Vulcan Liberty

Some of FDR's Bad Policies

2011-12-23T16:05:00.001-08:00

In my continuing series of critiques of FDR, I've borrowed some analysis from elsewhere, and made a list of some of the many bad things he did:

Seized gold from citizens and forbid owning it
Suspended gold standard and revalued gold from US$20.67 to US$35 after Treasury had taken it
Took control of banks
Agricultural Adjustment Act that forced up prices while destroying farmland/animals
Federal monopoly of bungling Tennessee Valley Authority
Insane National Industrial Recovery Act that created 500 cartels
National Labor Relations Act (surged labor costs)
US$3.3 billion Public Works Administration
National Recovery Administration featuring price-fixing and minimum wages
Blatantly coercive, ruinous, Madoff scheme known as Social Security
Works Progress Administration
Civilian Conservation Corps, etc. (costly pointless temp jobs)
Created SEC
United States Housing Authority
Extreme tax increases
German-American internment
Italian-American internment
Japanese-American internment
Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.

Americans CAN Manufacture if Government Gets Out of the Way

2011-11-26T16:32:00.001-08:00

China has some advantages for manufacturing that are probably temporary. Their currency exchange rate and labor wages are both likely to increase in the coming years. Manufacturing employment is already falling there.

We can get some of those manufacturing jobs back in the US with a change in national attitude and policies. Americans and our politicians need to be more welcoming of manufacturing and assembly operations through lower tax and regulatory burdens. It takes approximately forever to get government approval for new plants and equipment in the US, whereas product sales cycles are only 6 - 12 months in many industries. We need to make politicians and bureaucrats do things faster.

We also need to stop bashing big business. Small business is fine – I own a couple myself. But only big business has the capital and resources needed to resurrect our once great manufacturing industries. Small businesses can then prosper as suppliers to the big business operations.

That's the way it works. That's the path to employment growth and reducing the trade deficit. Stop whining about China and big business, and get politicians to remove the obstacles to doing big things in the US.

Comparing the Tea Party Movement and Occupy Wall Street

2011-11-13T11:05:00.000-08:00

Common ground between the Tea Party movement and Occupy Wall Street (OWS)

• Oppose Wall Street bailouts

• Oppose crony capitalism

• Unhappy with the state of the nation.

Differences between the Tea Party movement and Occupy Wall Street (OWS)

• Tea Party inspired by the American Revolution

• OWS inspired by the French Revolution

• Tea Party values individualism, entrepreneurialism, and limited government

• OWS values collectivism, third-way socialism, and expansive government

• Tea Party opposes current labor union laws

• OWS favors greater unionization and union power

• Tea Party favors private sector solutions to social problems

• OWS wants government intervention to solve social problems

• Tea Party sees unions and government acting together with business interests as crony capitalism

• OWS sees little or no difference between crony capitalism and free market capitalism

• Tea Party dislikes bailouts of any kind; distrusts government involvement in business

• OWS favors government involvement, subsidies, or bailouts of favored business entities

• Tea Party wants lower taxes and less government regulation

• OWS wants more taxes and more government regulation

• Tea Party demonstrations are clean, orderly, and respectful of authority

• OWS demonstrations are dirty, disorderly, and disrespectful of authority.

How to Live Comfortably

2011-11-11T19:47:00.001-08:00

I think it's pretty simple to work toward a comfortable existence:

Stay in school until graduation.
Learn a marketable skill.
Work diligently.
Marry and save before having children.
Stay married.
Live well within one's means.
Save and invest carefully.
Stay out of trouble.

The vast majority of people I know who are suffering financially violated one or more of the common sense behaviors above.

Unintended damage from the welfare state

2011-08-09T20:47:00.001-07:00

With our huge and growing welfare state, a person can be a mean and lazy SOB and still get help when down and out.

Therefore, before the welfare state, there was much greater self-motivation to be hard working and kind to others.

Not to mention we're going broke paying for this.

Don't like? Don't do.

2011-07-13T21:27:00.001-07:00

"Don't like gay marriages? Don't get one. Don't like cigarettes? Don't smoke them. Don't like abortions? Don't get one. Don't like drugs? Don't do them. Don't like porn? Don't watch it. Don't like alcohol? Don't drink it. Don't like guns? Don't buy one. Don't like your rights taken away? Don't take away someone else's." – Republican Liberty Caucus

"Don't like free market businesses? Don't buy from them." – Bob Giramma

Why Political Anger Is Increasing

2011-07-04T16:24:00.001-07:00

The existence and success of the Tea Party movement is evidence of the right admitting it was wrong about many big government policies or Bush 43 and other Republicans. Typically, Tea Partiers are highly critical of both Obama and Bush. The shift toward Obama may be evidence that the left determined Bill Clinton and Blue Dog Democrats strayed too far from progressive ideals.

I am neither a conservative nor progressive, but I know people on both ends of the ideological spectrum who are fixed in their ways. Moderates are often amenable to compromise, but they lack principles. They'll bend to whoever convinces them their way is best, then they'll bend the other way for the next election after witnessing how idiotic the last big government policies were. Repeat ad infinitum.

There's no easy solution when people on both left and right assume societal problems can be solved only by having government force everyone to do things one way. Anger on both left and right has risen over the years as the US have become more of a forced collective, the policies of which fluctuate depending on which collective masters are in power at the moment.

Children Won't Perish Absent Socialism

2011-06-21T21:06:00.001-07:00

I reject the claim that poor children won't be fed in the absence of socialism, but no one is allowed to run that experiment to prove or disprove that. Americans are the most charitable people in the world, and I'm confident that the deserving poor will be fed through voluntary charity. The non-deserving poor will find it necessary to quit their sloth or perish.

Further, it should not be assumed that people who oppose socialism are heartless and evil. I give plenty to charity, as do millions of other Americans who similarly advocate voluntary charity over force of government.

Are Charter Schools Better?

2011-06-17T21:04:00.001-07:00

Whether charter schools are good or bad is irrelevant. In a free society, people should have choices. That's what really matters.

Losing Focus on the Core Purpose of Education

2011-06-11T10:16:00.001-07:00

Perhaps a reason that public schools aren't performing well, and they're running out of money, is we've converted them from educational institutions into soup kitchens, athletic centers, counseling organizations, and centers for arts and entertainment. We've lost focus on the core purpose of education: educational preparation for young people to provide for themselves in the workforce.

US Government Taxes and Revenue Since 1900

2011-04-14T20:27:00.001-07:00

Government revenue, from taxes, fees, and business revenue, has increased substantially in the 20th century. There have also been remarkable changes in the type of taxes raised and in the relative taxing power by type of government.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history

How to Achieve Freedom and Prosperity

2011-02-27T19:37:00.001-08:00

I have no need for the welfare state, nor its associated high taxes and regulatory burdens, specifically because I practice individual responsibility. That's what everyone should do. It's the underlying theme of everything I stand for. Responsible people pay their own way, don't demand money from taxpayers, and don't need big government. That's the path to freedom and prosperity.

Stupid Tea Party Movement?

2011-02-27T11:43:00.001-08:00

Those stupid Tea Party people. I mean, believing in "Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets" is just plain dumb, right?

Instead, we should follow the proven path of recent decades for tax and spend policies, big government, and politically run markets. Because everything has worked out so well that way.

Unions and Freedom

2011-02-24T21:03:00.001-08:00

In a FREE society:

Workers would be FREE to form an association, which they could call a "union."
Other workers would be FREE to join or refuse to join this union.
Employers would be FREE to recognize or ignore this union.

Unfortunately, we don't have a free society. Instead, workers can be FORCED to join a union and have fees confiscated from their wages, and employers are FORCED to deal with professional union bosses.

Subsidizing the Failure of Education

2011-02-06T12:02:00.001-08:00

Economics teaches us the following: When you subsidize something, you get more of it. We've been subsidizing failing government schools for decades. Why would anyone expect different results by throwing more money at failure.

Performance is correlated with competition. We should issue vouchers and let free market schools, both non-profit and for-profit, compete in the free marketplace. That's a more effective way of sorting out the winners and losers among educational methods and policies.

Redistribution Doesn't Reduce Causes of Poverty

2011-01-04T09:42:00.000-08:00

Harvard University Professor Jeffrey Miron: "The poverty rate declined significantly between 1959 and 1964 as the overall economy grew, but this was before the launch of President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty (and therefore before the enactment of Medicaid and Medicare, two of the largest anti-poverty programs in existence today)..."

Miron continues: "Between 1966 and 2009, the poverty rate fluctuated with the business cycle but showed little downward trend, even as anti-poverty spending grew by a factor of six in real terms. In other words, our anti-poverty programs have been implemented at enormous and ever-increasing cost — and it is not clear that they have done much to reduce the rate of poverty."

Politicians Made Healthcare Expensive

2010-12-18T10:39:00.001-08:00

Healthcare was very affordable for my middle class parents during the 1960s when I was young. There was minimal government intervention in the free market for healthcare in those days. Service was great, and prices were reasonable.

Fast forward to the present. Politicians meddle in virtually every aspect of healthcare, regulating procedures, mandating coverages, specifying paperwork, subsidizing care, and restricting interstate competition for insurers. Healthcare has become enormously expensive. Any question why? Because free market healthcare has been made illegal by politicians. The more they meddle, the higher the cost.

The other major market with large-scale political interference is education. I now leave it as an exercise to the reader to explain inflation in education costs.

A Defense of Capitalism

2010-12-17T12:07:00.000-08:00

There is no "manna from heaven" in any economic system. Imperfections are everywhere. But capitalism is the system that optimizes aggregate standard of living through free choice and market accountability. Any deviation from pure free market enterprise is a drag on productivity and living standards.

Things are screwed up precisely because government interfered in the natural functioning of the free market. The Federal Reserve over-stimulated. Freddie and Fannie influenced the mortgage and housing markets in unnatural ways. Politicians forced lenders to loan money to people who shouldn't have qualified. Bubble, bubble. Homebuyers and Wall Street financiers were happy to play along.

It was fun while it lasted, as people were making money, and politicians were bragging about their programs and regulations. Greenspan was a hero for supposedly saving the economy. Yeah, right. Capitalists realize the economy would grow faster and work better through market mechanisms of accountability. No bailouts, subsidies, regulatory burdens, nor heavy taxation. Let companies and workers be accountable for their own performance. That's capitalism. Instead, we have a government that punishes success and rewards failure.

The Progressive Obsession with Lording over Us

2010-11-08T11:27:00.000-08:00

Below is a version of Donald J. Boudreaux's response to a NY Times book review that I modified to reflect my personal view on progressive elitism and authoritarianism. It differs slightly from the original authored by Mr. Boudreaux, but he articulates it very well.

A popular theme among progressives is that they, in contrast to their mindless Cro-Magnon opposites, overflow with ideas. Progressives see their theories and insights as highly intellectual and enlightened.

But these ideas are almost exclusively about how other people should live their lives. These are ideas about how one group of people (the politically successful) should engineer everyone else’s contracts, social relations, diets, habits, and even moral sentiments.

Put differently, modern progressive ideas are about replacing an unimaginably large multitude of diverse and competing ideas – each one individually chosen, practiced, assessed, and modified in light of what F.A. Hayek called “the particular circumstances of time and place” – with a relatively paltry set of ‘Big Ideas’ that are politically selected, centrally imposed, and enforced not by the natural give, take, and compromise of the everyday interactions of millions of people but, rather, by the simple notion that those with the power of government are anointed to lord over the rest of us.

The Electric Tea Party Acid Test

2010-10-13T14:35:00.000-07:00

A two-dimensional ideological analysis and perspective that offers some interesting observations:
- Tea Party ideology is similar to that of 1960s era hippies.
- The Tea Party movement represents a reverse image of the FDR/Obama camp.
- Hippies were anti-establishment individualists who didn’t like LBJ, the Democrats, or “Great Society” programs.

The Electric Tea Party Acid Test

For my libertarian friends, note the author's claimed difference between anarchists and libertarians in terms of a constructed (learned, indoctrinated, etc) vs. innate (natural, unchanging) belief system. Anarchy requires a belief that people's thinking can be altered. Limited government libertarianism accepts people's thinking as it is.

Also, note how similar the author claims (non-anarchist) libertarians are to Tea Party members and hippies, but how different both are from anarchists.

Analysis of Academic Success and Parenting

2010-09-03T09:52:00.001-07:00

The authors of the book Freakonomics analyzed statistical datasets to determine how various parenting methods and other factors are correlated with a child's academic success. They feel most parenting advice is based more on opinion than data. The Freakonomics authors looked at statistical correlation, which, as they note, is not the same as causality. Ketchup is correlated with hamburgers, but ketchup doesn't cause hamburgers.

Factors correlated with academic success:

Highly educated parents
High socioeconomic status of parents
Mother was age 30 or older when first child born
Child did not have low birth weight
Parents speak English at home
Child was not adopted
Parents involved in PTA
Many books at home (But it doesn't matter if the books are ever read.)

Factors uncorrelated with academic success:

Family is intact
Parents recently moved to a better neighborhood
Non-working mother
Attended Head Start
Parents take child to museums
Spanking
Child watches TV a lot
Parents read to child regularly

The authors note as an overgeneralization that it's more what parents ARE, not what they DO, that is correlated with better academic performance. Smart parents with good jobs who speak English and value education are more likely to raise well-educated children regardless of marital status, neighborhood, whether mom works, how much TV the kids watch, or how much the parents read to kids or take them to museums.

The Freakonomics authors also looked at the effect of charter schools. They determined that children who apply to a charter school perform better academically, whether they get accepted to the school or not, than children who don't apply to a charter school. It's apparently a reflection of the parents' educational values, rather than the specific school, that matters most.

Growth in Government Spending & Debt Fueled "Recovery"

2010-05-15T13:06:00.000-07:00

In Why the Depression is Ongoing, we see charts showing the huge growth in government spending due to the Great Society welfare state programs. We also see that any economic "recovery" being claimed in the mainstream media news sources is due mostly to government spending with borrowed money.

It's The Social Programs, Not Military, That's Bankrupting Us

2010-05-04T19:53:00.000-07:00

Gee, where do you think politicians started the US down the road to bankruptcy?

Five Decades of Federal Spending

The chart below shows federal spending in three component parts over the last five decades.

Government Burdens on Business

2010-05-02T11:22:00.001-07:00

John Stossel read my statement about tax code complexity on his tax special this week on the Fox Business Channel. He had invited me to appear on the TV show, but I didn't want to travel to NYC. My statement is at the very beginning of the clip.

John Stossel Show - Inconvenient Taxes! (Part 3/5)

John Stossel on the Fox Business Channel

Tea Party Movement Member Demographics

2010-03-25T22:16:00.001-07:00

Who are Tea Party members?

Tea Party protesters are extraordinary, not ordinary

74 percent are Republicans or independent voters leaning Republican;
16 percent are Democrats or independent voters leaning Democratic;
5 percent are solidly independent;
45 percent are men;
55 percent are women;
88 percent are white;
77 percent voted for Sen. John McCain in 2008;
15 percent voted for President Barack Obama

Did FDR Save Capitalism?

2009-10-26T20:36:00.000-07:00

Fans of Franklin D. Rooselvelt claim that big government was needed during the Great Depression to save capitalism. That's analogous to the fire department setting your house ablaze, then claiming they saved half of it.

The economy of the late 1920s had its share of speculation, market bubbles, and other problems, as economies have had since the dawn of civilization. But let's see what the Hoover and FDR governments did about it:

They started a trade war with Smoot-Hawley (Hoover), raised the lowest income tax rate from 0.5% to 4%, raised the highest income tax rate from 25% to 63% (Hoover) then 79% (FDR), raised the corporate tax from 11% to 15%, added a 27% tax on undistributed profits, raised numerous excise taxes, raised the inheritance/estate tax from 20% to 70%, instituted a new 2% employer/employee payroll tax, and much, much more. The effect of the economy was crushing.

The Fed manipulated the money, causing deflation, then later imposed increased reserve requirements on banks leading to lower lending. FDR screwed up markets through his disastrous agricultural policies and subsidies, and his government-imposed industry cartels. FDR also gave unions way too much power and forced up wages, making unemployment worse. Other policies forced up prices, which is the opposite of what's needed in a downturn.

And don't forget the mindlessly idiotic pig slaughter, which has parallels to Cash for Clunkers. Destroy things to artificially create demand. Let's pay half of Americans to dig holes with spoons, and the other half to fill in the holes with spoons. Full employment! Zero productivity! Totally progressive!

All those GOVERNMENT actions are big downers for the economy. Thus the government came in to fix a major problem resulting from their idiotic attempts to fix a much smaller problem. Then we're supposed to believe we needed them. Hah! This is a classic case of a government manufactured crisis.

The Nobel Peace Prize

2009-10-11T13:19:00.001-07:00

This years Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to a teleprompter.

The New American Dream

2009-10-11T13:17:00.001-07:00

Any able-bodied American can get good quality food, shelter, healthcare, and pocket money, without ever working, all at taxpayer expense.

What a country!

The Great Depression and Now

2009-09-23T12:56:00.001-07:00

There's a recent WSJ article, Taxes, Depression, and Our Current Troubles, which has some interesting parallels between now and the 1930s. Excerpts and my commentary:

In 1930-31, during the Hoover administration and in the midst of an economic collapse, there was a very slight increase in tax rates on personal income at both the lowest and highest brackets. The corporate tax rate was also slightly increased to 12% from 11%. But beginning in 1932 the lowest personal income tax rate was raised to 4% from less than one-half of 1% while the highest rate was raised to 63% from 25%. (That's not a misprint!) The corporate rate was raised to 13.75% from 12%. All sorts of Federal excise taxes too numerous to list were raised as well. The highest inheritance tax rate was also raised in 1932 to 45% from 20% and the gift tax was reinstituted with the highest rate set at 33.5%.

But FDR did even worse:

But the tax hikes didn't stop there. In 1934, during the Roosevelt administration, the highest estate tax rate was raised to 60% from 45% and raised again to 70% in 1935. The highest gift tax rate was raised to 45% in 1934 from 33.5% in 1933 and raised again to 52.5% in 1935. The highest corporate tax rate was raised to 15% in 1936 with a surtax on undistributed profits up to 27%. In 1936 the highest personal income tax rate was raised yet again to 79% from 63%—a stifling 216% increase in four years. Finally, in 1937 a 1% employer and a 1% employee tax was placed on all wages up to $3,000.

States added to the huge tax increases. The economic effects had to be crushing.

From elsewhere, I looked at the 1929 stock market crash. The market dropped from 381 (Sept 3) to 198 (Nov 13). It then recovered to 294 (Apr 17). Thus, what happened in 1929 proper is comparable to what we've just been through. It was only later that Hoover got things really rolling (down to 41 by 1932). That was after he raised taxes, including higher taxes on goods due to Smoot-Hawley. Taxing is economic friction, exactly what you don't want during an economic downturn.

So if Hoover did so wrong, which I believe he did, why do my "progressive" friends think FDR was right to do the same thing?

Inalienable Rights

2009-09-15T20:29:00.000-07:00

The Bill of Rights doesn't actually give individuals anything. Instead, it prohibits the government from infringing on inalienable rights.

Favorite Quotes

2009-09-14T10:03:00.000-07:00

Since this is MY blog, I've decided to keep some of MY favorite quotes here. It's an ongoing project.

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. -- Winston Churchill

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. -- Thomas Jefferson

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. -- James Madison, Father of the Constitution

It would be thought a hard government that should tax its people one tenth part. -- Benjamin Franklin

I didn't say it would be easy, Neo. I just said it would be the truth. -- Morpheus

Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. -- Samuel Adams

Posterity, you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. -- John Quincy Adams

Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! -- Patrick Henry

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. -- John Adams

The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. -- Ronald Reagan

The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. -- Albert Einstein

When the government fears the people there is liberty; when the people fear the government there is tyranny. -- Thomas Jefferson

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. -- Thomas Jefferson

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help little men by tearing down big men. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence. And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves. -- William J. H. Boetcker, but commonly misattributed to Abe Lincoln

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Benjamin Franklin

No One Should…

2009-09-09T11:53:00.001-07:00

No one should lose their freedom because someone else cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke paying other people's bills. If you agree, please post this as your Facebook status for the rest of the day.

The Kennedys and Egalitarian Force

2009-07-27T10:16:00.001-07:00

A good friend of mine expressed his view that the Kennedy family are “givers, not takers.” That’s only partly true, I responded. The elected Kennedys are takers of my wages. Big time. Teddy is essentially a Euro-style socialist opposed to my freedom.

What I bothers me about Ted Kennedy et al is the forced altruism inherent in egalitarian ideology. The Kennedy family has established numerous helpful private sector charities, and I've contributed to several of those myself. Good job!

But the progress of civilization is measured in freedom and individual rights, not entitlements and income redistribution. The ideological right tends to force morality on people, while the secular left tends to force their own "religion" of egalitarianism through government confiscation of the fruits of people's labor.

As none of that social engineering force is authorized by the US Constitution, it's a form of theft and oppression. So left wing forced egalitarianism is no better than right wing quasi-theocratic authoritarianism. In both cases, Americans lose their liberties. I just want to be free.

Obama Sets Back Race Relations

2009-07-27T10:09:00.001-07:00

President Obama inappropriately injected himself into a Cambridge, MA, incident involving the local police and Obama’s friend, Professor Henry Louis Gates. Due to race-related comments by Obama and Gates, the situation was transformed from a routine police response to a reported break-in into a race issue.

Most reports I've seen say Professor Gates behaved badly, and he pursued the policeman as he was leaving the scene. Sgt. Crowley did not take kindly to that. The black officer accompanying Crowley agreed with the arrest. It could have been handled quietly until Obama and Gates imagined a racist angle, which made the whole thing spiral out of control. This was an ordinary police response to a reported break-in until Gates, then Obama, imagined a racist angle.

There are some calling President Obama and Professor Gates “racists” for jumping to conclusions against a white cop. I think "racialist" is a better way to describe their controversial attitude. They have a tendency to frame many issues in terms of race, but they're not necessarily racial bigots. They just imagine racism where there is none. Racism in America won’t end until racialists of all skin tones let it end.

As we now know, Sgt. Crowley is an expert police trainer in racial profiling. This is only a case of racism in the imaginations of Gates and Obama, and their inappropriate behavior can only delay our path to a post-racial society. Fortunately, Obama now recognizes his huge blunder and is taking an apologetic approach. What beer did they choose?

President Obama seems to forget that he is now president, not a private citizen, but that's a competence issue, not a racial one. Obama wasn't ready for the presidency. He had rather meager political experience, almost no practical professional background, and zero executive experience coming into the job. Unfortunately, the media and political powers ordained him as “The One,” and so now he is.

President Obama has been stumbling since even before the inauguration. My 13 year old daughter is even in disbelief over his clumsiness and apparently inability to speak without a teleprompter. Well, President Clinton had a rough first year, too, then eventually got his bearings. Maybe President Obama will, too.

Government Burden on Small Business

2009-07-17T13:40:00.001-07:00

I own two small retail stores and a piece of commercial property. Here's what Big Brother requires me to file: annual IRS, CA, and MA personal and business income tax returns (total of 60-90 pages); annual corporate reports; annual renewal applications for common victualler, tobacco, lottery, liquor licenses; semi-annual business fixtures excise tax; quarterly IRS, CA, and MA estimated tax payments; quarterly US and MA wage reports and unemployment reports; monthly withholding (both US and MA), sales tax, tobacco tax.

There are 3 business entities, so some of the above must be filed multiple times. Then, my tax return is so complicated, the IRS conducts mail audits at least once a year - even though I use a CPA who specializes in small business.

Is this the way to run a productive economy? I can guaranty Americans would have a far higher standard of living if we simplified this absurd system of guilty-until-proven-innocent taxation. And all that is independent of the rate of taxation.

Misrepresenting the Green Economy

2009-06-25T13:44:00.001-07:00

In Tilting at Green Windmills, George Will shows how the Obama administration is either irrational or dishonest in promoting a “green jobs” initiative as making the US economy stronger.

[Spanish Professor] Calzada says Spain's torrential spending -- no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources -- on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies -- wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation -- sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency -- of capital. …Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs from elsewhere in Spain's economy.

It would be more accurate and honest to just admit the facts:

Indeed, environmentalists with the courage of their convictions should argue that the point of such investments is to subordinate market rationality to the higher agenda of planetary salvation.

With that, voters and policy makers could better trade off the cost-benefit parameters and determine a balanced and reasonable plan for the environment and economy to coexist.

Union Tyranny

2009-06-21T18:31:00.000-07:00

If workers have the right to form a union, then don't corporate shareholders have the right to reject the union? It seems like a huge violation of property rights to force business owners to deal with workers collectively (i.e., with socialistic force) rather than as individuals (i.e., with individual liberty).

The US should be a meritocracy, not a land of entitlement. If unions behave and work to improve sales, then companies will want to deal with them. Otherwise, unions will make all companies end up like GM and Chrysler.

California's Progressive Tax Problem

2009-06-21T13:03:00.000-07:00

Part of California's tax revenue problem is due to the highly progressive nature of its tax code. When the economy slows or shrinks, high-income taxpayers get little or no income from bonuses, commissions, and capital gains on stocks and real estate. Tax revenues sink accordingly. Almost no one cries for the rich, and I'm not saying we should, but a tax system based on soaking the rich leaves you high and dry during economic downturns.

It would be more equitable and stable if all California workers paid a similar percentage of income tax, with capital gains taxed at the same rate. In addition to providing a more stable tax base, it would be fairer to have voters share the burden of any tax increases or rewards of any tax cuts. You shouldn't be able to vote for a tax increase on others unless you're willing to pay a proportional share yourself.

A proportional (i.e., "flat") tax is a reasonable compromise between what is fair and what is practical. However, a person's "fair share" would ideally be based on an average individual's burden / impact to society. There would be a head tax (i.e., per person), plus some taxation based on how much impact you have on roads, schools, public safety, etc.

That's what I'd call a "fair share" of the tax burden, although I make no claim such a tax system is practical. Poor people are unable to pay their "fair share." I just don't think it's "fair" to blame middle class and rich people for that; nor is it "fair" to say middle class and rich people must subsidize the poor through highly progressive tax schemes.

The Moderate Path to Liberty

2009-06-19T13:55:00.000-07:00

A moderate, mainstream, approach is needed to influence Republicans and transform the GOP into a party of limited government. Below is my contribution to a co-authored article posted on the national Republican Liberty Caucus website.

“Keeping it mainstream” by David Johnson and Bob Giramma

Our core principle is limited government, as opposed to big government social conservatism or other forms of big government Republicanism. The limited government part seems pretty mainstream, if presented properly. Not so with social conservatism, which is controversial and divisive. Big government Republicanism is pretty much mimicking Democrats with a different (e.g., “kinder, gentler”) set of moral values.

Another aspect of getting mainstream support is presenting limited government solutions to the problems of greatest interest, rather than running off into the weeds that no one cares about. While advocates of limited government might obsess on gun rights, drug decriminalization, etc, it’s better to focus on a small set of issues that are of greatest interest to mainstream voters.

Recent polls show those issues are (in order): the economy, the federal budget, health care, the wars, education, terrorism, and energy policy. Those are mainstream issues for which we have limited government solutions that should appeal to mainstream voters.

Recent polls show self-described “conservatives” are the biggest voting block, exceeding self-described “liberals” by a huge margin and self-described “moderates” by a small margin. At the same time, self-described “Democrats” and “independents” are the biggest voting blocks, exceeding self-described “Republicans” by huge margins.

Something is seriously wrong when conservatives have turned against Republicans like that.

Tax Reform

2009-03-08T15:56:00.000-07:00

My proposal for reforming the federal tax code:

1) The entire federal tax code shall fit on one side of a letter size 8.5 x 11 inch paper with Arial 10 (or Times Roman 12) font.

2) An individual tax return shall fit on one side of a 3 x 5 inch postcard with the same font.

3) A tax return shall be on an individual basis, i.e., no married filing jointly or similar collectivist filings.

4) There shall be no corporate income tax.

5) The tax rate shall be the same for all individuals, with no zero-bracket amount and no exempt income.

That should result in massive layoffs at the IRS -- and a better life for all productive Americans.

Conservatives are freedom-friendly; Liberals, not so much

2009-02-26T20:35:00.000-08:00

A Rasmussen poll says:

59%of U.S. voters agreed with Ronald Reagan that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” ... Only 28% disagree, and 14% are not sure.

Middle class people are with us:

Middle-income voters are more likely to agree with Reagan than those who earn less than $20,000 or more than $100,000.

When looking for help from non-libertarians, we're much more likely to get support from conservatives than liberals, who basically love big government:

Political liberals strongly reject Reagan’s view by a 60% to 28% margin. Forty-seven percent (47%) of moderates agree, while 32% do not. Conservatives are overwhelmingly supportive.

Also interesting:

Although the Republican Party in Washington veered away from Reagan’s approach in the years since the 40th president left office, 83% of Republican voters around the country still agree with him. So do 40% of Democrats and 60% of those not affiliated with either major party.

See the full story for more interesting data. But libertarians should stop being mean to conservatives. They believe in freedom, while liberals do not.

California's Open Primaries Will Reduce Freedom

2009-02-21T11:40:00.000-08:00

Doing some reading on primaries, I found the following in an article about the proposed open primary system for California:

The existing primary system, Nehring said, was another Progressive-era reform that shifted the power of nominating candidates from conventions and caucuses to all party members.

Then I saw this on Wikipedia:

In the 1952 presidential election, Kefauver decided to offer himself as a candidate for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Campaigning in his coonskin cap, often by dogsled, Kefauver made history when, in an electrifying victory in the New Hampshire primary, he defeated President Harry S. Truman, the sitting President of the United States. Although Kefauver would go on to win twelve of the fifteen primaries that were held that year, losing three to "favorite son" candidates, primaries were not, at that time, the main method of delegate selection for the national convention. Kefauver, therefore, entered the convention a few hundred votes shy of the needed majority. In the 1952 Democratic Party presidential primaries, Kefauver received 3.1 million votes, while the eventual 1952 Democratic presidential nominee, Illinois governor Adlai Stevenson, received only 78,000 votes.

A political party is a private sector entity. The party membership should be able to nominate their candidate in whatever manner they choose. It looks like that's just another freedom the "progressives" have stolen from me. Now the process is owned by the collective and manipulated by the political class. The proposed open primary system for California will make that worse. Progress!

FDR and the Great Depression Myth

2008-11-24T18:11:00.000-08:00

Let's dispel the myth that President Franklin D. Roosevelt saved America from the Depression. The Depression would not have been so "Great" if not for bad policies from FDR and Herbert Hoover before him.

The New Deal Didn’t Always Work, Either

By TYLER COWEN

MANY people are looking back to the Great Depression and the New Deal for answers to our problems. But while we can learn important lessons from this period, they’re not always the ones taught in school.

The traditional story is that President Franklin D. Roosevelt rescued capitalism by resorting to extensive government intervention; the truth is that Roosevelt changed course from year to year, trying a mix of policies, some good and some bad.

<snip>

In short, expansionary monetary policy and wartime orders from Europe, not the well-known policies of the New Deal, did the most to make the American economy climb out of the Depression. Our current downturn will end as well someday, and, as in the ’30s, the recovery will probably come for reasons that have little to do with most policy initiatives.

Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

The Idiots You Elect

2008-11-24T17:19:00.001-08:00

How many times have I said most ordinary people are smarter than government officials?

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
- Mark Twain

US officials flunk test of American history, economics, civics

Thu Nov 20, 2:24 pm ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US elected officials scored abysmally on a test measuring their civic knowledge, with an average grade of just 44 percent, the group that organized the exam said Thursday.

Ordinary citizens did not fare much better, scoring just 49 percent correct on the 33 exam questions compiled by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI).

<snip>

Asked about the electoral college, 20 percent of elected officials incorrectly said it was established to "supervise the first televised presidential debates."

In fact, the system of choosing the US president via an indirect electoral college vote dates back some 220 years, to the US Constitution.

The question that received the fewest correct responses, just 16 percent, tested respondents' basic understanding of economic principles, asking why "free markets typically secure more economic prosperity than government's centralized planning?"

Beware the Government Bailout

2008-10-07T17:43:00.001-07:00

When your friends advocate a government bailout or other "help" from the federal government in response to the credit mess, refer them to the following article. I've seen many economists say essentially the same thing on how the policies of Hoover and FDR lengthened the Great Depression and made it worse. This is just another one, and it's from a reputable and well-known source.

FDR's Policies Prolonged Depression by 7 Years, UCLA Economists Calculate

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

Above is an excerpt. Full article here.

Great Moments in Anarchy

2008-08-24T18:00:00.000-07:00

Somalia -- An ongoing experiment in anarchy:

Somalia has not had a functioning government since 1991 and foreign vessels are frequently seized for ransom by armed pirates, making it difficult and expensive to deliver aid to the impoverished region. (AP) Story at http://tinyurl.com/6h6s6f

Nepal -- My wife's native land:

Much of my wife's native country beyond the urban areas has been largely beyond the control of the central government. No rule of law. Lots of corruption. Thugs form a militia. Rob banks. Buy guns. Declare themselves Maoists. Kill enough people to break their will. Now the Maoists rule the country.

Pakistan's autonomous tribal areas:

See northwest Pakistan, where autonomous rule has resulted in local tribal warlords forcing their oppressive theocracy on people. It's a safe haven for authoritarian theocrats and terrorists.

Summary:

Anarchy leads to authoritarian control by brutal and powerful warlords, crime syndicates, or others who suppress liberty. There is no accountability over disorganized gangs, thugs, and invaders within a null system. With limited government, however, there are elections and other methods of recourse. It ain't perfect of course -- far from it. Better to decimate government, not eliminate it. In the total absence of government, there is no practical way to stop the tribal and criminal thugs. Anarchists seem to be imagining that all tribalism, plunder, and oppression will spontaneously disappear when the government falls and their anarchist paradise is achieved. Kumbaya y'all.

Crustacean property rights

2008-08-24T17:56:00.000-07:00

SoCal school opening delayed after shrimp find

SAN DIEGO - San Ysidro school officials have delayed the construction of a new elementary school after the discovery of shallow basins harboring the endangered fairy shrimp on a vacant lot in nearby Otay Mesa. ... Tom Silva, the district's coordinator of construction, says the delay will increase the school's $27 million price tag.

The Politics of Economics

2008-06-04T22:21:00.001-07:00

I was just reading another positive spin on the economy.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20080604-1420-economy.html

As a commenter observes: "Good News! Eh? must be Bush's fault lol."

I don't deny that everything negative the doom and gloom pundits write about the economy might come true. But one reason I am very skeptical is the political nature of economics reporting. Most on Wall Street are Democrats, and most reporters are Democrats. This is an election year with an incumbent Republican they want to replace. They are thus motivated to emphasize the bad news.

Political Party Labels

2008-03-07T11:18:00.000-08:00

Brian Holtz wrote one of the better statements I've seen on political party differences:

I try to use only "nanny-state parties" when referring to the Ds and Rs.

I don't use "alternative party" as much as I should, perhaps because there are too many people who consider the two incumbent parties as alternatives to each other.

I also try to avoid using "Republicrats" and "Demopublicans", or "Coke and Pepsi" etc. The D's are discernibly leftist, the R's are discernibly rightist, and to pretend they're indistinguishable marks us as politically illiterate. More importantly, treating them as indistinguishable throws away our differentiation against the voter's other available choices (Green and CP). We are the only party that has evolved beyond the obsolete left-vs.-right dichotomy, and are the only party that wants to legislate neither personal morality nor economic equality. When we suggest that the primary difference between the LP and the Ds/Rs is that they're in power and we're not, we suggest that 1) we would probably be corrupted by power too and 2) any non-incumbent party is as good as any other.

I will always believe that our marketing should be built around the Nolan Chart. Does anyone know whether the Greens or CP ever try use the Nolan Chart and claim that they occupy the moral high ground on it? I'd be very surprised if they did.

No Brian, I doubt the Greens or others would like the results they'd get with the Nolan Chart. However, I doubt they'd ask the questions and label the results in the same manner as Nolan or other libertarians.

Will Obama "Root for America"?

2008-03-07T08:32:00.000-08:00

I heard Libertarian Party presidential candidate Wayne Allyn Root interviewed on the Glenn Beck radio show this morning. I caught only a small segment where Wayne described studying the same major as Barack Obama at Columbia University in the class of 1983.

During class one day in 1981, someone ran into the auditorium and shouted, "President Reagan has been shot. They assassinated him. He's dead." Immediately, the "entire class" of 300 or so students stood up and celebrated. They were high-fiving and shouting with joy. At that point, they incorrectly believed the patriotic anti-communist American president was dead, and they were very happy about that. Wayne was horrified.

Wayne then noted that many of his Columbia University classmates now dominate the news media and other influential establishments in our society. I infer that Wayne Allyn Root believes these elite Americans are essentially anti-American socialists.

Thoughts on Libertarian Party Campaigning

2008-01-17T22:00:00.000-08:00

I've been think about the LP and how its candidate run their campaigns. I'm guessing the problem is at least partly in delivery. Most LP members have apparently never heard of Emily Post. Then there are non-focused statements that meander off into libertarain obsessions regarding the evils of the state. But back to the campaigning:

IMHO, the top five issues that libertarians should communicate better to non-libertarians should closely align with public opinion polls.

LP candidates should describe to non-libertarians the issues that concern mainstream voters, and tell them how libertarian policies help them. And I use the word "them" intentionally. Most voters are greedy selfish bastards, so they want to know what's in it for them. Even voters willing to cut programs are not willing to cut their own handouts.

According to polls like this, voter priorities are the economy, Iraq war, healthcare, immigration, and terrorism. They don't want to hear about libertarian obsessions with guns, drugs, 9/11 conspiracies, and the military-industrial complex. Candidates should communicate voter issues, not libertarian ones. Keep it short, simple, and focused.

So in summary, perhaps LP candidates need simple focused sound-bite descriptions of libertarian policies and expected results for the top issues of interest to mainstream voters.

Should the US Withdraw from the United Nations?

2008-01-09T09:24:00.000-08:00

Ron Paul, other libertarians, and some conservatives talk of withdrawing the US from the United Nations. Sounds good. However, William F. Buckley and others on the right think another course of action might be better. Stay in the UN, but don't vote -- except to veto the really bad stuff.

As Willaim Rusher writes:

What to do? Pulling out of the United Nations would not eliminate it. It would keep on doing its best to body-block the United States, and hostility to this country would not only continue but increase, dramatically highlighted by our solitary absence from the organization. But staying in and doing nothing is scarcely better.

Ideally, the best course would probably be to encourage the founding and growth of a new group of the world's truly democratic nations, dedicated to addressing the world's problems with their wealth and wisdom, and gradually diminish the United Nations's pretensions. But such undeniably democratic nations as France and Germany would undoubtedly refuse to go along with such a scheme, preferring to pursue their current strategy in the United Nations.

In the circumstances, therefore, the best course may be the one proposed by the late James Burnham: for the United States to announce that it will continue supporting the beneficial activities of the United Nations in such matters as world health, but henceforth will not participate in, or vote on, its deliberations involving major political issues. (We would retain, however, our veto power, to block seriously offensive actions.) The United Nations would undoubtedly continue, and probably increase, its issuance of anti-American manifestos of one sort and another, but their essential unimportance would become steadily more apparent as the years rolled by.

Freedom through Aggression

2008-01-01T11:06:00.000-08:00

I was challenged by a friend, presumably of the libertarian-left, to respond to the following claim: "There are absolutely NO examples of acts of aggression expanding the freedom of those who were aggressed against."

Talk about a target-rich environment. I quickly came up with the following examples:

- German Nazism
- Japanese imperialism
- Italian fascism
- North Korean communism
- Soviet communism
- Afghan Taliban
- Saddam's Baathism
- British colonialism

All these were eliminated partly or totally through US intervention, aggression, and the military’s superior ability to kill people and break things. The US intervened, and its military used massive force and aggression to achieve those victories. People bled profusely and many died. In each case, greater liberty was the result.

I think many left wingers, libertarians, and others live in a dream world – a kind of Shangri-La – where they fantasize that all is free and peaceful until some bully American president screws things up by intervening and ordering the US military into action. Well, that’s not the way the world works. Indeed, even at an individual level, people would rob you blind and hurt you severely without the police or some other collective aggressive security force.

The world mostly sucks as far as liberty is concerned. Other than the Western nations, most of the world is run by thoroughly corrupt and often unelected thugs who care not about individual rights of any kind. Fortunately, freedom is on the rise, largely due to American intervention and aggression. That these are forceful acts of intevention tells us nothing about the purpose for which they’re used. You can kill someone to secure liberty or to take it away. You must always be willing to fight for freedom, or you will soon lose it.

In the real world, blood must often be shed to obtain and preserve liberty. Even the overly-admired Swiss selfishly keep their own little piece of freedom by arming all able-bodied males in a system of compulsory military service. No one attacks them because they are so well prepared to respond aggressively.

Why Mourn Bhutto?

2007-12-30T15:50:00.000-08:00

While the assassination of Benazir Bhutto is horrifying, I don't know if she as an individual is worth mourning. I read the Wikipedia entry on her and the charges against her, and it sounds like she and her husband were fabulously corrupt. We're talking in excess of $1 billion in criminal activities. Charges come from reputable Western nations, not just her political opponents in Pakistan. Also, she is aligned with the international socialist movement.

If I were a Pakistani given the choice of voting for Bhutto, Musharraf, or Sharif, I think I'd slit my wrist. I'm guessing Masharraf is the lesser evil, but it's a wild guess.

Government Mail

2007-12-30T15:47:00.000-08:00

I ordered a roll of 100 postal stamps by mail in early December. The US Postal Service cashed my check, but the stamps were lost in the mail. I'm out $41.00.

UPDATE: The Christmas card my mother mailed my son, postmarked December 8, just arrived yesterday, December 31.

UPDATE: An online retailer shipped a package to me on Dec 18 via the US Post Office. It had not yet arrived as of Jan 3. I used the tracking number to look at the shipping status. I found out that the package sat in their L.A. "Sortation Center" for about a week after spending 11 days in their Dallas center. They claim it will be delivered on Jan 4 after more than 2-1/2 weeks in transit. I've found UPS and FedEx ground services take only 2 - 7 days.

UPDATE: I am pleased to report that a friend of mine explained the problem with the late package: "It's because Postal rates are too low."

UPDATE: On January 7, I received the following response to my lost stamps:

According to our information, We make every effort to ensure our orders are processed and received within 2-3 weeks. However, due to the rate increase as well as the release of some very popular stamps, orders are taking longer to process. You can expect to receive your order in 1-2 weeks. I apologize for any inconvenience this has caused.

UPDATE: On February 2, I went to the Post Office to ask about the missing stamps. I was told I need to go to a different Post Office.

UPDATE: The week of Feb 4-8, I made a few calls to the local PO mail order number, after which I got a message recorder where I was "allowed" to leave a message with my complaint. Hearing nothing, I left another message on another day. No reply. No stamps yet.

UPDATE: On Feb 12, Monica at the PO called me to say she found out the problem. They were looking for "Bob" Giramma rather than "Robert" Giramma. Good thing my last name is not Smith or Jones. Having finally determined that some people named Robert are nicknamed Bob (and totally ignoring that the family name "Giramma" is extremely rare), they could look up the sale information. They claim to have sent me the stamps on Dec 12. They will send a replacement order by certified mail soon. Can I tell the IRS my taxes are late because the Post Office hasn't been able to sell me stamps? Good thing I didn't order those "Forever Stamps."

A friend reassures me that "There's hope."
Postcard penned in 1929 arrives in Boston mailbox from Seattle

SUCCESS: After a mere two months or so since ordering my "stamps by mail" from the US Postal Service, today (Feb 13, 2008) I hold in my hands A COIL OF 100 US POSTAL STAMPS! There's a "Mail Theft and Vandalism Complaint" form (PS 2016) to complete, but why should buying stamps be any easier than filing your federal tax return?

Remember the Guardians of Freedom at Christmas

2007-12-23T10:36:00.001-08:00

"A Soldier's Silent Night"

Click Here To Listen

T'was the night before Christmas

He lived all alone,

in a one bedroom house

made of plaster and stone.

...

The soldier awakened

I heard his rough voice,

"Santa don't cry,

This life is MY choice.

I fight for freedom,

I don't ask for more;

My life is my God,

My country, My corps."

...

Then, the soldier rolled over,

In a voice soft and pure,

He whispered, "Carry on Santa,

It's Christmas Day, all is secure."

Read the whole thing here. or listen to it here.

And if this doesn't bring a tear to your eyes, then you're a far better Vulcan than I.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Romney vs Giuliani from my libertarian perspective

2007-12-19T09:40:00.000-08:00

Neither Mitt Romney nor Rudy Giuliani are libertarians to most of us who support that cause. Personally, I believe Romney would be the better of the two, when measured from my libertarian-right perspective.

Romney is exceptionally brilliant, while Giuliani is merely very smart. Romney has an impressive private sector resume, while Giuliani has spent most of his career in government and the (non-productive) legal sector. Both men will advocate far more government than I'd like, but Romney is more likely to favor mandates that involve private sector competition. Romney ran a diverse state; Giuliani ran a specific city.

So in the categories of competence and free market experience, Mitt Romney is my preferred candidate over Rudy Giuliani. Despite Ron Paul's foreign policy errors, he is still my top choice among the major party candidates.

My friend Bruce Cohen has some related thoughts.

Unintended consequences of non-interventionism

2007-12-15T21:14:00.000-08:00

Reflections on 'Blowback'
By Lee Harris

Excerpt:

We may agree with Ron Paul that our interventionist policy in the Middle East has led to unintended negative consequences, including even 9/11, but this admission offers us absolutely no insight into what unintended consequences his preferred policy of non-intervention would have exposed us to. It is simply a myth to believe that only interventionism yields unintended consequence, since doing nothing at all may produce the same unexpected results. If American foreign policy had followed a course of strict non-interventionism, the world would certainly be different from what it is today; but there is no obvious reason to think that it would have been better.

Full article:
http://tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=121207A

Status of GWOT in Aghanistan and Iraq

2007-12-14T08:54:00.000-08:00

Regarding the so-called GWOT, I'm thinking about the status of military activities in Afghanistan and Iraq. One at a time:

The Taliban and al Qaeda lost their base of operations within a few months, and they've not gained it back. Afghanistan, however, is yet another dysfunctional country run by culturally backward Muslims. If the US and NATO leave, the Taliban and al Qaeda will be back. So we're stuck there, for the time being. You can call that victory or failure, but that's the way it is. If you really want to defeat them, you need to invade northwestern Pakistan and accept the subsequently likely bloodbath.

While the initial military invasion of Iraq was very successful in overthrowing the Baathist regime, President Bush commanded the occupation badly. Of course, anyone can say that with 20/20 hindsight. But Iraq now has the potential of turning into a success for the US, however unintentional the path may be. Al Qaeda chose to make a stand there, and they are close to defeat. The Islamic world, much of which used to sympathize with al Qaeda, has mostly turned against them.

You cannot have liberty when individuals and groups are killing people worldwide in the name of religious tyranny. To defeat such savage obstacles to liberty, we must kill as they do. The difference is in the purpose, and the purpose of freedom is worth lots of blood -- preferably theirs.

Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! -- Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

The Ron Paul Phenomenon

2007-12-11T14:16:00.000-08:00

It looks to me like Republican Ron Paul is getting more enthusiasm, support, and contributions from LP members than I've ever seen before. I bet he's taken in more money, and gotten Libertarian Party (LP) members to work more hours, than the entire party gets in a typical [year, decade, eternity?]. He gets some of his strongest support from the anarcho-libertarians, even though several important Ron Paul policies are incompatible with their beliefs. Party members need to think about this.

Surely Dr Paul gets lots of publicity by being in the GOP, which puts him on TV in political debates that seem to occur almost every week. But most LP members don't care much about that venue or party. The official party candidates are getting almost zero attention, which is normal on the mainstream national level but not necessarily among party members.

What is it? Can the Ron Paul phenomenon be leveraged by the LP now or in the future? If libertarians can only get this much attention by running in one of the big two parties, then maybe Libertarians need to think about turning the party into an activist wing of one of those parties and field libertarian candidates there.

Or maybe Ron Paul is a one-of-a-kind phenomenon capitalizing on a unique alignment of the stars.

Has there been any discussion of this on any blogs or e-mail lists?