Any activity on the shores of the United States is under their jurisdiction. It conducts maritime law enforcement, migrant interdiction, and drug interdiction.
This one agency, the Department of Homeland Security, therefore monitors the entrance or exit of all people or goods that cross the United States Border, by air, sea, or land. Anyone who wishes to enter or leave has to deal with some agency within the Department of Homeland Security, and has to deal with some agency if any goods are to enter or leave as well.
It is the ultimate dream of those in power, to have complete control over entrance or exit over a country. The Department of Homeland Security is that ultimate dream made real. If there is unrest, as the leadership of that department obviously anticipates, that department therefore also has the authority to close all the borders.
The obvious conclusion is that the Department of Homeland Security is preparing for domestic unrest. But there is another aspect to the Department of Homeland Security that is also of great cause for alarm. It is which sub-agencies form the Department of Homeland Security.
The first departments to note are U. S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. These departments are there allegedly to prevent terrorists from entering the United States. What they do is to monitor the goods entering or leaving the United States. This ensures that all tariffs are paid, that drugs are not smuggled in, and that intellectual property is not smuggled out.
The next agency of note is the United States Border Patrol, a sub-agency of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This agency monitors all people entering the United States by land. The U. S. Customs and Border Protection monitors all people leaving the United States.
The Transportation Security Agency, officially charged with protecting the airlines from those who might seek to conduct terrorist activities while in the air. Actually what they do is to track all people who fly, and to forbid certain people who have their names on the often denied "no fly list." Anyone who might seek to leave the United States by air must pass through the Transportation Security Agency. The Transportation Security Agency only monitors those leaving, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement monitors those entering the United States by air.
Then there is the U. S. Coast Guard. Originally it was part of the Department of Transportation that occasionally worked as part of the Department of the Navy. It was moved from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security. Any activity on the shores of the United States is under their jurisdiction. It conducts maritime law enforcement, migrant interdiction, and drug interdiction.
This one agency, the Department of Homeland Security, therefore monitors the entrance or exit of all people or goods that cross the United States Border, by air, sea, or land. Anyone who wishes to enter or leave has to deal with some agency within the Department of Homeland Security, and has to deal with some agency if any goods are to enter or leave as well.
It is the ultimate dream of those in power, to have complete control over entrance or exit over a country. The Department of Homeland Security is that ultimate dream made real. If there is unrest, as the leadership of that department obviously anticipates, that department therefore also has the authority to close all the borders.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Obama is the New Biggest Spender
Although the website measuringworth.com does not yet have GPI or GPD data for 2012, the value of Gold for 2012 is ready on Kitco.com. That enables calculations for one measure, but only one measure, for the deficits for President Obama’s first term.
Using constant gold dollars, those who would overspend benefit in appearance from a rising price of gold. The price of gold has risen every year since President Obama has assumed office. That would make any deficits smaller when converted to constant dollars. Even by that measure, President Obama now has the largest deficits of any presidential term.
Measured in 1789 dollars, the gold-weighted dollar values of the deficits are:
Every single president since President Nixon severed the final link between the dollar and gold is included in the list of presidents that have the most unbalanced budgets. Since this is a constant dollar list, that means that these deficits are not impacted by the collapsing dollar.
For all the posturing about how President Obama wanted to fix the financial mess handed to him by President Bush, he has in fact done the opposite. It is no longer true that President Bush is the worst spender. These numbers do not lie. While it is possible to come up with explanations as to why these numbers are what they are, such explanations do not change what the numbers are.
Using constant gold dollars, those who would overspend benefit in appearance from a rising price of gold. The price of gold has risen every year since President Obama has assumed office. That would make any deficits smaller when converted to constant dollars. Even by that measure, President Obama now has the largest deficits of any presidential term.
Measured in 1789 dollars, the gold-weighted dollar values of the deficits are:
| President | Deficit |
| Obama Term 1 | -99,821,590,396.08 |
| Bush Jr Term 1 | -99,776,642,401.45 |
| F Roosevelt 3 | -96,408,875,337.91 |
| Bush Jr Term 2 | -85,474,167,431.44 |
| Bush Sr | -82,665,333,079.60 |
| Clinton Term 1 | -63,508,876,217.31 |
| Reagan Term 2 | -55,620,058,613.77 |
| Nixon | -37,083,571,857.12 |
| Reagan Term 1 | -34,590,184,231.84 |
| Clinton Term 2 | -31,541,432,371.56 |
| Nixon / Ford | -30,632,171,603.66 |
| F Roosevelt / Truman | -30,513,251,062.43 |
| Carter | -25,169,881,466.50 |
Every single president since President Nixon severed the final link between the dollar and gold is included in the list of presidents that have the most unbalanced budgets. Since this is a constant dollar list, that means that these deficits are not impacted by the collapsing dollar.
For all the posturing about how President Obama wanted to fix the financial mess handed to him by President Bush, he has in fact done the opposite. It is no longer true that President Bush is the worst spender. These numbers do not lie. While it is possible to come up with explanations as to why these numbers are what they are, such explanations do not change what the numbers are.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Ryan's Lunch with Obama
As part of the fallout of Senator Randall Paul's thirteen hour filibuster, Representative Paul Ryan was invited to have lunch with President Barack Obama. Meanwhile the answer that Senator Paul received was a quickly written memo signed by Attorney General Holder and not an answer from President Obama himself.
Although many libertarians are still skeptical about Senator Paul, the symbolism of the luncheon with President Obama and Representative Ryan clearly show that the mainstream of both parties are very unhappy with what Senator Paul did.
The first line of attack was to get many of Senator Paul's Republican peers to describe his activities in a negative light. For example, he was described as a "crazy bird" by Senator McCain, and that was hardly the worst said about the filibuster. The effort was to ensure that he was seen not as a focus of resistance to President Obama but as someone outside the acceptable realm of debate.
The luncheon was very symbolic and very profound. President Obama did not invite Senator Paul to the lunch. Had he done so it would have legitimized Senator Paul for daring to question whether the president has unlimited authority with the drone program.
Instead Representative Ryan was invited. To a libertarian this appears to be two Washington insiders meeting with each other, but to the mainstream press this is seen as opposition leaders meeting with each other. Therefore the purpose of the lunch was to legitimize Representative Ryan as President Obama’s opponent.
It is very important for the status quo to see Representative Ryan instead of Senator Paul as the opposition. Representative Ryan has carefully cultivated an image as being the staunch Republican leader of opposition to President Obama. During the 2012 Republican Party convention, after the party rejected any input from delegates and supporters of Representative Ron Paul, insulted them, marginalized them, and disenfranchised them, the choice of Paul Ryan was rather laughably offered as a way to win those votes back. In 13 hours Senator Paul proved that he actually does provide opposition in ways that Representative Ryan never did.
On budget issues, Senator Paul actually submitted a budget proposal that had $500 billion in actual cuts. These were not the “smaller increases” that are so commonly called cuts in Washington. This means that Senator Paul, and not Representative Ryan, is the true budget hawk.
The subject of the filibuster is even more important. Senator Paul was speaking on an issue that theoretically should garner support from disillusioned supporters of President Obama. The filibuster painted President Obama as firmly pro-war and siding with the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party.
It is the neoconservative wing that led to the last several defeats of the Republican Party, and it is the wing seeking reform, a very loose coalition of the Tea Party movement, some old guard paeloconservatives, and the remaining libertarians who have not yet fled the Republican Party, that led to many of the victories over the last few years. If the Republican Party is to have a future it will need to come from that base, but that base is a threat to the current leadership of the party.
Allegedly the Tea Party had already been nullified. The movement had in general been coopted by having Sarah Palin and Glen Beck take over as the leaders and spokespeople for the party, and then by having Representative Bachmann become the leader of the House Tea Party Caucus. Then in the 2012 presidential race, the candidate who was the least appealing to the Tea Party movement was the one that won the primary.
Representative Ryan is being offered as an alternative to Senator Paul as the leader of the future of the Republican Party. He would be a fresh face on an old arrangement, and the media would gladly sell him that way. Both parties would prefer that, and that is why President Obama met with Representative Ryan instead of Senator Paul.
Although many libertarians are still skeptical about Senator Paul, the symbolism of the luncheon with President Obama and Representative Ryan clearly show that the mainstream of both parties are very unhappy with what Senator Paul did.
The first line of attack was to get many of Senator Paul's Republican peers to describe his activities in a negative light. For example, he was described as a "crazy bird" by Senator McCain, and that was hardly the worst said about the filibuster. The effort was to ensure that he was seen not as a focus of resistance to President Obama but as someone outside the acceptable realm of debate.
The luncheon was very symbolic and very profound. President Obama did not invite Senator Paul to the lunch. Had he done so it would have legitimized Senator Paul for daring to question whether the president has unlimited authority with the drone program.
Instead Representative Ryan was invited. To a libertarian this appears to be two Washington insiders meeting with each other, but to the mainstream press this is seen as opposition leaders meeting with each other. Therefore the purpose of the lunch was to legitimize Representative Ryan as President Obama’s opponent.
It is very important for the status quo to see Representative Ryan instead of Senator Paul as the opposition. Representative Ryan has carefully cultivated an image as being the staunch Republican leader of opposition to President Obama. During the 2012 Republican Party convention, after the party rejected any input from delegates and supporters of Representative Ron Paul, insulted them, marginalized them, and disenfranchised them, the choice of Paul Ryan was rather laughably offered as a way to win those votes back. In 13 hours Senator Paul proved that he actually does provide opposition in ways that Representative Ryan never did.
On budget issues, Senator Paul actually submitted a budget proposal that had $500 billion in actual cuts. These were not the “smaller increases” that are so commonly called cuts in Washington. This means that Senator Paul, and not Representative Ryan, is the true budget hawk.
The subject of the filibuster is even more important. Senator Paul was speaking on an issue that theoretically should garner support from disillusioned supporters of President Obama. The filibuster painted President Obama as firmly pro-war and siding with the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party.
It is the neoconservative wing that led to the last several defeats of the Republican Party, and it is the wing seeking reform, a very loose coalition of the Tea Party movement, some old guard paeloconservatives, and the remaining libertarians who have not yet fled the Republican Party, that led to many of the victories over the last few years. If the Republican Party is to have a future it will need to come from that base, but that base is a threat to the current leadership of the party.
Allegedly the Tea Party had already been nullified. The movement had in general been coopted by having Sarah Palin and Glen Beck take over as the leaders and spokespeople for the party, and then by having Representative Bachmann become the leader of the House Tea Party Caucus. Then in the 2012 presidential race, the candidate who was the least appealing to the Tea Party movement was the one that won the primary.
Representative Ryan is being offered as an alternative to Senator Paul as the leader of the future of the Republican Party. He would be a fresh face on an old arrangement, and the media would gladly sell him that way. Both parties would prefer that, and that is why President Obama met with Representative Ryan instead of Senator Paul.
Thursday, March 07, 2013
Police, Fire Fighters, and Teachers
Whenever budget negotiations happen on the state or local level, especially when the subject of whether or not taxes should go up, the first thing threatened is the employment of the police, the fire fighters, and the teachers. Every time spending increases or tax increases are at risk, those who advocate increases insist that failure to raise taxes or spending means that those three are threatened. On the federal level, meat inspectors, roads, and the military are threatened instead, as well as Social Security checks for seniors.
Based on the rhetoric, it seems as if the only people hired by the state and local governments are police, fire fighters, and teachers. All the tax assessors, all the code enforcers, all the inspectors and auditors are never placed at risk.
It is probably a case of offering the most valuable services up first in negotiations, the ones that would be most difficult to cut because of the repercussions of doing so. Cutting the fire fighters does put people at risk. Cutting the police endangers their ability to act as a criminal gang, as well as preventing them from occasionally catching a criminal. Cutting teachers means that parents will be responsible for their own children.
Cutting auditors and assessors simply means people will be left alone to go about their business. If police, fire fighters, and teachers were retained while all the code enforcers were furloughed or fired, it would greatly reduce the burden of government in noticeable ways.
As much as it may be the case that the most "important" services are offered up for sacrifice, on the understanding that people won't dare cut those services, the auditors and assessors will not be cut because that would allow people to find out just how much the government weighs on their daily life. People would get the temporary experience of being free, and they might decide they actually like it. As such the rhetoric must continue to be as if the only government employees are those that are considered to actually have a positive impact on people.
Based on the rhetoric, it seems as if the only people hired by the state and local governments are police, fire fighters, and teachers. All the tax assessors, all the code enforcers, all the inspectors and auditors are never placed at risk.
It is probably a case of offering the most valuable services up first in negotiations, the ones that would be most difficult to cut because of the repercussions of doing so. Cutting the fire fighters does put people at risk. Cutting the police endangers their ability to act as a criminal gang, as well as preventing them from occasionally catching a criminal. Cutting teachers means that parents will be responsible for their own children.
Cutting auditors and assessors simply means people will be left alone to go about their business. If police, fire fighters, and teachers were retained while all the code enforcers were furloughed or fired, it would greatly reduce the burden of government in noticeable ways.
As much as it may be the case that the most "important" services are offered up for sacrifice, on the understanding that people won't dare cut those services, the auditors and assessors will not be cut because that would allow people to find out just how much the government weighs on their daily life. People would get the temporary experience of being free, and they might decide they actually like it. As such the rhetoric must continue to be as if the only government employees are those that are considered to actually have a positive impact on people.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
The Nose in the Tent
A constant mantra of those who constantly seek additional restrictions on firearms is that there is no call to confiscate any firearms. All the restrictions have been on the acquisition of firearms; the purchase, sale, gift, inheritance, or manufacture. Whenever those who oppose limiting self defense get too worried about new firearm restrictions get concerned about new proposals, the mantra is repeated that the panic is over nothing since nothing in the new proposed legislation involves confiscation. Even the gun registration proposals do not include any proposals to confiscate any already owned firearms.
That is until now. In California there are now proposals to end the "grandfathering" of older acquisitions that are restricted by new laws. In a package of legislation there is the first step towards a law that authorizes confiscation.
According to the proposed legislation, the purchase of ammunition would require the same background checks that are required for firearms. The purchase of semi-automatics would be forbidden, which is more extreme than legislation anywhere else in the United States. The sale of magazines that can hold more than ten bullets would also be restricted. The part that should be of greatest concern is that the ownership of any existing magazines larger than the ten bullet limitation would be forbidden.
The author of the legislation explains that the biggest failing of any gun control (sic) legislation is that a person can claim that any forbidden item was purchased before it was forbidden. Although this newest restriction does not cover firearms, it does cover magazines and therefore sets a precedent for applying ownership restrictions and turn in restrictions to the realm of gun legislation.
That is the point of the additional feature of the restriction of magazine size. It creates a precedent. Unless this particular measure is overturned in the courts it creates a precedent that will be difficult to challenge when future applications of ownership restrictions are enacted. The argument by those who wish to restrict ownership will be that ownership restrictions are not new, that by accepting the confiscation for one feather therefore confiscation for all features is accepted. Also when these measures are enacted in other states, their existence in California will serve as a precedent.
That is why this particular law, the law that requires the turn in of all oversized magazines, must be the first priority to challenge the requirement to turn in all magazines that are covered by this new proposed legislation. It stands in stark contrast to all the assurances of those who oppose effective self defense and is the next step towards disarming the population of the United States.
That is until now. In California there are now proposals to end the "grandfathering" of older acquisitions that are restricted by new laws. In a package of legislation there is the first step towards a law that authorizes confiscation.
According to the proposed legislation, the purchase of ammunition would require the same background checks that are required for firearms. The purchase of semi-automatics would be forbidden, which is more extreme than legislation anywhere else in the United States. The sale of magazines that can hold more than ten bullets would also be restricted. The part that should be of greatest concern is that the ownership of any existing magazines larger than the ten bullet limitation would be forbidden.
The author of the legislation explains that the biggest failing of any gun control (sic) legislation is that a person can claim that any forbidden item was purchased before it was forbidden. Although this newest restriction does not cover firearms, it does cover magazines and therefore sets a precedent for applying ownership restrictions and turn in restrictions to the realm of gun legislation.
That is the point of the additional feature of the restriction of magazine size. It creates a precedent. Unless this particular measure is overturned in the courts it creates a precedent that will be difficult to challenge when future applications of ownership restrictions are enacted. The argument by those who wish to restrict ownership will be that ownership restrictions are not new, that by accepting the confiscation for one feather therefore confiscation for all features is accepted. Also when these measures are enacted in other states, their existence in California will serve as a precedent.
That is why this particular law, the law that requires the turn in of all oversized magazines, must be the first priority to challenge the requirement to turn in all magazines that are covered by this new proposed legislation. It stands in stark contrast to all the assurances of those who oppose effective self defense and is the next step towards disarming the population of the United States.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
The Economics of Intimate Relationships
Economic principles can be applied outside of economics, viewing it as Praxeology instead of Economics. This is true even in the case of intimate relationships, where economics can be used to analyze certain aspects. This does not mean, as critics of libertarians often wrongly say, that libertarians put a price tag on everything, but only that the principles can be used to gain greater insight.
One part of analyzing intimate relationships is to help solve the riddle of the old complaint that men who sleep around are not condemned the way women who sleep around do. It is an old complaint about a double standard. There is, however, such a thing as a male slut.
Reducing intimate relationships to their simplest form, men trade love for sex and women trade sex for love. This model borders on over-simplified, but not quite. It does ignore as irrelevant all the various characteristics any individual might seek in a partner. It also leaves out the relevant aspect that women also seek sex and men also seek love, but it leaves it out for the sake of creating a simpler model.
Viewed as a transaction, men giving love to gain sex and women giving sex to gain love, one can see where the criticism of the slut comes from. Any person who gives a valuable commodity away without charging for that commodity is looked down upon, and receiving it from that person is not considered as valuable as if it had been traded for.
Also given that perspective, one can immediately see what it would take for a man to be seen as undercharging. Such a man is known as “the nice guy.” Youtube commentator GirlWritesWhat has a video about how women, especially feminists, look down upon nice guys, because what they are doing is giving away all the emotional support that normally would cost a woman a relationship with the man.
Just as men seldom seek actual long term relationships with woman who are physically intimate too early in a relationship, women seldom seek actual long term relationships with men who are emotionally intimate too early in a relationship. The reason people don't get a quick answer to the question "where are the male sluts?" is because the term needs to be defined, and economics helps with that.
One part of analyzing intimate relationships is to help solve the riddle of the old complaint that men who sleep around are not condemned the way women who sleep around do. It is an old complaint about a double standard. There is, however, such a thing as a male slut.
Reducing intimate relationships to their simplest form, men trade love for sex and women trade sex for love. This model borders on over-simplified, but not quite. It does ignore as irrelevant all the various characteristics any individual might seek in a partner. It also leaves out the relevant aspect that women also seek sex and men also seek love, but it leaves it out for the sake of creating a simpler model.
Viewed as a transaction, men giving love to gain sex and women giving sex to gain love, one can see where the criticism of the slut comes from. Any person who gives a valuable commodity away without charging for that commodity is looked down upon, and receiving it from that person is not considered as valuable as if it had been traded for.
Also given that perspective, one can immediately see what it would take for a man to be seen as undercharging. Such a man is known as “the nice guy.” Youtube commentator GirlWritesWhat has a video about how women, especially feminists, look down upon nice guys, because what they are doing is giving away all the emotional support that normally would cost a woman a relationship with the man.
Just as men seldom seek actual long term relationships with woman who are physically intimate too early in a relationship, women seldom seek actual long term relationships with men who are emotionally intimate too early in a relationship. The reason people don't get a quick answer to the question "where are the male sluts?" is because the term needs to be defined, and economics helps with that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)