tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28794945194232945542024-03-05T10:10:44.770-07:00Laws of LibertyA discussion of how to protect liberty in our society.BENhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03391133224258936636noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2879494519423294554.post-21614334836887792862011-04-28T15:53:00.002-06:002011-04-28T15:56:24.519-06:00Keynes vs. Hayek Part 1 and 2<span style="font-weight: bold;">Part 1:</span><br /><br /><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/d0nERTFo-Sk" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="349" width="560"></iframe><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Part 2 is even better:</span><br /><br /><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GTQnarzmTOc" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="349" width="560"></iframe>BENhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06456265331332728893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2879494519423294554.post-63671485359534159202010-06-07T23:45:00.002-06:002010-06-07T23:49:41.280-06:00How 'CLICK-IT OR TICKET' Keeps You SafeHypothetical situation:<br /><br />Q: What happens if I get pulled over and I am not wearing my seat belt? <br />A: They write you a ticket and ask you to sign it <br /><br />Q: What happens if I refuse to sign? <br />A: They will ask you to get out of the car <br /><br />Q: What happens if I don't get out of the car? <br />A: They will pull you out of the car and taser you <br /><br />Q: What happens if I resist and try to get away? <br />A: They will taser you again <br /><br />Q: What happens if I continue to struggle until they run out of taser shots? <br />A: They will wrestle you to the ground and handcuff you <br /><br />Q: What happens if I break free before I am handcuffed? <br />A: They will chase you <br /><br />Q: What happens if I get in my car and manage to get away?<br />A: They will get in their car and chase you down? <br /><br />Q: What happens if I don't stop? <br />A: They will ram your car <br /><br />Q: What happens if I try to defend myself? <br />A: They will shoot you<br /><br />Q: So, what is the reasonable conclusion of not obeying the seat belt law? <br />A: Your car gets wrecked and you get shot <br /><br />Q: Why does this law make me more safe? <br />A: Because obeying it means you don't get shotBENhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06456265331332728893noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2879494519423294554.post-61935985512985331892010-05-29T23:23:00.003-06:002010-05-29T23:31:13.980-06:00Intellectual PropertyI have been thinking a lot about intellectual property. No matter what your opinion is on the matter, or even if you have no opinion, I recommend a great <a href="http://mises.org/resources/3582/Against-Intellectual-Property">piece by Stephan Kinsella.</a> You can get an audio book version of it, as well as the pdf. There is no charge for this, since charging would almost be hypocritical, seeing as how the work is titled "Against Intellectual Property"<br /><br />Here is a presentation given on IP as it relates to fashion. The conclusions she makes are very interesting.<br /><br /><object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zL2FOrx41N0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zL2FOrx41N0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>BENhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06456265331332728893noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2879494519423294554.post-33841645466715471832010-05-23T23:19:00.001-06:002010-05-23T23:22:12.404-06:00Reductio Ad Absurdum: Immigration and Babies<a href="http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/a-baby-moratorium-for-liberty">They're Coming To America</a><br />by Gene Callahan<br /><br />Many libertarians have been far too complacent in the face of a growing threat to our cultural cohesion, our way of life, and our liberty. I'm talking, of course, about the thousands of people who arrive in our country everyday, hoping to make it their new home.<br /><br />Those arrivals present us with a myriad of social problems. For the most part, they do not speak our language. They are unfamiliar with our culture. It will take time to assimilate them all, and the government's effort to promote multi-culturalism through the public schools and other government institutions can only lengthen that assimilation time.<br /><br />Few of these strangers arrive in America with job offers in hand. The odds are high that many of them will rely, at some point in their lives, on government handouts. And studies show that the longer new arrivals reside in the country, the more likely they are to receive welfare.<br /><br />They will make use of public transportation, public roads, public utilities, public schools, and so on, further straining resources that are already stretched thin in many cases. Their arrival results in a "dumbing down" of the public education system, prompting politicians to throw even more money at it.<br /><br />All of the above means an increased tax burden on the productive members of society, many of whom already work over half their day to pay their federal, state, and local income taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, tariffs, and fees.<br /><br />Because of the lure of government largesse dangled before them, the new arrivals represent a ready-made voting block for a bigger state. Unfamiliar with the American tradition of limited government, the arguments against expanded social programs seem remote and abstract to them, while the benefits appear immediate and tangible. The resultant swelling of the class of tax consumers portends an ominous increase in the scope of the welfare state.<br /><br />As we have time to watch them adapting to our country, we find their customs strange. Whether it is their music, dress, dating, or manners, their distinct cultures present what appears to be an unbridgeable gulf between them and traditional American life. Americans find themselves longing, as Peter Brimelow put it, "for some degree of ethnic and cultural coherence."<br /><br />It is true that many of them will become productive members of the workforce. But, so long as there are people already living in our country who are without work, or stuck in menial jobs, it ill-behooves us to bring in newcomers to grab the good jobs that the economy does create.<br /><br />Libertarians are correctly suspicious of any increases in government power. In the case of these new Americans, however, it should be clear that the cause of liberty is advanced, not retarded, by limiting their influx. So great are their numbers, and so enormous is the difficulty in assimilating them, that the current situation amounts to little less than a foreign invasion of our shores. Libertarians should at least be able to agree that as long as we have any government, its most essential role is to protect the nation from foreign invasion!<br /><br />Of course, in a purely libertarian society, it would be property owners who would have the right to accept or reject anyone wishing to live on or otherwise use their property. But we don't live in that society. Property owners today are limited by law from excluding individuals from their place of employment due to affirmative-action and anti-discrimination laws, and from their neighborhoods by civil-rights legislation.<br /><br />Simply reducing the number of arrivals allowed in the country each year would be a step forward. But given the vast numbers who have already arrived in the past two decades, it would be wiser to place a several-year moratorium on all new…<br /><br />What's that you say? Immigration?! You think I've been talking about immigrants?<br /><br />I've been talking about babies. What we need is a several-year moratorium on births. Our battle cry should be, "Outlaw babies, for the sake of our liberty!"BENhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06456265331332728893noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2879494519423294554.post-39875057403724306492010-05-18T23:24:00.002-06:002010-05-18T23:33:44.124-06:00A History of IranThis is nearly ten minutes long, but definitely worth watching all the way through. Particularly watch for the part which imagines a reversal of American and Iranian situations and asks American viewers to consider what they would hope Iran would do in that scenario.<br /><br /><br /><object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MXrXDR694ZQ&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MXrXDR694ZQ&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>BENhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06456265331332728893noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2879494519423294554.post-82602180187308023672010-05-05T23:42:00.003-06:002010-05-06T00:06:24.983-06:00Lady Liberty<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3781UYAV_n1H3heQXqVlOHjU4KOdEPrOCQ04hgK5qB4b2BBtEky09cL56gkFfhKAf2VemTRGy_xooHUvG92Uy_xqkYuTJszj6CqAyUMrXeoyghQld2kMvm_VjpqVpiaD4BL1GCcqU1xxK/s1600/liberty.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 328px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3781UYAV_n1H3heQXqVlOHjU4KOdEPrOCQ04hgK5qB4b2BBtEky09cL56gkFfhKAf2VemTRGy_xooHUvG92Uy_xqkYuTJszj6CqAyUMrXeoyghQld2kMvm_VjpqVpiaD4BL1GCcqU1xxK/s400/liberty.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5468028380104126786" /></a><br /><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-style-span"><i><span style="font-family:Arial;color:black;">Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,</span></i></span><br /><span class="apple-style-span"><i><span style="font-family:Arial;color:black;">With conquering limbs astride from land to land;</span></i></span><br /><span class="apple-style-span"><i><span style="font-family:Arial;color:black;">Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand</span></i></span><br /><span class="apple-style-span"><i><span style="font-family:Arial;color:black;">A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame</span></i></span><br /><span class="apple-style-span"><i><span style="font-family:Arial;color:black;">Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name</span></i></span><br /><span class="apple-style-span"><i><span style="font-family:Arial;color:black;">Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand</span></i></span><br /><span class="apple-style-span"><i><span style="font-family:Arial;color:black;">Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command</span></i></span><br /><span class="apple-style-span"><i><span style="font-family:Arial;color:black;">The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.</span></i></span><br /><span class="apple-style-span"><i><span style="font-family:Arial;color:black;">"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she</span></i></span><br /><span class="apple-style-span"><i><span style="font-family:Arial;color:black;">With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,</span></i></span><br /><span class="apple-style-span"><i><span style="font-family:Arial;color:black;">Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,</span></i></span><br /><span class="apple-style-span"><i><span style="font-family:Arial;color:black;">The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.</span></i></span><br /><span class="apple-style-span"><i><span style="font-family:Arial;color:black;">Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,</span></i></span><br /><span class="apple-style-span"><i><span style="font-family:Arial;color:black;">I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"</span></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;"><i><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>-----Emma Lazarus</i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">At the risk of insulting the intelligence of anyone who already understands the allusions made by this poem, I will share a few thoughts about it. This is an inscription on display inside the Statue of Liberty. It first makes reference to the Colossus of Rhodes, one of the ancient wonders. The Colossus was built to celebrate military victory--in stark contrast to the Statue of Liberty, a symbol of peace. Thus, America was to be a land which didn't stretch its limbs to conquer other lands. The poem depicts a land which stands as a beacon and example to other nations. Of course this is a far cry from what modern foreign policy tells us about "making the world safe for democracy" through military conquest.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">America does not care for the "pomp" of the old world. It does not care for the nationalism, the pride, and the arrogance that characterized the nations of that time. America does not seek the fame and glory of empires nor the grandeur of ancient kingdoms. It cares only to "breathe free". How different is this from statements of "no apology" or "the power of pride", or even the declaration "I'm proud to be an American!"?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">What does America stand for? America stands ready to accept all who come to be free. All who are oppressed and worn down by tyranny are accepted here. They can be of any color, race, or creed. They can come from any nation and speak any language. They come here to experience liberty and to afford the same to their fellow man.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial;">Is this the America we live in today? What are our responsibilities if we would reclaim it?</span></p></div>BENhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06456265331332728893noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2879494519423294554.post-77043866190386437172010-04-16T00:36:00.003-06:002010-04-16T00:39:21.501-06:00Economically Feasible Asteroid Mining: !!According to the Interplanetary Superhighway concept, the gravity and movement of planets create a network of low-energy orbits which may be viable as efficient transit routes throughout the solar system. For her project, Erika DeBenedictis developed a software navigation system - based on an original optimizing search algorithm - that may help autonomous spacecraft better navigate these pathways.<br /><br />Erika, a senior at Albuquerque Academy in Albuquerque, New Mexico, was a 2009 Davidson Fellow and first-place award winner in the New Mexico Supercomputing Challenge. The 18-year-old is also an accomplished pianist and vocalist, and hopes to attend Caltech or MIT.<br /><br /><object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BOMYLRygDkc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BOMYLRygDkc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>BENhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06456265331332728893noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2879494519423294554.post-42727628950062486152010-03-06T20:36:00.006-07:002010-03-06T20:51:58.745-07:00A Note on Krugman<div style="text-align: justify;">The following comes from Creighton Harrington on the <a href="http://www.yaliberty.org/">YAL Blog</a>. I was just about to post something along these lines, but he says it pretty well:<span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /></span><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="country-region"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"></o:smarttagtype><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id="ieooui"></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal"><b>The Problem with the "Expert"</b><o:p></o:p></p> <p>...by "expert" I mean <a href="http://mises.org/daily/4121">Paul Krugman</a>. Here is a guy who is, essentially, <em>the</em> economic authority in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region>. He teaches at <st1:place st="on">Princeton</st1:place>, won the Nobel Prize in Economics (which is almost as insane as Obama winning the Nobel Prize for anything), and, worst of all, preaches his Keynesian blather all over the New York Times for every impressionable would-be scholar to read.<o:p></o:p></p> <p>Now, what has Krugman said that perterbs me so? Well, honestly, its just that he was mentioned in an article and it got me thinking about it again, but soon enough I was back to fond memories of Krugman preaching how wonderful our economy is, how we need to offset the dot-com bubble with a housing bubble, how interest rates need to go lower and lower and government spending needs to go higher and higher. And while every “expert” on Wall Street, at the Fed, and on the Hill is crying the same thing (except Ron Paul of course) while simultaneously mocking legit economists like everyone at the Mises Institute, Peter Schiff, and, to some extent, Jim Rogers for their archaic outlook on economics.<o:p></o:p></p> <p>Oh how the tides did turn, but, yet, instead of the status quo moving to sanity, in comes Krugman preaching the <em>same exact stuff</em>!! Lower interest rates, spend, print more money, bailout, OR WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!<o:p></o:p></p> <p>One of his greatest feats, however, is to basically get people to believe in a false history. He always preaches about the laissez faire style of Hoover and the damage it did to the economy during the Great Depression, but everytime he is called out on how absolutely wrong that thought is, he, almost like a reflex, just adds, “he did too little too late.” That's why its so hard to convince people that Keynesians are wrong...they have academic credibility already, for one, and they also just fall back on the “if spending doesn't work then spend more and more and more ad infinitum.”<o:p></o:p></p> <p>This guy is nothing more than a well respected con-artist who doesn't realize he is a con-artist, by which I mean he can promote extreme falsehoods everyday and when they fail, as they always do, it was not his advice that was insufficient, but some mistake by the other party. He has been wrong on nearly everything, a great example of which is <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Japan</st1:place></st1:country-region>. If there is one historical example, outside of the Great Depression, that proves how Keynesian economics just fails miserably, it is <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Japan</st1:place></st1:country-region>. This country tried every Keynsian trick there is to fix themselves, but to no avail. Even <a href="http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae6_4_2.pdf">Krugman himself </a>said they were doing the right thing when they tried to stimulate the economy via public works projects.<o:p></o:p></p> <p>Over the past decade <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Japan</st1:place></st1:country-region> has used enormous public works projects as a way to create jobs and pump money into the economy. The statistics are awesome. In 1996 <st1:country-region st="on">Japan</st1:country-region>’s public works spending, as a share of G.D.P., was more than four times that of the <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>. <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Japan</st1:place></st1:country-region> poured as much concrete as we did, though it has a little less than half our population and 4 percent of our land area. One Japanese worker in 10 was employed in the construction industry, far more than in other advanced countries.<o:p></o:p></p> <p>What baffles Krugman is how this failed miserably. Even as Japan nipped at the heels of “full employment,” interest rates were near zero, spending was running wild, and all the other Keynesian cures to the business cycle were being employed Japan still went nowhere.<o:p></o:p></p> <p>And here we are. Another recession and more of the same old same old from Krugman. I don't think Krugman could ask for a more identical policy maker than Geithner and when healthcare finally blows over, they will have to answer for the failure they have had with the <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> economy. Hopefully when either the currency crisis occurs or the economy tanks again after whatever catalyst causes it it will be the final straw for Keynes, but I doubt it.<o:p></o:p></p> <span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";">When Krugman finally opens his eyes and realizes how wrong Keynesian economics is and, instead, promotes sound fiscal policy where the Fed is gone, our money is backed with value not trust, fractional reserve banking is prohibited, and the government stays passive in spending, then we will never grow as a nation. Our economy will be plagued with cyclical depression after boom after depression until the world ends. People like Krugman are some of the most dangerous people to liberty because they are percieved as experts by everyone, yet they preach a doctrine that opposes liberty. I can only hope that this resurgence of interest in Austrian Economics stays strong and becomes the norm like it would have done had John Maynard Keynes not opened his mouth</span><br /></div>BENhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06456265331332728893noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2879494519423294554.post-79937720111287371382010-03-01T22:47:00.002-07:002010-03-01T22:48:24.182-07:00Function of Profits: A Short Explanation<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PU9xVseelVk&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PU9xVseelVk&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>BENhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06456265331332728893noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2879494519423294554.post-6462916456346853242010-02-18T23:38:00.002-07:002010-02-18T23:41:37.110-07:00Nuclear Weapons RepriseI saw this video the other day and thought about the discussion on <a href="http://lawsofliberty.blogspot.com/2009/09/nuclear-weapons-and-iran.html"><br />Nuclear Weapons and Iran</a> a while back.<br /><br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GVztmtQX104&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GVztmtQX104&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>BENhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06456265331332728893noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2879494519423294554.post-81645867706046183172010-02-16T22:37:00.003-07:002010-02-16T22:38:43.015-07:00Health Care CompetitionStossel has actually done several pieces on health care competition, and all the ones I have seen are really good. But what is up with his hair in this one?<br /><br /><object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tFqwjOtTjzM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tFqwjOtTjzM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>BENhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06456265331332728893noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2879494519423294554.post-63366415292003447752010-02-07T21:55:00.006-07:002010-02-07T23:21:02.891-07:00Profit, Wages, and CapitalistsPerhaps one of the most influential and popular economic theories over the past century has been the theory of exploitation. The theory, which found its footing, ironically, in the writings of Adam Smith, was mostly promoted by the writings of Karl Marx. The exploitation theory laid the groundwork for the more recent theories of Keynes and the overall prevalence of socialist economic policies in our society.<br /><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size:100%;">According to the exploitation theory, capitalism promotes a system of slavery wherein the labor of workers is exploited to attain profits on behalf of the relatively few businessman or capitalists. These capitalists are seen as parasites upon the masses. Never mind the steady increase in the standard of living and working conditions. If it weren't for government intervention and labor unions, we would all still be working for $1 per day and dying of black lung.<br />George Reisman* explains the framework of the labor theory of value, one of the main aspects of the exploitation theory:<br /></span></div><blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;">This framework is the belief that wages are the original and primary form of income, from which profits and all other non-wage incomes emerge as a deduction with the coming of capitalism and businessmen and capitalists. The framework easily leads to the assertion of the wage earner’s right to the whole produce or to its full value. It itself is based on the further belief that all income which is due to the performance of labor is wages and that all who work are wage earners.</span></blockquote> <div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size:100%;">In order to illustrate this assertion, let us imagine a pre-capitalist economy, if there ever was such a thing. In this economy, each person is the sole producer of any given commodity. Thus, each person would sell his or her commodity for a price. According to this theory, all income received in this economy is supposed to be wages, not profit, because all income is received by workers. The conclusion Marx made from this theory is that profit did not exist before capitalism because all income was wages. Thus, the advent of capitalism brought profit, at the expense of the wages of the laborer.<br /><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Marx says that in this pre-capitalist economy, production follows the sequence C-M-C. That is, a worker produces a commodity (C), sells it for money (M), and then buys other commodities (C). Here there is no exploitation because there is no supposed profit; all income is wages. Profit, or surplus value, comes about with capitalism which follows the sequence M-C-M. The capitalist spends money to pay for materials, machinery, and wages, a commodity is produced, and the commodity is sold for a larger sum of money than it cost to produce. The difference is profit.<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Many non-Marxist economists actually ascribe to this framework but reach differing conclusions about profit based on the law marginal utility and time preference. These arguments are valuable, but they miss the point: the framework itself is flawed and needs to be re-evaluated. The definitions of the terms profit, wages, and capitalist themselves serve in restructuring the idea of a proto-capitalist economy.</span><ul><li><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Profit</span> is the surplus in money received from the sale of commodities over the <span style="font-weight: bold;">money costs </span>of producing them</span></li><li><span style="font-size:100%;">A <span style="font-weight: bold;">capitalist</span> buys products in order to sell them at a profit</span></li><li><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Wages</span> are money received in exchange for the performance of labor--not the products of labor, but the labor itself</span></li></ul><span style="font-size:100%;">It follows from these definitions that if there were only workers who made and sold their commodities, the money received from the sale of their commodities is not <span style="font-weight: bold;">wages</span>, but <span style="font-weight: bold;">profit</span>. In buying commodities, one does not pay wages, and in selling them, one does not receive wages. These roles are performed by the <span style="font-weight: bold;">capitalist</span>. Now, in the strictest sense, the workers in this economy are not capitalists because they have incurred no <span style="font-weight: bold;">money costs</span> in the production of their goods. Still, they have acted as capitalists in that they sell their products, not their labor, for money. Thus, all income received is profit, not wages.<br />Reisman* explains again, better than I can:<br /></span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;"></span></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:100%;">Wages are not the primary form of income in production. Profits are. In order for wages to exist in production, it is first necessary that there be capitalists. The emergence of capitalists does not bring into existence the phenomenon of profit. Profit exists prior to their emergence. The emergence of capitalists brings into existence the phenomena of wages and money costs of production.<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:100%;">Accordingly, the profits which exist in a capitalist society are not a deduction from what was originally wages. On the contrary, the wages and the other money costs are a deduction from sales receipts—from what was originally all profit. The effect of capitalism is to create wages and to reduce profits relative to sales receipts. The more economically capitalistic the economy—the more the buying in order to sell relative to the sales receipts, the higher are wages and the lower are profits relative to sales receipts.<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:100%;">Thus, capitalists do not impoverish wage earners, but make it possible for people to be wage earners. For they are responsible not for the phenomenon of profits, but for the phenomenon of wages. They are responsible for the very existence of wages in the production of products for sale. Without capitalists, the only way in which one could survive would be by means of producing and selling one's own products, namely, as a profit earner. But to produce and sell one's own products, one would have to own one's own land, and produce or have inherited one's own tools and materials. Relatively few people could survive in this way. The existence of capitalists makes it possible for people to live by selling their labor rather than attempting to sell the products of their labor. Thus, between wage earners and capitalists there is in fact the closest possible harmony of interests, for capitalists create wages and the ability of people to survive and prosper as wage earners. And if wage earners want a larger relative share for wages and a smaller relative share for profits, they should want a higher economic degree of capitalism—they should want more and bigger capitalists.</span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:100%;"></span></p>*George Reisman's complete article on capital and the exploitation theory originally appeared in <em>The Political Economy of Freedom Essays in Honor of F. A. Hayek, </em>Edited by Kurt R. Leube and Albert H. Zlabinger (München and Wien: Philosophia Verlag, The International Carl Menger Library, 1985).<br />The article can be accessed in pdf form <a href="http://mises.org/etexts/exploitation.pdf">here</a><br /><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;"><em><o:p></o:p></em></span></p> </div></span></div></span></div>BENhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06456265331332728893noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2879494519423294554.post-26480741188876642552010-01-25T22:04:00.011-07:002010-01-25T23:30:23.091-07:00Some Points about Haiti<span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" >This post is probably overdue, but I wanted to make some observations and tackle some issues that have been brought up by the terrible earthquake that destroyed so much of Haiti. Please understand my comments in the context that they are meant to be understood. I am speaking from the stance of one concerned about the role of government and how it has increased in size and scope beyond what is both moral and necessary. I am actually quite optimistic about the capacity of the individual to act charitably toward another in need. I think this capacity is rather obvious and even overwhelming at times such as this.</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: left;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br />1) The role of government is not to respond to natural disasters and provide humanitarian aid. The government is not a humanitarian aid organization. It is an entity of force established to provide equal protection of property rights under the law. All humanitarian and relief efforts are the responsibility of the individual who gives as he or she sees fit and how he or she sees fit. It thus follows that the military is NOT an organization designed to aid other countries after a natural disaster. The military was formed to defend against invasion and insurrection. That is all. Any performance of acts beyond this scope is an exercise of authority that simply has not been given to the government or the military. The Constitution does not authorize it. If we want government to perform these functions, we need to amend the Constitution to give it power to make the military a worldwide humanitarian aid organization. This would likely make our military the most ironic organization in the world, but at least we could say we weren't ignoring the Constitution because we felt like it.<br /><a href="http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/ron-paul-votes-no-on-aid-to-haiti">As one blogger puts it:</a><br /></span><blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;">Extreme cases like this have a certain educational value, in that they separate the libertarian wheat from the chaff. They separate those whose libertarianism is rooted in a philosophical adherence to the non-aggression axiom and those whose libertarianism is only an emotional predisposition toward less government.</span></blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;">Consider the words of Ron Paul, the only one who opposed government aid to Haiti, on this very issue:<br /><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="country-region"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"></o:smarttagtype></span><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id="ieooui"></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;">Statement of Congressman Ron Paul</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;"><st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region> House of Representatives</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;">Statement in Opposition to H Res 1021, Condolences to <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Haiti</st1:place></st1:country-region> January 21, 2010<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;">I rise in reluctant opposition to this resolution. Certainly I am moved by the horrific destruction in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Haiti</st1:place></st1:country-region> and would without hesitation express condolences to those who have suffered and continue to suffer. As a medical doctor, I have through my career worked to alleviate the pain and suffering of others. Unfortunately, however, this resolution does not simply express our condolences, but rather it commits the <st1:country-region st="on">US</st1:country-region> government “to begin the reconstruction of <st1:country-region st="on">Haiti</st1:country-region>” and affirms that “the recovery and long-term needs of <st1:country-region st="on">Haiti</st1:country-region> will require a sustained commitment by the <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>….” I do not believe that a resolution expressing our deep regret and sorrow over this tragedy should be used to commit the <st1:country-region st="on">United States</st1:country-region> to a “long-term” occupation of <st1:country-region st="on">Haiti</st1:country-region> during which time the <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> government will provide for the reconstruction of that country.<br />I am concerned over the possibility of an open-ended <st1:country-region st="on">US</st1:country-region> military occupation of <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Haiti</st1:place></st1:country-region> and this legislation does nothing to alleviate my concerns. On the contrary, when this resolution refers to the need for a long term US plan for <st1:country-region st="on">Haiti</st1:country-region>, I see a return to the failed attempts by the Clinton and Bush Administrations to establish <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Haiti</st1:place></st1:country-region> as an American protectorate. Already we are seeing many argue that this kind of humanitarian mission is a perfect fit for the <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region><br />Certainly I would support and encourage the efforts of the American people to help the people of <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Haiti</st1:place></st1:country-region> at this tragic time. I believe that the American people are very generous on their own and fear that a <st1:country-region st="on">US</st1:country-region> government commitment to reconstruct <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Haiti</st1:place></st1:country-region> may actually discourage private contributions. Mr. Speaker, already we see private US citizens and corporations raising millions of dollars for relief and reconstruction of <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Haiti</st1:place></st1:country-region>. I do not believe the <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> government should get in the way of these laudable efforts. I do express my condolences but I unfortunately must urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution committing the <st1:country-region st="on">United States</st1:country-region> government to rebuild <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Haiti</st1:place></st1:country-region>. military. I do not agree.</span></p></blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;"> 2) Haiti does not benefit economically from the natural disaster (though there may be arguments for it benefiting in other ways). This idea is commonly voiced after natural disasters of all kinds. The fallacy is known as the broken window fallacy and takes the following form in this case: </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" >Haiti will have to rebuild and that process will create jobs for Haitians and improve their economy.</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br />I understand why one would come to this faulty conclusion, but it is wrong for the same reason that government cannot create real jobs. If it were true that destruction actually helped the economy, why are we not excited about hurricane or tornado season? Why don't we just blow up our own houses and then rebuild them? That would keep us all working and our economy would boom! Right?! The ridiculousness of this idea is clear. The resources that are used to rebuild could have been used otherwise to improve the economy without having to reconstruct buildings. Again, this is the same reason that the Cash For Clunkers program was one of the most ridiculous and economically wasteful programs ever.<br /><br />3) Haiti is not poor because we don't send it enough money. In fact, a strong argument could be made that Haiti remains poor BECAUSE we send them money. The corrupt government uses that money to maintain power. Haiti is poor primarily for political purposes. Political oppression more often than not manifests itself as economic oppression. The political history of Haiti shows it to be an unstable country, which has discouraged investment, making it difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to raise capital and grow the economy. Some may argue that Haiti was first poor and that the poverty lead to political corruption and a vicious cycle. They may insist that the cycle of poverty must first be broken through foreign aid and then the political side will follow. Not only does this fly in the face of reason, but it ignores historical experience. If this were the case, no country would ever become prosperous. All countries were poorer than they are now, relatively speaking, and even the richest of countries was at some point poorer than the poorest country today. It is freedom that brings prosperity. Economic freedom and political freedom go hand in hand. You cannot truly have one without the other.<br /><br />Now, all this aside, I believe it is the moral obligation of every person to seek ways to serve others and do it. I encourage those who can to give any way they can to help those who are suffering in Haiti.</span></div>BENhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06456265331332728893noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2879494519423294554.post-6375650656872008662009-12-16T22:32:00.003-07:002009-12-16T23:45:47.883-07:00Gitmo, Jobs, and Habeas CorpusI realize I haven't posted in a while. Facebook makes it too easy to soapbox.<br />I try to choose topics that can lead to meaningful discussion. Usually this means that the topics are somewhat controversial, even among some who read my posts. I find this much more interesting than writing on topics that will spark very little disagreement, but I hope those will come up as well. I find that even if I agree with someone on an issue, it is still beneficial to discuss it.<br />I came across an article about the moving of Gitmo detainees to Illinois and it brought up a couple of issues that are otherwise pretty unrelated. Here's the article: <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34424834/ns/us_news-security/">Ill. town welcomes plan to house detainees</a><br /><br />I wanted to first address the issue of job creation. This probably deserves its own post, which may come later, but it came up in the article so I wanted to explain why I feel it is so off-base. It seems that many are preoccupied with the existence of jobs, as if jobs were the whole point of an economy. The goal of politicians seems to be to create jobs. They seem to think that creating jobs will make the economy better. The problem is, they have the whole thing backwards. Jobs don't make the economy better, they are merely one way of measuring the health of an economy. High unemployment is a <span style="font-style: italic;">symptom</span> of a sick economy, <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> the disease itself. Treating the symptoms of the disease is not a likely cure.<br />The reason we have an economy is because food and things don't appear at the snap of our fingers in as great abundance as we could ever want. In short, there is scarcity of resources. Economics is the study of how these resources are allocated and the theories of economics postulate how they can <span style="font-style: italic;">best</span> be allocated. Jobs exist as part of the economy, but it is not jobs per se that we need. We need food and stuff. Jobs are simply an aspect of how those things are provided.<br />So, to assume that we can merely create jobs, and that by so doing, stuff will come into existence is foolish. All the talk about creating jobs will do nothing to actually improve economic conditions unless the stuff exists to allocate. Now, it is true that stuff is produced by people who have jobs, but these jobs need to be productive jobs, not boondoggle jobs as some call them. For instance, it will do no good for a trucking company to hire more drivers if there is nothing for them to transport. Sure, jobs are created, but there is no actual productive work to do. Most government-created jobs consist of digging a hole and filling it again. One can easily see the folly in this,<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html?_r=4&scp=1&sq=%22the%20jobs%20imperative%22&st=Search"> but many advocate this exact type of thing for improving the economy</a><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html?_r=4&scp=1&sq=%22the%20jobs%20imperative%22&st=Search">.</a> (This is an Op Ed piece by Paul Krugman--quintessential idiot) Improvement in the economy comes when there are more things to allocate, not when there are simply more jobs to allocate the same amount of stuff. Vedder and Gallaway wrote about this at length in their book <span style="font-style: italic;">Out of Work.</span><br />The idea that government can create actual jobs is perpetuated in the AP article:<br /><blockquote>Federal and state officials estimate the federal takeover will create as many as 3,000 jobs in the area within several years, including an estimated 800 to 900 at the prison and at local businesses that would sprout up as a result.</blockquote>Why are these not real jobs? Well, these jobs don't create any wealth. These jobs are unproductive in the sense that we gain nothing by their existence. Now, whether or not they are necessary is another question, which I address below, but the fact remains that we would be better off if these jobs didn't have to exist. The resources that government is redirecting from elsewhere to pay for this prison and employees could be used for productive means. This is the problem with so-called government-created jobs: they take real resources from the productive economy and reallocate them toward something less efficient and often completely unproductive.<br />Now I come to the second issue raised by this article. The saddest part about the whole thing is that quite frankly, this prison is completely unnecessary and unconstitutional. Holding prisoners or "detainees" without a writ of habeas corpus is strictly against Article 1 of the Constitution:<br /><blockquote>The privilege of the Writ of <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#HABCOR">Habeas Corpus</a> shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.</blockquote>This statement is particularly interesting because Habeas Corpus was thought to be so important that it was actually included in the body of the Constitution and not only implied in the Bill of Rights. The only exceptions that the Constitution allows for the suspension of Habeas Corpus are for rebellion or invasion. Prisoners of war captured in a country on the other side of the world (Afghanistan or Iraq) obviously do not fit this description. Personally, I don't see any reason to suspend Habeas Corpus even in these cases. Basically, a writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate requiring that a prisoner be brought before the court to determine whether the government has the right to continue detaining them. The individual being held or their representative can petition the court for such a writ. There are few if any cases where these criteria cannot be satisfied. There is certainly no reason to deny this to the detainees in Guantanamo. It's not as if we don't have any judges available to take their cases. Rather, this is another disturbing case of government disregard for the rights of the individual, which are explicitly protected by the Constitution.<br />Some argue that since these people are not citizens of the United States that these rights do not apply to them. I think this argument is disturbing and just plain wrong. A person does not have rights because he or she is a citizen of any given country. Our own Declaration of Independence is built on his fact:<br /><blockquote>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.</blockquote>We cannot justly go around the world promoting "democracy" and "freedom," denying it at home all the while.<br />When, if ever, do you think an executive could justly suspend a writ of habeas corpus? Has there ever been such a time in US history--when habeas corpus was or could have been justly suspended?<br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span>BENhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06456265331332728893noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2879494519423294554.post-174407322696261452009-10-18T22:07:00.003-06:002009-10-18T22:44:34.484-06:00Soda: the New Cocaine<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124208505896608647.html">A newly proposed tax</a> would pay for health care, and it as a lot of people upset, but I am not sure how they are justifying their objections. I guess this is another case where <a href="http://lawsofliberty.blogspot.com/2009/06/principles.html">principle</a> has little or no influence on the strongly-held opinions of some.<br />Apparently, since soda and other sugary drinks are bad for us, we should tax them in order to discourage consumption and improve the overall health of our country. But the real motive is obvious and even blatant:<br /><blockquote>The beverage tax is just one of hundreds of ideas that lawmakers are weighing to finance the health-care plans. They're expected to narrow the list in coming weeks.</blockquote>That is, it's all about money--money and control. Here lies the slippery-slope of government intervention into things like drug prohibition and health care. There no longer exists any consistent precedent for NOT passing such laws. Most have already accepted the notion that government can regulate what substances we can and can't take into our bodies (FDA, drug laws etc.), and with the push for a universal healthcare plan, many are also accepting the premise that government is responsible for our health. One cannot remain consistently opposed to a soda tax and, at the same time, defend anti-drug laws and the like. However, since it is unlikely such laws will be repealed, we can expect many opponents of a soda tax will eventually fall in-line with the program of government regulation of our lives. Thus, we can certainly expect more and more regulation on things we consume simply based on how healthy they are:<br /><blockquote>Health advocates are floating other so-called sin tax proposals and food regulations as part of the government's health-care overhaul. Mr. Jacobson also plans to propose Tuesday that the government sharply raise taxes on alcohol, move to largely eliminate artificial trans fat from food and move to reduce the sodium content in packaged and restaurant food.</blockquote>I can only imagine one day someone getting arrested for hiding fried chicken down their pants. Don't get me wrong, I don't drink much soda, I don't drink any alcohol, and I can't remember the last time I ate fried chicken. BUT, outlawing fried chicken is just a hop away from bacon. That creates a problem for me.<br />What foods do you like that might be illegal or taxed? Would you still buy them on the black market?BENhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06456265331332728893noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2879494519423294554.post-75357468961956417022009-09-30T23:05:00.003-06:002009-09-30T23:19:02.095-06:00Nuclear Weapons and IranThere has been a lot of talk in the news about Iran testing missiles and its possible nuclear capabilities. First of all, I certainly don't have any particular desire for Iran to have nuclear weapons. On that note, I don't have any particular desire for <span style="font-style: italic;">anyone</span> to have nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are, by definition, a weapon of aggression, not defense. They are designed to kill mass amounts of people indiscriminately. Thus, they don't have any place in a purely defensive armament.<br />That being said, it is very hypocritical of the US to try to deny these weapons to any other nation when the US itself is the only country who has ever dared to use them. Someone who respects the principle behind the second amendment would ultimately have to concede that we cannot both allow the individual to bear arms and deny a whole country that same right.<br />As far as practicality, Iran has little reason to use a nuclear weapon, especially against its supposed enemy Israel. For starters, Israel would wipe Iran off the map before Iran's missile even reached Israeli borders. Secondly, any nuclear fallout would certainly reach Iran, which is a short distance downwind from Israel.<br />Glenn Greenwald takes on several people on exactly this point and adds some other great points while he is at it. I think his arguments are difficult to refute. What are your thoughts?<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NEuxel6Fv-0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NEuxel6Fv-0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="344" width="425"></embed></object>BENhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06456265331332728893noreply@blogger.com21tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2879494519423294554.post-53208060453923813932009-08-11T21:24:00.003-06:002009-08-11T21:34:49.667-06:00Obama just defeated his own argument<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5XTi-WdOu2s&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5XTi-WdOu2s&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Obama:<br />"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine....It's the Post Office that's always having problems."<br /><br />Can I get a 'duh'?! How many BILLIONS of dollars has the <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/05/national/main5216012.shtml">Post Office lost</a> to prove that government can't even deliver the mail at a profit. How can we expect government to deliver affordable healthcare?<br />By the way, the Post Office has a monopoly on letter delivery, so the fact is that UPS and FedEx can't even compete on that level. Government health insurance will bankrupt private insurance because it can run at a loss, just like the Post Office, and stay operational. This is pure and simple economic waste.BENhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06456265331332728893noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2879494519423294554.post-90406162524586387062009-07-29T20:38:00.002-06:002009-07-29T20:38:52.412-06:00Education and Freedom<div>Ben has been asking me for a while to write a post on education. I have been hesitant, mostly because I am not confident in my writing skills or in my ability to convey my thoughts, but since it has been a while since Ben has written a post I feel my attempt is better than nothing. As most of you know Ben has many "soapboxes" which he loves to write about. He enjoys the challenge of refining his thoughts and arguments against all of you. There is one thing that he has yet to write about, even though he has strong opinions on the matter--that is educating children. He has left this task to me for many reasons. I will give a little background for those of you who do not know us. Ben and I have been married for over 3 years. I teach fourth grade at a public elementary school close to our house. My mom and sister are both public school teachers. I am actually a 4th generation teacher. It is in my blood and something that I love, but times have been changing.<br />There was a comment on a previous post about how I work for the public school system and that it is not in-line with the principles that we profess. There is definitely a contradiction there that I would love to address outside of this forum, but I would like to take the time in this post to discuss what I believe to be the role of education and some of the problems that I have seen today.<br />Since marrying Ben I have had to rethink the purpose of education and the people who are responsible for it. I have come to realize that the most important factor in a child's education is the parents. This is contrary to what my professors in college taught and to what the policies of my school district have tried to drill into my head. The argument that I have heard against this thinking is that if we (teachers) are not the most important factor in education then we will not be able to succeed. I argue against this idea. The parents are the ones responsible for their children's education. They are the ones who hire me because they feel I can meet their child's needs. At least I feel this is the best way to focus on a child's education. </div> <div>The family's role in education is recognized, studied and counterfeited. I was recently reading the want ads for teachers. There was a posting from a school in the east for a teacher/house parent. This combination intrigued me, so I looked into it further. This school was a type of boarding school--pre-K-12 grades. It was for low income students who would not be able to afford a normal private school. It had nice accommodations, great testimonials, and lots of resources. I was still puzzled about this house-parent thing, so I continued to research. I then found something that scared me. Instead of the normal dorms that you would find at a boarding school, there were houses. 10-13 children would live in a house with a teacher and the teacher's spouse. They would be in family units and taught family values, such as responsibility, kindness, and hard work. The parents could have contact with their children by phone, e-mail, and occasional visits. The family was replaced. Where would morals be taught? Who would guide in spiritual decisions? What about the emotional stability that comes from a loving parent?<br />This school did what a lot of educators and parents have been asking for: it took the most important variable out of the equation and replaced it with something that can be controlled. If it is true that education would be best if the teachers, the ones who are trained, were completely in-charge, then we should expect to see these types of schools having succes. I predict the opposite. I predict these schools will fail fundamentally, because they are not based on true principles.<br /></div> <div>One of these principles is responsibility. Responsibility is inherent in freedom. When you make a choice, you are accepting the consequences of that choice. If the choice is good, you are free to receive the benefits of your choice. If the choice is bad, you must also accept its consequences. A person cannot be free if he or she is unwilling to accept or prevented from receiving the consequences of a choice.<br /></div> <div class="MsoNormal">I see this in education. Many parents expect me to “fix” their children. They send their children to me, “a trained agent of the state” to be the specialist. If a child can’t memorize her math facts or can’t read fluently, it is my fault and my responsibility to fix it. At least, that is the mentality of many parents and educators in the public school system. This mentality is facilitated by the public school system as parents are given incentives to NOT be personally involved in their children's education. Parents do not know what their children are learning, how their children learn, the social interactions of their children from day to day, or the morals that are being taught their children by the state. They are instead encouraged to raise money for the PTA, cut out pictures, and make sure their child reads for 20 minutes everyday. These are the duties of an "involved" parent who, according to some, are truly watching out for the best interest of their children. We can thank the benevolent state for providing such important guidelines, or else parents wouldn't know how to raise their children. (that last sentence was Ben's thought)<br /></div> <div class="MsoNormal">I saw something else that appalled me this summer that will further illustrate my point. Our school provided free breakfast and lunch to any child under 18 that walked through the door. I saw many mothers drive to the school and walk in with their children to watch them eat the government-provided food. The parents gave up the responsibility to feed their children to the government. Whose children does that make those kids? </div>Ashleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12717776349113065780noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2879494519423294554.post-50167676065465658472009-07-02T18:55:00.002-06:002009-07-02T18:56:12.130-06:00No Limit to Government: Why Liberals AND Conservatives get it wrong<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1pk8IxqYF0E&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1pk8IxqYF0E&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>BENhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06456265331332728893noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2879494519423294554.post-78764902738616600762009-06-22T21:58:00.000-06:002009-06-22T21:59:18.711-06:00Cash for Gold...If only it were still possible<object width="480" height="430"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/common/assets/onn_embed/embedded_player.swf?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theonion.com%2Fcontent%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2FCASH4GOLD_article.jpg&videoid=95829&title=US%20To%20Trade%20Gold%20Reserves%20For%20Cash%20Through%20Cash4Gold.com" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed src="http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/common/assets/onn_embed/embedded_player.swf"type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" width="480" height="430"flashvars="image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theonion.com%2Fcontent%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2FCASH4GOLD_article.jpg&videoid=95829&title=US%20To%20Trade%20Gold%20Reserves%20For%20Cash%20Through%20Cash4Gold.com"></embed></object><br /><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/us_to_trade_gold_reserves_for?utm_source=videoembed">US To Trade Gold Reserves For Cash Through Cash4Gold.com</a>BENhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06456265331332728893noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2879494519423294554.post-28994672759864691182009-06-19T18:24:00.003-06:002009-06-19T18:29:40.922-06:00This Man is a HeroI first heard of this some months ago, but just now CNN has decided to make it news. We need more people to stand up to intimidation by the government. The full recording of the incident is available <a href="http://www.dailynewscaster.com/2009/04/02/audio-full-version-steve-bierfeldt-detained-and-questioned-by-st-louis-tsa/">here.</a><br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UcSSwW4K4AU&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UcSSwW4K4AU&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>BENhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06456265331332728893noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2879494519423294554.post-15033367830251918202009-06-07T18:00:00.002-06:002009-06-07T19:26:35.608-06:00PrinciplesOver time, after many conversations regarding the role of government and the importance of freedom, I have come to realize that I often operate on a different premise than those I discuss these matters with. This realization has been difficult to deal with because I have come to recognize that my outlook on life is considered irrelevant by some. I will attempt to explain what I mean.<br />My life philosophy is based on the idea that there are certain principles, which, if applied correctly, are universal and uncompromising in every situation. Thus, I have tried to discover those principles and apply them so that my actions have a consistency which is based on unchanging principles. Whenever I realize that my behavior does not conform to one of these principles that I have previously determined to be correct, I have to re-evaluate my actions and/or the principle to understand if I need to change my behavior or my understanding of the principle.<br />By this, I have come to certain conclusions about liberty. According to my understanding, liberty is a principle that is universal and correct. It is a virtue in and of itself that is to be protected at all costs, even if it allows for uncertainty. In my attempt to understand the principles that are related to liberty, I have started these discussions of the laws of liberty so that I can evaluate my own behavior and understanding of the principles.<br />However, as I wrote before, I have recently been realizing that many people do not base their understanding or beliefs on such a premise. Many do not accept the notion that there are universal principles that can govern behavior. So far, I have been limiting my discussions to the role of government since I see the government as the most prominent idea whereby human beings seek to legitimize coercion. The idea of coercion directly opposes the principle of liberty. Thus, the principle of government which relates to liberty must be that government (force) can only be used to protect the principle of liberty. Anytime government becomes destructive to the principle of liberty, instead of upholding it, government has overstepped its bounds.<br />This principle is foreign to many, so much so that even when presented, it has no effect to change their ideas because they do not base their ideas or philosophies on principles at all. Their ideas and philosophies are based on sound-bytes and emotionalism. They are based on short-sighted political whims and false traditions. Some are based on ignorance and hypocrisy.<br />At times, even the most basic principles are rejected by some because they are not "practical". I ask: if a principle is not practical, is it even a principle? If we cannot follow principles because they are not practical, we have no principles at all. It seems that for some, their only principle is practicality. Thus, they are subject to the sound-bytes, emotionalism, political whims, false traditions, ignorance, and hypocrisy that plagues our society and has literally destroyed faith in the supremacy of principles at all.<br />My call is for a return to principles and a realization, as a good friend puts it, that principles ARE practical, and if we defer to practicality instead of principles, we will find we lose our principles all together.BENhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06456265331332728893noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2879494519423294554.post-59405995257789311642009-05-16T00:21:00.002-06:002009-05-16T00:24:30.712-06:00Got it...finally<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiproBBi8kx-HKODKUvmXJ_egjru6ZX_AbSzcYX0bs1OOqM04_g857yD3EI0wqWTUGYkR_6kit2TiGvx-k32so_QUWZE0ptTW3g_Q7Dyoj0YjtxCudzgHyR-4_N2i74JrkPJhjOCsDy1inR/s1600-h/prostate.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 343px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiproBBi8kx-HKODKUvmXJ_egjru6ZX_AbSzcYX0bs1OOqM04_g857yD3EI0wqWTUGYkR_6kit2TiGvx-k32so_QUWZE0ptTW3g_Q7Dyoj0YjtxCudzgHyR-4_N2i74JrkPJhjOCsDy1inR/s400/prostate.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5336303832165571778" /></a><br />Here is the picture of the Prostate Cancer billboard....in case any of you are interested. This is related to <a href="http://lawsofliberty.blogspot.com/2009/03/pro-state-cancer.html">my post from a while back.</a>BENhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06456265331332728893noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2879494519423294554.post-34606203246198038422009-05-07T15:07:00.003-06:002009-05-07T15:09:09.563-06:00Proof We Need an Audit of the FedThis shocks me, as it does the Congressman. Call your Rep. and tell him or her to support HR 1207 to audit the Federal Reserve.<br /><br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PXlxBeAvsB8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PXlxBeAvsB8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>BENhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06456265331332728893noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2879494519423294554.post-54636071103174990302009-04-29T08:35:00.002-06:002009-04-29T08:38:02.783-06:00Classified...This is what we should really be afraid of. Forget terrorism.<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PWlw3vo_ALA&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PWlw3vo_ALA&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />**I thought this was real until the end.BENhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06456265331332728893noreply@blogger.com2