We're All Dead Anyway...Right?

James Fisher

November 24 via mobile

"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs, in the long run, we're all dead"- John Maynard Keynes.

Who is Keynes? He is the man who rewrote rational economics with his "General Theory" and destroyed a science for the majority.

His General theory is nothing more than garble and spit up contradictions, but he did something other economist did not think of. He told governments exactly what they wanted to hear.

That they could spend their way to prosperity. When the economy slows and unemployment is high, just get the aggregate demand going again and everything will be okay.

He destroyed 100s of years of progress by economists. Not that their information is not there. It still is, and many of us know where to find it. But trying to overcome the forces of the state when it gets this new tool of a supposed economic science which is telling them to spend more is almost impossible.

Most economic text books use Keynes as the foundation. So most of our economists today are trained in this false science.

This is one of the reasons why the Fed gets away with printing so much money and stealing your savings. They say they have science telling them to increase spending and aggregate demand.

Any rational person understands you can't spend your way to being richer. That saving will always increase wealth while spending decreases it. It's 2 year old smarts. But Keynes convinced a whole system into a lie.

It wasn't through some evil Genius that he did it. It wasn't some master plan. It was simple.

Governments steal and spend anyway. That's how they work. They must steal and spend to exist. So the first person, who was able to make an attempt at justifying this as a good backed by science, would be a hero to the states around the world.

Back to the Keynes quote?

This was his response when people asked him about the obvious affects of spending in the long term. If we always spend to fix the economy and create debt, then the debt will hurt the economy and makes us spend more to help it.

What about the long term Mr Keynes? Wouldn't this just be a cycle downward?

His answer?

"In the long run, we're all dead."

Rules Rules Rules

James Fisher

Rule driven behavior vs Profit driven behavior.

Often people think we need government bureaucracies like the FDA or EPA because we can't have just profit driving decisions on how business behaves. We must instead have rules driving their behavior as well.

Were it not for these agencies, the profit motive would be a destructive force.

Examine this closely. What is profit driven behavior? It is business figuring out what people will pay for. Meaning it is what people in society actually want.

People think that a drug company would sell snake oil as a cure for cancer for profit and so we need the rules of an FDA to prevent this. These evil companies must have a rule driven watchdog to stop them from selling us snake oil.

If there was no FDA, would there be companies doing this? Would these companies survive.

Were there no FDA, would you blindly buy any cancer drug? Or would you perhaps do a little research?

Profit driven behavior means the companies who best serve society survive, while the snake oils disappear due to no profit.

Rule driven behavior means a bureaucrat decides what drugs are available to you, not society's actual preference.

There is a different way....America's 3rd way....

Libertarianism.

Tyranny Wrapped In A Box Of Science & Politics

James Fisher

The progressive

The progressive realizes not where progress is made. All real human progress has been made by the market. By individuals figuring out what other individuals really want, need and more importantly, will part with their own savings for.

Yet despite the evidence of the market being responsible for real progress, the progressive seeks to centrally plan progress by the force of the state.

He says:

"We should do X"

"People need to be X"

"We shouldn't do X because the environment X"

Not realizing any time one makes a statement like this, it really means the force of the state guns is needed. Otherwise, if it were voluntary, it would just happen.

The progressive is responsible for horrors and setbacks to real progress.

For it was the progressives that were first to support Hitler.
The progressives looked to plan human development through sterilizing portions of population.
The progressive has no concept of evil and good. These are just relative terms to them.

Progress does not need to be forced onto people. That's tyranny!

For the progressive is tyranny wrapped in a box of science and politics.

Yummy Cupcakes No More?

James Fisher

Yummy cupcakes no more?

Just the other day I wrote a rant on teachers unions not realizing I was predicting the future in my piece. (Please read below on Unions)

I honestly had no idea that this was happening when I wrote it.

Hostess Cupcakes will close its doors. Their union is in the middle of striking.

The CEO says it doesn't matter if the strike ended a week ago, they still must close their doors.

So I want you to think about this for a second. The business has filed for bankruptcy twice since 2004. They have been hanging on by a thread running at a loss for years.

So what does their union do?

Go on strike! Think about that. Your company is dying and if you want to keep your job you should do everything in your power to help them. But instead, you walk out on strike to demand more from them?

Union president says that their failure is from a decade of financial mismanagement. As if he would know. But to me it doesn't matter. Your company is dying. Strike? How can putting the last nail in the coffin be the answer?

Their union has been battling them for years with strikes.

Like I said, unions choke off their companies until only the non-union companies are left standing with less competition.

Its a self correcting system in the free market. This is why you see very little unions in the private sector. The problem corrects itself.

Its also why you see the unions in the public sector instead. Where they can thrive because there is no failure. The failure just means higher taxes for the private sector.

So now 18,500 jobs will be lost because of unions. What else can you argue? That a company loosing money should have paid its workers more?

I wonder how may of those 18500 wanted nothing to do with the union, but had to go along because of the force unions use? How many would have been happy to stay at work but couldn't?

Quantitative Easing Or Just Plain Stealing

Evan Mulch shared Deep Thoughts, by Ben Bernanke's photo.

Quantitative easing is a euphemism for an inflationary strategy of monetary policy pursued by central banks. The bank adds money to its balance sheet ex nihilo (out of nothing), and uses the new money to purchase government securities, thus increasing bank reserves, raising the prices of government securities, and lowering their interest rates. It is equivalent to simply printing additional legal tender. ~Credit for this definition goes to the Mises Institute

Why We Are Hobos

James Fisher

The Tea Party is officially a failure. For it failed on many terms. But I now understand why it failed.

It was supposed to be aligned on 3 issues

Fiscal responsibility

Constitutional limited government
Free Markets

Although these 3 values are good ones. They tea party should have one core value.

Liberty!

It should use Liberty as its benchmark.

Now the Tea Party is dead and all but co-opted by the establishment. It's time for the Libertarians to take hold.

Want to join something that really means something and can't be co-opted by the establishment?

Start by reading Murray Rothbard and visit Mises.org

Voting = Civic Duty?

We are so indoctrinated by the State that it is our civic duty to vote that people actually believe we are a part of the government. That is more of a Soviet idea than an American one. Only since the Civil War could an idea such as this be perpetrated upon the American people. As a Baptist, I think have to agree with my brother, Jim. Historically, Baptists have been very leery of government and most certainly anti-war. So I decided to post this Facebook post written by my brother.

James Fisher

Do your civic duty and vote?

What did the founders think about government and our civic duty?

"I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." - Jefferson [and he said this back then before the FDA, Dept of agriculture and so on etc...]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson [Jefferson knew even within our own nation we would eventually have to fight our own government to restore liberty]

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” -George Washington [the founders understood the very nature of government. They did not seek to make a great government, but a severely restricted one]

"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." - John Adams

 

As we all hail our civic duty to vote in our so called democracy, the democratic system is not something heralded by the founders. It was not attendance at polls they were worried about, but how to keep a limited state limited.

So why are they so interested in your attendance at the polls...Your so called civic duty?

Because they think that you can not claim their taxes as the theft it really is, if you go vote and are responsible for the system. By voting, you are supporting the system. The spending, the debt, the theft, all of it.

The last thing they want is for your refusal to put the next thief in his position. They don't want you to claim independence from the democratic Republic system. Where you can stand and say, "I'll have no part in this cycle of theft". Because then you can logically claim you are being stolen from, not taxed.

So do your civic duty!

Don't vote for either party and refuse to take part in this two party system.

It is your civic duty to resist tyranny of the state!

Radical Egalitarianism Is Un-American

James Fisher

"Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery then unequal in freedom." - Alexis De Tocqueville

Equality as our founders meant it is commonly misunderstood and referred to as a quest for social policies.

Reading De Tocqueville's quote here, one can understand why. After all, we would rather be worse off and equal right.

You need to put the quote into context. In their time, people were born Nobel or common and in between. Meaning, you were born with different rules and rights depending on what level of society you were born into.

The American idea was to abolish this system of Nobility. For all men to be equal under the law. Each person granted the equal rights as all others under law.

This did not mean people should not be rich whiles others poor. It had nothing to do with outcomes or wealth. It meant that the rich must abide by the exact same laws as the poor. The poor would be able to operate in the same system as the rich and have no disadvantage under law.

It did not mean if you were born with less that you could take from the rich until you had equal outcomes. Because this would be unequal under law. The rich gets stolen from while poor get to steal. This is not the equality they wanted.

It is important to understand this simple concept. For our American experiment & idea rests on it.

Who Gets the Bigger Half?

James Fisher

It is often thought that people get rich at the expense of others.

This assumes a fatal flaw. That wealth is not created but is finite.

  If wealth were finite (there is only one pie) then indeed the rich would be at the expense of the poor. But it is not. It is limitless.

The fact is, in a free market, for a person to gain wealth, they must make others more wealthy.

You can only gain wealth in a free market through exchange. All exchanges make both parties more wealthy or the exchange would not happen.

So by simple definition, rich people only get that way by making products and services that make others more wealthy. They serve humanity by producing exactly what humanity desires. They create new pies all the time, and while gaining huge portions for themselves they must exchange huge portions to society.

There is no one pie to distribute amongst us all. There is limitless creation possible.

The state with its idiot leaders like Obama seek to stop the pie creation and force the wealthy to distribute the current allotment of pies to the rest of us. Instead of just letting them go on creating new pies to exchange and make us all more wealthy. They seek to see us all perfectly equal sharing only the one pie.

They (the state) are a crime to society. Hindering the advancement of wealth for us all in a quest to make us the same poor dogs, equal in our squander.

They point guns at the heads of those producing the most and say, "You have too much."

Well, those producing the most are the ones supplying the most wealth.

You have heard the the saying, "Don't bite the hand the feeds you?"

The state is constantly biting the hands that feed us in the name of fairness.

It is time to bite the state!

Evictionism, Babies Trespassing In the Womb?

Walter Block wrote a blog post and posted a video at Lew Rockwell's Blog concerning abortion. He has tried to come up with a third way to discuss the issue. He wrote:

1. The unborn fetus is trespassing into the womb of the woman.
2. The rights of all fetuses are equal.
3. Therefore, the only right choice would be evicting the fetus. Killing it would be wrong.

Here is the video.

As a Christian, who is in the Libertarian camp, I must start with God's revelation. As a Christian, I must bow to the Lordship of Christ and His revelation first and foremost. Therefore, I find this argument most unhelpful. Although he imagines he is doing something different from the Pro-choice crowd, notice his stated premise that the fetus is trespassing into the womb. This premise is exactly the problem the Feminist movement has. Both thoughts are rejecting the created order.

It is the Creator of us all who has designed the creation. It is the Creator who has designed the family and how it is to come about and exist and perpetuate. Feminists have admittedly rejected the created order and have become irrational.

If Walter Block is going to argue for private property rights, does he not ground such a belief in the created order or natural law? Is this natural law or morality not established by the Creator? I realize that Libertarians make private property rights central in their political philosophy, but how do we do that to the exclusion of the family?

Several times throughout his video he mentions that this is a very complex issue. This seems to be synonymous with complicated. I'm sorry. There is nothing complex or complicated about the family. The nature of the family and how it is to be perpetuated is anything but difficult to understand. I'm not saying there are not difficult issues, but the basics I don't think are too difficult.

Now he does offer the case of rape as a violation of property rights into the woman's womb. The problem is that this is argued as a parallel for a normal situation of propagation. I hardly think there is any comparison. Another man's child that has invaded a family illegally and immorally through an heinous act should never be compared to the God given parameters.

To say the child is innocent does not mean it will by necessity have a free ride in this life. For instance, if a man driving down the street runs over my child playing in the street does not mean that I, the innocent dad, will somehow not pay for that accident. In the same way, one could argue that the child, though innocent of the act of rape, may end up being injured as a result of the crime committed by the rapist. But most in our nation, including Mr. Block, do not believe the innocent should pay for the crimes of their parents. So I will stop there for now.

Mr Block then uses a Utilitarian argument to save babies via technology. He also explains that the Prolife position is losing therefore we must do something different. But I can hardly understand how employing an ungrounded philosophical/utilitarian argument is a better route? When a culture rejects the created order, thereby suppressing the truth about its creator, from a Christian perspective, we should not turn to "reason" as some new ultimate authority to save us, but instead, expect the judgment of God. Is that not what we are seeing in our culture?

I respectfully disagree with Mr. Block. I think we must argue more persuasively by appealing to sound argumentation based in natural law. Our children are being raised in state schools which will always teach the morality of the State. Since the morality of the State is believed to be derived from itself and not the Creator, the suppression of the created order will only be further suppressed, creating a spiraling downward of rational thought and a populace easily controlled by the State.

If we are going to be practical or utilitarian, then perhaps the best and most practical way to reduce abortions is to rid our society of state schools.

More Government Fraud In Green Ocean Energy?

For years I have wondered why we have not harnessed the energy in the oceans via their currents. Everybody knows that the potential energy in water far exceeds anything wind has to offer. Surely technology could advance in such a way that we could build some kind of turbine or perhaps something we have not even thought of as yet. Well, apparently, such technology has been advanced. Being a member of a utility company, I was given this article today. Read here for the full article.

In June, Ocean Power Technologies said it had successfully tested elements of its utility-scale PowerBuoy system in anticipation of bringing the initial phase of the project online later this year.

As envisioned, 10 buoys would be anchored to the ocean floor at depths of 204 to 225 feet. They would convert the movement of waves into electrical energy.

Now I was initially impressed. Using some kind of technology to convert motion into useable electrical energy, but then I read this.

“The 35-year term of the license demonstrates the commercial potential of wave power, and this will support initiatives to secure financing for the project,” he said in a statement.

Now the red flags go up. Secure financing for a project in the last century of great innovations & inventions would have meant private investments and risk from private citizens and companies. Not anymore. In today's "too big to fail" "no risk" mentality, this could only mean one source, and if it is from the government, then this technology is no better than wind. If you read this article, my suspicions have been half way vindicated.

This is one of the largest wave-energy projects announced to date, and leverages a grant from the Commonwealth of Australia.

Well, just read a few paragraphs more of the original article and see this.

The project will cost about $3.5 million a year to run, and produce about 4,140 megawatt-hours, enough for 375 homes, according to the company.

Now you may be thinking, "Wow! That's a lot of Mega-watts." But simply do the math that is not provided. The cost would be over $9,000 per year per household. Unless the average house they are speaking of is similar to Al Gore's...well...my electric bill may be high, but it is not that high. In fact, that would nearly quadruple my electric bill. Then again, for some people in New England or California, this may be the norm. But we live in an age of technology. Things should be getting cheaper, not more expensive.

To be fair, this is a short article and perhaps there is more information that is not stated. But just as burning corn is killing us in every way, and just as wind energy is a fraud, just as both are being subsidized, so this sounds like pure fraud. How else would this be affordable?

Well if you read this editorial, it turns out my red flags were spot on.

The regulatory process was only one hurdle. The development of wave power has been subsidized heavily by the state and federal governments. The company hopes that a utility eventually will finance or purchase the Reedsport project, but for now it remains an unproven technology.

Ta Da! "Subsidized heavily." Need I say more, but I will. The editorial goes on to say,

The project’s total capacity of 1.5 megawatts is relatively small — the Eugene Water & Electric Board’s Carmen-­Smith hydroelectric plant generates 72 times as much power — but the developer envisions expansion to 50 megawatts. If wave power proves commercially viable, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates wave sites have a total capacity of 2 trillion watts, or double the current world demand for electricity.

Wave power has significant advantages. The fuel is free, and it can be used to generate electricity with no carbon dioxide emissions. Wind power shares those advantages, but wind is more intermittent.

So my instincts were right. It is like wind. It produces nothing that we need, and the fuel is NOT FREE! like the bone head author thinks it is. This is yet another example of government fraud and corruption in which corporations rip off the tax-payer. True innovations come from the free-markets, not government frauds.

Freedom To Associate & Autonomous Freedom

I wanted to add a few thoughts to my brother's recent post concerning the "freedom of association".

We live in a day where we assume that the "state" must exist and must do so in the fashion of coercion. In other words, we simply assume that if we didn't have the state government that forces all people to accept its authority by aggression and threat of violence, then people would never get along.

But is it really the case that if it were not for coercion we would all splinter into chaos? I would beg to differ. I would like to use an example of Protestant churches. So many see Protestant denominationalism as chaotic. But is it really? Is this not merely the exercise of the freedom to associate? What if a local church changes it core beliefs over time and the problem goes beyond restoration to its original beliefs? What if several members of this local church decided to break fellowship and start a new church that is consistent with the original beliefs? Is this really so bad? If you disagree, how do you plan to keep those disaffected members? Do you plan to use coercion by force? A Centralized power, think the medieval church, would by necessity use coercion by threat of violence and would do so via government officials while standing by innocently.

Perhaps another example might be better. I am a member of a local hockey association. We have voluntarily joined a multi-state hockey association which is also a part of national hockey association. What if we decided as a local association to leave the multi-state association? Perhaps the national hockey association may put pressure on other local associations to not play hockey with us. Or perhaps they may try to use free-market principles to bring us back into their larger association by providing a better product?

So often I am told that if it were not for the monopoly of government we would not have roads or bridges, etc. The real argument is against "brute individualism". We just can't exist on our own. My response to this canard is simple. There is no such thing as autonomous individualism. We all exist within some kind of system to which we are bound in some way. So Libertarianism doesn't mean some kind of chaotic free-for-all. One of the facets of Libertarianism is that we are free to associate and disassociate and all the consequences that follow.

Let me offer another example. Say I live on top of a Mountain. In order to get supplies I have to pass over a grouchy old man's private property. Let's say the grouchy old man never lets anyone pass over his private property, at least not for a ridiculous fee. Therefore, I would not be autonomously free. I would have to make some kind of agreement with the grouchy old man. But what if the grouchy old man doesn't make any agreement? To assume that I may use government's threat of violence would violate the very freedom I claim to believe. It would be a self-contradiction. The grouchy old man morally does not have to agree with some government official telling him I must have freedom to travel over his land.

Now you may be wondering, did I change the subject? No. My point is simple. We have freedom, but those freedoms are based in a world that the Creator made, not in some chaotic autonomous world in which I live by myself. The old man has the right to his private property. He has the right to associate with whom he chooses. A monopolistic government clearly violates his fundamental right to secede or associate. Now this may not seem "fair" to some of you, but we are talking about reality, not some government mandated dream.

In the end, in order for the grouchy old man to succeed in life, he must provide something for his neighbors and his neighbors, including me, must do likewise. This is all part of the freedom of association.

Freedom of Association or Compulsory Servitude

States by their very nature are perpetually at war, not always against foreign foes of course, but always against their own subjects.

What is the state's most fundamental purpose? The activity that without, it can not even exist, is extortion!
The state gains its very sustenance from the proceeds of its extortion, which it pretties up by giving it a different name, called taxation, and by driving to sanctify its Intrinsic crime as permissible and socially necessary. State propaganda, statish ideologies, and long established routines combine to convince people that they have a legitimate obligation, even a moral duty to pay taxes to the state that rules their society.

They fall into such erroneous moral reasoning because they are told incessantly that the tribute they fork over is actually a kind of price paid for essential services rendered and that in case of certain services, such as protection from foreign and domestic, aggressors against their right to life, liberty and property, only the government can provide this service effectively.
They are not permitted to test this claim by resorting to competing suppliers of law, order and security, however, because the government enforces a monopoly over the production and distribution over its alleged services and brings violence to bear over its would be competitors. In so doing it reveals the fraud over its impudent claims and gives proof that it is not your genuine protector, but a mere protection racket!

All governments are, as they must be, Oligarchies! Where a relatively small number of people have discretion over how it's power will be brought to bear.

The free market however, is the opposite of a state. It is the system where the masses control all resources. Where the few entrepreneurs and capital holders must listen to the masses and figure out how to best serve them or they fail and disappear. It is a system where the men with means and ideas must serve mankind better than others. Constantly competing to serve others better, cheaper and more innovative and provide the best service, for if they don't, others will. They battle to bring you more for less. They battle to innovate at their own risk to serve you, to try and get your constantly wavering vote (your purchases) less they will loose their own money.

Which system do you want to live under?

The state?

Or the Free Market?

-- By Jim Fisher

Feel Better, But Not Really

So here is one of the new commercials against Mitt Romney. To be honest, I couldn't care less about Big Right-Wing Government Mitt Romney, but I think this ad is a great teachable moment. One of the first claims is that while we peons are srcummaging around looking for pennies on the floor just so we can eat, the rich are living life high on the hog. Therefore the rich are evil. Why? What is the logical correlation. Well, it's the same old haves verses have nots argument. It totally plays on the emotions without a single shred of rational thought.

If we squeezed every penny from the rich and gave it away, would that solve our economic problems? Nope, but you are made to think so.

So the next quick argument is the tax rate. The evil Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than you do. The ad is so insidious, you are made to feel you actually pay more real taxes than he does, which is absurd. Just look at the number they offer on the screen with rational thinking and you will see Mitt pays millions of dollars in taxes more than the average shlub (all the while Harry Reid says he didn't pay any taxes, which is it?).

Then we are told the rich are going to get even more money from the government because they will pay less in taxes while we pay more. But let's get to the crux of this commercial.

The entire point of the commercial is simple. Hate the rich and tax them more. By doing this, we will all feel better about ourselves. So go ahead. Vote for Obama. Feel better about giving government the power to steal private property from someone else. You'll feel better. But I ask you, will it really make you feel better? Will it really solve those grocery bills? Will your life magically get better because someone else got screwed?

When in your life did allowing someone else to get screwed ever really help you? Unless of course you really believe the government's debt will really get paid down while they transfer the wealth of the rich into your pocket? Living in a dream world will sooner or later come to an end. It did for the Soviets. If we continue to follow this path, it will for us too.

Happy 100th Birthday to Milton Friedman

I realize that Friedman is not an Austrian economist, but his rebuttal to Donahue's assertions and assumptions are timeless.

Rebuttal to Massimo's Libertarian Contradiction

This is a direct rebuttal to Massimo Pigliucci's post about the apparent contradictions of Libertarianism. To read - http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/07/fundamental-contradiction-of.html

  One of the problems with M's post is he is attacking the Libertarian Straw man to begin with. There are different forms of Libertarianism and Massimo has apparently picked a form called "bleeding heart Libertarianism". I will retort by answering from a pure Libertarian perspective and hopefully explain what that means.

Massimo starts right out by saying "as is well known, the core idea of Libertarian philosophy is the preservation of the maximum amount of freedom"

 I am arguing from what I believe to be the pure form of Libertarianism. That is Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian. For detail on pure Libertarian system beliefs read "For a New Liberty" by Murray Rothbard. This book explains true Libertarianism that is consistent throughout. http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf

So, no, Massimo, freedom is not what is at the core. It is only partly. The core starts with the Libertarian Axiom - The Non aggression axiom -It states, simply, "that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another." (for more detail on this see - http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html). The other core aspect of Libertarianism is property rights. That is you own your body and all its production. You and you alone, no exceptions! These two principles combined are the core of Libertarian philosophy.

  It is important to understand why the non-aggression axiom and property rights are the core beliefs of Libertarianism. The reason is the understanding that all disputes and conflicts in the world comes from scarcity. This is an important concept to understand so I will explain Hoppes method. Lets pretend that you and one other man lived in the garden of Eden.

  If we lived in the garden of Eden, that is, where all goods were superabundant the same way air is, there is no reason or means for dispute or conflict. If any good imaginable was available in unlimited quantity (superabundant) there could then, arise no conflict.

 The above statement is true except for two things that would not and could not be superabundant, that is your body and the exact spot you are standing on. These two items could still be disputed over. Your friend might want to stand exactly where you are standing, or vice versa. Or your friend may want to do something to your body or vice versa. Besides these two items (because they cannot be superabundant logically) there can not arise any other disputes or arguments over anything.

  This is important, because it allows you to see the fact that it is scarcity that drives all conflict between people. Were goods not scarce there could not be conflict.

   So with this understanding of what causes all conflict between humans preventing peace and the fact we do live in a world of scarcity, we must have rules that will help avoid conflict. This is why the Libertarian believes in property rights and Non-aggression axiom. In a world of scarcity, there must be some way to assign ownership of the scarce goods and one's body so that we can avoid dispute.

  If you say, "Well, no one owns the goods (private property) and their body," then this obviously does nothing to prevent conflict and will obviously lead to massive conflict and disagreement.

  If you say everyone owns everything equally, well, that does not seem to be a way to prevent dispute, but only a way to increase it. Some simple thought experiments should easily show you this system of equal ownership will cause massive conflict and disputes.

 But if you say everyone owns their own body and all that it produces, then this is a way to avoid conflict and dispute.

 This is why many call this "Natural Law". It seems obvious A priori. We know from a very young age that it makes sense for items to belong to people. For our bodies to belong to ourselves. And this reasoning is why Libertarians hold property rights and the Non-Aggression axiom as the core of our ideology. It is the only system that has a logical foundation that limits dispute and conflict to the absolute minimum. It is not perfect. There are gray areas when it comes to what non-aggression and property rights will mean, (if I set up a windmill on my property and it makes vibration on your property, etc. etc.) but it is still an excellent starting point. And logically the only starting point.

  What does Massimo think of property rights? I have no idea. My guess is it is some quasi-socialists view of property rights, but rather than attack a straw man, I hope he will answer that question.

  So back to Massimo's, article. He calls the inescapable contradiction of libertarianism the fact that you cannot have freedom without limiting freedom. This so called inescapable contradiction comes from Massimo not really understanding Libertarianism and using "Freedom" as the core belief. So he goes on to attack a straw man. Unfortunately in the comments to follow by some supposed Libertarians, they repeat his assertion that Libertarianism is about maximum amount of freedom. Freedom is important, but it is part of the non-aggression axiom, and if you understand the non-aggression axiom and property rights, you have totally debunked Massimo's so called contradiction. In fact, the contradictions will be completely owned by Massimo, once he confesses what he thinks should be in place of property rights (I do hope he will answer this question).

  Then Massimo goes on to say libertarians are not anarchists. Yes Massimo, that is exactly what we are! It is the only way to be consistent. In his very next straw man statement he goes on to say how we (Libertarians) understand freedom is only maximized by government regulating the rules of engagement between people.

  No Massimo, I don't believe for an instant that we need government to do this, that is what you believe. I believe that the market can provide protection services infinitely better than the state can (and it often does where the state allows it to). I don't believe giving a group of people a monopoly on police service is the best way to regulate peoples engagement. For some reason the Liberal hates monopolies, but thinks when a monopoly is owned by the state, it's wonderful (apparently bureaucrats given monopoly rights become altruistic). This is one of M's contradictions, but I'll let him answer to it.

  The two fundamental rights of life and property do not require government regulation. Massimo again states the straw man argument that these happen to be the only two rights in which we believe. Since this again comes from Massimo's lack of understanding of true Libertarianism, I won't hound on this straw man point. If you understand the actual foundational axiom of libertarianism, it will make more sense when it comes to freedom of speech, gay rights, etc...

  Next we turn to his argument of the government vs employers infringing on our rights. In order for this argument to work, Massimo must set up the employer to be an entity similar to the state. It must have some power of coercion over you as the state does. So is this true? Do employers have the power of coercion of its employees?

   So first he (or the article he is quoting) sets up the idea that workers are not really free to quit our jobs. And if I think I am free to quit my job, then I believe "such a preposterous myth that its a wonder how intelligent adults entertain it".

   I find this an odd thing to say, since I personally have quit my job 7 times in my short 41 years. Each time it was due to getting a job which gave me higher subjective utility. This is the case for the average American who works in the Market economy. Most Americans change jobs multiple times in their lives, and most of those changes are by their choice, not the employer. If I had to bet, I am willing to bet Massimo has changed jobs multiple times in his life by his own choice and not his employer. I work for a wonderful bio-tech company, yet people quit here every day to increase their utility. The fact is, that the number one reason people quit their jobs is because of their immediate boss. It is not that they are being made to keep their babies and not have abortions, nor that they are being forced to urinate for drug tests daily. It is just because they do not like the way they are treated by their direct boss. Most people when interviewed, say it was not the company that was the problem, but the way their direct boss treated them.

   So by Massimo's logic that this relationship between market companies and their employees is one of coercion? Is that the truth? It is complete bunk. Massimo's own life is proof of it.

M says we grant business the freedom to do all sorts of crazy things like invade our privacy and so on, but object to the state intervention to protect workers rights. He completely misses the point that the workers rights are in tact even if a business wont grant them, because our association with business is truly voluntary. This desperate attempt to show that we are not in a voluntary arrangement with our employer goes against simple logic. We choose said employer because it was the best of all options. This can make it difficult to leave a job at an instant because our standard of living is usually more important to us than a particular right at a given time, but that is still a choice we make, not our employer.

"It is often not the case that an equivalent or near equivalent employment can be found elsewhere"

 This is absurd for a couple of reasons, mainly because you are not entitled to any employment, none. For most of human history, we lived at bare substance levels where man hunted for each meal or grew each meal, lived in a shelter he constructed with the materials from that spot. It was the market economy that lifted man from this state (not government). A person always takes the best job available to them, this is the only reason it may be difficult to find equivalent employment. Once a better job opens, we quit the one we have and take the better job. So by this logic, once an employer offers a person the job that is better than all others for him, he has now engaged in a coercive relationship with that person. This, according to Massimo, puts the employee at a disadvantage to the employer. I hope I have made apparent the absurdity of this logic. Each one of us has many options for employment. We all work in what we believe is the best of those options. It does not mean that the one who is providing that best option is coercive. If they infringed on anything that was important to us, we wouldn't have chosen them in the first place, remember, we went there because we liked it better than everything else.

   It is the lack of analyzing a market economy that could make someone think like this. All of us always take the best job open to us. The one that increases our utility the most. If there were other jobs that had higher utility, we would (and I have 7 times) taken it, but by Massimo's logic, because the employer has increased our utility over other employers, we are now in a coercive relationship. Its just like being a slave. Shame on the employer for giving you a job that is better than all your other jobs available to you! Now your being coerced because you don't want the 2nd best job available to you.

In a true free market economy, you are always free to compete with your employer as well. Yes this is very difficult to do today, but that is because the hurdles the state has put in the way. Imagine trying to start a company? This is next to impossible because of the state. Large business lobby the state to install massive regulations which they are in the position to adhere to, but make upstarts extremely difficult. Remove the state massive amount of regulation and hurdles and taxes. Upstarts would be rather simple, and that would be another option for the worker, to become the entrepreneur and compete against your employer.

  Then he goes on to say it is this type of asymmetry that made possible child labour and working weekends during the Robber Baron era. This actually gave me a chuckle, because it was followed by the usual myth that unions and government regulations took us from this this time period. During this period early in the 20th century, Unions accounted for on average, 3% of total private work force. Child labor fell drastically before the child labour laws were in place.

  But just to entertain M's logic here. Lets assume that 3% of the workforce which was unionized led us out of working weekends. Lets assume that government laws led us from child labour.

   If you are a family with 2 children ages 11 and 13 and both are working. Why are your children working? Is it because you are an evil parent? Or does this offer your family the best possible standard of living? Lets assume for a minute that the parents just happen to want what is best for their children (I realize the truth must be the state knows and wants what is better for the children more than the parents but entertain me here), let's just assume the parents do indeed love their children and want whats best for them. If  both children are working, is this the best of all possibilities for the family? Economics says it is! It says the parents do want what's best for the family, and if they are working, it is likely making their lives better than if they were not. It is likely because if they do not work, the whole family is worse off. So if the government makes a law "No children can work", are the children better off or worse off? (again assume the family's first choice, which is its current arrangement, is the best, as an economist or a Praxeologist, you must assume this). So by definition, any child labour law only has the ability to make life of said child worse be removing the families first choice. Simple economics 101 says that you can never make someone's life better by removing their first choice.

  If you say the government law prohibiting the children from working actually makes their lives better, then you are saying that the family actually has a better option, they were just too stupid to take it. And this new law will make them more prosperous. It must have been right there all the time. Mom and dad were just too stupid to see it.

  What removes child labour is progress in the market, not government. The market increases the family's wealth to the point where the family no longer needs the additional income to eat, pay rent etc... Just simple economics 101 tells you that government regulation cannot increase a family's utility. In fact if you prohibit a family that's first choice of having their children work, from having their children to work, you have decreased the children's standard of living. You have just removed the families first choice, and they are now forced to move to another choice that doesn't involve the children working. You must assume their first choice gave them  the best standard of living. So what does government laws prohibiting child labour actually do?
  Thankfully, in the United states, these laws were not made until the child labour had already all but disappeared. Had they done it before, they would have destroyed children's lives.

  In other countries where they have made this mistake, they have increased child prostitution and forced families into "other choices that are not their first choice". Thank God for the state who knows better than the family does what's best for them, huh?

  Economics as a science is value free. It must be if you are to understand what actually happens. Praxeology is value free.

As far us Unions and their 3% removing us from weekend work? Hopefully I don't have to explain why it would be impossible for 3% of the work force over the other 97% into not working weekends. It was actually again market forces and competition for labour that removed us from weekend work, not unions. In principle, I have no problem with unions, so long as it doesn't violate property rights and the nonaggression axiom. Unions naturally die off in a free market because they tend to artificially increase the rate of compensation. The business must take these additional costs from somewhere. Most people think the big evil employers can just take it from their massive profits, but they must compete with another company with non-union labor making less. So in the free market Unions die out usually within a few generations. The only way they survive long term is when the state channels money from the tax payer to the unionized company.

Those evil Robber barons took oil from well over 30 cents a gallon down to pennies which made a whole nation more wealthy, but that's a topic for a separate post.
  
  Massimos next point, why do us kooky Libertarians not apply the "you can always go somewhere else" argument to the state? The state is not a voluntary arrangement. It is strictly coercion. As I hope I have shown, his arrangement with any business is 100% voluntary. You can leave it and still keep the home you own. The land you own. It is yours. No employer infringes on your property rights. The state steals from you at gunpoint! It doesn't own my land, yet it says I must pay them for the honor of owning it. This is exactly the same as the mafia. What is the logical difference between the state and the mafia? That I can vote for who will steal from me? They literally force me by gunpoint to pay them money. Don't think so? Stop paying your taxes! Tell them you're no longer paying them! Men with guns will come to your home and take you to jail. What gives the government this right? Because a bunch of people vote. I didn't vote for anyone to steal from me? I don't want anything from the state!

   And you can spare me there wouldn't be roads, schools, and all the other bunk. Simple rule of economics, if there is a demand, the market can and will fill the demand. You cannot logically distinguish demand for education from demand for shoes when it comes to economics. You just assume because the state currently provides things like roads and schools and police, that it must or they won't be there. It's a logical fallacy that has been dis proven.

One other point I would like to make because you quoted it. The Hobbesian theory that we are all wolves of each other is bunk. Read http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

An American experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism, The Not so Wild West. This paper shows some proof of the spontaneous organization of markets and life in anarchy. There are very limited real life examples of anarchy, people always confuse anarchy with chaos and Hobbesian philosophy, but evidence says otherwise. It is the state that always causes war. Once men are given monopoly power of coercion (real coercion, not made up employer coercion) they cannot live in peace.

The Affordable Transmission Care Act

While my fried was driving through Illinois and very far from home, his car broke down. It turned out that his transmission broke and his car was towed to the Aamco. As it turned out, the local Aamco was the only place he could get his transmission fixed. The cost to fix his car was far more than he could afford, and he had to call friends and relatives and credit card companies in order to get enough money together to fix his car.

This was a clear example that transmissions do not fall under free-market principles. It was completely unfair that his transmission broke during a time in his life when he couldn't afford it. There were no competitors to take his car. The Aamco was able to charge him a couple of thousand dollars for something that was a need, not a want.

It seems obvious to me that everyone, whether they own a car or not, should be forced to purchase Transmission Insurance. In fact, perhaps we should simply go to a single payer system that the Federal Government controls. The IRS should be able to fine/tax/confiscate private property, imprison and be empowered to kill anyone that tried to avoid paying into such a system.

You may think this is a joke, but the argument is exactly the same for health care. If health care is a right based upon some kind of radical egalitarian false premise, then the same false premise must be applied to transmission care. Of course the Political Left will balk at such an argument, but inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument. But then again, perhaps they would agree and desire government control that too!

Berry For Police State/Sheriff

It's that election time again. Every where I drive throughout Scott City, KS, I see signs Berry For Sheriff. Now I want to be clear. I do not know Bill Berry personally. I am concerned with the monopolistic police state growing and thinking that the citizens of Scott City are in some kind of constant danger and in desperate need of protection.

Recently, Bill Berry, the man running for sheriff was able to show off his K-9 at the local library. Apparently, these dogs are going to save us from drugs. Although we know factually, the war on drugs has only increased the number of drug related deaths, indoctrinating our children that they will save us from evil drug lords is all part of the world of Hollywood and the State.

As facts demonstrate, the police state is far more dangerous. Simply watch the recent PBS special on Prohibition to see the truly dangerous people. Remember that the first men who fired shots at those who wished to actually carry beer were the police/Federal agents. Perhaps re-watching the Untouchables might give some food for thought, but it is completely backwards. It was the Federal government that began the WAR on alcohol and now drugs.

The Police State has successfully managed to put itself in the position in the minds of many citizens as being our savior as can be seen in how Berry's childhood was affected by the State's self-perpetuating propaganda. As Bill Berry website states,

I recently found a grade school project that indicated an interest in being your sheriff even as a boy. Now it’s my time to come home to watch over a new generation until another young boy decides to follow his dream.

So it is his dream to watch over us. With the broad movement to militarize our police departments, my concern is about men who think we need to be "watched over". Perhaps he doesn't think watching us with Drones is a good thing (I'm willing to bet he does), but as one who works with the Department of Defense, I suspect he has no problem with Federal laws stealing out liberty (think Patriot Act). I also suspect he agrees with all of the Federal Laws which allow local/state police to steal private property, put people into boxes and/or kill people for "non-violent crimes".

It is men like Berry who seem to have no foundation for what liberty is based upon. They seem to be completely unaware that sheriffs are to secure private property rights as per the American Tradition, not trample all over them. But hey new ideologies is apparently where it is at!

Scott County has a unique opportunity that has not happened in modern history. We finally have the ability to benefit from a beginning of new and refreshing ideologies of law enforcement.

Most of the great work done by Scott City's finest is to make certain we all behave properly such as making certain we follow all of the driving laws. Of course it is interesting to watch the zealous drive around town at high rates of speed and running red lights making certain we behave properly.

Another great concern is the lack of patrolling.

An area of concern is the lack of protection provided to the stakeholders of our community by the lack of patrolling by the current sheriff’s office.

When elected, it is my goal to increase the amount of patrolling in our county. The citizens of Scott County should have police presence 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

No, Scott City doesn't need to militarize our police. We don't need K-9s saving us from drugs.

What we need is a sheriff, who simply recognizes that Americans do not need a police state to "watch over" us, that the police are not a separate class of people who may carry guns while the rest of us peons are subject to them. Americans are a self-governing people. Liberty requires private property rights, and the right to bear arms in self-protection even from police. Liberty requires that we do not empower the State to have power over people who do things with which we may not necessarily agree.

Berry wishes to centralize government, especially by increasing the monopoly of the police state. Let's continue the American Tradition by not following the "new ideologies".

Why are we in a depression? Is this just a natural phenomenon of a free market economy? Do free markets inevitably go into depression therefore the politicians or the Federal Reserve [The Fed] should manage the economy?

Do you understand the importance to the answer to these questions and how they effect you personally? Your liberty? Your ability to provide for yourself and your family? No other external factor has as much impact on your life as this.

The Fed has been holding interest rates at or near zero for almost a decade now. Interest rates are a price just like the price of a home or a car. It is the price of borrowing money. Just like any price, it relays information. Just like the price of a home signals how many and who will buy homes, the interest rate signals investors as to what and how much investment the economy can put into capital.

When people save money they are exchanging purchases today in exchange for purchases in the future. (They are saying- I won't buy something today, I will buy at some date later). And this increases the money supply which in turn lowers the interest rate.

That lower rate now signals to investors that people are saving and now is the time to invest in capital (new businesses, homes to build, etc.)

And because this signal happened naturally, once the investors complete their project (new business, building homes, etc...), there is purchasing power to support those projects because people saved their money (so when the future comes and people retrieve their savings to buy, they will support these new businesses, buy homes, etc...)

But when the Fed drives interest rates down to zero by printing tons of money, it sets a mis-allocation of resources into play. The low interest rate signals the investors to start new projects (new businesses, build homes, etc...) but there was no actual savings to support these new projects in the future. People did not actually save money and exchange purchases today for purchases in the future.

So once the projects are near complete, they fail.

This is known as the boom/bust cycle. It is the inevitable result of the Fed holding down interest rates through monetary expansion.

The answer to the above question is NO, the economy does not naturally go into depression. The Interest rate insures a natural balance of capital resources and consumers support of them.

The Fed is the root cause for the housing bubble. It is the root cause for this depression.

So what's their answer to this crisis? Print more money and hold down interest rates to spark investment.

They have done this now for so long that they are having difficulty even getting another bubble!

The real solution? Stop printing money, allow interest rates to return to their natural level. If we do this, we will go through a deeper depression that will cause deflation and allow market corrections to occur. After about 18 months of the government and the Fed of leaving the economy alone, the economy will recover.

If you want to know if this will end. Just look at the interest rate. As long as they hold it down this low, we're in bigger trouble than ever!

Centralized Power Is the Answer?

Yesterday on my Facebook, I linked to an article by William Grigg about how Tennessee officers are using legal tactics in order to confiscate money from citizens without any charges of wrong doing along Highway 40. I then made a comment about how I just watched the 80s movie, Rambo, in which a local Police Chief uses his authority in a way that was also abusive.

Now a good friend of mine responded initially (although I think he may be rethinking this) by stating,

Rambo, isn't that proof that small town governments are even more corrupt? Kinda like this small town police officer? Your proving my point! Aren't u glad the Feds busted him? No, you want no outside help, no one to police the small town guys. Leave us alone!! You can't make this stuff up.

Now although he may be walking this back some, please notice the assumption that the average state educated and propagandize American citizen immediately responds. He appeals to a higher governmental authority! As if Rambo didn't already have enough trouble. Now let's centralize power even more.

Now I want to be clear. We all know about the tyranny of local communities. I remember reading one Supreme Court decision in which they made the same observation. But even the High Court didn't think that meant the Federal government should trump local governments in every way. As Jeffery Hebener states in his article,

Not only did small states constrain each one's predation by the competitive process among them, but within each realm the struggle for supremacy came to center around the assertion of rights. Representative bodies, religious communities, chartered towns, universities, etc., each claiming its rights, limited the power of the king. Eventually, private property rights came to be defined more in line with the nature of human persons and human action, leading to further gains in prosperity and liberty. Innovations in technology, organization, and institutions were permitted by right, giving rise to the distinctive features of capitalism: capital markets, joint stock companies, entrepreneurial activities, capital accumulation, and so on.[11]

Yet my point is that today, most people have some kind of altruistic view of government. The more centralized it is, the better. Yet this is simply not true as has been demonstrated by libertarians and the article cited above. To put it simply, centralization does not improve economies or the arts or technology among other things, including the police!

In other words, why is granting a monopoly on centralized tyranny better? If one watches the movie, Rambo, I fail to see how the bigger government helped Rambo out? If you recall, the military shot a bazooka like bomb at him. Yet my friend later seems to see a problem that the movie asks, when he wrote,

If your local police is corrupt, and you hate central planning, who arrests the corrupt police?

An accusation brought to the State police and the chief that Rambo was being abused was responded by the character, Sheriff Teasle. Basically, he states if something bad is happening among his men, then the prisoner goes to him and the Sheriff fixes the problem. Now think about that. The very sheriff that arrested Rambo and gave him over to his underlings is now the one who wants the monopoly on authority. However, many today wish for an even more powerful and centralized monopolistic government to have this power. And pray tell me, who has authority over them? A world court?


To even ask these questions is anathema to a people that have been indoctrinated on centralized power/government. Yet it was not that long ago that the very Framers of our Constitution believed in nullification in order to protect itself from an ever growing centralized power as Tom Woods more than demonstrates here.

So as even my friend seems to see, the police that stole the thousands of dollars apart from any charges or trial, based squarely in a made up/artificial war on drugs [a war that is never meant to be won BTW] is bogus on some level.


So in conclusion, appealing to higher and more centralized governments as being the answer to small town tyrants is an answer that gives bigger governments even more monopolistic power. How this solves any dilemma can only be found in the modern mind.

The Federal Reserve Explained

There are a whole bunch of these kinds of videos that explain what the Federal Reserve is and how we are getting ripped off.

Why the Chatter?

Obama says the constitution is a charter of negative liberties. That it only says what the government can't do and says nothing about what the government must do for the people!

He is absolutely right!

The founders believed a basic understanding about government that most today do not understand. Government does not have the ability to give you anything. It has the ability to give you something it steals from others, but for the simple fact it doesn't produce, it cannot give. So in order to do anything, it must engage in some form of tyranny. They understood this and created a document of limitations.

Why this is such a topic of debate today (following the constitution) I am a bit perplexed. Since almost everything the federal government does today is unconstitutional, why all the chatter?

They have already passed social security, dept of education, dept of agriculture, FDA, and on and on, which is all forbidden by the constitution! So why do people stand up and say "this health care bill is unconstitutional"?

This is where republicans ignore all the unconstitutional bills they passed and pretend they are the defenders of the constitution.

 by Jim Fisher

Division of Labor

Do cheap goods from China hurt our economy?

Do Japanese cars with higher quality and lower cost hurt our economy?

Is Detroit dead because of foreign auto makers?

The answer is no ! This is a difficult concept to explain. It's called the "division of labor" and it's the real reason Americans are rich in comparison to many countries. Let me explain it.

Pretend for a moment there were two different technologies for building cars. The first is the way you know, Detroit builds them in their plants. The second is farmers from Kansas put X amount of grain onto a boat and send it to a magical island called Japan.

On this island the X amount of grain magically turns into a car and returns to Kansas. So the farmer actually makes cars by growing grain (just pretend with me).

Now let's say 1 auto worker in Detroit can build 1 car in 1 day. In Kansas, 1 farmer can produce enough grain (2X) in 1 day to make 2 cars. Which process would be be smarter to use? Which process would make Americans more wealthy?

The fact that we get a TV from China that takes less of your labor to buy makes you able to buy more scarce goods with your same money. Should you hope to spend your same money to get less goods?

You say- but what about the jobs? They are stealing our jobs.

This is a wives tale. We can all work and produce. Since the car sales do not decrease, the auto producer from Detroit is assimilated to other industries. Yes, that auto worker may be making less money, but it is at the expense of making all Americans (including himself) richer by being able to spend less income on the same goods.

So while a few people must find other jobs (maybe with less income, maybe not), all Americans are richer because they can spend less money on the same car. So there is now a car in your driveway and more money in your pocket.

The fact that it comes from Japan or China is irrelevant.

The free market has no borders when it comes to the division of labor (letting who can make something the most efficiently make it). Borders do not matter.

Do you ever say- don't buy from outside Massachusetts?

Why stop there? Wouldn't you be better off not buying anything from anyone outside your family? Only purchase from your family members!

You can see how absurd this is, because if you insisted, you would only buy a TV from your Uncle, yes you would employ your uncle but it would likely take him a year to make it and cost you $100,000.00

The division of labor is how the free market makes us all rich. Whoever figures out how to make something cheaper ends up making everyone more wealthy. Because the rest of us get more for less.

Where someone draws borders, it has nothing to do with economics.

--Written by Jim Fisher

What Will They Do With Your Money?

So what the hell do you think they're gonna do!

Most of my friends on Face Book are around my age. Our generation has heard for most of our lives that we will never see our Social Security money. We have accepted this as a truth. We grew up and became part of the working force with the full understanding that we must take care of our own retirement.

The business's we work for knew this too and competed for our talent by offering us 401K plans etc..

So we work our whole lives doing the right thing. Staying within our budget and scraping a little away for the years we can no longer work. While simultaneously the government did exactly what our fathers warned us it would. It kept spending more than it took in, despite taking in more of our money each year.

Now the reality is here. They have had to conduct silly fake "pretend cuts" to keep the government from shutting down, but in actuality just expanding their massive debt.

We all know this is real, in just a short 5 to 15 years they will be insolvent. They WILL NOT be able send out the Social Security checks and Medicare payments.

And this is not my fantasy. This is not the voice of the radical Libertarian Jim Fisher. This is true, and you know it.

So what the hell do you think they're gonna do?

When the government is broke and can't pay anyone's S.S. while the rest of us have our life savings sitting there in 401K plans?

There are Hundreds of billions sitting with our investment firms, and you think they will just stop being the controller of people's retirement? They will leave your money alone and just quietly stop paying social security?

Perhaps your thinking we just need to switch back to Republican and Mitt Romney will get things under control? The last Republican voted in Medicare part D, the largest increase in the history of government expenditure!

Maybe it's time for a different answer.

It's not left, it's not right, it's America's 3rd way!

Libertarianism!

Obama, Ms. Fluke and joe the plumber

A reporter asked the President about Rush's comments about Ms. Fluke. Here is Obama's response.

Y'know, I'm not gonna comment on what sponsors decide to do. I'm not gonna comment on, uhh, uhhh, either the economics or the politics of it. Uh, I don't know what's in Rush Limbaugh's heart so I'm not gonna comment, uhhh, uh, on the sincerity of his apology. Uh, what I can comment on is the fact that all decent folks can agree, uhh, that the remarks that were made, uhh, don't have any place in the public discourse. And, you know, the reason I called Ms. Fluke is because, uh, I thought about Malia and Sasha. And one of the things I want them to do, uh, as they get older is to engage in issues they care about. Even ones I may not agree with them on, I want them to be able t'speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way, and I don't want them attacked or called horrible names because, uh, they're being good citizens. And I wanted, uhh, Sandra to know that -- that I thought her parents should be proud of her. Uh, and that we want t'send a message to all our young people that bein' part of a democracy involves argument and disagreements and, uh, debate. And we want you to be engaged, and there's a way to do it, uh, that doesn't, uhh, involve you being, uhh, demeaned and insulted, particularly when you're a private citizen.

This sounds just wonderful. Yet where was the President's outrage when his dogs went after a real private citizen who was really minding his own business, Joe the Plumber?

Well here is another regular guy's thoughts.

Obama Bets On Pond Scum

President Obama says drilling for oil is a worn out idea.

You can bet that since it's an election year, they're already dusting off their three-point plan for two dollar gas. And I'll save you the suspense. Step one is to drill and step two is to drill. And then step three is to keep drilling. We heard the same line in 2007 when I was running for president. We hear the same thing every year. We've heard the same thing for 30 years. Well, the American people aren't stupid. They know that's not a plan.

So drilling for the tons of oil that lies beneath us is a worn out idea. Yet, he has no problem with claiming other technologies like...dare I say this..."Pond Scum" as a real option?

We're making new investments in the development of gasoline and diesel and jet fuel that's actually made from a plant-like substance, algae. You got a bunch of algae out here, right? If we can figure out how to make energy out of that, well, we'll be doing all right.

Really? This is it? This is the best the President has to offer? A technology that doesn't even exist yet, at least not in a viable format.

Now how is this guy not thought of as complete idiot? Why would any thinking American really believe this charlatan? Only a cult-follower would believe such tripe.

The irony is that the Free-market would bring down the price of oil. It is because of the tyrannical/fascist government of both the Left and the Right that oil has become an expensive commodity.