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