Liberty!

Most of us carry an assumption that taxation is just, and needed.

Most of us understand that much money is wasted, but there must be services like police, fire, courts and schools and they must be paid for.

The left and right agree to this point. They only differ as to what additional services should be handled by the government.

It is only the Libertarian who questions this assumption all together.
 

It is only the libertarian who questions why it is the free market has some imaginary line as to the services it provides.
 

Why is it the free market can provide food, the most critical service that every human being needs, but only a corrupt state should be allowed to provide security, education, dispute resolution etc....
 

You can continue to fall in line with the shared assumptions of the left and right.
 

Or you can wake up to something different.
 

You can learn the real Jeffersonian ideals
 

There is a reason Republicans and Democrats both continue to increase state power, grow government, increase debt and fight wars across the globe
 

Duh? They are the same.
 

Join the movement.
 

Liberty!

 

Written by Jim Fisher

Morality Comes From Government?

Government tries to dictate morality and fails miserably. The free market does not try to dictate morality, but incidentally does successfully!

Let me give example: through the free market credit rating system, you must achieve a good credit rating to achieve certain interactions (buying a car etc..). This system rewards us for being honorable and honoring our debts. The more honorable a person you are with those you interact with, the cheaper things become for you. You can even see your report for free. It may say, because you did not honor your agreement here and here, your rating is lowered by this much. It tells you, fulfill your agreements here and here and your rating will improve this much and then your future interactions will have more options and cost less.

The government on the other hand with things like "community reinvestment act" or the fed printing money forces banks to Loan to the less honorable and higher risk. Making all of us bear the cost of people without honor getting money they won't repay. It creates immorality! It rewards those who have not Lived up to their agreements.

It does this under the guise of "it needs to overcome racism" and other non-truths.

The fact is that minorities default at the same rates as whites, proving that banks take the same amount of risk on minorities as they do whites.

Government brings us immorality by force!

Government says don't counterfeit, then Counterfeits itself. Government says you can't gamble because it is immoral, but then holds a monopoly on gambling with the lottery. Government says you can't steal, it's immoral, then steals 50 perce...nt of your pay at gunpoint.

The market on the other hand says: serve your fellow man with your labor and you shall be rewarded. Serve your fellow man by creating something he wants or inventing something to make his life easier and better, and you shall be rewarded with profit. Take personal risk by starting a company and serving your fellow man, and if you indeed serve him, you shall be rewarded.

Freedom and free markets bring morality to as naturally.

Freedom, Liberty, it's always the answer!

Scandinavian Illusions

My Big Government friend linked to me an article by Jeffrey Sachs called Libertarian Illusions which you can read here. There are many straw-men and arguments that could easily be dealt with, but for the purpose of this post I just want to interact with one paragraph. By doing so, hopefully we can see it is not the facts that are necessarily in dispute, but presuppositions that we bring to the table. Here is the paragraph:

Yet political libertarianism is not much of a guide to real-world politics. Modern history has shown that activist democratic governments, ones that provide public goods and help for the poor, do not really threaten liberty. In Scandinavia, for example, where the governments are much more activist than in the United States, democracy is very vibrant and far less corrupt than in the U.S. In fact, by keeping mega-income under control, the Scandinavian countries have avoided the kind of plutocracy -- government by the rich -- that has engulfed Washington.

Notice the unstated assumption. What "real-world politics" are we talking about? Well, he offers an example of foreign countries, Scandinavia. By this example, since we don't look like them, then liberty doesn't work. But as he admits, we do not have libertarian philosophy in power. So how could contrasting our government with Scandinavia's be relevant?

But notice again, the unstated assumption is that he gets to determine what works and what is right. By setting the framework of the debate over Libertarianism, since he gets to determine what works, then anything not meeting his standards is bad.

Then we get an example of how his conclusion shines through based upon what are his starting assumptions. But even worse is that Jeffrey changes definitions so that the unwary reader thinks he is actually for Liberty.

Modern history has shown that activist democratic governments, ones that provide public goods and help for the poor, do not really threaten liberty.

How in the world can a government be empowered to steal private property and provide public goods be about liberty? By definition, liberty is being free from from exactly that! The assumption is that government is good and helping the poor by stealing from one with property is good. Why? We are never told. It is just right by Jeffrey's fiat of morality. He get to determine what is moral and what isn't. This is a lousy epistemology and leads to "might makes right"? In this case, the government is right because they say so.

...the Scandinavian countries have avoided the kind of plutocracy -- government by the rich...

Now how is government by a tyrannical populace that can simply vote your private property into their possession something to think is right? But what is interesting is that this picture of Scandinavian countries is just not accurate. Here is a description by one author at the Mises Institute:

Furthermore, Scandinavian nations are not nearly as socialist as leftists claim they are. Although the United States ranks higher than these nations on the Index of Economic Freedom, Scandinavian nations are more free in several decisive areas. Denmark has greater business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, freedom from corruption, and labor freedom while having comparable property rights and trade freedom scores to the U.S.

So if there is less corruption, can we really consider it to be the results of socialism? If it is due to socialism,which it is not, then why not compare the other countries that practice the same thing such as Greece? Due to the turmoil going on there, it is easy to see one overlooking such problems.

Now there seems to be a contradiction here. Is Scandinavia free or not. This is where presuppositions come into play.

For another picture of Sweden read Per Bylund's article, How the Welfare State Corrupted Sweden. In this article the author demonstrates how past generations go from thinking

Old people in Sweden say that to be Swedish means to supply for your own, to take care of your self, and never be a burden on anyone else's shoulders. Independence and hard work was the common perception of a decent life, and the common perception of morality. That was less than one hundred years ago.

To

A common perception of justice among the "grandchildren" is that individuals have an everlasting claim on society to supply one with whatever one finds necessary (or enjoyable). In a recently televised discussion on state television, the children and grandchildren of the welfare state met to discuss unemployment and the common problems facing young people growing up and entering the labor market. The demand of the "grandchildren" was literally that the "old people" (born in the late 1940s, 1950s and 1960s) should step aside (i.e., stop working) because their working "steals" jobs from the young!

In conclusion, we should not allow American Leftists to define the framework of the debate. We are all now experiencing Socialism's effects on our culture. We now have a Federal Government that is broke and has spent our grand-children's money. The promises of the State to save our culture has been broken, whether on the Left or the Right. And of course it never was meant to. By keeping perpetual crises in the minds of its citizens, the politicians can keep making promises that will never be kept.

Who Is Incoherent, Rush or Ron?

On Tuesday's program Rush Limbaugh said that everyone in the Republican debate from the night before did well except of course for the incoherent Ron Paul.

I'm the one who thinks it's never too late.  And I thought last night everybody -- except Ron Paul, and this was even good, he was incoherent.

 And later he said,

His foreign policy on Bin Laden and Saddam was incoherent.

Now I am not really certain what Ron Paul said that was incoherent. I don't remember him playing audio clips demonstrating this. He simply chastises his foreign policy once again. Yet I find it interesting that military members are donating more to Ron Paul's campaign than any other candidate combined. Is this because Ron is incoherent and military members are just stupid too?

Of course we get the typical statement by Rush that America is the solution.

Just like in the world, the United States is the solution to the world's problems, conservatives are the solution to America's problems.  There is a cultural divide in this country that has been created and erected by the left.  It's our version, as I said earlier in the program, of our own Berlin Wall.

Now why is America the solution? Is it because we stand for liberty and freedom? Why is Congress attempting to pass law after law undermining that liberty such as the Patriot Act and the current SOPA & PIPA Bills. Why does Rush complain how terrible our big bloated government is within our own borders while ignoring the very same problems as our government exports its tyranny all over the world?

Now Rush goes on to play sound bites of Newt:

We're in South Carolina.  South Carolina, in the Revolutionary War, had a young 13-year-old named Andrew Jackson.  He was sabred by a British officer and wore a scar his whole life.  Andrew Jackson had a pretty clear-cut idea about America's enemies:  Kill them.  (cheers and applause)

To which Rush responds:

RUSH:  Kill them.  Andrew Jackson, another near standing ovation.  What did we get after 9/11?  We had the State Department putting together seminars, "Why do they hate us?  What did we do to cause this?"  Ron Paul (imitating Paul) "We don't need anymore wars.  What did we do? I mean, we have to understand, if we start bombing them, well, they bomb us."  Right.  Andrew Jackson: kill 'em.  And even today, ladies and gentlemen, there are lots of headlines tut-tutting over the violent rhetoric in last night's debate.  The violent rhetoric and headlines about how the Republicans promote child labor laws.  Home runs were hit last night.

So Rush considers Ron Paul's position incoherent. Now what is interesting about both Newt and Limbaugh's position is that it totally misses Ron's point. Notice they quote Andrew Jackson. But who is Andrew Jackson fighting against? He was fighting against the mighty British Empire of the world. England had tried to take back America under its authority.

Now think about this. Osama Bin Laden is not a part of an Empire. If we are going to be coherent and consistent, we would have to see Bin Laden as one who is under the thumb of an American Empire.

To put it another way, Andrew Jackson, John Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, and etc etc. were the terrorists of the day according to the British Empire.

Today the United States is the new British Empire. The United States literally has hundreds of bases throughout the world dropping bombs on all kinds of people. How does Rush Defend this? He simply mocks anyone who would say such a thing. On several radio programs Rush admits that this is a world ruled by the use of force. So I guess he's okay with bombing foreign countries into submission to America's demands.

So as far as I can tell, the Conservative solution is to go to war with everyone. And in attempting to make everyone bow down to us, we will go broke and lose true respect throughout the world. If Rush Limbaugh wants to be a true follower of our Framers, then let him listen to an often quoted Jefferson (as quoted on Lew Rockwell's website):

Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none

Here is the full quote:

About to enter, fellow citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper that you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our government, and consequently those which ought to shape its administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies; the preservation of the general government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people — a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of the revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority — the vital principle of republics, from which there is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well-disciplined militia — our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burdened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and the arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press; freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trail by juries impartially selected — these principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us, and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation.

These are the principles Ron Paul actively promotes. I don't see Rush Limbaugh doing such. Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument, and Rush is the one being inconsistent and incoherent.

Central Planning Saved the Auto Industry?

My friend posted this Anti-Republican Crusaders pic on his Facebook page.

Now I really could not care less about the idea that George Clooney wants to stand by the guy he voted for. That's probably a good thing. I simply wish to interact with the statement that Obama saved the auto-industry.

This is where the Left and the Right supposedly part ways but such is not the case. George Bush voted for the original 400 billion dollar slush-fund...I mean Bail out. And Obama voted for the 700 billion dollar TARP. However, did he really save the GM?

This is the problem with Central Planners. It is impossible to plan an economy because you can not possibly know what will do well and what will bomb. Central Planning simply attempts to force feed an economy, thereby creating the economic boom/bust cycle.

With General Motors, not only did Obama not save the company, he made it worse in every way. Now that the government basically owns 1/3 of GM, the government has the power over the company's production in ways it never had before. Think of the recent mega-flop, the Chevy Volt. As Patrick Michaels of the New York Post notes in the very first paragraph,

CEO Dan Akerson admitted that General Motors may have to cut back production of the Chevrolet Volt because the 4,600-plus Volts on the market now are about three times the monthly sales.

The fact is, our Central Planners in Washington want to feed us Green crap we don't want. And of course their reaction is to treat the American public like children, who won't take the medicine. Give them more of it. If this were a free market, then GM would have to die or change their entire business model to stay alive. With the government as your guarantor, you can't fail. That is bad.

It is bad when a business can not fail for several reasons, but the obvious one is corruption. How often have you heard of the evils of Walmart. You have heard the accusation of it being a monopoly of sorts. Yet the only true monopolies that exist in society are government run/backed businesses. And when they fail, guess who pays for it? That's right, your grandchildren.


Think of another great example of corruption, Solyndra. As Bloomberg notes right in the title of their article,

Two months before Obama’s visit, accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP warned that Solyndra, the recipient of $535 million in federal loan guarantees, had financial troubles deep enough to “raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.”

Now guess who gets to pay for a business that is not really a business? You guessed right again, your grand-kids.

Central Planning doesn't work because it is impossible to know where free markets will go. Of course, that's the point. Central Planners hate free-markets. Instead they love the corruption of lining their back pockets as this article clearly notes.

• Spent $1.3 million on lobbying activities, including paying 5 different firms over $800,000 to lobby on its behalf.
• Relied heavily on The Revolving Door – 17 lobbyists who have worked on its behalf are connected to over 30 different offices or Members of Congress.
• Lobbied on 18 bills, ranging from the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2012 to the Energy and Tax Extenders Act of 2008.
• Lobbied on issues focused on Budget/Appropriations, Defense, Energy/Nuclear, Taxation/Internal Revenue Code, and in particular:

“Issues related to Department of Energy loan program.”
“Lobbied on obtaining language expressing interest in how DoD funds were being spent on solar PV related to country of origin of solar cells and modules.”

So basically, we have a government that either prints money through Federal loans in order to have lobbyists pay politicians back in order to grow a company that has no business. This is first rate corruption right in front of our faces, and George Clooney and the Anti-Republicans want us to accept.

Now again, I don't care that the Anti-Republicans are against Republicans because of the supposed Corporate Welfareism. But the truth is, the Anti-Republicans are self-contradictory in their beliefs. They want their cake and to be able to eat it too. They want Central Planning. Yet without a Free Market that can stop failing companies from being propped up artificially, they will continue to create the boom/bust business cycle that President Obama promised he would rid from our economy.

It is quite the irony that Central Planners and Keynesian Economists, who are responsible for the boom/bust business cycles, wish to convince us of a stable economy.

Quote of the Day

How many times have you heard Capitalism is the cause of our problems? Here is the quote of the day.

...capitalism is unfairly blamed for the mortgage meltdown and the economic crisis. Capitalism wasn't in place, in fact. If capitalism had been practiced, it wouldn't have been half the disaster there was, maybe not any. The bad apples woulda gone away. Nobody woulda bailed 'em out! If capitalism had been in play, nobody would have been given a loan that couldn't pay the money back. If capitalism had ruling the roost there would not be such a thing as a subprime mortgage. Capitalism's very simple! It's government that comes in and rigs the game, triesto make the impossible possible; when it doesn't work, then blames capitalism for it, then comes up with even more government programs to fix the original program that caused the problem!

My libertarian friends may not like him, but he's right. The housing market collapse is the result of Central Planning, not Capitalism.

What Would Liberty Look Like?

I am the one tax payer that says- Fire all the cops! Fire all the fire fighters, Fire all the soldiers, Fire all the water department, Fire all postal workers.

Does this just sound like crazy talk to you? Read on.

All of these services have been provided by government throughout all of history. People tend to get in a rut on their ability to question things. What if the government always provided shoes throughout history? Then Jim the Libertarian comes along and says "you know, we could probably allow the free market and free enterprise to produce shoes and reduce the tax burden". Just think of the statist liberals (and conservatives), who would be coming out of the woodwork to tell me what an awful, evil person I am. People would say, "You hate the poor and want to see them shoeless", or "how would the poor own shoes", or "who would make shoes if the state doesn't?" Because the assumption is that if you attack a government monopoly, then you are not attacking the government, but rather you are attacking the service itself.

Now with Shoe's you can obviously see how absurd this is. We all know that if we let the government monopoly take over shoe production, each pair of shoes produced would cost the tax payer $180. But because we let the free market handle this, competition, endless invention, technology, and ultimately the demands of the consumer, drive down costs and improve quality. I have bought a pair of brand new Crocks at Walmart for one dollar (not the brand name, but just as good). So to me, the libertarian, when someone says we must use government to run security, ie: the police, it sounds just as absurd as having them produce shoes. There is absolutely no reason that the service of security can not be provided by the free market. All the typical reasons the statist say we cant, such as -"What about the poor?", "The poor wont have security!", "You just hate poor people and want them to be robbed." will be played in the typical emotional fashion.

All of this is absurd. Hating a monopoly is not hating the service it provides. I do want protection and affordable protection for everyone. There is no reason that security cannot be a service provided by the free market. The obvious questions by statist is "how will the poor pay for it?" They seem to forget that the poor pay for it now as does every tax payer, and because it is a monopoly that doesnt have to worry about cost to the consumer, they pay way too much. So security would be cheaper and the poor and rich alike would be relieved of the additional tax burden used to pay for these services. Police security would be cheaper for the poor. So what would a free market police or security service look like? The beauty of free market is that it is impossible to tell. Free markets constantly are an ever changing orchastration of higher effientcy, creating goods, cutting costs, advancing technology and meeting the constantly changing consumer demands as swiftly and efficently as possible. So I cannot tell you exactly what it would look like. Only that economic history proves that all services can be provided by the market. And it will be cheaper and better.

There are those that say, we cant have "GREED" running the police. Well guess what. Any human quality that is apparently unwanted in a system, does not magically go away if you let a government monopoly run it. It only insures there is nothing you can do about it. In a free market system, you can fire anyone you like. That's how it gets better and better. The businesses that you choose are the ones that survive. You run the show. You decide who fails and who survives, not some bureaucrat.

Compare the TSA vs. a football stadium private securty. How does each one treat you? One has a monopoly and the other is voluntary. How would the local police treat you if you paid them directly and had the ability to fire them and hire another outfit? What would they be worried about? Your wants and needs or theirs? They would constantly worry about yours because if they dont, someone else will.

Some people say the government must provide a police force because all people are entitled to security. So security is a right of the people? Well, shouldnt food be a right before security? Don't people need food more than security? Why not have the government produce all food? We know why! Because before 1850, 9 out of 10 people had to make and grow their own food and almost all their labor was spent on food production, but because of the free market now the average Amercian only spends 6% of their income on food and 1 out of 100 is a farmer. The free market has driven the price of food so low and raised the quality so high that most of us dont even know how a farmer spent much money on it.

Look at the U.S. mail. Despite its constitutional protection as a monopoly, the free market still managed to outperform it, cheaper (pratically free). Now you can send e mail for almost nothing. This is how free markets work, sometimes so well, they can outperform the state despite it having the law, monopoly and force on its side, and they still could not stop from being outperformed in this area. This happened while the U.S. mail could not be competed agaisnt by law! That's how good the free market is.

So I say, Fire all the cops! Get rid of the town fire department, and allow the market to bring you these services, cheaper, better, and customized to your consumer needs.

This isn't a pipe dream, this is Libertarianism. Question the unquestionable! Get out of your rut and start getting involved in this war of ideas!

(Inspired and exerpted from "For a New Liberty" by Murray Rothbard)

Written by Jim Fisher

Are Politicians Really Ever Shocked?

HumanEvents.com reporter John Hayward tells us that former Mayor Rudy Giuliani is shocked by what Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry are saying.

Giuliani asked, “What the hell are you doing, Newt?  I expect this from Saul Alinsky!  This is what Saul Alinsky taught Barack Obama, and what you’re saying is part of the reason we’re in so much trouble right now.”

Giuliani broadened his criticism to include the attacks on Bain Capital launched by both Gingrich and Texas Governor Rick Perry, who he described as “a very close friend of mine.”  “I’m shocked at what they’re doing,” said Giuliani.  “It’s ignorant and dumb.

Really? Newt doing what politicians do is dumb? How is it dumb for Newt to do and say whatever it takes to win an election? Ultimately, Newt has always voted for destroying liberty when government's power is challenged. And he has always gone in the direction he must to retain personal power.

The truth is that there isn't a lick of difference between Newt and Romney. Think about it. Was this the best criticism Newt could come up with? Romney is for National Health care, as long as it is in Massachusetts. Yet Newt has wanted Single Payer as well. So he can't criticize Romney on that point. Newt was for the bailouts as well as Romney no matter what they may have said publicly. Romney will grow government just like all of the previous Republicans. So will Newt. Romney will continue corporate welfare. So will Newt. Romney will continue printing money and continue Centralized Banking [the major/fundamental source of our nation's problem]. So will Newt. Romney will not do a thing about the unConstitutional bureaucracies that are making laws as they go. So will Newt. So in substance what is the difference between them?

Newt also did what he thought, at the time, was politically expedient, not conservatively principled as he likes to portray himself, when he thought he needed to stand with Nancy Pelosi on Global Warming or with Clinton on Universal Health-care in order to gain political advantage. You, the voter, must remember that Newt will always stand with tyrants. The simple reason is this. What is good for government is bad for people. What is good for people is bad for government. Since Newt is a Big Government crony capitalist himself, Newt will always vote for his own governmental power.

So this phony baloney "shocked" Giuliani is just that. Phony Baloney!

What Am I Missing Here?

Rush obviously talked about the NH Primary vote on today's show. Now we know Rush can't stand Ron Paul. What I thought was interesting was his take on the exit polls.

You go to Ron Paul, 33% of his voters, according to exit polls, were somewhat liberal; 24% were moderate; 0 were very liberal.  So 57% of the voters that voted for Ron Paul were not Republican conservatives.

Now obviously Ron Paul is not going to appeal to the Santorum Conservatives that want to go to war with Iran. Therefore, moderate Republicans are obviously going to vote for Romney...right? But wait,

Romney, however, wants Ron Paul to stay in.  Everybody is urging everybody else to get out of this except for Ron Paul.  They want Ron Paul to keep pounding away at Santorum and Newt.  They want Ron Paul to continue to get big numbers and take away any high second- or third-place finishes from Santorum or Gingrich or Perry or anybody else.  So the powers that be realize the monkey wrench that Ron Paul represents.  Ron Paul is a conservative killer.  Ron Paul kills the conservative vote, and the Romney camp wants him in there, encouraging him to stay in there.

What am I missing here? Isn't this backwards? If they didn't vote for Ron Paul, wouldn't they be voting for Mitt Romney? Could it be that Conservatives that really want the Constitution followed are voting for Ron Paul?

This Is Just Too Funny

Conservative Icon Wants His Cake and Eat It Too

This afternoon, I had the chance to listen to about five minutes of Limbaugh's show. It also just happened to be when a Ron Paul supporter called in. As usual, Rush simply repeats the "Ron Paul blames America first" routine. Now the caller did respond with a question follwing Rush's question about nukes.

RUSH: Do you think the Iranians should get a nuclear weapon to protect themselves against us?

CALLER: Why...? How would you like it if they were some other country was invading us all the time?

Now of course Ron Paul doesn't support nukes for any one, but they exist, and we have to live with them. But what is interesting about Rush Limbaugh's position is that he simply assumes that Iran will nuke us if they get nukes. What else can one conclude from Rush's position other than Rush wants to get into another War, this time with Iran?

Other countries with Muslim radicals have nukes. Yet Rush attempts to paint all of Iran as being a bunch of crazy Radical Muslims.

RUSH: The idea that is trying to wipe us out.

CALLER: That's not true at all.

RUSH: Militant Islam. He's content for them to get nuclear weapons!

So is Iran militant Islam? As usual, the first thing to go when war time hits is truth. Watch this video count how many radical Muslims appear.

Do we really want to go to war with a nation of people that in their everyday lives are minding their own business. But I have no doubt Rush is going to use more anti-Ron Paul arguments painting him as a blame America first pacifist nut. The caller raised the question of military invading other countries.

CALLER: Why...? How would you like it if they were some other country was invading us all the time?

RUSH: Well, you know --

CALLER: You wouldn't like it. We would not like it!

Rush later responds by saying:

RUSH:  By the way, who is attacking Iran, anyway?

Rush sort of has a point. It is true we do not have a base there at this time. Yet can Rush really deny that the American government has never intervened in the private affairs of Iran? As you can read here an article by Steven La Tulippe, the article states an historical fact little known by Americans.

Although that hostage-taking was brutal and unjustified, many Americans lack a more global perspective of the history of American interactions with Persia. One of the most critical events in that relationship occurred over 50 years ago during the Eisenhower Administration. While Americans may know little about Operation Ajax, its memory still evokes intense anger from nearly every Iranian. 

The brief version (for a more thorough history of the events surrounding Operation Ajax, I refer the reader to Sandra Mackey's excellent book The Iranians) concerns the overthrow of Muhammad Mossadeq's short-lived, democratic government by the CIA in 1953 and the reinstallation of the Shah to the throne of Iran.

In 1951, the control of Iran's oil fields by a British company (the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, or AIOC) became a hot political topic. The Iranian people believed, with some justification, that the existing deal between the Iranian government and AIOC unfairly benefited the company. Muhammad Mossadeq, then a member of the Iranian parliament, took the lead in demanding a renegotiation of the pact. The masses of the Iranian people rallied to his standard and quickly made him the most revered leader in the land. The Shah, who then ruled as an authoritarian monarch, lost control of events as his previously powerless parliament (the Majlis) took on a life of its own.

So Rush is just outright wrong. The CIA has in the past, overthrown a democratic government so that oil companies can maintain their power in foreign countries. So to say that Iranians don't have the right to defend themselves against an aggressive foreign power, in this case the United States, is hypocritical at best. Of course, Rush stands in the same crowd of people who believe Lincoln was justified in killing over half a million people to centralize the very government he says shouldn't have so much power. Kind of odd, don't you think?

In conclusion, Rush is just inconsistent and outright wrong on the facts. And as my good friend often says, "Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument."

Saving Too Much?

Isn't this brilliant? The top Yahoo news story warns you are probably saving too much. This paragraph is just over the top.

But there's reason to believe that oft-quoted 80 percent figure is wildly on the high side. That, in turn, makes the retirement calculations based upon it also wildly off. And that means if you're trying to save enough money to produce that 80 percent figure, you may be putting away too much, or skimping unnecessarily on the early years of retirement.

Assumption? That you are merely saving so that you can spend it later. But there are all kinds of other reasons to save. Merely replacing my income doesn't have to be one of them. But the idea that you are saving too much to replace your income is misguided just based upon their own false premises. Just as the as the article admits,

For example, when will you pay off your mortgage and finish helping your kids pay for college? How much will you save in taxes once you're not working? Add in more for costs, such as health care, that could go up.

Exactly! How do you know what inflation will do to your money? We all know that Keynesian economists don't like saving money for one simple reason, every time they print money, they steal from savers! So what is the point in saving in an economy that is built on robbing from our future?

Of course, what if they have no future? The last sentence says it all.

Christopher Van Slyke, a money manager in Austin, Texas. He tells some of his newly retired clients they can start by pulling 5.5 percent or 6 percent out of their portfolios for a few years, as long as they understand that that rate isn't sustainable for three decades.

Of course, it may not have to be. [emphasis mine]

We live in an economy where borrowers do not borrow from savers, but instead borrows printed money. For if everyone borrows, and there are no savers, where does the money come from?

Hey, your money is going to run out anyway. And the implication seems to be that you're probably going to be dead. So don't worry about it.

Theology Matters

Bill Anderson wrote a brief post on Lew Rockwell's blog this morning. Now I have noticed several statements that, though, I bet they do know the reasons for certain quasi-religious claims, the contributors of the blog seem to hide their knowledge in an attempt not to get into overly religious discussions on a political site.

First Bill quotes a Leftist, Daily Beast's, Michelle Goldberg:

It might seem that Paul’s libertarianism is the very opposite of theocracy, but that’s true only if you want to impose theocracy at the federal level. In general, Christian Reconstructionists favor a radically decentralized society, with communities ruled by male religious patriarchs. Freed from the power of the Supreme Court and the federal government, they believe that local governments could adopt official religions and enforce biblical law.

To which Bill responds by saying,

So-called biblical law would require stoning of gays and other measures that would mirror the Taliban, she writes. (Not surprisingly, Goldberg misrepresents both Covenant Theology and the diversity of opinion of people who fall under that theological umbrella.) So there you have it: Ron Paul's libertarianism is going to create a new American Taliban. Look for more of this kind of nonsense as clueless mainstream reporters try to write about someone who does not believe the State should be an object of worship.

Bill is absolutely right. Covenant Theology is very able to answer the objection by the Left's thinking concerning religious people wanting to establish some kind of Theocracy, but some seem to overlook that Covenant Theology is only now coming back into popularity in mainstream Evangelicalism.

Dispensationalism has been the popularized eschatology and theological framework for quite some time. It is Dispensationalism that has led many to favor the nation of Israel as if they were God's modern day people and theocracy. Of course, since Dispensationalism's utter predictive failure of Christ's Second Coming through date setting schemes, Dispensationalism is waning. But I think it might explain some of the statements on LRC.

As a Christian, I recognize "theology matters". It greatly impacts life and culture. Good theology does so in a good way. Poor theology does so in a poor way. So when women like Michelle Goldberg misunderstand (purposeful or not) politically active Christians, I am not convinced it is entirely her fault. Yet after trying to explain sound theology to people such as Michelle Goldberg, it is my experience she has no intention of trying to understand. She fears that without Central Planning from the Federal Government, the homosexual agenda will not go forth. And of course, as one who has embraced Libertarianism to an extent as a Christian, I have made that exact same argument. She is quite right for seeing Libertarianism's stress on private property rights as something to fear.

In other words, the easiest way to stop the culture war and/or win it from a conservative perspective is to restore private property rights. Then people are free to be who they are, and that includes being able to discriminate with your property. That is something, I think, Michelle fears far more than anything else.


Now she does mischaracterize Covenant Theology when she wrote,

In fact, they’re often much further to the right. While dispensationalists believe that Christ will return imminently and establish a biblical reign on earth, covenant theologians tend to believe its man’s job to create Christ’s kingdom before he comes back. The most radical faction of covenant theology is called Christian Reconstructionism, a movement founded by R. J. Rushdoony that seeks to turn the book of Leviticus into law, imposing the death penalty for gay people, blasphemers, unchaste women, and myriad other sinners.

Covenant Theology does no such thing. What I think she is referring to is a position called Theonomy. Theonomists are usually under the umbrella of Covenant Theology, but theonomy is an eschatological position based squarely in Post-Millenialism, and she may very well be right in linking this with an American version of Christian Nationalism. However, even its modern proponents such as Greg Bahnsen saw that Old Testament laws as cited by Michelle were problematic and that far more work needed to be done in this area.

In conclusion, the arguments provided by Michelle are in my opinion emotional and fear-mongering. She admits that she is taking the fact that her argument is based upon the "fundamentalist faction that has until now been considered a fringe even on the Christian right" and that this position is a small minority among those who are Ron Paul supporters.

Ron Paul is a libertarian. Libertarianism and Theonomy are just not compatible.

What Is Liberal?

Most people tend to think history starts the day they were born and that things have always been the way they see them now. But when we think of the "old days", we often have bizarre pictures in our minds. Yet we still read back into the "old days" in an anachronistic fashion. In the picture above, not only is there just outright nonsense, we have a misuse of the term "liberal".

Words in the English language change in ways that perhaps have not done so as quickly as past generations. Even in my short life, I have seen words radically change in meaning. The term "Liberal" has perhaps suffered abuse unlike any other in modern political discourse. I first recognized this in Robert Bork's book, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, in which he argues (right or wrong) that most of those who consider themselves conservative could more accurately be described as "classical liberals". He does this because it is evident that modern liberalism has nothing to do with the liberalism of the late 19th century. But as he also notes, our nation has always had a natural bent within its historical liberalism to "slouch" in the direction of modern liberalism.

So let's deal with the above picture to see its distortions of the word. But I wish to work backwards in the list.

1) First, the Clear Air Act was signed into law by President Nixon in 1970. Yes, the evil Nixon signed into law the draconian Act which simply empowered the Federal government with unConstitutional power to regulate aspects of our lives. I would hardly think that Nixon has been considered a modern liberal.

Also, it was Nixon, who established the EPA. Hardly a so-called conservative icon on this issue.

2) Now it is true to say that modern liberals established Medicare. However, it is simply assumed that Medicare is right or good because it supposedly ensures health care for the elderly. However, as usual, the liars for big government predicted low costs to the tax payer for the program. The reality, however, has been nothing short of disaster and future bankruptcy of our nation's wealth.

To this day, we see no arguments from the Left or Modern Liberals that justify its existence. It is simply might makes right. They will not even attempt to argue the real arguments put forth by Medicare's opponents. Just call them evil for not wanting Big Government's ability to steal from one person in order to give to another. Libertarians make one simple argument that is often overlooked. If it is immoral/illegal for a private citizen to do an action, why is it moral/legal for the government to perform the same action?

3) The Civil Rights Act was and is a crime against liberty. In the name of freedom, the government has taken away your right to do with your property as you see fit. The irony here is that Democrats stood against the Act, not Republicans.

Classical Liberalism stood for private property rights. It was believed that legislating and empowering government to force citizens at gun point to be nice to their neighbor would only create more tensions than already existed. Walter Williams, a black man has argued as much here.

4) Modern Liberals may have ended segregation, but it was social engineering and central planning that brought about the nasty racism during the post-civil war era and Reconstructionism by the North. There are far too many factors and relevant issues to be discussed on a blog. But simply arguing liberals ended segregation is too simplistic and often hypocritical.

5) Modern Liberals during the era of President Roosevelt hi-jacked the term liberal. Up until this point, the term still had more libertarian meaning. However, with big government comes big changes. And yet, here again, we have an example of arrogance. Social Security is simply ASSUMED to be good.Why? Emotional arguments run the range from protecting old people to being good economics. Yet as I have demonstrated before, why is a program that otherwise would be illegal/immoral in the private sector all of a sudden be legal/moral simply because government does it? Don't bother waiting for an answer. None will be coming soon.

And by the way, the picture says it pulls people out of poverty. Do you know of any wealthy people that became wealthy because of Social Security? Of course not. But we all know of Americans who have become dependent on a system that keeps them there. If there was ever an example of statism, SS certainly would be on top of the list.

6) Liberals may have gotten African Americans the right to vote, but here again, we have to ask about the term. Was it not the Republican Party that was formed by the Abolitionist movement? Yet how many associate Republicans as being the defender of black people? Once again, a liberal does not necessarily mean what you think.

I am not a modern liberal at all. I am more of a conservative libertarian. As a libertarian, I believe in personal freedom. And being consistent, if I have the right to vote, why not a black man?

7) I saved the right to vote for women for last simply because it is more difficult and far more emotional. Modern Liberals to not take into account why those in the past could not vote. The reason is simple. Democracies were abhorred by the Framers of our land.

There are many reasons for our Founders despising democracies but it should be noted that it is always easier to cry discrimination and lie about the evils of rich people than to explain the historical and sound reasons for why laws were made what they were.

It is obvious that when non-private property owners get the power to vote, then government will eventually be given the power to steal from property owners and give to those who do not own private property. In the culture of the day men owned property, and if liberals are supposedly going to be true to their moral relativism, then why are they so quick to judge past cultures?

Now I have no doubt that men were also wanting to maintain power. But who among us doesn't see that most women would vote purely based upon an emotional level. This may sound like a terrible thing to say, but as any married man knows, his wife will often want to help others by emotional reasons. This is obviously a good thing, for it keeps men/husbands in check, but it can also swing society in the other direction.

As I stated earlier. Why is it ok for government to steal from property owners to give to those who do not own property? Don't hold your breath for a sound reason, but you will certainly get plenty of emotional ones.

Now don't take me wrong. Taxation without representation is wrong. Therefore, to be consistent, women property owners should have had the right to vote. Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument. In this case, inconsistency may have led in part to past views as being wrong  when in fact they were simply inconsistently applied.

In conclusion, since this is getting too long, the term liberal has meant different things over the decades and centuries. It has clearly gone from a more libertarian to a modern Leftist and socially wacko. It clearly has become pejorative in modern usage. Yet the anti-Republicans (as they call themselves) are hardly doing us any favors. This is simply propaganda for modern Leftists by using and trying to claim a term while never actually defining it.