Let’s listen to Murray Rothbard (debunking myths part 1)

Sounds like a pretty good idea to me. Unfortunately, it’s a remark taken (heavily) out of context from an article called “What’s wrong with libertarianism” with the subtext “”The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of other people.” — Abraham Lincoln”. As you can imagine, I raged pretty hard at this one. Lets being to see who exactly he’s attacking, why, and the core fallacies of his(her?) argument.

First off, the link to the article , note he called the article “Libertos” and the extremely anti-immigration banner

Ignoring the Abraham Lincoln quote because it’s too large a topic to be  addressed quickly, we’ll move on to who he claims to be speaking to. He states that, after two re-writes, he isn’t talking to any libertarians that

“have never heard of (or don’t think much of) Rothbard, Rockwell, Rand, and von Mises, accept that the FDIC is a pretty good idea, and want a leaner, more efficient government, but don’t dream of getting rid of it”

and follows that up by supporting anyone who agrees with those three things.

Clearly, he’s talking to me.

While I appreciate that on a list of the front runners of intellectual libertarianism that Rothbard comes first, he puts Ayn Rand in the same list. This seems to be the popular anti-libertarian argument, to brand us as a collective under the objectivist movement, which I and most others clearly are not. Rand wasn’t much more then an author in my opinion, and it’s shameful how quickly a news anchor will shove irrelevant “Atlas Shrugged” jokes and references at anyone who begins to support a libertarian argument.

Also, Objectivism is clearly for a limited government, Objectivism being the movement Rand founded. Other then making his first and third qualification of who he is talking to contradictory, it also proves that he see’s any “radical”  libertarian philosophy as an unthinking borg. A borg he suspected wouldn’t find his article and meticulously rebut it.

The statement of addressees  is followed up by a suggestin for those not listed, “On the other hand, you might want to stick around to see what your more fundamentalist colleagues are saying”. Clearly he is using the term fundamentalist to call people who think like me unreasonable. However, the meaning of fundamentalism is just someone who believes strictly in a set of principles. The difference between me the fundamentalist and the pejorative fundamentalist he tries to label me as is that one of my principals is that I will never try to force my principals on anyone else, something that couldn’t be said of him.

His arrangement after that is that libertarianism sprang from an anti-communist movement and flipped their ideals around.  It’s not a bad argument. I would say the libertarianism begat communism and therefor could not have been in reaction to it, but essentially it is almost the opposite of communism. The problem with how this author puts it isn’t in the center of that argument, but misstating the principals of a libertarian. The first being that, in opposition to the “anti-capitalist” views of the communist that we think “Capitalists are noble Nietzchean heroes”. Assuming he’s not referring to the nihilist race of people from the TV show Andromeda, I figured he meant Nietzschean. It’s important to realize that libertarians (of the truest sense) don’t see capitalism as a political idea but a means of trade. Capitalism at it’s simplest is using a medium of exchange to make easier the process of trading goods and services. Capitalism is not Corporatism, which is what this guy is trying to make you think. Also, referring to libertarians as Nietschean’s is clearly an ad hominem attack and is not at all based on logic.

I’m going to take a break here and continue to address this article either later today or next weeks post (it’s quite a large article to cover). Be sure to leave comments here (and on any of the articles mentioned here) to be sure to make your thoughts heard!

A month later…

I know I mentioned last time how busy I was, which is why I haven’t written as much as I would’ve liked to since I’ve been back at school. Things here have been promising. My student organization has grown, I’ve started a discussion group on campus, and an internet talk radio program is in the talks right now (as soon as we can raise 300 dollars). That and all the personal issues that go along with a being a young college kid, and the blog has been kind of shoved to the back burner. However, I’ve decided to use my lazy sundays to write. Even though once a week isn’t a frequent as I promised originally, things change.

Getting back to school

Raising funds, talking to counselors, preparing discussion groups, and general hustling have slowed down my blogging, obviously. However, thanks to facebook I am easily stirred into a debate. Two happened today, I’ll post them here.

Part 1, Bill Mahr, Honest news and health care

The video in question, I suggest starting at 2 minutes in.

This was my initial response.

A.C.
I’ll preface this by saying I advocate self government, unfortunately more pejoratively referred to as anarcho-capitalism. I am not red team, or blue team, or an independent who switches back and forth based on issues.

There is a kernel of truth to what he said, health care was cheap and available to every social class in America, only as far back as the early 60’s. Where this idea turns into an abstraction is when he blames profit, not government intervention, for the increase in cost

Around this time the FDA took over health regulations in the pharmaceutical world and a few years later the AMA was given regulatory control over health professions. This was the beginning of unaffordable health care.

The cost to get a new product tested by the FDA for use in pharmaceuticals increases the cost to the consumer about 800%, at normalized profit. Turns out they aren’t as altruistic as you think.

Also, due to socialized medicine around the world, pharmaceutical companies rely on profits in the United States to fund their R&D, yet another cause of increased cost. But, if we adapt this program ourselves, research and advance in all medical fields will come to a crawl.

I.P.
. . . and R&D has given us so many advancements lately in the fields of . . . mood-altering drugs that kill difficult self-reflection in order to keep us in cubicles and watching Gary Unmarried.
Where Maher is inarguably right is in his critique of when network news became profit-driven. I really think that may have been the last gasp of any public truth in this country.

A.C.
Yea, but no one is forcing anyone to take them.

As far as profit driven news being a problem, I kind of agree. But it’s soon going to be mostly replace by the internet. Most people everywhere are more then happy to tell you whats going on for free. I think we are in a transitional stage. I think soon the internet will come together and form several branches with independent roots to bring people the most useful and honest news.

I.P.
No one is forcing them to take them? That wasn’t my point. My point is THAT is the focus. How’s cancer going? AIDS? How’s our morbid obesity that keeps us all sick?
And thinking the internet will solve everything is just as naive as anything else, I’m afraid. Despite what we think, many many people aren’t tapped in to the internet for news.
Also, I’m not a team-player either, neither is Maher. He’s been more critical of Obama of just about any liberal on television. And, of course, I don’t agree with everything he says either.
I think his point, while basic, is still valid and still needs to be heard just to remind people, “Oh yeah. Capitalism isn’t = Patriotism.”

A.C.
True, but thats people’s problem, they get what they want. If people start demanding better treatment for cancer or aids, that’s what will get researched.

I don’t think the internet will solve anything. It’s here to transfer information, that’s all.

People staying dumb is their problem, doesn’t stop the people who are paying attention from making the decisions

Also my preface was to point out I don’t agree with any form of coercive government, let alone blue team or read team. I get what you’re saying though.

That was about the end of that debate, but it looks like it’s going to get reheated, the sparked around a classic author Ayn Rand

NG
Objectivism is bullshit. This description is all fluff. “Rational self-interest” is essentially caring for no one but yourself and is an extreme form of libertarianism with no welfare or aid for the poor. Basically it’s do what you want and fuck anyone that gets in your way. It’s pretty much Ayn Rand’s way of justifying her rich, priveleged upbringing as a member of a Russian noble family.

AC
Welfare or aid for the poor hurts the poor.

NG
Misuse of welfare hurts the poor. An objectivist government would essentially be turn of the 20th century/Gilded Age America. If you thought the wealth gap was large during the Bush administration than pick up a book and read about the Gilded Age.

AC
Lol, I realize you don’t know me, but I’m up on my reading. An “objectivist” government could only be considered self government, and wealth gabs can’t be created by freedom, just by fiat currency and the cantillon effect.

NG
The objectivist philosophy espouses a laissez-faire economy which creates a marketplace free of government intervention. That means no regulations which will lead to the working class getting taken advantage of which equals low labor costs which means high profits for business owners which means a large wealth gap.

AC
This is a common misconception.

“no regulations which will lead to the working class getting taken advantage of”

If you found out someone doing similar work to you with equal experience was getting paid more, would you take action to make sure you get paid for you worth? So would most people. If you found out a store took advantage of it’s workers, would you still shop there? Didn’t think so. It benefits no business to pay their workers less then they are worth, you essentially get what you pay for. You cannot force people to work for your, so skilled workers (even lesser skilled workers) need to see the benefit in staying, or they will leave. There is never a need for the violence of government.

NG
I’m hoping you mean of violence of government metaphorically otherwise I have no idea where you could have gotten that from what my point is.

History has proven on more than one occassion that limited to no government regulations on business leads to greed and the mistreatment of the working class. I’m not really sure how anyone can argue against that. Also, by your reasoning it doesn’t benefit businesses to hire illegal aliens for a lesser wage, try to block unionization or outsource jobs to foreign countries. But yet businesses do all of these things. Guess they’re doing it for the hell of it.

AC
Sir, name one time there has been no government intervention on the economy in an industrialized nation.

Also, assuming the government you speak of is funded by taxes, government is by nature violent. If you are forced to pay taxes or, at end result, be forcefully imprisoned ,then it is inherently violent.

Outsourcing jobs, anti-unionization, and hiring “illegal aliens” are all consequences of government intervention. If business were able to pay what they thought was a just wage for the labor in this country, they wouldn’t have to give it to people in other countries who are more then happy to accept a small amount of wealth for unskilled labor. Low wages doesn’t cause poverty, no wages does.

Even if you don’t agree with me, then you have the choice to no solicit these business’ instead of using the gun of government to force them to stop doing business how YOU see unfit. If enough people agree with you, then it will be profitable for the business to stop doing those things.

This even has real world examples. Any institute, no matter which one you chose, that has done research comparing economic freedom to poverty shows that they are inversely proportional. A time chart in the United States would show you the same thing.

Socialization and welfare programs have never decreased poverty. If anything, it serves as a distraction from larger issues (increased taxes, fiat money, fractional lending) that flow wealth upwards, things that are caused by the government you seem to think is altruistic.

NG
While I respect your opinion it seems to me you are basing it entirely on the philosophy and not factoring in the human element. There are greedy people who will take a mile when given an inch. There are many philosophies, objectivism included, that would be great if executed properly. Unfortunately thats not the case. We can dream about our own idea of the “perfect society” all we want but we must be rational and pragmatic. While I agree that our current welfare system is greatly flawed that doesn’t mean that all welfare is evil. My idea of welfare is similar to the training wheels on a bike. One needs a helping hand to acheive self-reliance and then should be let go. But unfortunately our current welfare system creates a dependence and perpetuates the problem instead of fixing it. It seems that you have your opinion and I have mine so instead of wasting time, bandwidth and blowing up Cassie’s inbox I’m willing to call it a spirited debate and say farewell.

I leave remarks about why he ended the debate to myself, because I chose to end it as well to not inconvenience the host of the debate.

Let me know what you think, who you agree with, or anything you want to add to any of the arguments.

Solo articles are going to get heavier as soon as I make the transition back into dorm life.

I think I accidently wrote an article.

It’s amazing how the words just flow when you believe in what you’re saying. This is why it’s such a problem that most political speakers used a teleprompter. If they really agreed with and understood what they were saying, they wouldn’t need one. Anyways, on to the meat and potatoes.

I was criticizing public health care on facebook (which is really easy to do since I found a big poll about it and 75.9% of the about 250,000 questioned voted against it) and somehow found a link to something I found very offensive and childish.

If you know the entertainment I enjoy, then you know that it’s very hard to offend me. What caught me with this article was two fold. One, clearly it’s a website that put’s red team vs blue team before any real issue, and secondly, they spoke for a dead man. If you think that’s bad, it gets worse. The dead man they were speaking for was Martin Luther King Jr., not only that, but the author proposed the idea that liberals should stop “claiming” him as their own, and that conservatives should be able to truly “claim” him. Of course, I was furious. After reading the article, which was more or less an argument for why conservatives can “claim” him, I, as I tend to do, responded.

“I’d like to start out with the the childishness of being able to “claim” someone, or the idea that everyone in American political history falls into either conservative or liberal camps. The truth is narrow-minded collectivism is just as bad as any collectivism, be it the collectivism that Martin Luther King Jr. fought against or the collectivist red team vs. blue team game that you so seem to love playing. At the root of this issue is the problem with democracy, two party or otherwise.  A lynch mob is democracy in action, and certainly not freedom. If 10 collectivist white guys vote to hang the one black guy in the community, democracy is satiated. Is that black man free due to democracy? Certainly not. The problem is, as soon as victimless crimes can be legislated against and/or legislation and enforcement are paid for in coercively gained tax dollars you have lost freedom. This can easily be explained with two brief examples. What if I don’t care if someone drives without a seat belt on? Am I free to withhold my tax dollars from the public enforcement agency if I disagree with the things they enforce? Certainly not. Therefore, the man without the seat belt is not able to live freely as long as he is harming no one else because he is forced to do something that affects only himself, just as I am not free because I am forced to monetarily support an organization that enforces things I don’t agree with by threat of fines, theft, or imprisonment. I suppose if I didn’t pay my taxes and they came to issue aforementioned threats, and I made the choice to resist, the final threat is that of a gun. Comply with what we say, or perish.

This is the point in the argument where Government has reached it’s moral end, and either side of the statist blue team red team coin with start slinging their favorite cliches.

1. Well Freedom isn’t free, you’ve got to pay your taxes.

2. Without coercive government who will keep the order? build the roads? You like roads don’t you?

3. Without the government, who will protect us from foreign invasion?

4. What of the poor? Without taxes and government control, who will help feed and educate them?

These are all foolish, faith based idea’s that the government actually does these things or provides a marketable service. At the end of the day, if it is the will of the people, human nature via the free market will provide anything the government does yet more efficiently, at lower cost, and most importantly without violence. As I have already spoken my piece, I will refrain from specific free market examples.”

I am awaiting a response, to read the article mentioned and follow the argument (even though responses to my argument will be posted verbatim here) you can here in the comments section. Feel free to join in, or let me know how you feel by commenting this article!

Bailouts, Friend or Foe? Left or Right? Part 1

Well, assuming this isn’t your first time reading my blog, the first question is an easy one. Any self respecting Austrian will tell you that a “bailout” certainly isn’t in the interest of the people doing the bailing out. But for the common American who gets their news from CNN it might leave them a little confused. There was a bailout under the Bush administration, there was another bailout under the Obama administration. If both sides think a bailout is the answer, why aren’t things getting better?  Well from what I can tell, a “bailout” is nothing more then a way of convincing the American people that printing vast sums of money in order to prop up the current political agenda will somehow stimulate the economy, put more money in the tax payer’s pockets, and get everyone a shiny new job.

This is where we get to cover one of my favorite topics, the Phillips Curve. Learning this for the first time, and really understanding it is very important. But realizing what most people who are running the American coercive monopoly still believe in, is much like finding out that everyone you’ve elected still believes in Santa Claus. Trust me, it’s that bad.

The Phillips Curve;

We’ll If you’re not an economist, you’re probably curious as to what that means. What it means is, that these people think that inflation and unemployment are inversely related. When inflation goes up, unemployment goes down, when inflation falls, unemployment increases. Still confused? Well in short it basically means that the government thinks that, by printing money, and spending it (in any particular fashion) will increase wealth for all the good little boys and girls. This however, is an easily provable falsehood.

Let’s begin with the Cantillion Effect. I have mentioned this before, in a previous argument, but never explained it. The Cantillon Effect is when a central bank, who has been given permission to issue fiat currency (currency with no real or “intrinsic” value), gives this currency out in loans, investments, or issuances, and, before the market can adjust to the new currency by adjusting their prices to it’s relative value, the spenders of this fresh, previously unknown of money get it at a much lower cost then if every knew there was a larger money supply in circulation. This, essentially, drives wealth back the original money issuers. The bailout is basically this happening unprecedentedly fast, about 750 billion dollars at a time. All this does is makes the people with the power to print, and their friends much wealthier, while the people in the lower classes with unflexable wages and savings have less and less due to this rampant inflation. It hurts 95% of people in the long run.

Come back tomorrow, part II in the works. (sorry didn’t expect this to be so long, and I like to keep these relatively short. Be sure to comment on it and let me know what you think and if you have any questions.)

The Political Spectrum

What an article this will be. I take most of my inspiration, obviously, from the late Murray N. Rothbard. He passed January 7, 1995, long before internet 2.0 and this revolution where everyone thinks they’re a graphic designer. I don’t think he ever published a graphic representation of what would be called today a “political spectrum”, and after doing a lot of searching, I don’t think anyone who did, did it right.

In doing what most americans do when researching something that is visually depicted easily, a google image search lead me to this, first result for “political spectrum.

Is that confusing to you? It creates such a false dichotomy. I don’t think any honest person falls anywhere on this thing. Just for fun, I circled what I agree with on the graph.

Where does that put me? Am I A Liberoconadicalarie? No wonder people unsatisfyingly put themselves in a red team blue team camp based on false pretenses. It’s a false choice.

Not only that, but many of the choices displayed are personal ones. Who cares if I look to the past or the future for inspiration, who says I want to force my views on other people? What if I don’t think any kind of state sponsored schooling is a good idea? Where is that chart, where’s my chart?

Upon looking at many charts I found either unsatisfactory or irrelevant I really didn’t find anything to my liking, everything seems to have a bias to some government control.

That’s when I started looking at the quizzes, answering honestly as possible, and even most called me a right-anarchist at best. The world smallest political quiz at Theadvocates.org called me a libertarian with this description:

“Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.”

Ugh, I get no respect. Even the advocates are calling me a minarchist. Assuming this is the most simplist, pure quiz, biased towards me, it leads me to two conclusions about these quizzes and charts. One, that when asked a series of political questions in order to be ordained as a generalization on a chart, the questioner assumes that the person being questioned wishes to use a violent monopoly to force his beliefs on others. Two, that either economic and personal liberty are seen as somewhat mutually exclusive by the general public, or that there is a justified minimum or required economic sacrifice that must be made in order to have a perfectly restricted small government.

I think that I should be free economically and personal and be responsible for my own actions entirely, however if someone wishes to enter a volunteery contract where either someone punishes them for victimless actions or manages a large portion of their salary, that’s fine as long as it doesn’t affect me. This is the first major flaw of placing people in an ideology, it neglects the very basic questions of “Do you think everyone else should be forced to do this also?” which seems to be almost an afterthought in today’s society.

The second major flaw is that both “major” philosophies people find themselves forced to be in propose the idea that economic freedom and personal freedom are somehow mutually exclusive. The generalization of the blue team is that they are more “liberal” when it comes to personal freedom like gay marriage, medical marijuana (which are psuedo freedoms, but they seem like personal freedom to them) but they favor a more social financial system, like a free range national commune where we pay a majority of our wealth into centrally planned social programs. The red team seems to support a free’er (certainly not free) market, lower taxes,  and less restrictive regulation on business, yet they advocate legislated morals, the drug war, and censorship. Wheres the party for both brands of freedom?

If I can do anything I want, yet only with a fraction of the wealth I’m able to acquire, I am not free. If I am able to keep all of the wealth I earn, yet can only spend it on things other people have decided I can spend it on, I am not free.

Most people just want to be left alone. It’s unfortunate , that in being left alone, they don’t want to fight for what is their inherent freedom. It’s abhorrent that in this country we are forced to line up on one side of the same coin if we choose to make our opinion’s heard in the accepted system. And it’s unjust to expect to separate an entire country into only two groups, neither of which support freedom.

Taxes, part 2

In my earlier post I examined the ill-logic of taxes, today we’ll examine it’s morality.

One of the easiest ways to start the discussion is an example borrowed from Dr. Mary Ruart’s book, Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression. When you were a child and you went over to a friends house and he or she had more toys then you, did you have the right to take home one or two of those toys because he or she had so many more then you? Of course not.

This may seem like a silly example, but it’s one that many people can relate to. Just because someone has more then us doesn’t mean it is unfair. If someone has a vast sum of wealth, even if acquired by luck or inheritance, it does not justify stealing from them.

This is an example of how unjust taxes are in their most altruistic form. But in reality, it’s even more immoral then that. If taxes on the wealthy seem just to you, think about this. Corporate taxes are the second (or third, Finland’s was much higher but I believe that’s changed since 2007) largest in the world in the United States. Since corporations are in business to profit, any and all increase in taxes is pased on to either the end user, or a producer or corporations customers. This largely affects the lower class who fund widely based companies. So really, those rallying for taxes on these big companies, are normally just hurting themselves.

Then there is the very simple Ayn Rand argument, which is that over taxing the rich will have a negative effect on the most productive people in our society. The top 10% of the earners in the states pay for 37% of federal income taxes. If you can clearly see the mistakes the Cuban government made, then you know what happens when the government coercively robs from the rich to give to the poor (not that we’re helping with the trade restrictions, but that’s for a different article)

The final article will be about why how taxes affect the economy at large and what a truly free market is, and that we’ve never seen one in the united states.

Lack of posts

I apologize for the recent lack of posts. This being something I do as a hobby, sometimes I can’t dedicate as much time as I would like to it. I’d like to also point out the fact that I am a 21 year old college student with a part time job, a broken down car, and is frantically making sure he has enough money to continue going to college 24/7. With this is mind, in the future I plan on trying to be as regular as possible with my articles. I spent some time today creating a list of topics that I plan on doing in the future pending any breaking news that I feel the need to write about before then. Later today, taxes part 2.

A True Inspiration

My philosophy is not unique. It’s common sense to know that a world without organized and accepted coercion would be a better one. However, few people take an active role in promoting liberty. It’s one thing to sit in front of computer screen and write about theory, it’s another thing entirely to march up to government buerocrat and tell the work the do is unjust. Which, today, brings us to one of the most fervent activists for liberty, Free Talk Live host Ian Freeman. Some people, unlike Ian, would be happy with just creating, hosting, and expanding the aforementioned nationally syndicated radio show. He however has taken it upon himself to practice what he preaches. Just last November, Ian was arrested for refusing to move a couch. Ian was almost arrested again for publicizing the marijuana protest of Andrew Carrol. More recently, Ian has more supportive of activism from the sidelines, communicating the message of Sam Dodson, frequently live from jail, as well as promoting the launch, the events of the Motor Home Diaries, and the happenings of the 2009 Porcupine Festival.

But this last July first, accompanied by several Free Staters, fellow activist Sam Dodson, and a lot of cameras, Ian marched into city hall armed with only with courage, two pizzas, and almost three thousand dollars in one dollar bills. What ensued, although seeming minor to some, is a fabulously peaceful protest against coercive force. I’ll let the video speak for itself

Paying with one dollar bills for such a large tax is a wonderful way to grind the system to a halt without using violence. As it is legal tender for all debts, they must accept it. It’s not mentioned in the video, however while using pennies would have been effective in one sense, the sheer amount of weight would have required machinery and wouldn’t allow for such a smooth of a process. Also, Ian mentioned on Free Talk Live that he stamped FreeKeene.com and FreeTalkLive.com on a majority of the bills, thus getting a little advertisement at least for his money.

This concept is very similar to the idea of everyone on a particular court day pleading not guilting to every traffic violantion being arraigned that day. It is legally possible, however it would very easily crash the system. If everyone in the United states payed all of their taxes in one dollar bills, the same thing might happen, although I don’t think that’s what Ian was trying to say in this video.

Another thing worth noticing is the clear bypassing of the first amendment and New Hampshire law by the government bureaucrats and their violent enforcer. Making it very clear that they only play their own rules when it favors them.

This is why I plan on moving to New Hampshire when I graduate. Even though this very simple event probably won’t have a lasting effect on those involved, it is exemplary of the effectiveness of the Free State Project. No where else is there such a great, established support system for activists constantly taking the fight to the front line and standing up for true freedom.

Gone for the day

Early shift at work, then a trip for the rest of the day. The reason I’m posting that here is because I didn’t post yesterday, and I won’t be able to again to so I’m going to make a preview/other information post really quick before work.

Coming up this week are taxes part 2 and 3,  the war on drugs (really the war on humanity), how schools would probably work in a free society, and after that I’m taking requests for topics or I’ll come up with new ideas on my own.

Other then that, check out this great stuff!

Hyperinflation Nation (part 1, check out 2 and 3)
Great podcast with player on the front page, something I checked out recently and getting more into
Great article referenced by Rothbard in one of my favorite lectures.

That should keep everyone busy for awhile until I get back. Any one have anything specific questions or topics for articles, feel free to comment here.