This holiday weekend promised to bring about something I have not had in a long time... a date. I planned out every small detail and put together the itinerary, made reservations, etc. But it was not to be. Alas, my local government, in the interest of serving me and the People, has taken that date away.
I'd been diligently socking away my money in expectation of the Valentine's holiday. I'd also been scrambling to earn some extra spending money for this as well. In this regard- the quick scramble for cash- it appears me and The City of Denver are one in the same. We just have different ideas of how to spend that cash.
The City of Denver, as well as the State of Colorado, and most cities, are hurting for cash. To remedy this, Denver is stepping up its ticketing efforts in order to fill in the budget gaps. This becomes painfully clear when you receive 3 tickets in 4 days, all within the same two blocks in a downtown Denver neighborhood.
It began Monday morning with a parking ticket for remaining in a loading zone for 5 minutes too long ($25). Then, on Tuesday morning, came the missing front license plate ($75). Thursday morning: a repeat of the missing front license plate ticket ($75).
You see, I was recently granted temporary stewardship of my sister's car while she is out of the country. She handed me the keys to a vehicle with a missing front plate. Since Thursday is my only day off from the 2-3 jobs I work, I had to wait till Thursday to go to the DMV to get new plates. Thereafter, I took the tickets down to Denver Parking Magistrate with my new plates and asked if they could work a deal. The City could not, citing that the tickets were indeed 'valid.' So, it looks like I'll be spending all my savings for Valentine's on the parking tickets instead. Too bad the city can't give me a smooch good night.
1 loading zone ticket: $25
2 front license plate: $150
TOTAL: $175
ADDITIONAL COSTS IMPOSED: A Valentine's spent alone :-(
But the lost date opportunity is not the only thing that these parking tickets took away. They also took away business, and in turn, tax revenues. Here was the planned breakdown of my Valentine's date expenses:
$20 haircut, at a local Denver barber shop (not a chain store)
$25 for a dozen roses
$30 for food at a local Denver restaurant (again, not a chain)
$20 for drinks
$30 for the Denver Aquarium exhibit
$7 for parking at the Aquarium
$10 for chocolates
$5 for a card and chocolates for my mother
Total: $147
So a few local businesses will be without my anticipated business this weekend. Now, the lack of my business may not break the companies, but in a slowed economy, they need all the customers they can get. In addition to providing money to businesses who in turn use it for employment, my money spent generates sales tax for the city and helps businesses pay their payroll, property, and other business taxes to the state. At least my money would help to do that, had I the money to spend.
But since my parking tickets amount to $175, not only am I out of money for a date, but it looks like I'll also have to cut out of my lunch money fund for next week just to pay these off.
Sometimes Cupid's arrow really does draw blood.
Showing posts with label PPC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PPC. Show all posts
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Has Global Warming gone to the dogs?
Reported on AM 760 radio this morning, courtesy of host David Sirota, was this tail:
A new study suggests that a medium size dog has a greater carbon paw print than that of a 4x4 SUV vehicle on an annual basis. About two times greater in fact.
Does this mean that our owns pets are our greatest threat, or does this give credibility to those who find 'global warming' concerns to be a bit fishy.
Throw me a bone here.
A new study suggests that a medium size dog has a greater carbon paw print than that of a 4x4 SUV vehicle on an annual basis. About two times greater in fact.
Does this mean that our owns pets are our greatest threat, or does this give credibility to those who find 'global warming' concerns to be a bit fishy.
Throw me a bone here.
Monday, August 17, 2009
So this is what "Astro-Turf" looks like...
The left and the right have been engaged lately in a battle of policies and ideas and...name-calling? Each side has been eager to prove that the other is engaged in "Astro-Turfing," a clever name used to imply fake grassroots.
The Left accuses the anti-public option crowd of being bought and paid for by Big Pharma, while the Tea Party crowds are obviously contrived by Big Oil (according to the Left). Meanwhile, the Right has pointed to the organizational structure, efforts, and approach of political groups such as Progress Now, MoveOn.org, and Acorn. The evidence submitted is the nice, printed signs held by pro-public option supporters, the emails sent out by these and similar organizations, as well as buses bearing those proud political organizations names and supporters to Obama's town hall meeting.
So who is right and who is wrong when it comes to labeling the other side as 'astro-turf?' Or is this really just a case of "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence?"
Well, the Constitutional Reporter looked into this and dug up some good seeds. Sow these and tell us what you think:
The Right
Yes, the Right is talking about ObamaCare. So are the Libertarians and Independents. And they're legitimately afraid. This has made them active. The politically active Republicans are encouraging people to oppose ObamaCare. You can see their activity in the blogosphere. But there is no money trail. Nowhere have we been able to find any money being paid out here. And what's even more interesting, the vast majority of people who attend the protests have been, to our surprise, not connected to any GOP leaders. Having attended several Lincoln Day dinners, GOP breakfast clubs, etc., this year, our staff was surprised to see so many new faces at the protests who probably didn't even know that there are local breakfast clubs held weekly to talk about how bad ObamaCare and Democrat proposals are going to be!!
The Left
Here's where it gets interesting... The Constitutional Reporter sat in at an important activism meeting held by some Democrat organizers. They were looking to hire some field reps to go out and spread the word about Cap and Trade. Here is their game plan:
Environmental Defense Fund has hired a national political consulting firm called Field Works. They want to lobby the 'blue dog' Democratic US Senators to convince them to vote 'yes' on Cap and Trade.
Field Works is hiring 12 people at $90/day. Each person will then go out and for 40 hours a week, their job is to talk to people about supporting Cap and Trade to protect the environment. Each of these 12 people will be responsible for finding 12 other people, per day, to make a phone call directly to Senator Michael Bennet's office to urge him to support Cap and Trade. Additionally, each of those 12 field reps will be working to get 28 people, every day, to fill out a post card to be sent to Senator Bennet. (Field Works is providing the cell phones and post cards as well as postage)
This process will be continued, week in and week out, until October 2nd, and will also be conducted in six other states.
Now, if this isn't "Astro-Turf" then what is it- fertilizer?
Folks on the Right better be prepared for the well-oiled machine of the Left. This piece just gives a small taste of what happens when this well-funded machine is put to work. If there was ever a time to call Senator Bennet and tell him to oppose Cap and Trade, then you better do it before October 2nd. Ask Senator Bennet to grow some productive, free market solutions, instead of growing our taxes.
The Left accuses the anti-public option crowd of being bought and paid for by Big Pharma, while the Tea Party crowds are obviously contrived by Big Oil (according to the Left). Meanwhile, the Right has pointed to the organizational structure, efforts, and approach of political groups such as Progress Now, MoveOn.org, and Acorn. The evidence submitted is the nice, printed signs held by pro-public option supporters, the emails sent out by these and similar organizations, as well as buses bearing those proud political organizations names and supporters to Obama's town hall meeting.
So who is right and who is wrong when it comes to labeling the other side as 'astro-turf?' Or is this really just a case of "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence?"
Well, the Constitutional Reporter looked into this and dug up some good seeds. Sow these and tell us what you think:
The Right
Yes, the Right is talking about ObamaCare. So are the Libertarians and Independents. And they're legitimately afraid. This has made them active. The politically active Republicans are encouraging people to oppose ObamaCare. You can see their activity in the blogosphere. But there is no money trail. Nowhere have we been able to find any money being paid out here. And what's even more interesting, the vast majority of people who attend the protests have been, to our surprise, not connected to any GOP leaders. Having attended several Lincoln Day dinners, GOP breakfast clubs, etc., this year, our staff was surprised to see so many new faces at the protests who probably didn't even know that there are local breakfast clubs held weekly to talk about how bad ObamaCare and Democrat proposals are going to be!!
The Left
Here's where it gets interesting... The Constitutional Reporter sat in at an important activism meeting held by some Democrat organizers. They were looking to hire some field reps to go out and spread the word about Cap and Trade. Here is their game plan:
Environmental Defense Fund has hired a national political consulting firm called Field Works. They want to lobby the 'blue dog' Democratic US Senators to convince them to vote 'yes' on Cap and Trade.
Field Works is hiring 12 people at $90/day. Each person will then go out and for 40 hours a week, their job is to talk to people about supporting Cap and Trade to protect the environment. Each of these 12 people will be responsible for finding 12 other people, per day, to make a phone call directly to Senator Michael Bennet's office to urge him to support Cap and Trade. Additionally, each of those 12 field reps will be working to get 28 people, every day, to fill out a post card to be sent to Senator Bennet. (Field Works is providing the cell phones and post cards as well as postage)
This process will be continued, week in and week out, until October 2nd, and will also be conducted in six other states.
Now, if this isn't "Astro-Turf" then what is it- fertilizer?
Folks on the Right better be prepared for the well-oiled machine of the Left. This piece just gives a small taste of what happens when this well-funded machine is put to work. If there was ever a time to call Senator Bennet and tell him to oppose Cap and Trade, then you better do it before October 2nd. Ask Senator Bennet to grow some productive, free market solutions, instead of growing our taxes.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Economic Lessons of SouthPark
by Sean Doherty, publisher
www.TheConstitutionalReporter.com
I hope President Obama wasn't watching SouthPark the other night, because if he had seen this episode, he may have picked up on some rather poorly drawn economic lessons.
The episode to which I'm referring involves an extraterrestrial visit to the small town of SouthPark, Colorado. One of the main characters, Stan, and his father, are charged with being the human liaisons between the spacemen and earth. The aliens “leave behind” an entire ship-full of 'space dollars' and the people of earth split this money up between several countries. Mexico immediately spends the space dollar money and builds something like thirty-two new hospitals and a few recreational water parks.
The economic lesson drawn here is that by simply expanding the supply of money, or by adding in a new supply of a different fiat currency -space dollars- the wealth of nations would effectively increase as well. As interesting as this premise is, and as funny as the SouthPark is, the premise is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Economist Murray Rothbard dealt with a similar example of the expansion of money supply, though he called his model the 'Angel Gabriel' model. Having listened to Rothbard lectures before, I was intrigued to see the 'Angel Gabriel' example illustrated through Southpark.
To sum up the economic errors of this episode, simply having more money does not increase the standards of living and wealth of a country. Nor does the addition of new money create more prosperity for the world. If that were the case, then the central banks around the world need only kick their printing presses into overdrive and everyone would live comfortably. But simply adding additional paper dollars into an economy does not account for limited resources. Because resources are limited, additional money means that the various available resources, materials, finished goods, and yes, even labor, are bid up to account for the extra money. Inflation. Price levels rise. Inflation happens as a result of more, new money injected in an economy to chase after the same amount of goods. If the money supply was doubled, then everyone would not be twice as rich and able to buy twice as much; instead, prices would double along with the money supply.
But the great economist Murray Rothbard went one step further and pointed out what many mainstream economists fail to recongize: the doubling of the money supply, even if it were to happen overnight, would not affect everyone equally with a corresponding doubling of prices. If it did, then there would be no point to it- everything would remain in equal proportion though at a higher price to match the larger money supply. What Rothbard clearly emphasized was that even if the money supply were to double overnight in equal portions to all participants, the smartest chaps would rush out right away and spend the money before prices adjusted.
Meanwhile, some of the more prudent folk would save the extra money thinking it better to hold on to. When they finally became ready to purchase, prices would have already roughly doubled, meaning that the early spenders were made wealthier while other spenders realized too late that prices adjusted and their new money could only keep up with inflation. The late spenders find themselves in the exact position that they were before, and it was only the 'early adopters' who seized the opportunity to gain from an increase in the money supply. And those in the middle, those who saved ½ of their new money and spent the other ½, would find prices adjusting upward and each dollar being able to buy less and less.
In the SouthPark example, Mexico is the early adopter and early spender. Since Mexico went on an immediate spending spree to build hospitals and some fancy water theme parks, their country would, on the surface, be made wealthier from taking advantage of the extra cash. And yet for most of the people in Mexico, they will be no better off or stand to be substantially worse off. But their many construction projects would quickly bid up the price limited resources like steel, concrete, chlorine, labor, timber, etc.
As a result, the remaining countries would face higher prices in those areas and would realize less benefit from their new moneys. And if each country began to spend that money at different times, then the countries to go last would notice that prices had jumped to nearly match money supply, meaning that any new wealth they had hoped to realize from the extra paper space dollars had evaporated. Those countries would be left with the same purchasing power as they had before, and Mexico would laugh all the way to the bank.
But wait- don't be fooled. Mexico does not, by any substantial means, come out ahead of the other countries. While their quick spending and project construction did allow Mexico to bid away limited resources before anyone else could, the people of Mexico will still be no better for it. The money spent will go to directly benefit the friends of the Mexican government, undoubtedly those in the health care industry, and to those employed by the new projects. But the nice things that the new 'space dollars' can buy will not be felt by everyone in Mexico—just those involved and working in the 32 new hospitals and few water parks. For everyone else, they will be left with the bill in a very real sense. Prices will adjust upwards and the people of Mexico will be faced with those higher prices, but they will only be armed with their incomes from the pre-'space dollar' price levels.
This means that the money people earn for their work will now buy less and less as a result of the increase in prices to match and keep up with an increase in the money supply! As necessary and as important as hospitals are, what good are they if your paycheck that fed four mouths every day can now only feed two?!?
At the end of the episode, the aliens depart from the SouthPark residents with some “progressive” words of wisdom, saying that “the space dollars only had as much value as you gave to them.”
But I find the words of Murray Rothbard to provide more clarity in this situation:
“It is clear that while everyone would be euphoric from their seeming doubling of monetary wealth, society would in no way be better off: for there would be no increase in capital or productivity or supply of goods.”
Simply having more paper dollars does not, in any way, change the economic reality of limited resources, nor will those additional paper dollars change the productivity of any economy. At the end of the day, those dollars are, well, just pieces of paper.
The real lesson to be drawn from this SouthPark lesson should have been that we cannot print or borrow our way out of a recession.
www.TheConstitutionalReporter.com
I hope President Obama wasn't watching SouthPark the other night, because if he had seen this episode, he may have picked up on some rather poorly drawn economic lessons.
The episode to which I'm referring involves an extraterrestrial visit to the small town of SouthPark, Colorado. One of the main characters, Stan, and his father, are charged with being the human liaisons between the spacemen and earth. The aliens “leave behind” an entire ship-full of 'space dollars' and the people of earth split this money up between several countries. Mexico immediately spends the space dollar money and builds something like thirty-two new hospitals and a few recreational water parks.
The economic lesson drawn here is that by simply expanding the supply of money, or by adding in a new supply of a different fiat currency -space dollars- the wealth of nations would effectively increase as well. As interesting as this premise is, and as funny as the SouthPark is, the premise is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Economist Murray Rothbard dealt with a similar example of the expansion of money supply, though he called his model the 'Angel Gabriel' model. Having listened to Rothbard lectures before, I was intrigued to see the 'Angel Gabriel' example illustrated through Southpark.
To sum up the economic errors of this episode, simply having more money does not increase the standards of living and wealth of a country. Nor does the addition of new money create more prosperity for the world. If that were the case, then the central banks around the world need only kick their printing presses into overdrive and everyone would live comfortably. But simply adding additional paper dollars into an economy does not account for limited resources. Because resources are limited, additional money means that the various available resources, materials, finished goods, and yes, even labor, are bid up to account for the extra money. Inflation. Price levels rise. Inflation happens as a result of more, new money injected in an economy to chase after the same amount of goods. If the money supply was doubled, then everyone would not be twice as rich and able to buy twice as much; instead, prices would double along with the money supply.
But the great economist Murray Rothbard went one step further and pointed out what many mainstream economists fail to recongize: the doubling of the money supply, even if it were to happen overnight, would not affect everyone equally with a corresponding doubling of prices. If it did, then there would be no point to it- everything would remain in equal proportion though at a higher price to match the larger money supply. What Rothbard clearly emphasized was that even if the money supply were to double overnight in equal portions to all participants, the smartest chaps would rush out right away and spend the money before prices adjusted.
Meanwhile, some of the more prudent folk would save the extra money thinking it better to hold on to. When they finally became ready to purchase, prices would have already roughly doubled, meaning that the early spenders were made wealthier while other spenders realized too late that prices adjusted and their new money could only keep up with inflation. The late spenders find themselves in the exact position that they were before, and it was only the 'early adopters' who seized the opportunity to gain from an increase in the money supply. And those in the middle, those who saved ½ of their new money and spent the other ½, would find prices adjusting upward and each dollar being able to buy less and less.
In the SouthPark example, Mexico is the early adopter and early spender. Since Mexico went on an immediate spending spree to build hospitals and some fancy water theme parks, their country would, on the surface, be made wealthier from taking advantage of the extra cash. And yet for most of the people in Mexico, they will be no better off or stand to be substantially worse off. But their many construction projects would quickly bid up the price limited resources like steel, concrete, chlorine, labor, timber, etc.
As a result, the remaining countries would face higher prices in those areas and would realize less benefit from their new moneys. And if each country began to spend that money at different times, then the countries to go last would notice that prices had jumped to nearly match money supply, meaning that any new wealth they had hoped to realize from the extra paper space dollars had evaporated. Those countries would be left with the same purchasing power as they had before, and Mexico would laugh all the way to the bank.
But wait- don't be fooled. Mexico does not, by any substantial means, come out ahead of the other countries. While their quick spending and project construction did allow Mexico to bid away limited resources before anyone else could, the people of Mexico will still be no better for it. The money spent will go to directly benefit the friends of the Mexican government, undoubtedly those in the health care industry, and to those employed by the new projects. But the nice things that the new 'space dollars' can buy will not be felt by everyone in Mexico—just those involved and working in the 32 new hospitals and few water parks. For everyone else, they will be left with the bill in a very real sense. Prices will adjust upwards and the people of Mexico will be faced with those higher prices, but they will only be armed with their incomes from the pre-'space dollar' price levels.
This means that the money people earn for their work will now buy less and less as a result of the increase in prices to match and keep up with an increase in the money supply! As necessary and as important as hospitals are, what good are they if your paycheck that fed four mouths every day can now only feed two?!?
At the end of the episode, the aliens depart from the SouthPark residents with some “progressive” words of wisdom, saying that “the space dollars only had as much value as you gave to them.”
But I find the words of Murray Rothbard to provide more clarity in this situation:
“It is clear that while everyone would be euphoric from their seeming doubling of monetary wealth, society would in no way be better off: for there would be no increase in capital or productivity or supply of goods.”
Simply having more paper dollars does not, in any way, change the economic reality of limited resources, nor will those additional paper dollars change the productivity of any economy. At the end of the day, those dollars are, well, just pieces of paper.
The real lesson to be drawn from this SouthPark lesson should have been that we cannot print or borrow our way out of a recession.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Why are Students becoming Philosophy Majors?
Why are Students becoming Philosophy Majors? - Philosophical Ponderings
by Kirk Barbera, staff writer for The Constitutional Reporter
I was given an article from the New York Times that referred to a large growth in the number of students becoming philosophy majors. I was then asked the question why young ‘practical’ minded people are getting more interested in philosophy.
It is possible that young college students are becoming more enamored with philosophy simply because they are not satisfied with the abhorrent answers they normally get in the 'real world.' Some of these answers come from parents, teachers, bosses and even friends. The idea that everything is nothing may not bode well with some younger people who understand - on some level at least - that their life is something. They hear things like they are just a mass of protoplasm with no meaning. Young people are very impressionable, however, and I believe they do realize that their life is important to them: their future means something, and they wish to understand what is going on around them.
They see the giants of their world crumbling around them. They see the power of the presidency taken over by a man they helped put in to office, and do nothing but more of the same. They see pirates (yes PIRATES) hindering our trade as if we have returned to more primitive times. They understand that the majority of the country is against a war that is killing their friends, brothers, sisters, cousins; and yet their government heeds not their words. They remember hearing in history class and social studies that the government was set up as a system 'of the people by the people and for the people,' that there was supposed to be some semblance of morality, of reason, logic and so on. They see the rule of law being deteriorated around them, by such acts as imposing 'empathy' upon the judgments of judges. They see the erosion of property rights and wonder what is the 'principle' that backs property rights. They see the businessmen around them being punished, and wonder why. They don't understand why capitalism could have failed; they question, and hope philosophy will lead them towards the road of discovery. They wish to seek the best within themselves; they do not wish to allow the people of the world to condemn them for attempting greatness.
They possibly question things like socialized medicine. Why, they may ask, is it my duty to help others?
Some young men and women wish to bring back what they remember reading in their history books. 'Where are the great men who built this country?' They ask.
There are some who wish to have something to look forward to. They do not wish to be infringed upon, they have a sinking guilt in the bottom of their stomachs at seeing Neanderthals gyrating their bodies to the beat of a primitive drum claiming that 'we must leave nature alone!' spitting their fury at anyone who attempts the evil of living their life to the best of their ability.
And then there are those who wish to use philosophy to destroy the men and women I just described. They wish to use their greatest weapon against them, reason. They will twist reason to suit whatever needs they wish. And these young impressionable people can seek one defense; philosophy. If they do not understand the basics that philosophy teaches, such as, where we are, how we know it and what we should do once we know it, they will inevitably succumb to the gross ideology that is overtaking their world.
It is unfortunate that most of the people who are joining philosophy en masse are individuals who wish to destroy the best within others. They do not wish to be held to the responsibility of their own greatness, and seek to destroy what others wish to achieve. They use filthy language to impose guilt upon the aforementioned young people of the mind by saying 'they are greedy, they are selfish, and they have no empathy.'
These young people who wish to understand why they see people condemning the great men and women of industrial power and still they don't go to their defense because they feel guilty; they are the ones who need to be taught; not Plato, or Nietzsche, or Kant but Aristotle. They are the ones who should understand that values are something achievable, that we live in a world of concretes and they can either abide and prosper, or evade and perish.
It is also unfortunate that these young people may never have the courage to question; they may not have the ability to admire, nor to take pride in their own actions. They can, if they discover the proper philosophy. They must learn not that reason can be some 'sublime' fantasy, but it is their reality. They all have the ability to change; as long as we are human we have volition.
It is volition which eventually led mankind to throw off the shackles of, God, King, and now we must throw off the shackles of 'society.'
I can only hope that it will be the people of the mind who will give sanction to the best within themselves. We already seem to be going down a road quite opposite to this idea, and it is each of us who are paying the price.
to read more from Kirk Barbera, please visit his blog at: www.cedrac-standup.blogspot.com
by Kirk Barbera, staff writer for The Constitutional Reporter
I was given an article from the New York Times that referred to a large growth in the number of students becoming philosophy majors. I was then asked the question why young ‘practical’ minded people are getting more interested in philosophy.
It is possible that young college students are becoming more enamored with philosophy simply because they are not satisfied with the abhorrent answers they normally get in the 'real world.' Some of these answers come from parents, teachers, bosses and even friends. The idea that everything is nothing may not bode well with some younger people who understand - on some level at least - that their life is something. They hear things like they are just a mass of protoplasm with no meaning. Young people are very impressionable, however, and I believe they do realize that their life is important to them: their future means something, and they wish to understand what is going on around them.
They see the giants of their world crumbling around them. They see the power of the presidency taken over by a man they helped put in to office, and do nothing but more of the same. They see pirates (yes PIRATES) hindering our trade as if we have returned to more primitive times. They understand that the majority of the country is against a war that is killing their friends, brothers, sisters, cousins; and yet their government heeds not their words. They remember hearing in history class and social studies that the government was set up as a system 'of the people by the people and for the people,' that there was supposed to be some semblance of morality, of reason, logic and so on. They see the rule of law being deteriorated around them, by such acts as imposing 'empathy' upon the judgments of judges. They see the erosion of property rights and wonder what is the 'principle' that backs property rights. They see the businessmen around them being punished, and wonder why. They don't understand why capitalism could have failed; they question, and hope philosophy will lead them towards the road of discovery. They wish to seek the best within themselves; they do not wish to allow the people of the world to condemn them for attempting greatness.
They possibly question things like socialized medicine. Why, they may ask, is it my duty to help others?
Some young men and women wish to bring back what they remember reading in their history books. 'Where are the great men who built this country?' They ask.
There are some who wish to have something to look forward to. They do not wish to be infringed upon, they have a sinking guilt in the bottom of their stomachs at seeing Neanderthals gyrating their bodies to the beat of a primitive drum claiming that 'we must leave nature alone!' spitting their fury at anyone who attempts the evil of living their life to the best of their ability.
And then there are those who wish to use philosophy to destroy the men and women I just described. They wish to use their greatest weapon against them, reason. They will twist reason to suit whatever needs they wish. And these young impressionable people can seek one defense; philosophy. If they do not understand the basics that philosophy teaches, such as, where we are, how we know it and what we should do once we know it, they will inevitably succumb to the gross ideology that is overtaking their world.
It is unfortunate that most of the people who are joining philosophy en masse are individuals who wish to destroy the best within others. They do not wish to be held to the responsibility of their own greatness, and seek to destroy what others wish to achieve. They use filthy language to impose guilt upon the aforementioned young people of the mind by saying 'they are greedy, they are selfish, and they have no empathy.'
These young people who wish to understand why they see people condemning the great men and women of industrial power and still they don't go to their defense because they feel guilty; they are the ones who need to be taught; not Plato, or Nietzsche, or Kant but Aristotle. They are the ones who should understand that values are something achievable, that we live in a world of concretes and they can either abide and prosper, or evade and perish.
It is also unfortunate that these young people may never have the courage to question; they may not have the ability to admire, nor to take pride in their own actions. They can, if they discover the proper philosophy. They must learn not that reason can be some 'sublime' fantasy, but it is their reality. They all have the ability to change; as long as we are human we have volition.
It is volition which eventually led mankind to throw off the shackles of, God, King, and now we must throw off the shackles of 'society.'
I can only hope that it will be the people of the mind who will give sanction to the best within themselves. We already seem to be going down a road quite opposite to this idea, and it is each of us who are paying the price.
to read more from Kirk Barbera, please visit his blog at: www.cedrac-standup.blogspot.com
Monday, June 22, 2009
Socrates and the State
by Kirk Barbera, staff writer for The Constitutional Reporter
On Socrates’ reasoning
First of all, I must commend Socrates for his effective use of logic. Socrates has succinctly used and or created logical discussion. He first defends himself from Crito by using Argumentum ad Numerum or even Argumentum ad Populum. The first 'Numerum' is the fallacy perpetrated by an individual who claims something is more right the more people hold it as true. As Crito seems to be doing when he says, “but do you see Socrates, that the opinion of the many must be regarded, as is evident in your own case, because they can do the very greatest evil to anyone who has lost their good opinion.” This is also similar to 'Populum' which is appealing to the people; this fallacy is usually characterized by emotive language which Crito obviously uses. These defenses by Socrates demonstrate his ability to be steadfast to reason under any incoming fire. Based upon the antiquated reasoning of the time Socrates does seem to be holding true to his integrity. So, if we define integrity as an unfaltering holding to ones values, whether there are other's watching or not, then Socrates is most assuredly a man of integrity.
However, I believe Socrates makes a few fundamental and costly mistakes in his assessments of the state. For one, to assume the state owns him simply because of some arbitrary 'social contract' is ludicrous. It is true that Socrates agreed to live under Athenian law, but when these laws are set in place for the mere ability of allowing the polis to create criminals at its discretion, the polis and not Socrates has betrayed any 'social contract.' Socrates fails to understand what the state is. As Murray Rothbard explicates in Anatomy of the State:
“The State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion."
Furthermore, Socrates makes the preeminent mistake most individuals make, which is equating each individual person as 'a part' of the state. In other words saying 'we’ are the state.' In essence, 'we,' as the individuals who make up the state, are made equivalent to some unknown controller of violence. We are made to believe that as citizens of such and such society 'we' are all one, and 'we' must obey the laws and dictums handed down from on high. The fundamental error here is that we are individuals. Rothbard shows that if we are the state, than anything the state forces upon us is done voluntarily. "Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part."
Also, simply because we are all participating in our societies does not implicate us to their every action. As Williamson M. Evers from the department of political science at Stanford elucidates, "Mere participation is not enough for obligation. If a burglar lets you argue with him while he is relieving you of your valuables, it does not place you under an obligation to him."
Socrates also uses the argument that he has accepted the ‘gifts’ from society i.e. schooling. This is once again a fundamental error in reasoning. He uses the analogy of parents giving a gift to their child as equivalent to the ‘gifts’ from society. The problem lies in the conditions in which the gifts are given in the two scenarios. When a parent gives something to their child, such as room and board, there is only an obligation to the parents for as long as the child accepts the gifts. When the child moves away from home and stops accepting gifts from their parents, they subsequently disallow all ‘rules’ or edicts handed down from their parents. The difference with the state is that one can not merely ‘shrug’ off their allotted ‘gifts.’ These so-called gifts are imposed rather than something that is attached as a condition to a gift.
Socrates, while defending his position, accepts many irrelevant and counter-intuitive ideals that unfortunately lead to his early demise. While it is admirable that Socrates had the integrity to stand up for what he believed was right, his failure to come to more correct and logical conclusions deprived him of years of life.
to read more from Kirk Barbera, please visit his blog at: www.cedrac-standup.blogspot.com
On Socrates’ reasoning
First of all, I must commend Socrates for his effective use of logic. Socrates has succinctly used and or created logical discussion. He first defends himself from Crito by using Argumentum ad Numerum or even Argumentum ad Populum. The first 'Numerum' is the fallacy perpetrated by an individual who claims something is more right the more people hold it as true. As Crito seems to be doing when he says, “but do you see Socrates, that the opinion of the many must be regarded, as is evident in your own case, because they can do the very greatest evil to anyone who has lost their good opinion.” This is also similar to 'Populum' which is appealing to the people; this fallacy is usually characterized by emotive language which Crito obviously uses. These defenses by Socrates demonstrate his ability to be steadfast to reason under any incoming fire. Based upon the antiquated reasoning of the time Socrates does seem to be holding true to his integrity. So, if we define integrity as an unfaltering holding to ones values, whether there are other's watching or not, then Socrates is most assuredly a man of integrity.
However, I believe Socrates makes a few fundamental and costly mistakes in his assessments of the state. For one, to assume the state owns him simply because of some arbitrary 'social contract' is ludicrous. It is true that Socrates agreed to live under Athenian law, but when these laws are set in place for the mere ability of allowing the polis to create criminals at its discretion, the polis and not Socrates has betrayed any 'social contract.' Socrates fails to understand what the state is. As Murray Rothbard explicates in Anatomy of the State:
“The State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion."
Furthermore, Socrates makes the preeminent mistake most individuals make, which is equating each individual person as 'a part' of the state. In other words saying 'we’ are the state.' In essence, 'we,' as the individuals who make up the state, are made equivalent to some unknown controller of violence. We are made to believe that as citizens of such and such society 'we' are all one, and 'we' must obey the laws and dictums handed down from on high. The fundamental error here is that we are individuals. Rothbard shows that if we are the state, than anything the state forces upon us is done voluntarily. "Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part."
Also, simply because we are all participating in our societies does not implicate us to their every action. As Williamson M. Evers from the department of political science at Stanford elucidates, "Mere participation is not enough for obligation. If a burglar lets you argue with him while he is relieving you of your valuables, it does not place you under an obligation to him."
Socrates also uses the argument that he has accepted the ‘gifts’ from society i.e. schooling. This is once again a fundamental error in reasoning. He uses the analogy of parents giving a gift to their child as equivalent to the ‘gifts’ from society. The problem lies in the conditions in which the gifts are given in the two scenarios. When a parent gives something to their child, such as room and board, there is only an obligation to the parents for as long as the child accepts the gifts. When the child moves away from home and stops accepting gifts from their parents, they subsequently disallow all ‘rules’ or edicts handed down from their parents. The difference with the state is that one can not merely ‘shrug’ off their allotted ‘gifts.’ These so-called gifts are imposed rather than something that is attached as a condition to a gift.
Socrates, while defending his position, accepts many irrelevant and counter-intuitive ideals that unfortunately lead to his early demise. While it is admirable that Socrates had the integrity to stand up for what he believed was right, his failure to come to more correct and logical conclusions deprived him of years of life.
to read more from Kirk Barbera, please visit his blog at: www.cedrac-standup.blogspot.com
Sunday, June 7, 2009
The Real Hollywood Ten
by Kirk Barbera, staff writer for The Constitutional Reporter
The Hollywood Ten were humanitarian heroes. They were ten individuals, who were fired for holding certain beliefs, beliefs which just happened to be communist. These individuals were fired from top paying jobs that carried a great amount of respect. They were fired for the heroic deed of defying congress and their employers. This belief is common today in a world heavily influenced by leftist Hollywood, and it is also a load of baloney. The public is content with believing the farce put forth by Hollywood and other ‘intellectuals’ that these people were innocent victims accused merely of thinking. Whenever one mentions communists and a threat of losing a job there is an enormous uproar. ‘Witch-hunts’ they say. No one should be forced to say what their ideological viewpoints are to keep a job. Nonsense, of course they can.
When a businessperson opens up shop, puts their blood, sweat, tears, money, and more into their business; they have every right to decide who can and cannot work in their place of business. This is a fact many intellectuals of our time – and times past – wish to skew. To them, everyone has a ‘right’ to a job, even at the expense of the business owner. After all, it is the workers who are doing all of the ‘work.’
That’s one way of looking at it. Another way is this. When a business is opened up, the capital put forth; what is the first thing a businesswoman must do? Spend money. They must spend money on construction, or renting an office building, telephones, faxes, internet and more. They must also hire workers, and pay for advertisement. This is done before the proprietor sees one cent of profit. Many times an entrepreneur must take a loss for up to 5 years or more before seeing any returns. Yet the people still continuing to be paid are the workers, the companies that provide telephone service, internet service, cleaning service, and so on. Each of those companies receives money from the businessperson and is able to pay their workers. If a business does not pay its workers, it will inevitably lose those workers and go bankrupt.
To assume that workers in Hollywood should be any different is just the elitist attitude that is the major problem. The Hollywood Ten and any other worker is accepted and hired to work at a particular place of business on the basis of the business’s requirements. Businesses do not grow in nature. Men and women must start them and make them work. Since the entrepreneur is putting up all the risk, it is their right to hire whom they wish. If the owner chooses it is not in the best interests of their company to hire a person for any reason that is their choice. As the business owner, they will have to live by their choices. If the executives in charge of Hollywood during the 40s decided that having communists in their employ was detrimental to their success, they have every right, and obligation, to terminate their contracts.
A book entitled Ayn Rand and Song of Russia: Communism and Anti-communism in 1940’s Hollywood by Robert Mayhew, attempts to put the record straight as to the farce of intellectual deterrents put up over the last fifty plus years. Song of Russia is a movie produced in 1943 with such obvious propaganda as to show every Russian as a happy little peasant enjoying life in Stalinist Russia, and to show such things as these peasants enjoying a bountiful harvest. This at a time when even the
Russian government admitted to an enormous famine which killed – according to their government – an estimated ten million people (many accounts say much more than this). It shows the two heroes of the movie dancing in a luxurious club, while in the real world millions were killed by maniacal dictatorship. It claimed the peasant farmers ‘owned’ their tractor, even though they lived in a place where no one owned anything. It presented the female lead, a peasant girl named Nadya, traveling from a small town into Moscow. While excluding the GPU agents and other massive obstacles to her progress of attaining a pass to enter Moscow.
In the book Mayhew succinctly covers the massive changes the script undertook, at the behest of many very dubious characters; as well as Ayn Rand’s testimony to the House Un-American Activities (HUAC) congressional board in 1947. The author introduces his book with a sentence told to Ayn Rand which motivated her throughout the rest of her days.
“At a bon voyage party for Ayn Rand in January 1926, before she left Russia for the United States, a gentlemen approached her and said: ‘When you get there, tell them that Russia is a huge cemetery and that we are all dying.’ This is what Ayn Rand spent her life attempting to proliferate to the world.”
Today there are many claims presented as the atrocities the Hollywood Ten - and others who were supposedly prosecuted by congress during the three periods of the investigations towards Hollywood in 1947, 1951-52, 1953-55 - underwent. The claims touted are always the same; these ‘Ten’ and their comrades were heroes who were standing up for the Bill of Rights, for freedom of speech and more.
What these supposed advocates of freedom fail to acknowledge – or refuse to acknowledge – is the differentiation between the ideological and the physical. This is what is meant by the Bill of Rights. The idea of civil liberties i.e. free speech, free assembly etc applies and belongs only in the realm of ideas. Once those ideas cross into physical violence, they become null and void. What the HUAC (House Un-American Activities) was investigating was not merely what their ideological viewpoints were, but whether or not those under question were a card carrying member of the Communist Party. Indeed they carried cards. Being a member of the Communist Party meant much more than simply believing in what the communists believed, it meant adhering to their creed and law. It meant taking orders. It meant belonging to an organization of murder, violence, sabotage, and spying. This moves the individuals being investigated from the realm of ideas into criminal law. Moreover, those who were card carrying members also received their orders from a foreign government, which puts them in the realm of treason and military law. The Congressional hearings were correct in their condemnation.
To further elucidate this point I refer to Ayn Rand’s commentary on her HUAC testimony regarding communist membership.
“Membership in the Communist Party is a formal act of joining a formal organization whose aims, by its own admission, include acts of criminal violence. Congress has no right to inquire into ideas or opinions, but has every right to inquire into criminal activities. Belonging to a secret organization that advocates criminal actions comes into the sphere of the criminal, not the ideological…”
As she further states, allowing members of the Communist Party is like saying it is ok for a certain religious sect to practice religious sacrifices. The members of that religious sect would be persecuted for murder. Their ideological backing would have no merit on the trial. The same logic applies to the HUAC hearings, although Congress seemed to pursue these villains with a half-hearted vigor.
The fact that the Hollywood Ten claimed they did not want to reveal their connection to the Party because they would lose their jobs, only indicates their perpetration of a fraud. It attests to the fact that they wished to conceal information from their employers, co-workers, customers and the general public. That people would not deal with them if they knew the truth only shows the gravity of their wrongs. By condemning Congress for not allowing the Hollywood Ten to commit their crimes is a mockery to the idea of individual rights and the Rule of Law. This is equivalent to a con artist saying to congress that if they force them to reveal their con then the jig is up for them and they will lose their livelihood.
The false idea being pushed around the intellectual forum today that these supposed heroes were fighting for their freedom of speech is ridiculous. Again, free speech wasn’t an issue. The issue was whether or not these people were in fact members of a party which would kill any of their own people to keep them quiet. Ironically enough, as these Ten were portraying their viewpoints of Stalinist Russia in American movies, an atrocity rarely heard of was being carried out by that evil dictator; the extermination of the Lubyanka Thousand. The Lubyanka was a Moscow headquarters of the Soviet secret police. Many innocent people were imprisoned, tortures, and killed there. The Lubyanka Thousand were the over one thousand writers murdered there.
to read more from Kirk Barbera, please visit his blog at: www.cedrac-standup.blogspot.com
The Hollywood Ten were humanitarian heroes. They were ten individuals, who were fired for holding certain beliefs, beliefs which just happened to be communist. These individuals were fired from top paying jobs that carried a great amount of respect. They were fired for the heroic deed of defying congress and their employers. This belief is common today in a world heavily influenced by leftist Hollywood, and it is also a load of baloney. The public is content with believing the farce put forth by Hollywood and other ‘intellectuals’ that these people were innocent victims accused merely of thinking. Whenever one mentions communists and a threat of losing a job there is an enormous uproar. ‘Witch-hunts’ they say. No one should be forced to say what their ideological viewpoints are to keep a job. Nonsense, of course they can.
When a businessperson opens up shop, puts their blood, sweat, tears, money, and more into their business; they have every right to decide who can and cannot work in their place of business. This is a fact many intellectuals of our time – and times past – wish to skew. To them, everyone has a ‘right’ to a job, even at the expense of the business owner. After all, it is the workers who are doing all of the ‘work.’
That’s one way of looking at it. Another way is this. When a business is opened up, the capital put forth; what is the first thing a businesswoman must do? Spend money. They must spend money on construction, or renting an office building, telephones, faxes, internet and more. They must also hire workers, and pay for advertisement. This is done before the proprietor sees one cent of profit. Many times an entrepreneur must take a loss for up to 5 years or more before seeing any returns. Yet the people still continuing to be paid are the workers, the companies that provide telephone service, internet service, cleaning service, and so on. Each of those companies receives money from the businessperson and is able to pay their workers. If a business does not pay its workers, it will inevitably lose those workers and go bankrupt.
To assume that workers in Hollywood should be any different is just the elitist attitude that is the major problem. The Hollywood Ten and any other worker is accepted and hired to work at a particular place of business on the basis of the business’s requirements. Businesses do not grow in nature. Men and women must start them and make them work. Since the entrepreneur is putting up all the risk, it is their right to hire whom they wish. If the owner chooses it is not in the best interests of their company to hire a person for any reason that is their choice. As the business owner, they will have to live by their choices. If the executives in charge of Hollywood during the 40s decided that having communists in their employ was detrimental to their success, they have every right, and obligation, to terminate their contracts.
A book entitled Ayn Rand and Song of Russia: Communism and Anti-communism in 1940’s Hollywood by Robert Mayhew, attempts to put the record straight as to the farce of intellectual deterrents put up over the last fifty plus years. Song of Russia is a movie produced in 1943 with such obvious propaganda as to show every Russian as a happy little peasant enjoying life in Stalinist Russia, and to show such things as these peasants enjoying a bountiful harvest. This at a time when even the
Russian government admitted to an enormous famine which killed – according to their government – an estimated ten million people (many accounts say much more than this). It shows the two heroes of the movie dancing in a luxurious club, while in the real world millions were killed by maniacal dictatorship. It claimed the peasant farmers ‘owned’ their tractor, even though they lived in a place where no one owned anything. It presented the female lead, a peasant girl named Nadya, traveling from a small town into Moscow. While excluding the GPU agents and other massive obstacles to her progress of attaining a pass to enter Moscow.
In the book Mayhew succinctly covers the massive changes the script undertook, at the behest of many very dubious characters; as well as Ayn Rand’s testimony to the House Un-American Activities (HUAC) congressional board in 1947. The author introduces his book with a sentence told to Ayn Rand which motivated her throughout the rest of her days.
“At a bon voyage party for Ayn Rand in January 1926, before she left Russia for the United States, a gentlemen approached her and said: ‘When you get there, tell them that Russia is a huge cemetery and that we are all dying.’ This is what Ayn Rand spent her life attempting to proliferate to the world.”
Today there are many claims presented as the atrocities the Hollywood Ten - and others who were supposedly prosecuted by congress during the three periods of the investigations towards Hollywood in 1947, 1951-52, 1953-55 - underwent. The claims touted are always the same; these ‘Ten’ and their comrades were heroes who were standing up for the Bill of Rights, for freedom of speech and more.
What these supposed advocates of freedom fail to acknowledge – or refuse to acknowledge – is the differentiation between the ideological and the physical. This is what is meant by the Bill of Rights. The idea of civil liberties i.e. free speech, free assembly etc applies and belongs only in the realm of ideas. Once those ideas cross into physical violence, they become null and void. What the HUAC (House Un-American Activities) was investigating was not merely what their ideological viewpoints were, but whether or not those under question were a card carrying member of the Communist Party. Indeed they carried cards. Being a member of the Communist Party meant much more than simply believing in what the communists believed, it meant adhering to their creed and law. It meant taking orders. It meant belonging to an organization of murder, violence, sabotage, and spying. This moves the individuals being investigated from the realm of ideas into criminal law. Moreover, those who were card carrying members also received their orders from a foreign government, which puts them in the realm of treason and military law. The Congressional hearings were correct in their condemnation.
To further elucidate this point I refer to Ayn Rand’s commentary on her HUAC testimony regarding communist membership.
“Membership in the Communist Party is a formal act of joining a formal organization whose aims, by its own admission, include acts of criminal violence. Congress has no right to inquire into ideas or opinions, but has every right to inquire into criminal activities. Belonging to a secret organization that advocates criminal actions comes into the sphere of the criminal, not the ideological…”
As she further states, allowing members of the Communist Party is like saying it is ok for a certain religious sect to practice religious sacrifices. The members of that religious sect would be persecuted for murder. Their ideological backing would have no merit on the trial. The same logic applies to the HUAC hearings, although Congress seemed to pursue these villains with a half-hearted vigor.
The fact that the Hollywood Ten claimed they did not want to reveal their connection to the Party because they would lose their jobs, only indicates their perpetration of a fraud. It attests to the fact that they wished to conceal information from their employers, co-workers, customers and the general public. That people would not deal with them if they knew the truth only shows the gravity of their wrongs. By condemning Congress for not allowing the Hollywood Ten to commit their crimes is a mockery to the idea of individual rights and the Rule of Law. This is equivalent to a con artist saying to congress that if they force them to reveal their con then the jig is up for them and they will lose their livelihood.
The false idea being pushed around the intellectual forum today that these supposed heroes were fighting for their freedom of speech is ridiculous. Again, free speech wasn’t an issue. The issue was whether or not these people were in fact members of a party which would kill any of their own people to keep them quiet. Ironically enough, as these Ten were portraying their viewpoints of Stalinist Russia in American movies, an atrocity rarely heard of was being carried out by that evil dictator; the extermination of the Lubyanka Thousand. The Lubyanka was a Moscow headquarters of the Soviet secret police. Many innocent people were imprisoned, tortures, and killed there. The Lubyanka Thousand were the over one thousand writers murdered there.
to read more from Kirk Barbera, please visit his blog at: www.cedrac-standup.blogspot.com
Friday, May 15, 2009
We’re all criminals now
Michael Krueger, staff writer of The Constitutional Reporter
It’s late. You are asleep in your bed dreaming of acing your finals. You awake from your slumber to get up and use the restroom. You flush the toilet and climb back into bed. You are just about to fall asleep when you hear banging on your front door. Bewildered, you stumble out of bed to see who it could possibly be. You think to yourself that it must be your drunken roommate. He must have forgotten his keys. You are almost to the door when suddenly it bursts open and federal agents storm in and tackle you to the ground. You yell that you didn’t do anything. They put handcuffs around your wrists and stand you up. You demand to know what is going on—what crime you have committed. One of the agents looks you in the eyes and says, “You flushed your toilet.” Title 10 part 430.32 of the Code of Federal Regulations makes it a crime to operate a toilet that uses more than 1.6 gallons per flush.
To be sure, the FBI is hardly kicking in doors gestapo-style to arrest people for having old toilets, but the fact remains that you are in violation of federal law for doing absolutely nothing. You are a criminal, not because you murdered someone or robbed a bank, but because of the kind of toilet you own. Of course, it does not end with toilets. Among the 75,000 pages of regulations, one is certain to be found in violation of something. Whether it is how much water one’s showerhead uses, the proper sterilization of chimpanzees as per the CHIMP Act, mandatory locks on bathrooms in private homes, the kinds of labels that must be placed on clothing, or what kind of trash cans one can own, we are all criminals somehow.
Welcome to the nanny state—where the government infringes on your rights but assures you that it is perfectly ok because it is “for your own good.” Government officials, instead of dealing with issues of any real importance, are obsessed with controlling and regulating the lives of the people. They regulate everything. One code about housing construction reads, “Each habitable room shall be provided with exterior windows and/or doors having a total glazed area of not less than 8 percent of the gross floor area.” Do these bureaucrats have nothing better to do than decide how many windows someone’s living room has? If I want to buy a house that doesn’t have any windows, then isn't that my prerogative as a free individual in a supposedly free country?
Government regulations are kind of like those carnival games where everyone is a winner and gets a prize so he can feel good about himself for actually overcoming his ineptitude and winning something for a change. Only in this game your “prize” is not some cheaply made stuffed dog that is supposed to resemble Pluto but looks more like some malformed mutt. Instead, your prize is around 75,000 pieces of toilet paper with complementary paperwork, liability waiver, a safety inspection, a license and zoning permit, and a contract stating that it will only be flushed down a 1.6 gallon toilet. Basically, everyone is a loser together, but the government gets to feel good for “helping” people.
These rules have real impacts. Complying with them costs businesses $1.14 trillion. They burden farmers with unnecessary and cumbersome farming regulations, manufacturers with endless safety protocols, small business with mountains of paperwork, and the average citizen with the single greatest travesty since the Noachian Flood: the U.S. tax code.
The government has no right to intrude in the lives of the people as it currently does. These regulations are chains of slavery forced on both individuals and businesses and serve only to expand the power of the State. These government sanctioned codes, regulations, and laws erode our liberties. As Barry Goldwater wrote, “My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel out old ones that do violence to the Constitution…I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible.” We must not allow the State to run our lives for it will inevitably lead to serfdom and tyranny.
It’s late. You are asleep in your bed dreaming of acing your finals. You awake from your slumber to get up and use the restroom. You flush the toilet and climb back into bed. You are just about to fall asleep when you hear banging on your front door. Bewildered, you stumble out of bed to see who it could possibly be. You think to yourself that it must be your drunken roommate. He must have forgotten his keys. You are almost to the door when suddenly it bursts open and federal agents storm in and tackle you to the ground. You yell that you didn’t do anything. They put handcuffs around your wrists and stand you up. You demand to know what is going on—what crime you have committed. One of the agents looks you in the eyes and says, “You flushed your toilet.” Title 10 part 430.32 of the Code of Federal Regulations makes it a crime to operate a toilet that uses more than 1.6 gallons per flush.
To be sure, the FBI is hardly kicking in doors gestapo-style to arrest people for having old toilets, but the fact remains that you are in violation of federal law for doing absolutely nothing. You are a criminal, not because you murdered someone or robbed a bank, but because of the kind of toilet you own. Of course, it does not end with toilets. Among the 75,000 pages of regulations, one is certain to be found in violation of something. Whether it is how much water one’s showerhead uses, the proper sterilization of chimpanzees as per the CHIMP Act, mandatory locks on bathrooms in private homes, the kinds of labels that must be placed on clothing, or what kind of trash cans one can own, we are all criminals somehow.
Welcome to the nanny state—where the government infringes on your rights but assures you that it is perfectly ok because it is “for your own good.” Government officials, instead of dealing with issues of any real importance, are obsessed with controlling and regulating the lives of the people. They regulate everything. One code about housing construction reads, “Each habitable room shall be provided with exterior windows and/or doors having a total glazed area of not less than 8 percent of the gross floor area.” Do these bureaucrats have nothing better to do than decide how many windows someone’s living room has? If I want to buy a house that doesn’t have any windows, then isn't that my prerogative as a free individual in a supposedly free country?
Government regulations are kind of like those carnival games where everyone is a winner and gets a prize so he can feel good about himself for actually overcoming his ineptitude and winning something for a change. Only in this game your “prize” is not some cheaply made stuffed dog that is supposed to resemble Pluto but looks more like some malformed mutt. Instead, your prize is around 75,000 pieces of toilet paper with complementary paperwork, liability waiver, a safety inspection, a license and zoning permit, and a contract stating that it will only be flushed down a 1.6 gallon toilet. Basically, everyone is a loser together, but the government gets to feel good for “helping” people.
These rules have real impacts. Complying with them costs businesses $1.14 trillion. They burden farmers with unnecessary and cumbersome farming regulations, manufacturers with endless safety protocols, small business with mountains of paperwork, and the average citizen with the single greatest travesty since the Noachian Flood: the U.S. tax code.
The government has no right to intrude in the lives of the people as it currently does. These regulations are chains of slavery forced on both individuals and businesses and serve only to expand the power of the State. These government sanctioned codes, regulations, and laws erode our liberties. As Barry Goldwater wrote, “My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel out old ones that do violence to the Constitution…I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible.” We must not allow the State to run our lives for it will inevitably lead to serfdom and tyranny.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
A Higher Standard of Journalism
The call of duty for journalists and bloggers should be one of higher standards...
(First- a disclaimer. The Constitutional Reporter is not a shtick for Cleve Tidwell, and we do have other student stories soon to be published on the blogosphere. Promise)
Now, to address some recent blogosphere workings that we find to be rather unprofessional-
A blogger, Haners, heard from an unidentified source that some seemingly inappropriate activities were in the works at the recent Cleve Tidwell meet and greet event in Acacia Park, Colorado Springs. He posted his result to a blog site which was then re-posted to at least two other sites. That's what we call 'shoot first, ask questions later' journalism. Since we have met with Cleve and his staff and find them all to be upstanding, professional individuals, we had to dig deeper in the pursuit of truth and objective journalism.
So in the interest of "asking questions" after the shots have already been fired, here is how the blog coverage of Cleve Tidwell's official announcement should have been written up, from a professional, objective stance (the part Haners left out):
First- before publishing anything mind you- we asked some questions of those involved.
Bob Clark, who stands identified and accused by Haners and his source, had this to say:
"So we can confirm the person who 'gentleman wearing a tweed like trousers and a vest, sporting a black shirt and a blue tie" was James Cagle. James Cagle is a man of Jewish decent who has studied Martial Arts for over 20 years. So what you're saying is an Anonymous source, said an anonymous source saw me say 'Hey, did you know that the Star of David is really a swastika?' to a Jewish man, who has studied martial arts for over 20 years, and I survived? Do I even need to dignify that with a response?"
The Jewish man in question, James Cagle- another volunteer for the Tidwell campaign- responded with this:
"I did not hear anyone say that about the Star of David... That's just silly that someone could believe a comment of that sort be made to me, when everyone on the campaign knows me as the 'Jewish guy.' It's very much a part of me and people who know me, know that.
"As for the allegations that our staff is 'flirty?' Look, the BBQ was very professional- not some episode of Love Boat. And I definitely don't think Bob was hitting on me and I hope no one got that impression."
Both Bob Clark and James Cagle seemed offended by the post of Haners, but were willing to laugh it off and poke fun at the same time.
Bob Clark's official response can be seen here:
http://www.rockymountainright.com/?q=node/792
We did not ask Haners any questions because he was not at the actual BBQ event.
(First- a disclaimer. The Constitutional Reporter is not a shtick for Cleve Tidwell, and we do have other student stories soon to be published on the blogosphere. Promise)
Now, to address some recent blogosphere workings that we find to be rather unprofessional-
A blogger, Haners, heard from an unidentified source that some seemingly inappropriate activities were in the works at the recent Cleve Tidwell meet and greet event in Acacia Park, Colorado Springs. He posted his result to a blog site which was then re-posted to at least two other sites. That's what we call 'shoot first, ask questions later' journalism. Since we have met with Cleve and his staff and find them all to be upstanding, professional individuals, we had to dig deeper in the pursuit of truth and objective journalism.
So in the interest of "asking questions" after the shots have already been fired, here is how the blog coverage of Cleve Tidwell's official announcement should have been written up, from a professional, objective stance (the part Haners left out):
First- before publishing anything mind you- we asked some questions of those involved.
Bob Clark, who stands identified and accused by Haners and his source, had this to say:
"So we can confirm the person who 'gentleman wearing a tweed like trousers and a vest, sporting a black shirt and a blue tie" was James Cagle. James Cagle is a man of Jewish decent who has studied Martial Arts for over 20 years. So what you're saying is an Anonymous source, said an anonymous source saw me say 'Hey, did you know that the Star of David is really a swastika?' to a Jewish man, who has studied martial arts for over 20 years, and I survived? Do I even need to dignify that with a response?"
The Jewish man in question, James Cagle- another volunteer for the Tidwell campaign- responded with this:
"I did not hear anyone say that about the Star of David... That's just silly that someone could believe a comment of that sort be made to me, when everyone on the campaign knows me as the 'Jewish guy.' It's very much a part of me and people who know me, know that.
"As for the allegations that our staff is 'flirty?' Look, the BBQ was very professional- not some episode of Love Boat. And I definitely don't think Bob was hitting on me and I hope no one got that impression."
Both Bob Clark and James Cagle seemed offended by the post of Haners, but were willing to laugh it off and poke fun at the same time.
Bob Clark's official response can be seen here:
http://www.rockymountainright.com/?q=node/792
We did not ask Haners any questions because he was not at the actual BBQ event.
Friday, May 8, 2009
What can poker teach us about economics? A lot, actually.
The Constitutional Reporter hosted the first ever “Poker and Politics” tournament yesterday at Auraria Campus. Students from a European Politics class were invited to play poker with celebrity dealers Jon Caldara of the Independence Institute and radio personality, Cleve Tidwell candidate for U.S. Senate, and State Representative Kent Lambert.
Caldara was the featured 'fascist' poker dealer. He was quick to cut deals across the table and exhort poker chips from the four players at his table. A central-planning dealer will try to get involved in the poker game in every way possible, and Caldara did just that by telling players what to bet, when not to bet, and when to give him money. In exchange, Caldara provided favors through winning opportunities to his two favorites at the table. At a fascist poker table, even a two pair can beat a royal flush; it all depends on what the dealer says. While Caldara was busy choosing winners at this poker economy, his overall economy began to sharply decline and many players were left behind.
Cleve Tidwell, though a committed free-enterpriser, played the role of 'socialist' poker dealer remarkably well. This may have been made easier by the availability of current events and news stories which are easy to parody. For example, Cleve would tell players that, “Pelosi says we need to raise taxes so we can prepare for the future. We need to be ready in case we need to bail any of you out.” At the end of this game, the socialist dealer held almost all of the chips and was dealing himself into the game. “The government had to step in and take an active role in this poker economy,” said Tidwell, “because these players weren't doing enough in the economy?” Could that be because the socialist government sucked up all their money and resources through taxes and redistribution???
Representative Kent Lambert, the token free-market table, led his table to victory. Every player at this table ended up with sufficient wealth and resources, despite suffering several losses and setbacks throughout the game. What was his secret? Did Rep. Lambert have a special, several hundred page tax code, or did he work to create incentive for some poker players and dis-incentive for others? Quite the opposite. “This table is hands-off poker,” said Lambert, “all the hard work and ingenuity of the participants is the reason for their success. Since they were the contributors to the creation of wealth, then they should also be the benefactors of that wealth. I made sure the government stayed out of this poker economy." Thanks to the approach of Rep. Lambert, this economy was actually able to lower the cost of living (in poker terms, the ante) so that more players were able to take part in the action, and were able to increase available resources through their high levels of productivity.
And this took place while the other tables were in a race to raise the cost of living higher and to squander resources faster.
The students were competing for shares of Jimmy John's sandwiches. The socialist and fascist table went hungry, with the government taking up most of the food. But at the Capitalist table, every player was able to take some bread home to their families.
“Government has to be well-fed,” explained Jon Caldara.
“If they were concerned with providing food for their families, they should have sat at the Capitalist table,” said Cleve Tidwell, “I kind of wish I would have sat at that Capitalist table...”
At the end of the poker game, State Representative Kent Lambert gave a great talk about the failures of socialized medicine as he had personally experienced and see first hand in Sweden, years ago. Students were receptive, and the possibility of hosting another “Poker and Politics” tournament next semester looked very promising.
Caldara was the featured 'fascist' poker dealer. He was quick to cut deals across the table and exhort poker chips from the four players at his table. A central-planning dealer will try to get involved in the poker game in every way possible, and Caldara did just that by telling players what to bet, when not to bet, and when to give him money. In exchange, Caldara provided favors through winning opportunities to his two favorites at the table. At a fascist poker table, even a two pair can beat a royal flush; it all depends on what the dealer says. While Caldara was busy choosing winners at this poker economy, his overall economy began to sharply decline and many players were left behind.
Cleve Tidwell, though a committed free-enterpriser, played the role of 'socialist' poker dealer remarkably well. This may have been made easier by the availability of current events and news stories which are easy to parody. For example, Cleve would tell players that, “Pelosi says we need to raise taxes so we can prepare for the future. We need to be ready in case we need to bail any of you out.” At the end of this game, the socialist dealer held almost all of the chips and was dealing himself into the game. “The government had to step in and take an active role in this poker economy,” said Tidwell, “because these players weren't doing enough in the economy?” Could that be because the socialist government sucked up all their money and resources through taxes and redistribution???
Representative Kent Lambert, the token free-market table, led his table to victory. Every player at this table ended up with sufficient wealth and resources, despite suffering several losses and setbacks throughout the game. What was his secret? Did Rep. Lambert have a special, several hundred page tax code, or did he work to create incentive for some poker players and dis-incentive for others? Quite the opposite. “This table is hands-off poker,” said Lambert, “all the hard work and ingenuity of the participants is the reason for their success. Since they were the contributors to the creation of wealth, then they should also be the benefactors of that wealth. I made sure the government stayed out of this poker economy." Thanks to the approach of Rep. Lambert, this economy was actually able to lower the cost of living (in poker terms, the ante) so that more players were able to take part in the action, and were able to increase available resources through their high levels of productivity.
And this took place while the other tables were in a race to raise the cost of living higher and to squander resources faster.
The students were competing for shares of Jimmy John's sandwiches. The socialist and fascist table went hungry, with the government taking up most of the food. But at the Capitalist table, every player was able to take some bread home to their families.
“Government has to be well-fed,” explained Jon Caldara.
“If they were concerned with providing food for their families, they should have sat at the Capitalist table,” said Cleve Tidwell, “I kind of wish I would have sat at that Capitalist table...”
At the end of the poker game, State Representative Kent Lambert gave a great talk about the failures of socialized medicine as he had personally experienced and see first hand in Sweden, years ago. Students were receptive, and the possibility of hosting another “Poker and Politics” tournament next semester looked very promising.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Marx makes front page of Foreign Policy Magazine
One of my favorite magazines, Foreign Policy, has me agitated over their recent cover story- “Marx Really? Why he matters now.” I read through, with much consternation, the articles “Thoroughly Modern Marx” by Leo Panitch and “Confessions of a True Believer” by John B. Judis.
Two things struck me like a sickle and hammer when reading these articles: 1) The irony that the articles were ordered to follow right after an article praising the healthy growth of Angola, where free enterprise is beginning to be embraced. And 2) Since the argument for the Marx articles was that sales of Das Kapital have increased of late, will we see a follow up article about Ayn Rand, objectivism, and the booming sales of Atlas Shrugged? Rand's book recently passed the President's book, Audacity of Hope, on the Amazon best-seller list, and sold over 200,000 copies last year. Talk about resurgence.
The articles merit a serious examination. Upon said examination, many flaws in the theory of Marx reveal why Das Kapital was put to rest.
“Confessions of a True Believer”
An admitted, “true believer, ”John B. Judis' efforts are admirable, but truly confused. His confusion is evident in the fluid transitions he makes between free market being to blame because of government policies. They are not one in the same. Any mention of government policies automatically disqualifies the problem from being a free market problem. How can a bad government policy or regulation mean that the “free market” does not work or is to blame? Unfortunately, Judis and many of our leaders and intellectual types today fail to make that distinction. For example, Judis admonishes “regulatory bodies” and “corporate lobbies.” There may be room for “regulatory bodies,” or “corporate lobbies in a mixed economy, but not in a free-market capitalistic economy.
According to Judis, we must have experienced unfettered capitalism in recent years because of George W Bush's “blind faith in free markets.” Are you kidding me? George may have indeed been blind to free markets, but he certainly was no defender of capitalism. In rhetoric, perhaps; in action, hardly. Bush gladly took part in this anti-capitalism business of bailing out failed banks.
The confusion continues when Judis suggests that the “America of the New Deal” was somehow grossly different than “the America of Herbert Hoover,” despite the policies of the New Deal being a continuation and expansion of Hoover's policies. The socialists love to assign free market credentials to Hoover. No capitalist would assign free market credentials to Hoover, especially since he hardly followed a free market philosophy.
In case you're not convinced by those examples, Judis quotes France's President Nicolas Sarkozy who recently announced that “laissez-faire is finished.” That may be true, and expected in France, but far from it in the U S of A. Hardly a telling blow to capitalism when you call forth a quote from the 'commissar' of France. Surprise, surprise, France is calling for the end of free markets.
One thing Judis does accurately describe is that the U.S. “public sector also has significant control over how industry functions and how wealth and income are distributed.” Are these attributes that one would associate with free market capitalism, or does this sound more like fascism? In the mind of Judis, there is no difference between government policies that are to his full content, and capitalism. It goes to show how far, clearly, we are from having a true capitalist economic system.
Thoroughly Modern Marx
Leo Panitch, coeditor of the Socialist Register, lays out the Marxist case for driving our economy further into darkness with Marx's works in Das Kapital as the guiding light. How does he present his case? By insisting that, were Marx here today, he would “relish pointing out how flaws inherent in capitalism led to the current [financial] crisis.” It takes a crisis to make Marxism more attractive—when times are good, few people would turn the pages of this demoralizing and drab text. The debate on the supposed flaws of capitalism has yet to be resolved, but there are plenty of free-market defenders who will show you, and Panitch, how the crisis was brought about not by free-markets, but government intervention into those markets. Panitch insisted that the free market system “produced a series of inevitable financial bubbles,” but fails to tell us why those bubbles are “inevitable.” But economist Thomas Wood's recent book, Meltdown, explains how the financial crisis was actually the result of cheap money policy of the Federal Reserve and loose government spending. Far from free markets. I doubt Panitch has read this book.
Like Judis, Panitch is critical of government plans that he disapproves of, and substitutes blame on the state for blame on free markets. Panitch labels President Obama's carbon credit trades and the Kyoto Protocol as irrationalities. I beg your parden, Panitch, but allow me to point out that anything Obama and anything Kyoto are government policies, pure and simple. President Obama's policy proposal merely shows how interwoven government is in the economy. More importantly, ask yourself, how can the “free market” be blamed for poor government policy and action? The solution, is to “democratize our economies,” suggests Panitch. What exactly does that mean? Would every person be entitled to vote an any and all activity taking place in our diverse economy? Panitch suggests that democratizing our economy would undo the catalyst for the crisis, and that is a “culture of risk disassociated with consequence.” Ask any business owner if that is how they run their operation. There is plenty of consequence in today's modern, industrialized world. Namely, profit and loss and, thanks to an over-active legal system, jail time for executives who do not perform well.
There is a meek attempt to initiate a rallying cry in this article, in which Panitch suggests capitalism creates social isolation which keeps “informed citizens from coming together to take up radical alternatives to capitalism.” Obviously, Panitch was not at the recent nationwide tea parties, where thousands of informed citizens came together to protest our departure from capitalism. Panitch goes on to say that, with the “formation of new collective identities. . .people could resist the capitalist status quo and begin deciding how to better fulfill their needs.” What's wrong with this assertion? Well, the leftist Socialists are notorious for decrying individualistic tendencies of capitalism—so how can there be a status quo at the same time, among all those capitalist individuals? Second, capitalism is entirely about better fulfilling our individual needs. In fact, it is precisely the opposite that is true. Socialism forces people together to work for the “community's needs” not the individual's needs, and the status quo of individuals that is formed when the only concern is for the “community,” is frightening.
Bringing his article to a close, and with great gusto, Panitch firmly declares that, “Marx was the greater realist.”
We cannot let that remark go un-challenged can we? Marx's economic and socio-political proposals relied heavily on influence he took from the Fabian Socialists (after all, Marx was not the father of socialism/communism). The Fabian socialists knew that the success of their ideas hinged on the development of a new type of “socialist (super)man.” They envisioned a world where men were free to be and the animals provided all of our means of survival. In the Fabian Socialist dreamworld, chickens would literally fly onto our plate for meals, lions would bow down and render themselves as mounts for transport, and whales would pull ships across the sea. Someone who takes influence from this group—is that what you call a realist?
Indeed, Marx made some accurate predictions of what could take place in an industrialized economy. However, the culprit for whom he assigns blame to—free markets—is a blatantly false allegation.
Austrian economists have also been accurate in predicting what can happen in an industrialized economy. But unlike Marx, the Austrian economists are able to provide a clear and accurate explanation of boom/bust cycles and can accurately identify the true culprit and cause of our current economic fiasco—government intervention into the economy and the failed monetary policies of European and U.S. Central banking systems, namely the Federal Reserve banking system.
Two things struck me like a sickle and hammer when reading these articles: 1) The irony that the articles were ordered to follow right after an article praising the healthy growth of Angola, where free enterprise is beginning to be embraced. And 2) Since the argument for the Marx articles was that sales of Das Kapital have increased of late, will we see a follow up article about Ayn Rand, objectivism, and the booming sales of Atlas Shrugged? Rand's book recently passed the President's book, Audacity of Hope, on the Amazon best-seller list, and sold over 200,000 copies last year. Talk about resurgence.
The articles merit a serious examination. Upon said examination, many flaws in the theory of Marx reveal why Das Kapital was put to rest.
“Confessions of a True Believer”
An admitted, “true believer, ”John B. Judis' efforts are admirable, but truly confused. His confusion is evident in the fluid transitions he makes between free market being to blame because of government policies. They are not one in the same. Any mention of government policies automatically disqualifies the problem from being a free market problem. How can a bad government policy or regulation mean that the “free market” does not work or is to blame? Unfortunately, Judis and many of our leaders and intellectual types today fail to make that distinction. For example, Judis admonishes “regulatory bodies” and “corporate lobbies.” There may be room for “regulatory bodies,” or “corporate lobbies in a mixed economy, but not in a free-market capitalistic economy.
According to Judis, we must have experienced unfettered capitalism in recent years because of George W Bush's “blind faith in free markets.” Are you kidding me? George may have indeed been blind to free markets, but he certainly was no defender of capitalism. In rhetoric, perhaps; in action, hardly. Bush gladly took part in this anti-capitalism business of bailing out failed banks.
The confusion continues when Judis suggests that the “America of the New Deal” was somehow grossly different than “the America of Herbert Hoover,” despite the policies of the New Deal being a continuation and expansion of Hoover's policies. The socialists love to assign free market credentials to Hoover. No capitalist would assign free market credentials to Hoover, especially since he hardly followed a free market philosophy.
In case you're not convinced by those examples, Judis quotes France's President Nicolas Sarkozy who recently announced that “laissez-faire is finished.” That may be true, and expected in France, but far from it in the U S of A. Hardly a telling blow to capitalism when you call forth a quote from the 'commissar' of France. Surprise, surprise, France is calling for the end of free markets.
One thing Judis does accurately describe is that the U.S. “public sector also has significant control over how industry functions and how wealth and income are distributed.” Are these attributes that one would associate with free market capitalism, or does this sound more like fascism? In the mind of Judis, there is no difference between government policies that are to his full content, and capitalism. It goes to show how far, clearly, we are from having a true capitalist economic system.
Thoroughly Modern Marx
Leo Panitch, coeditor of the Socialist Register, lays out the Marxist case for driving our economy further into darkness with Marx's works in Das Kapital as the guiding light. How does he present his case? By insisting that, were Marx here today, he would “relish pointing out how flaws inherent in capitalism led to the current [financial] crisis.” It takes a crisis to make Marxism more attractive—when times are good, few people would turn the pages of this demoralizing and drab text. The debate on the supposed flaws of capitalism has yet to be resolved, but there are plenty of free-market defenders who will show you, and Panitch, how the crisis was brought about not by free-markets, but government intervention into those markets. Panitch insisted that the free market system “produced a series of inevitable financial bubbles,” but fails to tell us why those bubbles are “inevitable.” But economist Thomas Wood's recent book, Meltdown, explains how the financial crisis was actually the result of cheap money policy of the Federal Reserve and loose government spending. Far from free markets. I doubt Panitch has read this book.
Like Judis, Panitch is critical of government plans that he disapproves of, and substitutes blame on the state for blame on free markets. Panitch labels President Obama's carbon credit trades and the Kyoto Protocol as irrationalities. I beg your parden, Panitch, but allow me to point out that anything Obama and anything Kyoto are government policies, pure and simple. President Obama's policy proposal merely shows how interwoven government is in the economy. More importantly, ask yourself, how can the “free market” be blamed for poor government policy and action? The solution, is to “democratize our economies,” suggests Panitch. What exactly does that mean? Would every person be entitled to vote an any and all activity taking place in our diverse economy? Panitch suggests that democratizing our economy would undo the catalyst for the crisis, and that is a “culture of risk disassociated with consequence.” Ask any business owner if that is how they run their operation. There is plenty of consequence in today's modern, industrialized world. Namely, profit and loss and, thanks to an over-active legal system, jail time for executives who do not perform well.
There is a meek attempt to initiate a rallying cry in this article, in which Panitch suggests capitalism creates social isolation which keeps “informed citizens from coming together to take up radical alternatives to capitalism.” Obviously, Panitch was not at the recent nationwide tea parties, where thousands of informed citizens came together to protest our departure from capitalism. Panitch goes on to say that, with the “formation of new collective identities. . .people could resist the capitalist status quo and begin deciding how to better fulfill their needs.” What's wrong with this assertion? Well, the leftist Socialists are notorious for decrying individualistic tendencies of capitalism—so how can there be a status quo at the same time, among all those capitalist individuals? Second, capitalism is entirely about better fulfilling our individual needs. In fact, it is precisely the opposite that is true. Socialism forces people together to work for the “community's needs” not the individual's needs, and the status quo of individuals that is formed when the only concern is for the “community,” is frightening.
Bringing his article to a close, and with great gusto, Panitch firmly declares that, “Marx was the greater realist.”
We cannot let that remark go un-challenged can we? Marx's economic and socio-political proposals relied heavily on influence he took from the Fabian Socialists (after all, Marx was not the father of socialism/communism). The Fabian socialists knew that the success of their ideas hinged on the development of a new type of “socialist (super)man.” They envisioned a world where men were free to be and the animals provided all of our means of survival. In the Fabian Socialist dreamworld, chickens would literally fly onto our plate for meals, lions would bow down and render themselves as mounts for transport, and whales would pull ships across the sea. Someone who takes influence from this group—is that what you call a realist?
Indeed, Marx made some accurate predictions of what could take place in an industrialized economy. However, the culprit for whom he assigns blame to—free markets—is a blatantly false allegation.
Austrian economists have also been accurate in predicting what can happen in an industrialized economy. But unlike Marx, the Austrian economists are able to provide a clear and accurate explanation of boom/bust cycles and can accurately identify the true culprit and cause of our current economic fiasco—government intervention into the economy and the failed monetary policies of European and U.S. Central banking systems, namely the Federal Reserve banking system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)