tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-130805172024-03-08T00:22:41.933-05:00Radical CentristA Libertarian tries to sell freedom to a population almost completely convinced of it's own impotence and incompetence, and overcome by fear that the decisions they made for themselves would be even worse than those made by the politicians who run their lives today.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13080517.post-61415188913871391882009-05-14T11:04:00.003-04:002009-05-14T11:12:22.061-04:00Please! Shrug! Just Shrug!<p>
A request to the executives of the banks which are not sucking at the public Tarp Teat:
</p><p>
The U.S. Treasury Dept has decided that it has the authority to regulate your salaries. It has decided that the value of your labor should be determined, not by the market, but by the same moron politicians who caused the collapse in the first place.
</p><p>
I say, please, for the love of reason, if they cut your salary, walk away. Just walk away. Do not let yourself become a slave of the state.
</p><p>
If they think they can do your jobs better than you, let them try. Let them see what the world is like without you.
</p><p>
And please read "Atlas Shrugged".
</p><p>
I ask you to do these things, not for me, but for yourselves.
</p>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13080517.post-91536409849216188902009-05-02T23:13:00.002-04:002009-05-02T23:20:53.848-04:00Obama Budget Cuts Visualization<center>
Let's put the Obamanation's "budget cuts" into perspective.
<br/>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cWt8hTayupE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cWt8hTayupE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
</center>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13080517.post-12961451368250049882009-04-16T14:28:00.003-04:002009-04-16T14:37:53.853-04:00Open Letter to DHS<p>
Since you, Virginia, and Missouri have decided that my friends and I, who support Ron Paul, vote Libertarian, want to restore the Constitution, exercise our Second Amendment rights and generally disagree with the Government are terrorists, I wanted to make sure you spell my name right when you come to collect us.
</p><p>
It is Rich Paul. That's P-A-U-L.
</p><p>
I would just hate for all my friends to be rounded up and shipped off to Syria to be tortured -- that *is* what we do with "terrorists" in the new Bizarro-America, isn't it? -- and to be left here alone to endure the Socialist hell-hole which the Bush and Obama administrations are cooperating in creating.
</p><p>
<h2>Molon Labe!</h2>
</p>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13080517.post-68452009512277389392009-02-06T14:24:00.005-05:002009-02-06T14:47:00.024-05:00Live Free or Die; Death is not the Worst of EvilsJust a quick note to let y'all know that I have abandoned my life, such as it was, in South Carolina, and am currently posting from Gettysburg, en-route to New Hampshire, the Free State.
</p><p>
Please have a look at the Free State Project at http://freestateproject.org/, if you don't know why.
</p><p>
As America's Second Great Depression bears down on us, again caused by the Federal Reserve, and again attributed to free markets which do not even exist, the time has come for those of us who love Liberty to concentrate ourselves somewhere where we can make some difference, where we can have an impact, where we can speak with the resonance of many voices raised together against the impending explosion in Federal power, and where we can -- should the Federal Government so overstep the bounds of reason, of decency, and of the laws of economics that is brings about it's own destruction -- be surrounded by like minded and well armed people, prepared to pick up the pieces and see that whatever Socialist monstrosity follows the collapse will not be able subsume the entirety of what was once the freest nation on the face of the earth.
</p><p>
Let the red states and the blue states fight each other to the death over whether their salvation lies in Fascism or in Communism. My salvation lies in Freedom, and if I must choose a hill upon which to die for it, I choose a hill in the Free State of New Hampshire.
<hr/>
<h3>In Liberty</h3>
<h3>Rich Paul</h3>
<hr/>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13080517.post-67083211604720776392008-12-06T02:43:00.003-05:002008-12-06T02:47:34.824-05:00What do humanitarians eat?<blockquote>
<p>
The humanitarian wishes to be a prime mover in the lives of others. He cannot admit either the divine or the natural order, by which men have the power to help themselves. The humanitarian puts himself in the place of God.
</p>
<p>
But he is confronted by two awkward facts; first, that the competent do not need his assistance; and second, that the majority of people … positively do not want to be "done good" by the humanitarian…. Of course, what the humanitarian actually proposes is that he shall do what he thinks is good for everybody. It is at this point that the humanitarian sets up the guillotine.
</p>
--- Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (New York, 1943), p. 241.
</blockquote>
Classic and true.
Check out the "regarding" link for an analysis of the Great Society, one of the many chains by which we are bound.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13080517.post-51476197951057119142008-12-04T18:07:00.003-05:002008-12-04T18:14:57.258-05:00For Schiff: We told you so, you RUDE rat bastards!<center>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2I0QN-FYkpw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2I0QN-FYkpw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
</center>
What pisses me off as I look back over these videos is how rude and condescending these rat bastards were to Peter Schiff, economic adviser to Ron Paul and one of the very few who warned us that the imaginary prosperity we were enjoying would come to tears, because it was a fiat money bubble which had to burst.
<hr/>
So for all of you who laughed at our warnings then, here is a video. Enjoy it. Then go fuck yourselves. If you don't fuck yourselves to death, go read some Austrian Economics.
<hr/>
Here is <b><i>my</i></b> prediction: the worst is <i>still</i> yet to come. I'm not sure what Peter is saying these days, he's never interviewed anymore, but it is mine.
<br/>
If you want to patronize Peter's company, it's at http://europac.net/Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13080517.post-65051694368747619602008-11-24T12:21:00.003-05:002008-11-24T12:25:45.172-05:00How low can we go? I hope we never know.The financial press, which has become little more than cheerleaders for the DOW, won't cover this. I will.
<blockquote>
<p>
The economy faces a slump deeper than the Great Depression and a growing deficit threatens the credit of the United States itself, former Goldman Sachs chairman John Whitehead, said at the Reuters Global Finance Summit on Wednesday.
</p><p>
Whitehead, 86, said the prospect of worsening consumer credit woes combined with an overtaxed federal government make him fear that the current slump is far from over.
</p><p>
"I think it would be worse than the depression," Whitehead said. "We're talking about reducing the credit of the United States of America, which is the backbone of the economic system." Whitehead encountered plenty of crises during his 38 years at the investment banking firm and was a young boy during the 1930s.
</p><p>
Whitehead warned the country's financial strength is at risk due to the sweeping demand for tax relief and a long list of major government spending plans.
</p><p>
"I see nothing but large increases in the deficit, all of which are serving to decrease the credit standing of America," said Whitehead, who served as chairman of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp after the World Trade Center was destroyed during the September 11, 2001 attacks.
</p><p>
Whitehead, who helped make Goldman a top-tier Wall Street firm and led its international expansion, left in 1984 to become a deputy secretary of state under Ronald Reagan.
</p><p>
He warned that the country's record deficit is poised to balloon as the public calls on government for more support.
</p><p>
"Before I go to sleep at night, I wonder if tomorrow is the day Moody's and S&P will announce a downgrade of U.S. government bonds," he said. "Eventually U.S. government bonds would no longer be the triple-A credit that they've always been."
</p><p>
There are at least ten "trillion dollar problems," facing the United States, he said, including social security, expanding health insurance, rebuilding infrastructure and increased spending on green energy. At the same time, the public does not want to pay for it.
</p><p>
"The public is not prepared to increase taxes. Both parties were for reducing taxes, reducing income to government, and both parties favored a number of new programs -- all very costly and all done by the government," he said.
</p><p>
Large deficits can weaken the country's credit and increase its borrowing costs, which already constitute a significant part of funding to cover expenses. Whitehead said it could take "several years" for the current problems to be resolved.
</p><p>
Whitehead said he is speaking out on this topic because he is concerned no lawmakers are against these new spending programs and none will stand up and call for higher taxes.
</p><p>
"I just want to get people thinking about this, and to realize this is a road to disaster," said Whitehead. "I've always been a positive person and optimistic, but I don't see a solution here."
</blockquote>
Don't blame me, I voted <a href="http://lp.org/">Libertarian</a>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13080517.post-50625167811768763992008-10-10T23:51:00.010-04:002008-10-11T00:13:34.080-04:00Clinton Saves the Day!From the New York Times archives:
<blockquote>
<h1>Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending</h1>
By STEVEN A. HOLMES<br/>
Published: <font style="color: red">September 30, 1999</font><br/>
<p>
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
</p><p>
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
</p><p>
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, <font style="color: red">has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people</font> and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
</p><p>
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
</p><p>
"Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements," said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. "Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market."
</p><p>
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
</p><p>
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
</p>
</blockquote>
There are a few things which are interesting here:
<ol>
<li>It shows some of the roots of the current mess</li>
<li>It shows that the problem was government</li>
<li>It shows that Paul Krugman was on vacation, and that the New York Times is actually capable of getting a simple economic analysis correct when that happens.</li>
</ol>
Of course they weren't as correct as the articles <a href="http://mises.org/story/3128">here</a>, but what do you expect? I'm just happy that the New York Times didn't just give us their usual "the government says it's OK, that that's good enough for us" boilerplate. The amazing thing about a dancing bear is not how well it dances, but that it dances at all!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13080517.post-67962039670386897702008-10-06T18:18:00.004-04:002008-10-06T18:31:58.282-04:00Quote of the DayFrom the von Mises Institute
<blockquote>
The most famous depression in modern times, of course, was the one that began in a typical financial panic in 1929 and lasted until the advent of World War II. After the disaster of 1929, economists and politicians resolved that this must never happen again. The easiest way of succeeding at this resolve was, simply to define "depressions" out of existence. From that point on, America was to suffer no further depressions. For when the next sharp depression came along, in 1937–38, the economists simply refused to use the dread name, and came up with a new, much softer-sounding word: "recession." From that point on, we have been through quite a few recessions, but not a single depression.
</blockquote>
<p>
If only actual problems could be caused that easily. In order to prevent the <b>reality</b> of a depression (or recession, if you prefer), they only need to do two things:
<ol><li>Get out of the way</li><li>Better define and enforce property rights</li></ol>
But then again, if they came up with simple solutions, they wouldn't be able to hide their corruption. People would actually understand what they were doing!
</p><p>
And if they came up with solutions that worked, people would understand how little we really need them.
</p>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13080517.post-54887482276685790132008-09-13T12:55:00.006-04:002008-09-13T13:12:33.300-04:00Bush Attacks Market For Working<p>
So now, the Confuser in Chief has decided to start a brand new war, this one is against the free market. Of course Republicans claim to want a free market, but few of them understand that having a free market involves things like not having corporate welfare, not having price and wage controls, and actually leaving people free to buy and sell based on what they believe to be best, not what some politician thinks best.
</p><p>
So now, Dubya the Decider has decided to crack down on anyone "taking advantage" of the changes in the oil market brought about by the hurricane by adjusting their prices to match reality.
</p><p>
Some who -- like Bush -- never studied economics, must be asking themselves "is this guy arguing for higher prices?" Yes, I am. Why? Because that's what reality requires.
</p><p>
For a time, there is less refining capactity in America. That means we are producing less gasoline. If we continue to attempt to consume the same amount of gasoline, we will have shortages. We cannot consume more than we produce. The free market has a solution to this problem. It's called a price. When the price goes up, people -- even people far away from the hurricaine -- will have incentive to consume less. Prices are always moving towards -- but never reaching -- the point where supply and demand are equal. Any change in production or in the value of consumption must be reflected in the price, or the market fails to work.
</p><p>
So what happens people are frightened by Bush's threat, and fail to adjust the price to match reality? Shortages, and lines. Waste, as people continue to use fuel which could serve more important needs for less important needs ... as long as they can get it. Then lines at the gas station as they try to replace the fuel they wasted, in order to meet their more important needs.
We saw this in the 1970's, when the "free market" Republican in office imposed price and wage controls. Does anyone remember the lines at the pump, the "out of gas" signs appearing on gas stations? I do.
</p><p>
The lobotomized market Bush proposes is the road to disaster. A free market, as proposed by the <a href="http://lp.org">Libertarian Party</a> is the only cure.
</p>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13080517.post-63599890015966962362008-09-11T14:17:00.019-04:002008-09-15T13:56:24.309-04:00Pauls, and Baldwins, and Barrs ... Oh, My!There has been much debate among Libertarian and libertarian leaning voters as to which way to vote in the coming election. I wanted to share the thinking which led me to my decision.
Firstly, I should state my minimal criteria for considering a candidate:
<ol>
<li>The candidate must argue for shrinking government significantly.
</li><li>The candidate must <b>not</b> argue for growing government in any area at the level at which he is running (e.g. a candidate who argued for State regulation of abortion would be acceptable as a candidate for Federal office, but not at the State leve.)
</li><li>The candidate must not have any clear mental incapacity, such as bigotry.
</li><li>The party platform must be acceptable.
</li><li>If the election of the leader in question is likely, he must have sufficient credibility to convince me that he is likely govern as he campaigned.
</li>
</ol>
There have been three men suggested as potential candidates for libertarian voters:
<ol>
<li>Ron Paul -- Write-In
</li><li>Chuck Baldwin. -- Constitution Party
</li><li>Bob Barr -- Libertarian Party
</li>
</ol>
</p><p>
Clearly, neither Obama nor McCain deserve a second thought. Each has devoted his life to the growth of government, albeit in slightly different directions. If I'm on a jury considering their fate, I might vote for them -- to hang -- but that's the only way they'll get a vote from me without changing virtually every position they hold.
</p><p>
Paul is not a candidate, and although I would frankly prefer him to either of the others on the list, I will not write-in a candidate. It's cheaper and easier to simply stay home on election day. Write-ins are meaningless — they will not be counted, tabulated, recorded, or announced. Nobody will ever know how many people write in Paul's name, or anybody else's for that matter.
</p><p>
Baldwin fails #2, and #4. His party’s platform welcomes only Christians, which is unacceptable to me, both as a matter of policy and a matter of strategy. He also wants the Federal government to control abortion. This does not mean that I consider him a bad guy. I consider him to be a generally Liberty oriented candidate. None the less, I cannot support him.
</p><p>
Barr meets all my criteria. He is the only <b>candidate</b> who does, and therefore, I can elide the more subjective process of choosing between multiple acceptable candidates.
<hr/>
There have been some recent criticisms of Barr, which deserve consideration, so I'll address those briefly.
<ol>
<li>
<blockquote>
Barr is a recent convert to Libertarian who may not be sincere
</blockquote>
This would be a serious issue, if it was likely that Barr would be elected. It is much less important in this election. It will be at least a couple more cycles before we have grown the party enough to have to worry about that. I'm looking forward to it!
</li><li>
<blockquote>
Barr is a recent convert to Libertarian who may not have the best interests of the party in mind.
</blockquote>
This is an important issue during the primary season. It does not much matter at this point. Barr's what we've got. Votes for Barr will not make him president, but they will make our party credible, if they arrive in sufficient number.
</li><li>
<blockquote>
Barr is a recent convert to Libertarian who may not have the best interests of the party in mind.
</blockquote>
This is an important issue during the primary season. It does not much matter at this point. Barr's what we've got. Votes for Barr will not make him president, but they will make our party credible, if they arrive in sufficient number.
</li><li>
<blockquote>
Barr's strategy has been poor when dealing with Ron Paul and/or the Campaign for Liberty.
</blockquote>
This is an important issue during the primary season. It does not much matter at this point. Barr's what we've got. Votes for Barr will not make him president, but they will make our party credible, if they arrive in sufficient number.
</li>
</ol>
<hr/>
The bottom line, as I see it, is that we who value freedom must rally behind Barr, regardless of whether we supported his nomination, because he is the nominee we have. For this election cycle, he's the only nominee we have. It is what it is.
<hr/>
Never forget, as you consider your vote in the next election, the words of a wise Libertarian thinker, Ron Paul:
<blockquote>
It's not about me, it's about the MESSAGE.
</blockquote>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13080517.post-22211516314990790932008-09-05T12:53:00.010-04:002008-09-12T09:11:57.491-04:00Sarah Palin and VictoryI was somewhat encouraged by the selection of Sarah Palin
as a running mate for John McCain. I even went so far as
to say that the best likely outcome -- that is, the best
outcome which does not involve breaking the stranglehold of
the Republican and Democratic wings of the Big Government
Party on the American government -- for America might be
if McCain was elected and immediately dropped dead.
</p><p>
I still believe that, but Palin stands out because she is
a Queen in a deck of Jokers. She stands out not because
she understands what is best for America, but because she
misunderstands our plight a little bit less than McSame
and Biden.
</p><p>
On the subject of foreign policy, I am sad to say, she
seems to be as dazed and confused as they. She opened her
acceptance of the nomination with error. She accepts, in
her words, "the call to help our nominee for president to
protect and defend America". That is a fine job, but it
is not the one for which she has applied. The job
for which she has applied is commenced with an oath.
Her oath, should she be elected, is not to protect
and defend America, the American people, the American
economy, American prestige, American power abroad,
or American influence in foreign lands. Her oath,
should she be elected, will be to <q>protect and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic</q>. That is the first and most
important responsibility of any American elected official.
</p><p>
She goes on to say that McCain was criticized for his
unwillingness to "lose an election than to see his country
lose a war". This statement is in error in many ways.
Firstly, the war, had Congress declared war as the
Constitution requires, would have been declared against
the Government of Iraq. The Government of Iraq against
which our Congress failed to declare war no longer exists,
and therefore seems to be rather poorly positioned to
win a war. The head of the state against which we did
not declare war was a man named Saddam Hussein. An evil
bastard, to be sure. He is, however, no better positioned
to win a war than the Iraqi government. He has, you see,
been hung by the neck until dead, dead, dead. This seems
an inauspicious position from which to declare victory.
</p><p>
If the question in Iraq is not winning a war against
a defunct enemy, or losing to the dead leader of a
non-existent government, what is the question, today,
in Iraq?
</p><p>
The question is "Is it worth spending more American
treasure, atop the trillion dollars we have already spent,
in order to defend a foreign nation against the ethnic
and cultural divisions which have existed in it since the
British decided that three disparate peoples should be
forced to live as a single nation".
</p><p>
The answer is no.
</p><p>
The question is "Will America benefit by providing
potential terrorists with the corpses of friends and
relatives, dead at our hands, to avenge."
</p><p>
The answer is no.
</p><p>
The question is "Is it worth the life of <b>one more
American soldier</b> to provide security and prosperity to
a foreign people who have never posed a credible threat to
America, but have never paid a single dollar in taxes to
America, nor sworn to protect and defend her Constitution,
nor thanked her for removing the Odious Hussein, nor
supported her which she was in need, nor defended her
values, nor offered her anything except animosity.
</p><p>
The answer is <b>HELL NO</b>.
</p><p>
As far as I am concerned, America entered a broken country,
removed the worst of the impediments to it's reform,
and spent far too much blood and treasure attempting to
offer her security and prosperity. The results have
been imperfect, but Iraqis are no worse off then they
were when we came. It is within the power of the Iraqi
people to reform their nation, or to descend into chaos.
The time has come for them to choose, and to live with
the consequences of their decision.
</p>
<hr>
<p>
But let us, for a moment, return to Sarah Palin.
There is another glaring error in her speech which
must be addressed. It illustrates either her failure
to understand the American system of justice, or her
willingness to sacrifice American values for expediency.
That error is her statement that "Al-Qaeda terrorists
still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ...
he's worried that someone won't read them their rights".
</p><p>
Ms. Palin, it is after, not before, the investigation that
Americans determine the guilt or innocence of those accused
of crimes. We do not base the tactics of the investigation
on the guilt of the targets, nor on the severity of their
crime, but on the bedrock of our immutable, written,
Constitution. Americans -- true Americans -- choose to
accept risk rather than to risk tyranny. They choose not
to sacrifice their Liberty for temporary Security, knowing
that a people who does so deserves -- and will receive --
neither Liberty nor Security. True Americans choose to
risk their Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honors,
not for absolute protection against every possible risk,
but for protection of their Liberty against the ever
looming danger of a government run amok. They know that
a criminal freed due to a violation of his rights may
kill them. They accept that danger because they heed
the words of John Stark, the most famous New Hampshire
soldier to serve in the Revolution:
<blockquote>
Live Free or Die: Death is not the worst of evils.
</blockquote>
I do not agree with Palin that Liberty must be sacrificed in
order to achieve reasonable Security. But even were she to
convince me that I must choose between them, I would choose
dangerous Freedom over the illusory Security of Servitude.
</p><p>
In the final analysys, Palin is an unacceptable candididate
because she, by her own words, is willing to sacrifice Liberty
for Security, because she is willing to trade American blood
for an illusary "victory" against the dead leader of a defunct
government, and because she does not understand that no nation,
no matter how powerful, and no matter how well intentioned, can
impose it's will on other nations with impunity. For all these
reasons, the selection of Palin does not change my choice. I'll
be voting for <a href="http://bobbarr2008.com/">Bob Barr</a>, the
<a href="http://lp.org/">Libertarian</a> candidate for President,
and the best hope to restore <a href="http://campaignforliberty.org/">
Liberty</a> to America.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13080517.post-69629943510143811472008-07-18T18:15:00.005-04:002008-07-18T18:21:49.033-04:00General Curtis claims Bob Barr is a traitorThis commentator claims that Bob Barr is "A Traitor" to the Republican Wing of the Big Government Party, because he is not supporting the McSame canidacy.
</p><p>
The problem is, that Bob Barr left the Republican Wing of the Big Government Party years ago, and was even a member of the Libertarian Party's board before becoming a candidate for the nomination and a candidate for president.
</p><p>
Wouldn't endorsing McBama be the error, given this fact?
</p><p>
As for the claim that Barr is "stealing votes" from the Republican Wing of the Big Government Party, the reality is that they have been defrauding Small Government advocates for decades, stealing their votes and their money, by saying "If only we get Congress, we'll shrink government".
</p><p>
This was a lie. It was so proved when they <b>got</b> congress, and did nothing to shrink government.
</p><p>
So then they cried "If only we get the presidency, we'll shrink government".
</p><p>
That was another lie. It was so proved when the <b><i>got</i></b> the presidency, and government grew even faster than it had under the Democratic Wing of the One Big Party.
</p><p>
So now they cry that small government advocates <b><i>owe</i></b> them their votes. They are <b><i>entitled</i></b>, they say, to the everlasting, unquestioning, unrewarded support of anyone who believes in small government, because they have, <i><b>when it suited their purpose</b></i>, spouted a little bit of free market rhetoric.
</p><p>
I say that what small government advocates owe the Republican Wing of the Big Government Party is a class action lawsuit, in order to recover the money out of which they were defrauded over the years. This, a knife in the back, and a kick in the head would put us about even with the Republican Wing of the Big Government Party.
</p><p>
Actually, now, if we want to get even, we'll need to do one more thing:
</p><p>
<b>
If -- and it's a big if -- we can find any evidence that the Republican Wing of the Big Government Party ever had <b>any</b> allegience to the Constitution, the Free Market, Limited Government, the Rule of Law, Capitalism, Freedom, or anything other than staying in power, we should call <i>them</i> traitors.
</b>
</p>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13080517.post-32048186851985696042008-07-18T15:21:00.007-04:002008-07-18T15:29:29.876-04:00McBama Ahead of Barr on Suicide Advocacy<p>
The Chief Evangelist of the Environmentologist Cult, Al Gore, has decided that nobody should ever burn oil for any purpose again.
</p><p>
He claims that McBama, the undifferentiated mess composed of the presidential candidates of the Big Government Party, is way ahead of most politicians in stiving to reach his goal of economic suicide.
</p><p>
I don't know about most politicians, but he sure is way ahead of Bob Barr is forcing us to return to the Horse and Buggy Era! Bob has not recognized any need to abandon technology and return to the era when people could count on their 'Back To Nature' lifestyles to keep them alive to a ripe old age of 40, and sometimes 50!
</p><p>
Barr does not understand that success is sin, and that we need to atone for our lack of grinding poverty and starvation with some good old Human Sacrifice!
</p><p>
Link: <a href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080717/D91VH6B00.html">My Way News - Gore sets 'moon shot' goal on climate change</a>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13080517.post-63203074069066430302008-07-15T16:19:00.003-04:002008-07-15T16:27:06.864-04:00A Good, Old Fashioned Bank Run!An interesting story above! Looks like there was a good, old fashioned bank run at IndyMac! That's sad for the people who still have their money in the badly broken U.S. banking system, but at least people are starting to wake up!
Hopefully, more people will start pulling their money out of the system and putting it on gold, silver, oil, or something else which is real. Normally, I would include real-estate on the list, but personally I think that market still has a long way to fall, and as long as Helicopter Ben keeps dumping money into the system, whether through Corporate Welfare Bailouts or through simple printing of counterfeit money backed by nothing but a politician's promise, the market cannot adjust to reality.
I can hear Scotty, down in Engineering, screaming:
<blockquote>
She canna take the strain, Captain! She's breaking up! I canna change the laws of Economics, Captain!
</blockquote>
So stock up on something of real value, guys, 'cause either we're heading for trouble!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13080517.post-17290753864423644892008-05-13T14:29:00.003-04:002008-05-14T02:07:06.999-04:00Speculators and Oil PricesIn his recent tirade against the free market, Socialist senator Levin,
of Michigan, gave birth to the following puff of rhetorical flatulance:
<blockquote>
Much of this increase can be attributed to speculators, who buy and
sell futures contracts for crude oil and leverage them just to make
a profit, creating an artificial 'paper demand' that does not
accurately reflect actual market conditions.
</blockquote>
First off, it should be pointed out that *ALL* productive activity,
including (of course) investing in commodities and anything else,
is carried on "just to make a profit". The purpose of production
is to provide an output which is more valuable than the inputs --
land, capital, raw materials, and labor -- required to produce it.
This difference is called profit.
<p>
In the case of commodities traders, the principal is the same. The
difference is that their 'input' is a commodity at one point in time,
and their 'output' is the same commodity at another point in time.
Like any entrepreneur, their business is prognostication, and they
make money if -- and only if -- they reach the correct conclusions
about the future.
<h3>The need for 'speculators'</h3>
The specter of 'speculators' is too frequently raised by the
economically ignorant to be ignored. Most people do not understand
their function, nor the service they provide, and they are therefore
easily used as scapegoats, as Marx and Stalin used 'the bourgeois',
and their spiritual brother Hitler used Jews. In their defense,
I will therefore explain, in a simplified way, the service that
'speculators' provide to consumers.
<p>
There are two types of trade which an 'evil speculator' can engage in.
These are called 'short' and 'long' trades.
<p>
A long trader believes that the current price of a good is lower
than the future price of the same good. He therefore buys the good
now (raising the current market price), and sells the good later
(lowering the future market price). Assuming the 'speculator' is
right, the consumers will pay a higher price now (when prices are
relatively low), but will pay a lower price later (when prices will be
relatively high).
<p>
A short trader believes that the current price of a good is higher
than the future price of the same good. He therefore borrows and
sells the good now (lowering the current market price), and later buys
the good to repay the lender (raising the future market price).
Assuming the 'speculator' is right, the consumer will pay a lower
price now (when prices are relatively high), and will pay a higher
price later (when prices will be relatively low).
<p>
The short trader cannot operate, of course, without long traders from
whom to borrow the good. Also note that when I say 'short trader' and
'long trader', I am speaking about an individual's role in a given
transaction. Traders execute both short and long trades.
<p>
In either of these cases, of course, the trader makes money if and
only if he correctly predicts the market. Money is made by buying
cheap and selling dear. If a long trader is wrong, he will be stuck
with a good for which he paid dearly, and must either store
indefinably (which costs money) or sell cheap. If a short trader
is wrong, he will have to replace a borrowed good which he sold
cheap with the same good, for which he must pay dearly.
<p>
This explanation of commodities trading is somewhat simplified,
there are actually a great variety of contract types and terms, but
it illustrates the principals behind commodities trading, the benifit
which these 'evil speculators' provide to society, and why they must
be permitted to continue to provide those benifits.
<p>
The alternative is a 'lobotomized market', in which people burn wheat
instead of coal in the winter, since they can save money by doing so,
and then starve -- or eat the seeds of their future havests -- in the
summer, since the wheat which the 'evil speculators' would have saved
for them has been -- quite literally -- thrown into the fire.
<p>
<h3>What Levin Should Do</h3>
<p>
If Levin truely belives that there are too many people trading long,
and that the current price of oil is higher than the future price of
oil, there is an action he can legitimately take in order to correct
their error. He can sell oil short. As stated above, this will lower
the current price of oil, and raise the future price of oil. Of
course, if he is wrong, he will be doing harm, not good. The beauty
of the free market is that he will automatically pay for any harm he
does out of his own pocket, and if he is consistently wrong, he will
blow through his considerable wealth, leaving him with nothing to harm
us with in the future.
<p>
It is sad that politics does not have similar automatic and unavoidable
penalties for being consistently wrong.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13080517.post-57043556747444146002008-05-12T16:06:00.000-04:002008-05-12T16:17:51.396-04:00Isn't it nice when criminals make restitution?<p>
For years, I was a victim of extortion. Over the course of years,
over a quarter of a million dollars were taken from me, by a ruthless
gang which threatened to kidnap and mistreat me if I refused to pay
them. In return for my money, they gave me "protection", which I
neither wanted nor needed. This served to create the illusion that
what was going on was somehow moral and above board. The people from
whom I needed protection, of course, were the perpetrators of this
extortion, but none was forthcoming.
<p>
Then, suddenly, out of the blue, I received a check in the mail. It
was only 300 dollars, but even that was a welcome sign that these
ruthless thugs had somehow seen the error of their ways. They had
realized that if they wanted money, they needed to earn it, not steal
it from the people who had.
<p>
Over the decades of the Clinton and Bush administrations, I had begun
to lose my faith in humanity. I began to believe that maybe we were
getting the government we deserved. But this little check as
illustrated to me that even hardened criminals can see the light.
Maybe there is hope for America and for Humanity after all.
<p>
If the IRS can repent their crimes, anybody can.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13080517.post-41714870844410003282008-03-08T22:37:00.007-05:002008-03-09T03:52:06.588-04:00A worthy cause for those who want to help others!<p>
Here are some kids who get it, and are fighting for their right to fight for their lives!
</p><p>
We cannot purge all the madmen from society. We cannot prevent the occasional murderous rage. What can we do? We can fight back. Here is a group of students who understand how to put an end to the 'Campus Rampage' phenomenon. Those of us who love liberty should rally behind these brave, politically incorrect, and most importantly <b>correct</b> group of young people. We can't always be there to help, but we <b>can</b> let them help themselves.
</p><p>
<a href="http://concealedcampus.org/">
<center>
<img src="http://concealedcampus.org/banner2.gif"/>
</center>
</a>
</p><p>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13080517.post-1367250216618578152007-12-19T18:28:00.000-05:002007-12-19T18:32:39.877-05:00Open Letter to Glen BeckMr. Beck:
<p>
As I watched your excellent interview with Ron Paul for the second time, I felt moved to write to you, for two purposes.
</p><p>
Firstly, I want to thank you for giving Ron the chance to explain his ideas in detail, something I have have never before heard him permitted to do in a national forum. Libertarian ideas, especially our ideas on economics, do not easily reduce to sound bites. For example, Libertarianism sounds like it would be disastrous for the poor, until you understand that poverty could be almost completely eliminated, except in cases of severe mental or physical incapacity, by our policy of economic freedom. This point is essential to understanding why Laissez-Faire capitalism is the most, not the least, humanitarian approach to economics.
</p><p>
In reference to your assertion that in order to subscribe to Libertarian philosophy, one needs to be willing to "step over homeless people". This is false. Consider the 10 commandments. These are moral rules for living, which may be embraced by people of any political persuasion. People might find that there are valid reasons that the government should not force others to "Have no other gods before me". These same people may well feel that it is a moral imperative that they have no other god before their God. Their unwillingness to force their morality on others does not reduce their commitment to their morality. It merely acknowledges that if God wanted to add an 11th commandment, saying "Thou shalt force thy neighbor to live by these commandments", he would have done so, and he did not. Likewise, the Libertarian unwillingness to force others to spend their money on charity does not imply unwillingness to spend their own money on charity, and in a prosperous, free, and lightly taxed America, there would be much more money to devote to such things, and fewer people who needed them.
</p><p>
Secondly, I want to apologize, on behalf of some of my fellow Paul supporters, for any threatening or abusive mail you have received from them. Sadly, when you advocate real change, you tend to attract some people, e. g. conspiracy theorists and extremists, who may feel justified in attempting to achieve their goals "by any means necessary". I have been embarrassed and saddened by some of those who have joined me in supporting Ron Paul. I was horrified to discover that a white supremacist group understood so little of the philosophy of individualism that they endorsed Ron Paul.
</p><p>
I appreciated your refusal to blame Ron Paul for the antics of some of his supporters. My logic, in reaching the same conclusion, is similar to that I use to defend border control activists. Although some racists may support the Minute Men, that does not imply that all Minute Men are racists. I understand the economics of immigration well enough to know that even though there are invalid reasons to oppose illegal immigration, there are valid reasons to oppose it as well. That two people reach the same conclusion does not imply that their motives and reasoning are the same.
</p><p>
In conclusion, I enjoy your show, and I hope you will ponder the following questions: If left alone, it is clear and obvious that many Muslims would continue to hate Americans. But would they, if they did not feel themselves (rightly or wrongly) to be under occupation and under threat, be likely to resort to desperation tactics like suicide bombing -- which is the only way a backward precapitalist society could possibly attack America on it's own soil. I also hope you will consider whether our security could be increased by redeploying the troops currently in Iraq, Germany, and Japan to Afghanistan, where they might well be able to catch bin-Ladin, and to America, where they could defend our borders and our nation, rather than defending our defeated enemies.
</p>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13080517.post-40939749011627540332007-11-30T04:07:00.000-05:002007-11-30T04:10:36.618-05:00Comrade Mitt joins the fight against the Free Market<p>
I guess I'm naive. I was surprised by Mitt Romney's abject economic ignorance at the debate last night. When asked about agricultural subsidies, he said that he didn't think that the Free Market could provide food reliably, and that central planning of the economy by the government was needed to guarantee our food supply.
</p>
<p>
Just on more reason to vote against Comrade Mitt.
</p>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13080517.post-89272737341264494902007-10-29T08:35:00.000-04:002007-10-29T08:57:27.010-04:00Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November<pre>
Remember, remember,
the fifth of November
The gunpowder treason and plot
I know of no reason
the gunpowder treason
should <b>EVER</b> be forgot.
</pre>
Watch the clip, and then click the link.
<center>
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/X_qmG1Ups8M&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/X_qmG1Ups8M&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
<br/>
<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://www.swfup.com/uploads/swf-38546.swf" width="400" height="120" class="file_border">
<param name="movie" value="http://www.swfup.com/uploads/swf-38546.swf" />
</object>
</center>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13080517.post-42091055982805035422007-07-09T06:30:00.001-04:002007-07-09T06:33:19.310-04:00Announcing the "Anti-Universal Coverage Club"..."Universal Coverage" sounds nice and fuzzy. How could anyone object to "Universal Coverage"? I object. I do not object to "Universal Coverage" if it occurs naturally -- if everyone in America decides that health insurance is a good idea, and decides to go out and buy it of their own accord, I don't have a problem with it. But it's not going to happen. Why not? Because many of us, myself included, do not need health insurance.
<p>
I don't need health insurance because the hospitals are required by law to treat me whether I am insured or not. They should not be, but they are. So long as they are required to treat me even if I don't pay, I see no reason to pay, so I don't. That makes me one of the however many "victims" that the government wants to "save" by instituting health care rationing. Sorry, not interested. How about this as an alternative: Stop forcing hospitals to treat me if I don't carry insurance, and I'll buy insurance. Seems fair to me.
<a href='http://digg.com/political_opinion/Announcing_the_Anti_Universal_Coverage_Club'>digg story</a>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13080517.post-82189274978209458532007-07-03T18:25:00.001-04:002007-07-03T19:48:38.253-04:00GeoLibertarians and the Land Value Tax<p>
I am curious about Geolibertarians and the Land Value Tax. I do not (currently) support their proposals, since I am unsure as to the nuts and bolts issues thereof, but I am interested in finding out more. It appears that this is a free market system which would allow for a (minarchist) state to be financed in a way that (purportedly) would minimally distort the markets upon which we depend for those things that we need.
</p>
<p>
Here is the basic idea as I understand it. This is a request for clarification, so <b>please</b> do not take my comments as a canonical description of their beliefs, but rather as a reflection of my imperfect understanding thereof. That said, here is my understanding of the conceptual underpinnings of their system:
</p>
<ol>
<li>
All which is created by a human should be considered property of that human, and he should be free to distribute that property as he sees fit.
</li>
<li>
Workers who create property using the existing property of capitalists <b>do</b> owe the capitalists compensation for the use of their capital, at whatever rate the workers and capitalists agree upon. This is not Marxism. I am phrasing this proposition in the reverse of the most popular formulation (that capitalists should be able to pay workers at whatever rate they agree upon), but the two formulations are equivalent.
</li>
<li>
Land cannot be created, and therefore should not be considered property. Buildings and improvements to land, however, are created, and therefore should be considered property.
</li>
<li>
The free market should be allowed to function. All controls on wages, prices, imports, exports, trusts and other contracts should be repealed. All subsidies to businesses and organizations should be repealed.
</li>
<li>
No specific welfare systems should exist, except that any land value taxes which are collected in excess of that amount required to finance a (tiny) government should be refunded to the citizens in equal shares. This would be done without respect to income, poverty, property, or other considerations.
</li>
</ol>
<p>
This all sounds pretty good to me. I must question the mechanisms by which it could be achieved, however. My concerns are as follows:
</p>
<ol>
<li>
One cannot easily move buildings. How, then, could the market be used in order to determine the value of land, as opposed to that of buildings?
</li>
<li>
What would the incentive structure vis-a-vis voting with regard to tax rates? Would it be possible for small property users to profit by progressively taxing larger property owners beyond reason, and reaping the benefits as larger refunds? It seems that if this occurred, there would be adjustments in the relative land holdings of individuals as their higher incomes would allow them to procure more land, and that there would be a kind of equilibrium established in the long run, but I am not even sure how to model such a thing.
</li>
<li>
How would the real estate market work in establishing rights of tenancy on previously unoccupied land? What would be the limits to these rights be?
</li>
<li>
What would happen to incentives to preserve the value of land one was using? Would there be greater incentive to quickly exploit, and thereby destroy the value of, land under this system?
</li>
<li>
What would be the potential abuses of this system?
</li>
</ol>
There would also seem to be some advantages to the system:
<ol>
<li>
An (almost) completely free market, modulo any distortions introduced by the tax system itself.
</li>
<li>
A minimal income to those who were disabled or unable to work, and chose not to overconsume land, without creating incentives to cultivate poverty or helplessness.
</li>
<li>
A strong disincentive against buying and holding land for long periods of time, without putting it to use, in hopes of later gains.
</li>
<li>
An increase in "green space", as people minimized their usage of land, without creating (as government owned "green space" does) homelessness when land values exceed the means of potential tenants.
</li>
</ol>
All in all, my view of this proposal is similar to my view of the "fair tax". I'm not sure how to crunch the numbers, I do believe that it could by much clearer and probably more fair than our current tax system (the obfuscated assembly language source code to a random number generator would be clearer and more fair than our current tax system). Are there any geolibertarians out there would would like to share their vision of how their system would work?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13080517.post-7660736048887397902007-06-13T08:30:00.000-04:002007-06-13T08:33:35.789-04:00What's your political persuasion?<table width=350 align=center border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2><tr><td bgcolor="#F88B8B" align=center><font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" style='color:black; font-size: 14pt;'><b>You Are a "Don't Tread On Me" Libertarian</b></font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor="#A7CEFF"><center><img src="http://images.blogthings.com/whatsyourpoliticalpersuasionquiz/libertarian.jpg" height="100" width="100"></center><font color="#000000">
You distrust the government, are fiercely independent, and don't belong in either party.
Religion and politics should never mix, in your opinion... and you feel opressed by both.
You don't want the government to cramp your self made style. Or anyone else's for that matter.
You're proud to say that you're pro-choice on absolutely everything!</font></td></tr></table><div align="center"><a href="http://www.blogthings.com/whatsyourpoliticalpersuasionquiz/">What's Your Political Persuasion?</a></div>
<p>
This is a pretty good test, although it conflates the concept of private and religious schools. Of course right now, many private schools are religious, because churches subsidize religious schools, and it is very difficult to compete against the (so called) "free" government schools, which people are forced to pay for, even if they do not use them. This would, of course, be different in a freer society where government paid for, but did not control, education.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13080517.post-51185771019793503342007-06-12T17:59:00.001-04:002007-06-13T10:30:26.961-04:00"For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!"This is a wonderful article, explaining how well intentioned westerners are destroying the economies of Africa. We are killing them with kindness, and except for the politicians, nobody wins.<br></br><br></br><a href='http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html'>read more</a> | <a href='http://digg.com/health/For_God_s_Sake_Please_Stop_the_Aid'>digg story</a>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.com0